Sitting of 20 June 1975

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

  CHILDREN BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.4 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  A nation's children represent a nation's future. How society treats its own children is a good reflection of the overall health and stability of that society. There is much good evidence for concern at the present state of child care in Britain.
  In 1964 there were just over 66,000 children in care. On 31st March 1974 there were about 96,000 children in care. Each year more than 50,000 children are received into care, but each year the number who go out of care is less than the number who come in. This is a worrying trend, for all research shows that institutional care, though necessary short term, and in some cases, regrettably inevitable long term, does not provide the warmth, affection and support for children that can be achieved within the care of a family.
  Another aspect of child care of deep concern, is the clear evidence of a serious growth in the number of young people involved in crime in this country. It is a sombre picture. There can be no doubt that offending juveniles, those aged between 10 and 17, present one of our most serious current problems, in the field both of social control and of child care, and within this group there is a growing number of very difficult and disturbed children and young people who seem totally unresponsive to all the
  1822
  measures available to help and to protect them.
  Increasingly we are having with extreme reluctance to place some of these children not just in community homes but in homes with special secure accommodation. Wherever one looks one sees problems which can affect a child's development and happiness. Far too many children grow up in housing conditions which are, by any standards, squalid and indefensible. Parents often struggle with financial problems, unemployment, physical disability, or purely an inability to cope with the stresses and strains of life and in many cases they cannot rely on the support from the social services that Social Service Departments themselves would like to provide.
  In some areas the case load for social workers is overwhelming. Understandably, they feel frustrated at their inability to give sufficient time to problem families and to families who, with support, could deal much better with the difficulties they face. We know that far too many children, particularly in the age group 0–5, are placed with child minders with absolutely no experience or facilities.
  To a considerable extent children are paying the price for social changes that adults make deliberately, though without foreseeing the consequences. Most couples now marry in their early twenties, and teenage marriages are quite common, but at any one time nearly one-tenth of all families with dependent children, involving 1 million children in all have only one parent. Marriage breakdown and events leading up to it are found almost inevitably to affect the upbringing of children.
  In all industrialised countries technology has altered the age structure, the size of the family and the rôle of the parents, marriage partners and grandparents, and the function of the family has itself changed. In this country nearly one quarter of wives and mothers are economically active. All of these factors have placed new stresses on the family as a system for mutual support and for child raising. Adults can fight their own corner—for many of them our society is not so much permissive as indulgent—but children have no power.
  Even adolescents who sometimes seem so menacing are in fact pathetically unequipped for life in our competitive

  1823
  society. It is, therefore, a welcome shift of public opinion that there appears now this strong strand of public concern about the developmental needs and the rights of children.
  We should not, however, think just of the rights of children. We must also think of the duties of parents. Rights and duties go together. They cannot be separated. Nor can we sensibly separate policies for children from policies for families. We desperately need a coherent policy for family support in this country to help children to be brought up by their own parents, even if there is only one parent in the family. At a time when we face very severe financial restraints, it will not be easy to find money for new developments, let alone supporting existing developments. We shall have to choose, but in that difficult choice of priorities we should never forget that a nation that does not give priority to its children is destroying the seed corn of its future prosperity and stability.
  The Bill does not pretend to remedy all the weaknesses in our children's legislation or to put right all that is wrong with our society or with our attitudes towards children and families in need. If it acts as a catalyst for a change in attitudes it will have achieved more than just the mere passage of legislation. If it stimulates us all to reassess existing attitudes, challenge our own priorities and think deeply on how to protect the best interests of the child, it will achieve much.
  It will I hope make an important revision of adoption law and set adoption firmly within the personal social services for children and families. It provides also a much-needed legal alternative to adoption. It strengthens the discretionary—I stress discretionary—powers of local authorities to enable them to carry out more effectively their responsibilities for the long-term needs of the children in their care. It also provides for measures for ensuring the greater protection of children involved in certain court proceedings.
  The Bill is based on three years' solid work and extensive consultation carried out by the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children, first under the chairmanship of Sir William Houghton, after whom it has come to be named, and, later, after Sir William's death, of Judge Stockdale. The Committee made
  1824
  92 recommendations when it reported late in 1972, and I am glad to say that, like my own Private Member's Bill, the present Bill gives effect to all the recommendations that require legislation. The Bill also takes account of relevant findings of the inquiry into the death of Maria Colwell.
  I will explain the main themes of the Houghton Report, and of the Bill. The first is to provide a sound foundation for the nationwide organisation of a professional adoption service in which central and local government and voluntary agencies form a partnership. This appears in clauses 1 to 6.
  The second is to make a number of changes in the law and procedure of adoption, including a new procedure to enable parents to give early final consent to adoption, thereby removing a source of uncertainty both to them and to the prospective adopters. These appear in Clauses 7 to 29 and in particular in Clause 13.
  Thirdly, the Bill introduces a status midway between that of adopter and a foster parent. This appears in Part II, where the new order in England and Wales is described as a custodianship order. The fourth theme is to provide for a greater protection for children in care by the extension of the powers of local authorities. This appears in Part III.
  Part III also includes provision which was not covered by the Houghton Report for independent representation of the child, to protect the interests of children in care proceedings. In this the Bill also takes account of the findings of the Maria Colwell inquiry.
  The Government have carried out wide and detailed consultation, issuing four detailed consultation papers which I have put in the Library. The provisions now in the Bill therefore represent an attempt at forming a balanced judgment of those changes in the law that are desirable to help solve present-day problems of children in need of permanent substitute families and to help prevent or resolve conflicts between adults over their care.
  The Bill extends, with certain variations, to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. For example, Part I extends

  1825
  to Scotland with only a few minor variations. This is in keeping with the fact that adoption law has been virtually the same there as in England and Wales for the past 25 years. The provisions relating to children in care, in Part III, are also closely analogous. There are separate provisions relating to custody in Part II.
  Adoption law in Great Britain dates back to 1926. The last review of adoption law and procedure took place in the 1950s and led to the Adoption Act 1958. In the following ten years, the number of adoption orders registered in Great Britain rose from about 15,000 a year to nearly 27,000. It now appears to have settled at around 24,000 a year.
  Whereas at the beginning of the 1950s three-quarters of the children were being adopted by strangers, this proportion has now fallen to less than a half, the vast majority of the remainder being adoptions by parents and step-parents jointly. More of the children being adopted by parents are legitimate children of the former marriage, this being a result of the increase in divorce and remarriage. While fewer babies are being offered for adoption, there is no shortage of suitable couples wishing to adopt. One of the more fortunate results of this is that it is becoming easier for adoption agencies to find suitable adopters for children who a few years ago were regarded as difficult to place, such as older or handicapped children, some very severely handicapped.
  While we know that there are waiting lists of suitable couples willing to adopt, we also know that there are numbers of children who have been virtually abandoned by their parents living in the care of local authorities and voluntary child care organisations. It is estimated that there are about 7,000 children in care, mostly in residential homes, who, according to their social workers' assessments, needed permanent or long-term substitute families. About 2,000 of these need adoption. The other 5,000 need something short of adoption, either secure fostering or some form of substitute family care.
  Clause 2 sets out the philosophy of the legislation. After very careful thought, and after considering all that has been said, the Government have decided not to amend this clause as now drafted. The
  1826
  noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said in another place that directing the court to give first consideration to the welfare of the child
  "directs the court, the welfare officer or local authority, to consider specifically the welfare of the child and to give its welfare greater weight than other considerations; but it does not say it must prevail over other considerations."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17th April 1975; Vol. 359, c. 544.1
  This interpretation of Clause 2 seems to embody both the Houghton recommendation and what many sensible people feel is most appropriate for adoption where the decision that has to be taken is irrevocable. On such an interpretation the interests of the child need—and here I stress "need"—not over-ride the reasonable withholding of a parent's agreement to adoption expressed in Clause 11(2)(b) or the wider interest of the child's family, or the local authority in administrative decisions under Clause 52.
  The Association of Directors of Social Services, in its excellent commentary on the Bill, states that it is content with the wording "first consideration" in adoption and in care, and the Association of British Adoption Agencies has also confirmed to me that it is content with Clause 2 as it stands.
  I readily accept that there is a very fine distinction between paramountcy and first consideration, but it will be for the court to decide the weighting of its decision. It is for this reason that we have done everything possible to try to ensure that when courts make decisions affecting the placement of children they make their decisions in the full knowledge of all the relevant facts, and weighing carefully the best professional advice that can be obtained from a variety of sources.
  The essence of separate representation for children, introduced in Clause 54, is to help improve the decision-making process, to make sure that every aspect which could help to make more certain that the right decision is made, ensuring the long-term interests of the child is at all times before the court. Clause 2 also talks of the duty to promote the welfare of the child, and as far as practicable to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child regarding any decision, and to give them due consideration having regard to the child's age and understanding. In weighing the evidence, the court will be able

  1827
  to consider the depth of the relationship that a child has formed and is likely to form with those who may be charged with the responsibility of looking after him.
  I am sure that the House will not expect me to go through in detail each of the 76 clauses in this complex and detailed legislation. I think that it will help the House better if I concentrate at this stage on those items which are of special interest or have caused particular controversy.
  Mr. Leo Abse: Before my hon. Friend leaves Clause 2, will he comment on the addendum to the clause, which deals with taking into account the wishes and feelings of the child—a matter which was not dealt with by the Houghton Committee Report? The clause is important. as my hon. Friend has rightly stressed, but he has not brought that matter to the attention of the House.
  Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was a member of the Houghton Committee. It is true that the committee did not attempt to draft a welfare clause. It uses the term "first consideration", which is used in the welfare clause. This is probably the first time that there has been mention of a child's age and understanding. The matter will be discussed in Committee.
  I think that many people believe that a child's age is a factor that should be considered, first, in weighing his views. Obviously, more importance will be attached to a child's views when he is older—for example, if he is a teenager. Equally, the child's age is important in establishing his relationships to time-scale. For example, for a young baby six months is a long time. I shall discuss the whole question of time-scales later. I am sure that hon. Members will want to discuss this and many more aspects in Committee.
  I am fully aware that on a subject as delicate as this it is very difficult to reach total agreement. We are trying to reach a compromise agreement, making no secret of the fact that it is possible to have different interpretations but still be warm supporters of the aims of the legislation.
  The arrangements set out in Clauses 3 to 6, affecting voluntary adoption societies, make one significant change.
  1828
  Following the Houghton recommendation, responsibility for registration, referred to as "approval", in the Bill is transferred to the Secretary of State. Yet we felt it was necessary to have the views of the local authorities in whose areas the societies were likely mainly to operate, and to take these into account before the Secretary of State made any decision on approval.
  The views of local authorities will, however, form only part of the information, for we shall also have available to us the advice of the Department's Social Work Service, which operates at both regional and at central level, and will, I hope, play an important part in advising and guiding local authorities and voluntary societies in reaching the standards expected of the new service. The criteria for approval are being worked out by the Personal Social Services Council.
  At present there are 59 voluntary adoption societies in England and Wales and nine in Scotland. Many of these voluntary societies set extremely high standards. However, some societies suffer from very serious limitations. I am sure that the House will agree that it is vital, with the new powers being given to adoption agencies in the Bill, that we should not be satisfied with anything other than the highest standards for the new adoption agencies. I have no doubt that some societies which have made a valuable contribution in the past will disappear. Other societies may feel that by combining they are better able to offer a comprehensive adoption service.
  Placing a child for adoption is a crucial decision, critically affecting the best interests and welfare of the child. For this reason the Bill makes it an offence for a person other than an adoption agency to place a child for the purpose of adoption with a person who is not a relative. A similar prohibition is placed in Clause 8 on persons who are not relatives from receiving a child for adoption, and this is intended primarily to prevent children from being adopted from overseas without the services of an approved agency.
  The Bill recognises, however, that some children will come up for adoption who have not been placed through an adoption agency, but who through a series of events, some preventable, some accidental, have been looked after for some time

  1829
  possibly as the result of some private fostering agreement. A person who has looked after a child for 12 months or more can seek an adoption order if the child was not placed with him or her by an adoption agency. But the adoption court will want to know the circumstances in which the original placement was made.
  Clause 11 of the Bill extends the existing grounds on which parental consent for adoption can be dispensed with. This covers some of the more tragic cases of baby battering. Where a child has been seriously ill-treated and his rehabilitation in the family is unlikely, under the present law the ill treatment has to be persistent before it can be considered as sufficient ground for dispensing with the parental consent. But the proposed change will enable a single instance of very severe ill treatment to provide grounds, provided that the court is satisfied that the child cannot be restored to the family.
  Clause 12 has all along been a controversial provision. The Houghton Committee recommended that it should no longer be possible for a parent's agreement to adoption to be subject to conditions as to the religion in which the child should be brought up. There were cases under the old provision where some children were impossible to place, because the religion stipulated was a minority religion and there were not people coming forward ready to adopt who subscribed to this particular religion. Yet it seems reasonable that anyone when placing a child with an adoption agency should be able to declare a preference and that the adoption agency should take all reasonable steps to meet that preference, but should never allow the interests of the child to be damaged because of an inability to fulfil the preference. People who feel strongly about the religious upbringing of their children will normally choose to place the child for adoption with an agency that has a specific religious background. This is why the provision as re-drafted has found considerable support with many people who wish to have built into the legislation as great a religious preference as can be justified.
  The new relinquishment procedure is covered in Clauses 13 to 15. I think that
  1830
  this proposal is widely welcomed. The present procedure can be long drawn out and the result can be harrowing and confusing for the mother and cause anxiety for the adopting parents. The provision which is, however, controversial is that under Clause 13(2), which is designed for a situation where parents have placed the child in the care of an adoption agency and yet refuse to make up their mind about adoption, thus delaying the child's placement with adopters, or perhaps where a parent has virtually abandoned the child and there is no realistic prospect of the parent being able to resume care of the child.
  These are some of the unfortunate children who wait in institutional care for adoption, children who on professional advice would benefit from adoption but who, because of the vagaries of the parent, are often committed to long-term care. This power to free a child without parental agreement for adoption is clearly one that should not be exercised without a great deal of care. It is a power which I think rightly causes perhaps the greatest anxiety of all the provisions in the present Bill.
  The new procedure provides a means of settling conflict over parental rights before the child is placed with adopters and is put forward only in the belief that it will enable many children who might otherwise spend their entire childhood in care to be free for adoption. It is obviously necessary to have special safeguards to protect both the parents and the child in these cases.
  First, the child must be in the care of the local authority or an approved adoption society. Secondly, parents must be given three months' notice of the hearing to give them time to decide whether they wish to dispute the application, and parents will be eligible for legal aid. As with the application made with parental consent, the court will appoint an adoption officer, unconnected with the agency making the application, to see the parents and to submit an independent report to the court. The grounds for dispensing parental agreement will be the same as the grounds set out in Clause 11. Once made, the order will be irrevocable but the parents will first have the right of appeal.

  1831
  I know that there is opposition to this clause, and I have tried to build in sufficient safeguards to satisfy some of the very reasonable anxieties. The Association of Directors of Social Services, who will have probably closest contact with these extremely difficult cases, support the provision, though I know that other social workers' organisations are not happy with the provisions.
  I am considering some further amendments—for example, to ensure that the parents whose child is being freed from adoption without their agreement should be informed, if they wish, of the child's subsequent adoption. Furthermore, where the independent adoption officer is satisfied that the parent is ready to go to court and has been able to prepare an adequate case under the legal aid system, it will be possible for the court to arrange the hearing before the three months' notice has expired. Clause 13(3) makes provision for a new procedure for freeing a child for adoption where there is disagreement between parents.
  Clause 25 provides that in England and Wales adopted persons aged 18 years or more may obtain a copy of their original birth certificate. Under the present law it is worth pointing out that adopted persons can obtain access to their original birth records, but it is difficult to do so. If they have a copy of their adoption order or if they obtain one, as court rules permit, from the court which made the order, there is already enough information on the order to enable them to trace their birth record. Alternatively, they can apply to the courts for an order requiring the Registrar General to furnish them with the information which will enable them to obtain a copy of their birth certificate.
  The Houghton Report was clear in recommending that adopted persons ought to have access to information about their origins if they wanted it. The Committee saw this as a right. Adopted persons in Scotland have always been able to obtain their birth certificates, and there is no evidence to suggest that the exercise of this right has led to any complaints from natural parents who have been traced as a result. Some research has been carried out in Scotland which tells us that very few adopted persons trace their natural parents, and that those who seek their
  1832
  birth records are generally content just to know who they were.
  Yet, understandably, some concern has been expressed about the distress that could come from parents who find that their children who have been adopted have traced them and visit them although they made the original adoption in the full expectation that they would never be traced. In fact, as I have shown, this expectation is misconceived and they always could have been traced, but we have to face the fact that we are making it easier for this possibility to occur, and no doubt—the House must face this frankly—there will be one or two cases which will cause distress.
  This is a question of judgment and balance and will no doubt be discussed in Committee, but it is fair to point out that many people have made equally strong representations—including my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead)—that an adopted person has a right to know his or her true identity. Many people would be opposed to a provision in the Bill which gave the right to know only to those people who are adopted following the passage of the Bill and which excluded all those many people who have already been adopted.
  I have looked very carefully into whether we can arrange for counselling to be offered to any adopted person who makes an application for his birth record. Scottish research showed that some of the people who went in search of their origins were unhappy, having trouble at home, or had found out about their adoption rather late—or even by chance. We intend to make rules of court to implement the Houghton proposal that the name of the agency which arranged the adoption should be inserted on the adoption order so that an adopted person should be advised to get in touch with that agency for any help or information he might require.
  I come to Clause 27 which introduces the proposal that people who have looked after a child for five years or more should be able to apply to adopt without the fear that the parent or caring agency would remove the child before the hearing without leave of the court. This provision was suggested by the Houghton Committee in an attempt to help foster parents who would be otherwise unable

  1833
  to be sure that a court hearing for their application to adopt would take place with the child still in their care. At present if they do not obtain the parent's consent beforehand they risk, by making an application to adopt—which of course they can do at any time prior to five years—provoking the parents or the local authority into removing the child from their care and losing the opportunity for the courts to hear their reason for wanting to adopt.
  This freeze is an attempt to reduce some of the distress of some of the rather rare, though very greatly publicised, tug-of-love situations. Some people believe that this will undermine confidence in the fostering system. I believe that they exaggerate. In five years of childhood a child develops more than it does in 20 years of adult life. One criticism of this legislation and indeed of all our legislation affecting children, is that we impose adult time scales—two years, three years, five years. In the life of a very young child, such periods of time are almost an eternity.
  In Clause 49 of the Bill we implement protection for the child who has been in care 12 months or more by requiring parents to give the care authority up to 28 days notice of an intention to remove the child from care. This is so as to allow time for the parents, the child and any foster parents to adjust to a new situation and to plan the transfer of the child back to the parental home in a sensible way. I look on this provision as being in the best interests of the child, not the foster parent or the natural parent.
  I share the reluctance of many people to introduce time limits, but as in so many things, one is forced to make a compromise or a balanced decision. We are taking power to alter by regulation—which would have to come to the House for an affirmative decision—all the time limits. They could be increased or decreased, though I personally hope that they would be decreased, but we can judge this in the light of experience.
  Part II of the Bill deals with the award of legal custody to relatives, stepparents and other persons. Relatives and foster parents who have made a home for a child hold no legal status in relation to the child, and there is at present no way short of adoption that they may
  1834
  secure it. The making of an adoption order is, however, an irreversible step, which has the effect of severing completely the link between the child and his natural parents. The Houghton Committee considered that in most cases where relatives and foster parents sought legal security for their relationship with a child in their care, the transfer of legal custody would provide a more realistic and acceptable solution than adoption.
  Legal custody is not, of course, a new concept. The law on this matter has, however, hitherto been of importance mainly where there has been a matrimonial breakdown, and a court has accordingly been called upon, either in divorce proceedings, or in matrimonial proceedings before the magistrates, or in proceedings under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971, to decide with which parent the child should live, and therefore to give that parent sole custody.
  Part II of the Bill puts the concept of legal custody to a new use, not hitherto envisaged in the law relating to the custody of children. It provides for the transfer of legal custody in the situation where a child has been living away from his parents, either with relatives or with foster parents, on a more or less permanent basis, and the relative or foster parent wishes to obtain some legal recognition of the relationship and some security against disturbance of it by the parents in future.
  The existing law on custody in Scotland differs in certain respects from the corresponding law in England and Wales. For example, powers are already vested in the appropriate Scottish courts, under the common law applying in Scotland, to entertain custody applications for persons other than the natural parents of the child. The circumstances in which this can happen depend, however, on specific case law, and this does not provide the general right of application which the Committee recommended.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland, after wide consultations on this and other matters arising under the Bill, wishes to see such a right introduced under statute. He does not, however, feel that there would be proper justifications for wider adjustment of the law on custody at present, given that the Scottish Law Commission is already engaged on a study of the subject.

  1835
  Custodianship orders will, in the great majority of cases, be made where the parent consents. The Bill enables a relative, step-parent or foster parent in such a case to apply for a custodianship order where the parent does not consent only if the child has had his home with the applicant for a period amounting to at least three years.
  We have again reluctantly been forced to keep some time limit because, if there were no such limit, we think there would he a danger that parents would be unwilling to agree to their children being fostered. If this were to occur, it would he against the interests of the children, since temporary fostering is frequently the best solution where parents are unable to look after their children themselves because of some temporary obstacle such as sickness but otherwise would be willing and able to do so.
  We must at all cost preserve the present free and open way is which parents can put a child voluntarily in care short term certain in the knowledge that the return of the child is not being put in jeopardy. The Houghton Committee recommended a period of five years, both in the adoption and the custody contexts. The Government prefer a shorter time limit on custody applications than on adoption applications, not only because a decision on custody is reversible, whereas a decision on adoption is not, but also because we believe that there could be positive advantages in having a shorter time limit for applications for custody than for adoption applications, since this would encourage foster parents to apply for custody more frequently, and not later feel forced to apply for adoption.
  For the court to be able to take a decision as to where the child's best interests lie, it is of course imperative that it should have adequate information. For this reason, the Bill provides, in Clause 36, that the applicant for a custodianship order must give notice to the local authority where he lives, and the local authority must, on receiving such a notice, investigate the application and submit a report to the court on relevant matters, including, in particular, the welfare of the child, the means and suitability of the applicant, and the wishes regarding the application and the means of the mother and father of the child.
  1836
  If the court wants further information during the course of the hearing, it has power, under Clause 35, to call for a report from a probation officer or a local authority on any matters specified by the court as being relevant to the application.
  The proposals in Clause 50 do not command unanimous support. There are some who think that the proposals constitute a threat to the rights of parents, and that it is wrong in principle to link the loss of parental rights solely with the passage of time without also being required to show inadequacy on the part of the parents to provide reasonable parental care. Others consider that the proposals do not go far enough, and that voluntary organisations should have the same powers to assume parental rights that local authorities have. The House will wish to know that we are carefully studying suggestions related to this put forward by the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations.
  Clause 54, which introduced independent representation of the child, has aroused a great deal of interest, starting with my own Private Member's Bill and since then by the Maria Colwell inquiry, which drew attention to the need to strengthen the machinery for representation of children in courts in cases where there is a risk that the child's interests may become subordinate to those of the parents.
  We circulated a consultative document on independent representation last year, setting out a number of proposals. From the very helpful and constructive comments received, we concluded that the most urgent need for the child to be separately represented lay in care proceedings—that is, proceedings under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969—and proceedings of the type which led to the return of Maria Colwell to her mother.
  The clause which we proposed limited the scope of the new provision to proceedings of this type, not only because it is here that we consider the child to be most at risk but because to extend it further would have had very serious implications indeed on resources—on the limited number of experienced people who will be available to implement the new provision—and would have placed

  1837
  a heavy additional financial burden on the legal aid fund.
  The House will be aware that, following consideration of the Government's clause in another place, that clause has been removed from the Bill and replaced by the existing Clause 54, which extends the scope of the proposals to
  "any proceedings relating to a minor in any court".
  The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which accompanies the Bill makes it clear that to implement this open-ended commitment could be very expensive indeed, and could cost anything up to £13 million a year. It could also place a heavy additional workload on lawyers and local authority social workers at a time when the latter—and we are drawing particularly on the most experienced of them—are already hardpressed enough to contain existing workloads.
  This prospect has given rise to great concern on the part of local authority associations and many others with experience who are anxious that limited funds and the services of skilled social workers should be concentrated where the need is greatest. I share their concern. It is no use this House willing the end but failing to provide the means.
  I have often criticised Governments who put through legislation to develop new services or improve old ones without providing field authorities with the necessary resources. We are determined not to fall into this trap. If we were to legislate for a lawyer or a social worker to act for children in every case where their interests are concerned, we should simply be misleading the public, and the only result would be to disillusion everybody with the whole idea of special representation for children. With these considerations in mind, we shall be asking the House to restore the Government's original proposals, with certain minor amendments, and they will be improvements. I attach great importance to this, and I hope that the clause will then command acceptance.
  Before and since the Maria Colwell report was published the Government have issued circulars to local authorities drawing particular attention to the need for effective communication between the education, health and welfare services and with the police and voluntary agencies concerned with children. These steps,
  1838
  together with publicity given to cases of child abuse, have made local authorities and those concerned with children more aware than ever before of the importance of effective communications. Having regard to the existing statutory and administrative arrangements, therefore, the Government are not entirely satisfied with Clause 53 as now drafted and will be considering what amendments may be necessary to make its more effective.
  The House knows that I and other Ministers concerned are engaged in a review of the operation of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, because of the increase in juvenile offences that I mentioned earlier and the difficulties that have been experienced in dealing with the increasing number of difficult children and young people in the care of local authorities.
  We are taking this very seriously as is a Select Committee studying the question. One thing that it very clear is that local authorities are facing great financial difficulties in building the secure accommodation that is needed if seriously disturbed children are to be contained and treated in the community homes system. I intend bringing forward a new clause to enable us to make some of the loan capital already allocated to local authorities for the purpose of building this very expensive accommodation available in the form of direct grants. We shall be discussing the details with the local authority associations and regional planning committees. I emphasise that we do not see this as a solution to the whole problem, but I think few who have seriously studied the present situation doubt the need for more secure accommodation both for short-term use in observation and assessment centres—it is lack of this that leads to children being sent to prison or remand—and for longer-term care and treatment.
  Clause 75 sets out transitional and commencement provisions which will enable different parts of the Bill to take effect on different appointed days. I have promised that we shall implement only after full consultation with the local authority association on exactly how implementation might be phased in relation to the availability of resources, and it will therefore be necessary to amend this clause and Schedule 2 to provide for full flexibility in bringing the various provisions into operation on different dates.

  1839
  It is crucial that we do not implement the revelant parts of the Bill until the necessary high professional standards have been attained. Speed of implementation will therefore depend on the availability of resources. We shall first have to propose rules of court, and so implementation will probably start six months after Royal Assent is given, at which time I am hopeful that we shall have consolidated all adoption law. That will be very helpful to people out in the field. Some of these provisions will not incur additional costs.
  Mr. James Tinn: May I draw attention to a clause that was in my hon. Friends own Private Member's Bill dealing with cases in which a court had referred a child to the care of a public authority. His Bill provided that the courts could stipulate a period within which it would not be possible for social service workers to return that child to the police. The present Bill contains no such provision. I know it is the view of the NSPCC that there should be some such provision. Could my hon Friend give us an indication of the Government's thinking on this aspect?
  Dr. Owen: Our feeling is that this Bill ought not to be used as a vehicle for making major changes in the Children and Young Persons Act. I have introduced this Bill because I think that it is very urgent for local authorities to be given some financial help with direct grants. I would be reluctant to come to any conclusions about legislation in the area mentioned until we have had the conclusions of the Select Committee that is discussing the subject at the moment, and until the Government's review which I have already mentioned is completed. I know that the NSPCC holds that view, and I certainly felt that is was worth discussing when I was concerned with my Private Member's Bill. I think that it should be part of a general review and that we should leave this Bill as it is. There is enough in it already without adding to it.
  This Bill does not offer instant solutions to any of our child care problems. It is a limited, modest measure covering only part of our problems. My responsibilities for the health, personal social services and childrens' departments make me, perhaps of all people, only too well
  1840
  aware of how partial is the cover of this legislation. I believe, however, that it will help bring greater happiness to many of our children, and it is in this spirit that I bring forward the Bill.
  11.45 a.m.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: We are now accustomed to talking about the choice of priorities in social services, and with an ever-deepening economic crisis it is likely to become more and more a feature of our debates. In our area the choice of priority is not only difficult; it is sometimes agonising. We all know of areas at present starved of resources. We all know of yawning gaps in our social services—of people in real and sometimes desperate need. We all know that it is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to bring realistic help in the next two years.
  But let us, even as the economic clouds grow darker, resolve one thing—that in any scale of priorities the interests of children come at the top. For we are dealing here with the future, and mistakes and omissions made at the stage of childhood can permanently damage and scar the adult life. That is why it is so desperately important that the legislation that this House passes lives up to the heavy responsibility.
  In the Social Services Department we are dealing with many of the children who are most at risk. We rarely deal with the children from secure homes and simple, straight-forward backgrounds—it is much more the children who need constructive help in order to develop. That is the generality of the problem we face today. The Bill raises a number of the most pressing particular questions that we must tackle.
  The Opposition not only welcome this Bill; we regard it as one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Government have brought forward, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for the quite outstanding part he has played in bringing it to the House. But let me say, at the risk of introducing a sour note—and my remarks are directed at the Government business managers rather than the Minister himself—that I find it extraordinary that it should be so late in the Session that the House has had the first opportunity to debate the Bill. This is now a Bill of 75 clauses and four

  1841
  schedules. It is only the second time in 50 years that we have had the opportunity of radically changing the adoption laws, and yet it seems that we are going to be forced to take the Bill through Committee in little over four weeks.
  Some people think that our rather strange, gutteral noises, now relayed daily by the BBC, must establish us as a pretty strange lot to the public. I think we are far more open to criticism when we allow a Bill of this importance so little time for proper discussion. That is even more true when we remember the vast number of representations made to Members on both sides of the House by people throughout the country on this question. I enter that complaint basically because of the fundamental importance of this legislation.
  Adoption is a relatively recent legal development. The first Adoption Act was passed in 1926. The next major Act was passed in 1958. The latest figures show that about 23,000 adoptions are now registered in Great Britain each year, which is considerably more than in 1958, although some way below the absolute peak. I do not think that anyone would disagree with the findings of the Houghton Committee that there will be a continuing need for adoption.
  The first question we should settle is the standard we seek to meet in approaching this Bill. My own feelings are clear. We are seeking, above all, to legislate for the children. We are seeking, above all, to safeguard their interests, and we are seeking to ensure a happy childhood leading to a secure future. I do not think that there will be any great disagreement in the House on that. I also think that we should remember that we are seeking to draft legislation, to express our agreed criteria in the exact terms of the law, for we are making laws which others must interpret.
  I am conscious that Clause 2 has already given a great deal of trouble. I do not want to spend much time on it today. It is clearly something to which we shall need to return in Committee.
  The Houghton Committee said that
  "the long-term welfare of the child should be the first and paramount consideration".
  However, the legal advice of both the present Lord Chancellor and the former
  1842
  Lord Chancellor—Lord Hailsham—is against the term "paramountcy".
  The House would do well to listen to their views. It is true that in questions of care and control, custody and guardianship, the interests of the child are paramount, even when they conflict with the interests of the parent or parents. But the effect of adoption is surely different. It is a change which permanently and completely breaks the natural link with parents. It is because of the permanence of that change that the law gives parents the right to withhold consent.
  It seems that here the Lord Chancellor and Lord Hailsham are correct when they say that the use of the word "paramountcy" is not appropriate here, certainly as long as we continue with other clauses of the Bill which seeks to safeguard the rights of parents. Nor should anyone be under any illusion about the difficulties we face. A most difficult case was heard recently in the Court of Appeal. It concerned a 25-year-old Indian mother of a 14-month-old baby. The mother was unmarried and had a good job in this country. Since birth the baby had gone to a foster mother and then to prospective adopters in Liverpool. By common consent the prospective adopters were excellent. Howeveic, the mother decided that she wanted to return to India, taking her baby with her. She did not give her final consent to adoption and the issue to be decided was whether she had unreasonably withheld her consent.
  The Court of Appeal held that the mother had not unreasonably withheld her consent and the child was returned. It is possible to argue that the best interests of the child would have been secured by her remaining with the prospective adopters. Equally clearly, there was the proper interest of the mother to be considered. Had the child been with the prospective adopters for a number of years the outcome might have been different. Even on this evidence it could be argued that the courts could have come to a different conclusion.
  I do not seek to come to a judgment. All I seek to do is to point out the acute difficulties that can arise—the terribly difficult human problems—and to suggest that anyone who seeks to paint the picture in black and white is at best mistaken and at worst downright foolish.
  Mr. Abse: The hon. Member has said that the Houghton Committee emphasised the question of paramountcy. He is in error. As someone who sat for three years on that Committee, I direct his attention to Recommendation 51 of the report, which, in effect, does not introduce the question of paramountcy. As the Minister has rightly said, the Bill is implementing the intentions of the Houghton Committee. What he and Lord Hailsham are suggesting is contrary to that.
  Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I shall look at that point again. I am not seeking to disagree with what the Government are proposing. I would like to consider the point which the hon. Gentleman makes. If I have misquoted the Houghton Committee in any way I shall seek to correct the matter. We shall return to it in Committee.
  For the purpose of this debate I suggest that one of the best working criteria that has been put forward comes from the Association of British Adoption Agencies. It suggests that the standard test should be that:
  "the children's welfare is the first and most important consideration, but it is not the only consideration".
  I do not think that there is too much disagreement between us on that. That states in broad terms what our general intention is. I would now like to apply that criterion to deal with a number of specific issues in the Bill.
  First, it is clearly in the interests of the child, the parent and the would-be adopter that the adoption service should cover the whole country and meet the highest standards we can ensure. The present position is not satisfactory. In some areas a good service has been provided by voluntary societies or by local authorities. Unhappily that is not true in all areas. Gaps exist and it is right that the Government should be planning to fill them. But let us be clear what we are doing and hoping to achieve.
  The national service which it is the aim to provide becomes a duty of the local authorities. But in carrying out that duty they have, in my view, a responsibility to work in partnership with the many excellent voluntary agencies which have developed. It is these agencies which have often acted as the pioneers. They have
  1844
  carried out an invaluable rôle in the past and have a continuing rôle to play in the future. Our aim must be to provide for a partnership. It is true that some voluntary agencies do not provide every service required under this legislation. Even in that situation, and I believe that I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly on this, there is no reason why they should not continue, with the local authority providing the services which are lacking. It would be a tragedy if good voluntary agencies were forced to close.
  That is one side of the picture. 'The other side is the new responsibility placed upon local authorities and the new standards they are expected to meet. For example, the first clause in this Bill foresees counselling services for people considering having their children adopted, with the aim of helping them consider other ways in which their problems might be solved. It suggests that those who have been adopted have a right to advice and guidance. These are new responsibilities added to substantial extra duties. The Bill sets new standards, which we welcome. We must remember that duties are not discharged and standards are not met simply by passing legislation. We shall need money.
  This point was made by the directors of social services in their excellent commentary on the Bill. Speaking for many social workers in this country they said:
  "We are very much committed to the principles behind this Bill and feel sure that no local authority would, from choice, wish to run an inadequate service. We see the crucial issue here as one of money. Additional resources of both finance and skilled manpower will be required to implement this Bill."
  Yet we all know that all too often this does not happen. It was 15 years ago that we decided to run down the big mental hospitals. That was a policy which all men of good will applauded. They assumed that the community provision would automatically follow. What has happened? Community provision has been inadequate, and many of the patients discharged live on social security benefits in boarding houses and hotels while others cannot be discharged because there is simply nowhere for them to go.

  1845
  Nearer to home, in terms of this Bill, is the Children and Young Persons Act. We have there a serious position, in which there are too few places to which children in care can go. There is particularly a lack of secure places. The result is that there has been no option but to send some children home, whereupon they have promptly committed further offences. We welcome what the Minister has had to say about the new clause which he will seek to introduce.
  I am a realist. I recognise that this is a bad time to ask for resources. I do hope that even within the context of reduced budgets children will be given priority. I urge the Government to be frank and fair about the position. The Minister was both frank and fair. The greatest temptation is to claim that a new Act will solve a social problem. It rarely does. Even more rarely does it achieve this when success depends upon financial support which we know will be extremely doubtful over the next two years.
  I turn now to the need to protect the interests of the child in the legal and administrative rules we make. This must be axiomatic in a Bill of this kind. I shall listen with particular interest to what the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has to say on this. In adoption cases Clause 19 provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to safeguard the interests of the child and for an adoption officer to witness parental agreement. Clause 71 provides for a panel of experienced social workers from whom both are drawn.
  We are not just dealing with the rights of the child in adoption cases. We are also dealing with the question of care. Generally speaking, the assumption in proceedings before the courts is that the child's parents can represent the child's interests either himself or through a solicitor. That assumption holds good even when the issue before the court is whether the parents' care is adequate. Clearly that would seem to be an anomaly, for what happens when there is a conflict of interest between the child and the parent?
  A number of solutions to this problem have been advanced. Clause 54 advances one of them, namely, the appointment of
  1846
  a lawyer to guard the interests of the child. It would be his duty to represent the child and to ensure that the child's interest was put first. I would regard that as an advance on the present situation. We shall need to examine very carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said on the limitations he is seeking to provide.
  But not everyone is happy with that solution. The directors of social services argue that a lawyer is not the appropriate person. Lawyers, they say, do not have the experience or training necessary for this kind of work, and they argue for the appointment of an independent social worker.
  I personally wonder whether we should give more thought to the proposal put forward by Dr. Mia Kelmer Pringle, the director of the National Children's Bureau. Dr. Pringle took the example—the tragic example—of the Maria Colwell case. The House will listen with particular attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) on this subject if he should catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Put shortly, the facts of the case were that Maria's father left her mother shortly after the birth and died soon afterwards. Maria went, as a baby of four months, to live with her uncle and aunt, who had been approved as foster parents. Naturally, she thought of her foster parents as her parents. Maria's five other brothers and sisters had been taken into care because the mother had consistently neglected them. Having remarried, however, Maria's mother decided that she wanted Maria back. She succeeded in getting the care order revoked. Maria came back and 15 months later was killed by her stepfather. She was seven years nine months old.
  It was an appalling tragedy and the question which Dr. Pringle asks is whether it could have been prevented had there been a spokesman for Maria—a spokesman for children. Such a spokesman might have achieved a number of things. I put it no higher than that, and I have no intention of ascribing blame in this tragedy. But a children's spokesman could perhaps have established contact with Maria when she was with her foster parents and have known of her happy life there compared with all the signs of

  1847
  distress which she showed when made to stay overnight with her mother and stepfather. A children's spokesman could have briefed a lawyer when the question of care was being decided in court and could have kept contact with the child once she was transplanted from one family to another, and seen the significant deterioration in those unhappy and tragic last 15 months.
  There are problems even in this solution, but I am bound to say that the scheme, on the face of it, seems to provide more assurance than most which have been advanced. I say to the Minister without commitment at this stage that we shall want to explore this matter deeply in Committee.
  The third and last area that I wish briefly to mention is the custody section of the Bill. In spite of the name—and let us hope that even now we can find a better name for it—it provides a recognition that adoption is not the only solution which is in the interests of the child. The aim is sensible enough. It seeks to provide a compromise. The custody order seeks to allow foster parents some security but at the same time to allow the natural parent to continue links with his child. In its application, however, it has been criticised from two different standpoints.
  The directors of social services make this case that the order has at least partly developed because of the concern about the tug-of-love situation between the natural parent and the foster parent. Yet, they say, it is difficult to see how this order solves that problem. Custodianship is not, by definition, a permanent arrangement; it can be revoked by the courts. It is true that the foster parent would be protected from repeated applications, but he cannot be protected from an application to revoke the order. Thus, the foster parent is not given any substantial increase in security, while the child can also suffer if the custodian applies for revocation.
  A further fear is put by the British Association of Social Workers, which has also done extremely valuable work on the Bill. It fears that parents will take more note of the appearance than the reality and, as a result, will be reluctant to see children placed in foster homes, except in the most temporary circum-
  1848
  stances, for fear of losing them permanently to foster parents.
  These are substantial difficulties. Perhaps we shall be able to overcome them, but we shall want to examine the matter very closely in Committee.
  This is a very important Bill. Yet, long as it is, it omits much which is of importance concerning children. A comprehensive Bill would seek to make changes in the Children and Young Persons Act and might even seek to bring control to child minding, which gives so much concern to social workers throughout the country. But it is deficient even within its own terms on one particular area, namely, in its provision on child abuse.
  Nothing has caused more public concern, and rightly so, than the question of child abuse. It would not do if we were to allow this Bill to pass without making further attempts to improve the position. I do not claim that legislation would eliminate the problem, but we should certainly examine the possibility of having legislative backing for registers of child abuse and also consider whether our law even now offers sufficient protection.
  I give an example which has been brought to my attention. One director of social services is at present concerned with a situation in which a man imprisoned following the death of a child intends, on his release, to make his home with a family containing young children. The children are thought to be at risk, but he says that no action can be taken because the children at risk were never part of the household of which the dead child was a member. Ironically, action could have been taken under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, but he says that the present law is inadequate in this respect. If the Minister can help us on that point, it will be of great value. If not, we shall wish to return to it in Committee.
  We support the general principles of the Bill, although there are many points which we shall want to raise in Committee. However, our intention, first and foremost, is to improve the legislation which is before us, because no one on the Opposition side of the House does not believe that the interests of children must be surely protected.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): On the assumption that the winding-up speeches will begin at about three o'clock, there remain just under three hours for the 15 hon. Members who have indicated their intention to take part in the debate. I appreciate that this is a very important Bill, but a lot can be said in 10-minute speeches. If hon. Members will show a spirit of co-operation and will limit their speeches to that period, I am sure that we shall be able to accommodate all Members who are anxious to speak.
  12.08 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Having served for eight years on a local authority children's committee, and having the care of a foster child myself, I am particularly keen to speak in this debate, although I fear that the more one knows about the subject the harder it is to outline in 10 minutes the points about which one is particularly concerned.
  I welcome the Minister's announcement, this morning, of extra money for secure accommodation. This is an extremely important matter. I only hope that the amount is adequate to meet the requirements.
  It has been suggested that the Bill is basically non-controversial. Last Sunday, the Obeserver charted the parentage of the Bill over the last 10 years and pleaded that it be passed quickly. I have had many letters from constituents similarly pressing that the Bill be implemented quickly to help them in what they fear might become "tug-of-love" situations.
  It has been suggested that the Bill will do a great deal of good and that it will cost very little. Whether we take it on the basis of the original Government estimate of £4 million, their revised estimate of £8 million, or the local authorities' estimate of £12 million, I suggest that it will cost very much more than that if it is not to be a Bill that does far more harm than good.
  I welcome the proposals on adoption, which are non-controversial, but much of the rest of the Bill is highly controversial. The Part of the Bill dealing with children in care and fostering might be all right if children came into care solely because of the absence of parents, the total in-
  1850
  adequacy of their parents or, perhaps, because of the unacceptable behaviour of their parents. But the majority of children who come into care do so for other reasons. They have parents who are perfectly capable of caring adequately for them. Their parents are not emotionally inadequate or handicapped, nor are they wicked or blameworthy. Because of that, much of the Bill is about reallocating children from the poor to the better-off.
  The vast majority of children coming into care have parents who are living difficult lives because of illness, inadequate, unsuitable or non-existent housing, poverty, matrimonial strife, misfortune or isolation. These parents are already the most disadvantaged and the most discriminated against within our society. If the Bill goes through, we must ensure that children no longer come into care because of poverty, homelessness, lack of day-care facilities or inadequate or non-existent social work. The joint statement made by the British Association of Social Workers, the Child Poverty Action Group, Gingerbread, Mind and the National Council for One-Parent Families stresses that children should not come into care because of poverty, homelessness, lack of day-care facilities or inadequate social work.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: With respect to my hon. Friend, the sad fact is that all too often they do. The Bill deals with what happens when they have come into care.
  Mr. Bennett: I accept that, but I am suggesting that if they have come into care for those reasons we should be looking at the reasons and not patching up the present arrangements. There is an analogy here with the plate that falls off the table. If the plate is stuck back together with glue it will always be inadequate. We should place emphasis on not allowing the plate to fall off the table in the first place.
  In 1973, 2,700 children came into care because their parents were homeless. In 1945 there were about 67,000 places for day care. By 1974 that number had dropped to 24,000. The Finer Report shows the problems of the lone parent, and 60 per cent. of children in long-term

  1851
  care come from single-parent families. Many local authorities still encourage the father who is on his own to put his children into care rather than help him with day care facilities.
  I turn to the social services. After a children's service was established in 1948, it was soon realised that far too many children come into care who need never come into care at all. During the 1950s and the early 1960s, many local authorities set out to pioneer what was termed prevention work. In 1963, the Children and Young Persons Act gave all local authorities the duty to do prevention work. Prevention work steadily improved and by 1968–69 there began to be a fall-off in the number of young children coming into care. Unfortunately, this was counteracted by the larger number of much older and disturbed children coming into care, but we had made considerable progress in keeping young children out of care. Unfortunately, the improvements have not continued.
  The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 added to the work load of the social services departments and, increasingly, the Seebohm reorganisation added to their problems. The children's services come into direct competition with the rest of the social services and the prevention side suffered most.
  In the new set-up, the all-purpose social worker has too much work to do. He has to respond to crises and to pressure from the community to help the elderly and the handicapped. The result is that he cannot do all he needs to do to prevent children coming into care, and that is the area that is most important and most neglected.
  The reorganisation and expansion of the social services has produced a career structure. That is excellent, in that the social worker now has a better chance of getting a fair salary. It also means that social workers have the chance to change their jobs fairly regularly on promotion. My foster son has had four child care officers in the last five years, and that is about the national average.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) suggested that there should be a person who is responsible for the child's interests. The child care officer should be that person, but the key requirement is continuity, so that the person who
  1852
  has this responsibility is able to see the difference between a child in circumstances A and in circumstances B. There is no point in it if there is no continuity and the person responsible is changed regularly. If extra resources are available, it is far better to ensure that a child care officer stays with a particular child for a long time. If some other type of person is given that responsibility we must guarantee continuity.
  This sort of turn-over is bad for the client and makes the work of the social worker harder. If he is over-loaded with casework at the start and has to take on a completely new case load he is in extreme difficulty. Social workers must have the chance of salary increases and promotion, but they should be able to maintain their case load over a period without having to change suddenly to a completely different one.
  At present, children come into care because of poverty, homelessness, lack of day care facilities and inadequate social work. We should remember the old saying that a stitch in time saves nine. We should remember that the child in care is extremely expensive, costing £20 or £30 a week in an institution and rather less in a foster home.
  Once a child is in care, the pressure on the social worker often means that the stay of the child in care is far too long before positive steps are taken to try to get him back with his parents. Crises develop, and the social worker spends four or five days first working with the family and then searching desperately to find accommodation for the child. When accommodation is found, for a couple of days the social worker checks to see that the child is all right, and then goes back to the bottom of the pile and other crises overtake it. The result is that the child stays in care for a long time before the process of rehabilitation is started.
  I come now to foster parents. Again because of the inadequacy of social work, rarely is a foster parent trained for the job. Too many become foster parents for the wrong reasons. Very often they do so because they want children of their own and they see fostering as permanently acquiring children of their own. There is a sense that the foster parent is expected almost to become a parent and to become proprietorial, investing love and often

  1853
  money in a child. In a sense, the foster parent almost seeks the repayment of love and affection from the child, either now or in the future. Social workers give no guidance to foster parents to make clear that that is the completely wrong approach. Foster parents are rarely encouraged to see their work as caring for the child now and getting satisfaction from doing the job well now. Their ultimate goal should be to ensure that a happy child is reunited with his natural parents—in a sense becoming the uncle, aunt or grandparent to the natural family, supporting not only the child but the natural family.
  We need long-stay foster homes as well as short-stay homes. It seems to me that we do not place enough emphasis on the need for short-stay foster homes, on what the community requires, and on the satisfaction that short-stay parents can receive from the job they do.
  Many social workers are afraid that the Bill will discourage the hard-pressed parent from allowing their children to go temporarily into care. They have a fear that their child will never come back. I received a letter from one of my constituents who was recently admitted to a psychiatric ward. Her stay in that ward may well be prolonged, as she is continually worrying about getting her children out of care. The longer she stays there the chances of her getting her children back and out of care will become less and less. She fears that she will lose her children for ever.
  This Bill has an important job to do, especially in reforming the law on adoption. To the extent that it changes the law on fostering, it must be modified in Committee. It must be accompanied by a children's charter to ensure that no child with adequate, loving parents ends up in care because of poverty, homelessness, lack of day care facilities or inadequate social work.
  We must remember children's rights, not merely in tug-of-love situations but from birth, including the rights to live free from poverty, in adequate housing, and to see their parents helped through illness, misfortune, matrimonial strife and isolation. This Bill must not turn out to be a child snatchers' Act.
  12.22 p.m.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I enjoyed listening to the Minister's able speech.
  I made inquiries in Scotland, as that country has a different legal system. I inquired of several bodies, including the Scottish Council of Social Service, the British Association of Social Workers in Scotland, the Association of British Adoption Agencies in Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, the Guild of Service, the South-East of Scotland Association of Children's Panels, the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland, and Professor Sandy Wilkinson, who, with justice, is regarded as one of the greatest Scottish experts on the law regarding children.
  From all those suggestions I can draw out two threads or themes. The first is that there is a mood of disquiet about Part II of the Bill as it affects Scots law. The Minister referred to this subject.
  Clauses 41 to 47 are intended as liberalising provisions to afford greater protection to children and to foster parents who obtain custody. I do not think that that will be the result in Scotland, although it might be the result of the corresponding provisions relating to England. The result of these provisions in Scotland will be to restrict the rights of those who are not parents to apply for custody.
  Those clauses seem to be drafted on the false premise that persons other than parents or guardians cannot claim custody under the law of Scotland. As Scots law stands at present, persons other than parents or guardians can, and do, claim the custody of children. Applications for custody have been made on the part of grandparents, brothers, and trustees. Even foster parents can claim custody in Scots courts.
  If the Government have any doubt about this matter Clause 41(1) might be retained roughly in its present state, but much of the rest of Part II, relating to Scotland—particularly Clause 41(2)—might be deleted, with the exception of Clauses 44 to 48.
  In Scotland, custody proceedings form part of the machinery for the protection of children which in England is provided to a large extent by wardship and by

  1855
  habeas corpus proceedings, neither of which exists in Scotland. Therefore, there is a deep-rooted fear that if non-parents, including relatives, have their rights to apply for custody reduced, as proposed in the Bill, an important part of the machinery for the protection of children in Scotland may be abolished.
  The second theme, which was referred to by the British Association of Social Workers in Scotland, is well known to the Minister. It is that if legislation is brought in the Government must be prepared to commit themselves to providing the funds and resources which are now necessary to ensure that a continuous service is provided for parents with adopted children. Obviously there must be cuts in public expenditure, but I suggest that they should not be made at the expense of children. Social workers will be able to safeguard children at risk only when they are given the necessary back-up resources.
  It is a matter of significance that recently, in Perth, two children in an emergency situation could not be provided with residential accommodation. That is not a problem peculiar to Perth. Children who appear before children's hearings in Scotland must sometimes wait up to two years before receiving placement in residential accommodation. Many children are kept in assessment centres for long periods, or are sent home in unsatisfactory circumstances because suitable facilities do not exist.
  The Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland recently delivered a stinging judgment when it said in its report that in many cases where supervision orders were made the actual supervision was ineffective and often nonexistent.
  Throughout Scotland there is a desire that if the Government are sincere in bringing in this Bill—I believe that the Minister is sincere—the necessary resources and back-up facilities should be provided to ensure an effective and continuous service throughout.
  I hope that I have passed on to the Minister the mood and feelings of many bodies in Scotland.
  12.27 p.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: For me, this is the penultimate step in an arduous journey.
  1856
  When I looked at my files yesterday I found that I first raised this issue in 1964. I called for a committee to review the law of adoption. It required five years of work during which hon. Members from both sides of the House, and a group of which I was chairman, continually importuned respective Governments to set up this committee. It is indicative of the passage of time that none of the hon. Members from both sides who formed that committee is now in Parliament.
  I should like to make a further comment, for a reason which will become clear. To the great credit of the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, he agreed ultimately to set up the Houghton Committee. Again, I notice that I am the only Member of this Parliament who served on the Houghton Committee. I do not mention that fact out of immodesty, nor do I mention it to indicate to younger Members of Parliament that they need stamina if they are to alter the laws of this country. Indeed, I do not do so to reproach even those who may be guilty of sloth or inertia. I do so to emphasise the fact that more than a decade passed from the time the identifiable issues were raised in the House before they were put into legislative form.
  Therefore I point out to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), who made a thoughtful speech, that we have a duty to form a disciplined committee ready to keep one eye on the welfare of children but the other on the sessional clock. I therefore regard as regrettable the statement made today by the British Association of Social Workers, which could only have the effect of raising obstacles preventing us from ensuring that this needed Bill reaches the statute book. That statement of the BASW was unfortunately echoed by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).
  When we wrestle, as we do, with such delicate matters it is inevitable that we may be hesitant about some of the solutions or emphases that are in the Bill, but we cannot be too self-indulgent in our individual preferences. It is imperative that we reach a final consensus solution. Although unanimity was, surprisingly, reached amongst those who served on the Houghton Committee, that does not mean that we can expect total

  1857
  and uncritical approbation of all our recommendations.
  How could it be otherwise when adoption is so ambitious, so technical a method of seeking to resolve sterility, illegitimacy and the nurture of rejected or unattached children. It is an enterprise where, although biology necessarily jostles with compassion, we nevertheless have to seek to ensure that love, concern and pity meet to try to overcome irresponsibility, inadequacy and sometimes evil itself. It is therefore inevitable that when we intervene by law in such a subtle process it is bound sometimes to mean that we invite condemnation as brusque intruders. The attempt is being made, and if excessive efforts are made to reshape the Bill when it goes to Committee, we may thwart its passage and the abuses that we identified, and publicised in this House more than 10 years ago will continue.
  We should remember that we have only one childhood and that if it is damaged there is no second chance. Delay has already meant disaster in adulthood for thousands who have been irreparably and avoidably damaged while they have been little ones, and until the Bill becomes an Act adoption will remain a macabre lottery, for too many parents are being chosen not, as they should be, by skilled scrutiny, but by chance.
  Today, whether a child receives worthy parents depends, we all know, more upon geography than upon genuine availability. It is right that we say this, because society is finding itself in the position in which people are being chosen as parents in this way because almost half the local authorities in England and Wales fail to act as adoption agencies. We have a patchwork of voluntary societies, some splendid but too many restricting their services to a limited group, too many lacking trained social staff, and too many unable to accept children with special needs, and a few not having the resources to offer what should always be the genuine alternative to adoption, namely, continuing help to mothers, and particularly unmarried mothers, who wish to keep their children.
  As long as we do not have this measure on the statue book, adoption will remain for many not a blessing but a source of bewilderment and confusion. Without the
  1858
  alternative of this concept of custodianship proffered in the Bill, far too many legitimate children, following upon the divorce of their parents, will increasingly and permanently be alienated from one of their parents as the individual marriage partner becomes the legal father or mother.
  Far too many illegitimate children are now adopted by grandparents. At a later date they go through the traumatic experience of learning that an "elder sister" may be their mother. Even worse, as a result of the failure to implement legislation along the lines of this Bill, thousands of children are today in institutions in care who could be adopted, or whose futures could be planned with the aid of long-term fostering, but they remain—perhaps 6,000 of them—in homes and nurseries because the legal machinery, which will become available by the Bill, to assume parental rights as a preliminary to adoption does not at present exist.
  These children are finding that they are involved in a game which their parents are playing with them. It is a cat-and-mouse game, and that is something which the House should remember. It is all very well for an hon. Member to cite an individual instance of a child with a mentally sick mother, but I do not believe that local authorities want to intervene brutally in matter of that kind. What is happening is that far too many parents are fantasising. They hope that one day at some time in the indefinite future they will reclaim their children, and the little ones rarely in the meantime, if ever, see their feckless parents.
  Our duty is clear. It is to put the Bill on the statute book. Nevertheless, I freely acknowledge that a Committee of this House cannot rubber stamp a Bill and that some scrutiny—expeditious I trust—will have to be made of it in Committee. There are a few areas where this is needed.
  May I deal with the Minister's speech? The first point is the formula, which has been referred to, in Clause 2 and in Clause 15(2), which enjoins the court in all adoption proceedings and the local authority in making any decision relating to a child in care to have regard to all the circumstances and in making their decision to give first consideration to the need to safeguard, protect and promote the welfare of the child.

  1859
  It was put in that form by the Houghton Committee because we were concerned that there should not be an imbalance again poor parents who were caring and good parents. We thought that if we put in those words it would mean that poorer parents, able to give equal opportunities to a child in every respect other than wealth, would not be disadvantaged because a conflict had arisen between two sets of possible parents, natural parents and would-be adoptive parents, one of whom may have more money and so be able to offer more than the other.
  Thanks largely to the wise intervention in the House of Lords of the Law Lords, we have in Clause 2 a sensible suggestion, one which substantially endorses the Houghton Committee recommendation; but the clause has an addendum. It is true that, when the future of the child has to be considered, there is a danger, as the law stands, of the rights of parents, rather than the responsibilities of the selfsame parents, taking precedence over the duty, which we shall bring about if we accept the Bill, of creating an active relationship with the child. These are the factors which determine the destiny of a child.
  The clause ensures that natural parents have rights as citizens and not as owners of children. It emphasises in this clause that children are not property and that their futures must be determined by issues other than those relating to proprietorship. Nevertheless, there has come into existence a disturbing element—an addendum—in this clause governing the future of a child in disputed adoption proceedings. As the Bill stands, the court is enjoined, in a mandatory form, to take into account, in the case of a child old enough to understand, the wishes and feelings of the child.
  The Directors of Social Services, however, in their informed critique, when talking about the wishes of a child, said:
  "It must be remembered that a child sees things in a very different way from an adult. A child will almost always choose to maintain the status quo. Even a teenager may be distressed at being removed from a rejecting and adoptive home. When there is a genuine conflict to be resolved which involves a choice between two sets of parents, a child is not equipped with either maturity or life's experience to make such a choice."
  1860
  The Directors of Social Services go on:
  "He very often wants the choice made for him and we would do him a disservice by refusing to do so."
  What concerns me is that lay magistrates will regard it as mandatory, since they are not sophisticated child care workers, to put to a child the question what his or her wishes are. Children should not be so crushed with responsibility.
  It is true that the Maria Colwell situation can and should be dealt with, but that can be done under Clause 54. Our fear that a child's feelings may not be explored, leading to a Maria Colwell situation, should not direct us, as here, to evade the responsibility of adult decision and to throw it upon children in contested adoption proceedings.
  Worse, it will inevitably cause confusion, because the wishes of the child may not be in his long-term interests. There are dangers, as all of us with professional experience know, of manipulation and bribery when a child knows that he will be openly questioned by magistrates as to which set of parents he wants.
  Again it means that a child has to take the responsibility of rejecting a parent and as a result can feel traumatically guilty for life. He can feel that he has encapsulated within himself a feeling of unworthiness, the very rejection that he has given to one set of parents or the other. That is a burden which should not be placed upon him in any court.
  Where that onus is put upon local authorities by Clause 52, that is another matter. When a child is for a long time in care, his wishes and feelings may be elliptically and subtly explored by trained social workers of the local authority, and it may be possible for these feelings to stand when it comes to a question of a child in care. But from my experience of magistrates' courts and higher courts, I am profoundly uneasy about that addendum.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman was correct in what he said in his intervention when I was dealing with Clause 2. I was indeed quoting the working party document and not the Finer Report. However, he may have seen the paper presented by the Lord Chancellor, which said:
  "Unless, the 'first consideration' is to displace and over-ride all other considerations

  1861
  when it will be paramountcy the word 'first' adds nothing."
  That is something that we shall have to consider in Committee—whether the addition of that word adds anything to the original Clause 2.
  Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman has taken me back a bit. He is correct that the working party did say that, but we subsequently thought it through. We had many discussions and came to the same conclusion as the other place on this issue, and as is now embodied in the Bill.
  In Clause 12, there is too an uneasy departure from the Houghton Committee. This is the clause which was designed to end the possibility of the placing of a condition, as is now possible, upon the consent of a natural mother to an adoption order—a condition insisting that the child should be brought up in a particular persuasion. I do not want to adumbrate the arguments in the report. They are overwhelming, stressing that it is wrong, when adoption means the total renunciation of the child and the finding of new real parents, as they must be from then on, that there should be any suggestion of imposing such a condition.
  Those and other arguments brought us to our conclusion, but the clause, which claims to be a compromise, provides now that if a child is placed, then as far as practicable the parents' wishes should be taken into account. So far, so good. But it does not deal, as Houghton suggested, with the fact that the child's welfare must also be taken into account. This is not only a question of practicability as the clause states. It could mean that good parents of a different religion, or secular parents, could be excluded despite the fact that selecting them would be in the interests of the child's welfare, apart from practicability.
  It is important to consider this matter more today than we would have had to consider it 10 years ago when I first raised it. Today we live in a multi-racial and therefore multi-religious society. For good or bad—I declare myself, as is well known, as a humanist—we also live in a secular society. Therefore, we need to consider this clause to ensure not only practicability but to ensure that the child's welfare must not be shaken by the possibility that a set of otherwise suitable parents are debarred from taking a child
  1862
  to whom they could give a splendid future.
  On Clause 25, we come up against the "syndrome of genealogical bewilderment", which simply means that children want an answer to the question, "Who am I?" Many believe that this existentialist condition must be met, that it is a basic human right that every child should know his origins. That is why the clause gives the child the right to obtain his birth certificate after he has passed the age of 18.
  But there are arguments on the other side. The arguments are all for an endeavour to mitigate the possible consequences where a young man or woman may intervene in the life of a mother who had long ceased to have any connection with him or her, who had become resettled and who would find it a grave embarrassment that a child from the past should emerge in a new family situation which she had created.
  The Minister also has said that it is intended to have rules which would seek to mitigate the consequences by directing these people to some social agency, which would erect some barrier, some sifting, before the child went on with his quest. If that is done, his need may be assuaged and the possibility of ultimate embarrassment is minimised. The Houghton Report however suggested, too, that any applicant who in these circumstances asked for his birth certificate of the Registrar-General should, if possible, be seen and directed to a social agency. I hope that in some form, whether by rule or some other arrangement with the Registrar-General, this can be done.
  The Minister vigorously challenged Clause 54, which provides for independent representation of children in court proceedings to ensure that, amidst the clamour of the contending parents, foster parents and would-be adoptive parents, the voice of the child is heard. There is little doubt in most people's minds of the desirability of such a clause. I am not impressed by the suggestions that social workers not lawyers should do it or that lawyers cannot work with social workers. If the clause is introduced, it will certainly create a need for a different training for lawyers in social work and for social workers in forensic work.
  But I realise that social workers will not have the degree of independence

  1863
  which will be necessary, even if they come from a neighbouring local authority, to represent someone independently. They will be bound by professional ties with the social workers in the neighbouring authority. That is very dangerous. I believe that lawyers have an independent part to play and should become social engineers as well as being mere marionettes looking after some other type of vested interest.
  I do not believe that many people doubt the desirability of such a clause. But it is another matter when one considers the availability of funds to implement the clause. Yet there can be no doubt that only too often those of us professionally engaged in divorce face the havoc caused to children by divorces and broken marriages. We cannot doubt the need to give priority to the full implementation of this clause.
  Our divorce figures are mounting ominously, and I say at once that that is not due to my Divorce Act. A decree does not cause a broken marriage, any more than a death certificate is the cause of death. People marry younger. They live longer, the settled family system declines, mobility, the growth of spurious values—all these and many other factors play their part in contributing to the present situation where we have 120,000 fatherless families because of divorce and 190,000 fatherless families because of separation. Annually, some 300,000 children are involved in court proceedings, 30,000 in disputed custody cases alone.
  It is no wonder that the Government boggle at the financial burdens that this important clause could create. Yet, even if we have it in the Bill and even if in part its implementation has to be postponed, it should still be there. The child left to drift, feeling unloved and uncared for—a casualty abandoned by separated parents who often are linked together at best only by indifference and at worst by hate—is most likely to become the adult who is more divorce-prone. Every effort must be made to ensure that decisions taken now about a child's future, where one parent or both of them have failed that child, are such that the child will not be so permanently damaged that in turn he or she becomes a feckless or irresponsible parent. We are more likely to bring
  1864
  that about as soon as we can implement the clause. To accelerate its implementation will not be easy, and for that reason I want to suggest ways in which it can be expedited.
  The Minister of State should ask the Lord Chancellor to cause the Law Commissioners to review still further the rationalised procedures already instituted in divorce by consent at the moment and to extend them to all divorces so that legal and financial resources now deployed in establishing that a marriage has broken down may be used to consider arrangements for the children and their future welfare. That should be the first and most important step in any divorce, and that consideration should precede the granting of a decree.
  In our divorce laws and divorce procedures, we have our emphases awry. We need to release the manpower and money needed to bring this clause into effect. We need a Law Commission review of the kind that I suggest which could call evidence and see how we could shift the present emphases and use the financial and manpower resources thereby released to ensure the future welfare of the children may be considered rather than in spending time and legal aid money going through what is becoming more and more a charade and a needless exercise.
  We debate this measure in an almost empty Chamber. It is an irony which will not escape notice that, recently, when we debated abortion and discussed the circumstances in which we should dispose of children by using the scalpel, the Chamber was full. When we debate how we can have laws such as the present proposal dealing with the love and care of children and with ways of helping to mature disadvantaged children, there is disinterest among hon. Members.
  I am glad to see a number of women Members present, but I cannot help saying that I see only one hon. Lady of all those who have spoken so eloquently about abortion and women's rights. They are not here to acclaim a Bill which protects children's rights. But by those of us who do not make any distinction in our compassion for born or unborn children. this Bill is welcomed with enthusiasm.
  12.56 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I want first to take up the final remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) because it is worth reflecting that there were many more right hon. and hon. Members present when we debated the Hare Coursing Bill than there are today as we debate the Children Bill.
  I have an interest to declare, in that I am an adoptive parent. I have two adopted daughters, who have given my wife and me great happiness as, I hope. we have given them. We are a very happy family.
  This is a very desirable Bill, and many of its provisions are long overdue. The greatest contribution that this House can make is to ensure that the Bill, whatever its deficiencies, gets on to the statute book this Session.
  I do not believe that we would be debating the Bill today were it not for the personal devotion of the Minister of State. I had the honour of co-sponsoring his Private Member's Bill and of working with him and a group of volunteer helpers and the hon. Member for Pontypool in the drafting of that Bill. I recollect the Minister's uncertainty whether he was engaging in too ambitious a project in introducing such a measure as a Private Member's Bill. He is having his reward today. If he had not been so personally involved—if he had not persevered and had so much understanding of the subject—I doubt whether we should be debating the Bill today.
  Before referring to certain very important provisions of the Bill, I want to give one personal reminiscence about adoption. I have adopted two children in two completely different ways. I adopted a child by what is called a private adoption. I adopted a second child through the agency of a very well-known and much respected society. My experience was that much the nicest and best way for the adoptive parents, for the child and for the natural parent was the private one. If it is done responsibly, it is the very best way to adopt a child. I say that because my initial reaction was against the abolition of the right of private adoption. I have been assured by highly responsible people, however, that there is or has been a great deal of misuse of private adoption. I am prepared to admit immediately that there
  1866
  is scope for misuse. All I can say from my experience—and I cannot go beyond that—is that it is a great pity that we cannot introduce sufficient safeguards to ensure that private adoption is rid of this misuse.
  I am prepared, for the purposes of the Bill, to accept the view expressed to me by many responsible people that there are misuses and that they are so widespread that it is better for private adoption to be abolished. I come to that conclusion with very great regret, however, and hope that the Minister of State, who knows my views on the subject, has investigated the evidence. I am assured that the evidence exists and I hope that his Department has investigated it.
  On the provision of adoption, I think that the amendment to Clause 2 introduced in the other place by Lord Wigoder has resulted in considerable improvement. Unlike the Lord Chancellor, whose words were quoted by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), I think the term "first consideration" adds to the meaning. I would have gone for "paramount consideration". The interests of the child in modern society should be paramount, but I am prepared to compromise to accept the words wisely insisted upon by the Houghton Committee of "first consideration". I am glad to hear the Minister of State say that the Government do not intend to change those words.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Pontypool—he has done a great deal of work on this, as on so many allied social subjects—over the provisions about consulting a child if that child is of a suitable age. The words in the clause that due consideration be given
  "having regard to his age and understanding"
  are a sufficient safeguard. I think that children can sometimes be very shrewd in indicating that a particular course might, contrary to what it first appears, not be in their interests. This point is at least something to be taken into consideration in those very few cases which will arise of children of a sufficient age and understanding who are able to express a view. Therefore, I am very pleased to hear that the Government intend to allow this clause to remain with its present wording.
  I come now to what might be called the religious clause—Clause 12. By and

  1867
  large, I agree with the observations of the hon. Member for Pontypool about it. The clause is, however, a good and sensible compromise in regard to the placing of a child. The natural parent should be enabled to express a view as to how she would like her child brought up and under which religious persuasion, but that should not be an overriding consideration in placement. Equally, it is most important that the strong views of the secretary of the adoption society or of the social worker should not dominate. We sometimes tend to underestimate the effect of some of these views. I have known of cases in which adoption societies and well-intentioned secretaries have very strong religious, social or political views and try to insist on those views prevailing when deciding on placement. It is important to have safeguards on that score.
  The provisions in Clause 13 are very desirable. This is one of the great reforms in the Bill—the long overdue provisions for freeing children for adoption in many circumstances. I understand from the Minister that he intends to review the clause again in Committee. I believe that the clause, particularly subsection (7), is still too restrictive and that it should be looked at in depth.
  Under the Bill, certain standards are to be demanded from adoption societies, but what about the standard of practice of local authorities? There is to be a means of reviewing standards of practice of adoption societies, and that is a good thing. In rural areas such as mine, by and large it is not desirable that a local authority should be the adoption society, because in many rural areas relationships are too personal. People know each other far too well. However, I accept that the rural areas are in a minority, and I accept, too, that it is in the interests of the entire country that local authorities should be brought more into these matters. I think that some consideration should be given to a kind of inspectorate to ensure that the standards of practice, which are all-important in adoption, are constantly raised in the various local authorities.
  Clause 25 concerns the rights of a child to a birth certificate at the age of 18. When we were discussing this matter with the Minister of State during the preparation of his Private Member's Bill
  1868
  my immediate reaction was against such a proposal. However, the more I have discussed the matter with my wife, and the older my children have grown the more I have come to believe that the idea is absolutely right. A natural parent takes a tremendous decision in giving a child over to adoption. She assumes that the child will never come back into her life and she can be reassured from the research done on this issue in Scotland. It discloses that no natural parent has complained of a child subsequently coming back into his or her life. It is psychologically important that an adopted child should have the right to know as much as posssible about his or her biological origins, and this is a most important provision. Balancing the two viewpoints, I am sure that the Minister has come down on the right side, and I have been converted to that point of view in the course of discussion and consideration.
  I welcome very much the concept of custodianship which is introduced by the Bill. There has been a great deal of argument about it in learned papers. As the hon. Member for Pontypool will remember, during the preparation of the Private Member's Bill we discussed the question why we should not extend the concept of guardianship. Of course, guardianship includes certain responsibilities for property, and so forth, which the concept of custodianship does not involve. I think it is better to leave the concept of custodianship as it is in the Bill.
  Mr. David Weitzman: Why should we not retain the word "guardian"? I appreciate that it is used in different connections, but "custodianship" is such an ugly word.
  Mr. Hooson: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is simply concerned with semantics I do not have much comment to make, but I think that the concept of custodianship, which was gone into at great length before the decision to introduce it, is a good concept, and although one might be able to criticise the word I am in favour of leaving it exactly as it is.
  I come now to Clause 30(3)(c). I am informed that social workers and local government officers do not particularly like this clause which after three years gives certain rights to foster parents or to people with whom a child has been

  1869
  living for more than three years. It is thought that where a local government department has prepared a plan for the child the foster parents should not have the right contained in the clause. I am all for the clause remaining as it is. The local authority has under the Bill the right to be heard by any court. It holds most of the cards and if it has a case it can present it. The provision should be left as it is. because in discussing the future of children we sometimes tend to have far too many theoretical plans on their behalf, as I know from my own experience. It is far better for any child in a home, whether it is an adopted or a foster home, to have a good relationship with the parents. That is worth far more than the best institutional help.
  Does Clause 68 meet the Houghton recommendations? I was surprised that the hon. Member for Pontypool did not discuss it, because I would have expected it to attract his attention. I concede that the matter is really the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department, and it should be reconsidered by that Department. We are dealing with individuals in very sensitive circumstances. Very often there is not sufficient appreciation of the sensitive circumstances of, for example, the natural mother and the adoptive parents. The whole situation is sensitive from the human point of view.
  I believe that a mother should not be required to appear before a court in her own locality. Unless the initiation of the proceedings is in the High Court, my understanding of the clause is that those proceedings must be initiated in the mother's own locality. The power of transfer does not meet the requirements on this matter. There should be provision for the proceedings to be initiated away from the mother's own locality.
  I turn to Clause 54. I agree with what the hon. Member for Pontypool has said on this matter. What is required is a reallocation of resources. We spend a considerable sum of money on unnecessary legal aid. It is astonishing that we are unable to find the resources to provide individual representation for a child—and we are only in childhood once in our lives—and yet we waste so many resources on legal aid in many other directions. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor's Department will see whether it can
  1870
  accommodate the clause in its entirety, rather than reverting to a much more restrictive clause than the one now in the Bill. I know that the Minister must take this view, because this clause, inserted by the House of Lords, was lifted out of his Private Member's Bill. Therefore, we know which side he is on.
  Mrs. Helene Hayman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that perhaps the Lord Chancellor could look for those savings in legal aid, in the very costly and totally futile proceedings that the Supplementary Benefits Commission forces wives separated from their husbands to take, chasing husbands for maintenance that they will never receive? That is a costly, unnecessary and distressing exercise.
  Mr. Hooson: With great respect to the hon. Lady, I do not believe that many legal aid funds are involved in that procedure.
  Mrs. Hayman: Yes, they are.
  Mr. Hooson: There are many other spheres where more money could be recovered. I think that is the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make.
  I received a letter yesterday from the Northumbria Probation and After Care Service. The letter bears the signature of a Mr. Murphy and other probation officers. They put forward the idea of having a child's guardian in all those courts outlined in Part V. Many suggestions have been made to me by various authorities over the past two years, but the one which has attracted me most is that of having a child's guardian, drawn possibly from the probation service, who could be brought in and certainly in the interim period be of considerable help. This is a matter that I should like to see explored in considerable depth in Committee. This last-minute suggestion is one that I find most attractive. I am sure that the Minister will look into this matter.
  There is a famous saying that the language of politics is the language of priorities. That applies in the social sphere as well as any other. The Bill will go onto the statute book at a time of straitened economic circumstances for this country. I am sure that the Minister finds himself with certain economic constraints which he would wish were not present. Despite the sparse attendance

  1871
  for this debate, most people in the country feel that in the social sphere the care and safeguarding of the welfare of children is a top priority, that it should take priority over many other matters on which we already spend a great deal. The Government should be aware—this is the feeling throughout the country—that, whatever else we cut down, there is a limit to cutting expenditure in this sphere. We owe it to the children of this country to make sure that they are not prejudiced by lack of resources—resources that are often wasted elsewhere on much less desirable objectives. Therefore, I hope that the financial constraints on the Bill imposed by the Exchequer will not be too great.
  1.15 p.m.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: The Bill is too important and far-reaching to merit only a Second Reading debate tucked away ignominiously on a Friday. The Minister, who certainly deserves great credit for introducing the original Bill, is well aware of that fact.
  However, I suspect that the reason for introducing the Bill so late in the week, as well as so late in the session, is that the Government think that it has all been ironed out so thoroughly in another place that there is nothing left to say on it or to do to it here. If the Government think that, they are thoroughly wrong. Indeed, the debate already has indicated that this is a wrong view.
  My hon. Friends and I want the Bill on the statute book but not in its present state. There is still need for amendments, including some quite drastic ones. If the Bill became law as it stands, it would, in some respects, be a bad law. Here, I take issue with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, (Mr. Hooson), who apparently feels that we should get the Bill on the statute book with all its limitations and that we should get it on now. I believe that 1958—about 20 years ago—was the last time we had a Children Bill, on adoption, before us. In my view it will certainly be at least 20 years before we get another one. Therefore, we must get this Bill right.
  Mr. Hooson: It is important that we make sure that we get the Bill on the statute book this Session. We must not
  1872
  prejudice that. I am not suggesting that in Committee we should not look at the matter thoroughly.
  Mrs. Knight: The difficulty arises from the shortness of time that we have left for Committee, because we are dealing with a law which will vitally affect the lives of thousands of children and millions of adults. It must be as perfect a law as we can make it. If we were able to achieve this in four weeks of Committee, I should be the first to cheer, but if we could not, I would rather see a better Bill go through in a few months' time than a guillotined Bill going through at this stage.
  The first thing that we should alter is the implication that the Bill intends that the voluntary societies should eventually be phased out. The wording of Clause 1 and other clauses—
  Dr. Owen: I should like to make the matter clear. There is no intention that the voluntary organisations and agencies should be phased out. What is hoped for, and what is planned for, is a partnership between the voluntary agencies and the local authorities.
  Mrs. Knight: The Minister's intervention has been particularly helpful. This matter concerns me greatly and I know that the voluntary adoption societies, having read the Bill, feel that their days are numbered. I am most grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I intend to get on record the reason why we must amend the Bill to avoid people working in the voluntary associations taking that view.
  Clause 1 and other clauses—particularly sub-section (7) of Clause 3—certainly give the impression that the voluntary societies are not long for this world. Now that the position has been clarified I am much happier, but amendments must be passed making this clear.
  I understand that there are approximately 70 voluntary societies in the British Isles. As the Minister has said, some smaller ones have recently closed and others are in the process of doing so. Some have adoption as part of a general child care scheme—for example, Dr. Barnardo's—but others exist solely as adoption agencies. All have, at present, to be registered with their local authorities. I welcome the fact that the Bill is changing this to central Government

  1873
  registration. I have no doubt at all that some voluntary adoption societies are not good, but I know that some are excellent and are run by voluntary bodies for whom no praise is too high—and that praise should be put on record today.
  Some people have worked devotedly, selflessly and at no cost whatever to the taxpayer for these voluntary bodies for years, although often at considerable cost to themselves. The volume of experience and knowledge that they have acquired could not possibly be matched by a young social worker fresh from college. Social workers have to undertake many tasks for many disadvantaged groups in their work. The expertise and knowledge of these voluntary workers is extremely valuable and I am anxious that their efforts should be welcomed and that they should become part of a partnership.
  Has anybody worked out what it will cost the local authorities to run the kind of service which these people are giving free and which some societies are seeking to give? Already societies are closing down because the present economic situation has hit them very hard. A quantitative assessment has to be made of how much it would cost the local authority to do the work that is now undertaken on a voluntary basis. Has anybody worked out what it would cost to implement the Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has told me that East Sussex calculates that to implement the Bill in its area alone would cost £1 million per annum.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: I do not want the hon. Lady to mislead the House, but I should point out that the Chairman of East Sussex Social Services Committee said that if this authority were to implement the Bill to the spirit and the letter it could cost up to £1 million.
  Mrs. Knight: This emphasises how important it is for a proper assessment to be made of legislation before we pass it. This has not been done at present. Even if the cost is only £500,000 for that area, that relates to only a small part of the British Isles. A report from Birmingham social workers states that if the money is not made available, well-meaning legislation will be at best marginal and at worst repressive.
  1874
  It is not only the money that concerns us. There are not nearly enough social workers to take over the work implicit in the Bill. The Birmingham social workers say:
  "…there are insufficient numbers of social workers to allocate to children in care in cities like Birmingham. It is no answer to these problems for new legislation to be passed; assurances that such new legislation will not add to workloads have not been borne out in the past. In the present economic climate it is precisely the supportive and preventive services which are being cut back. For example, the recruitment of social workers in Birmingham is currently halted in line with a city-wide freeze on local government recruitment."
  Although the Bill has the good will of all hon. Members, I am worried that we are embarking on this splendid scheme without asking ourselves whether we have the money and the people to do it. It is vital to amend the Bill as an earnest of our recognition that we vitally need the volunteers, not as grudged participants or woolly do-gooders but as valued and extremely important partners in the system. I want these societies to be helped and assisted by local authorities.
  One way in which this could happen springs to mind instantly. Many prospective adoptive parents who live at a distance from the adoption society have to be interviewed. At present voluntary workers go to the prospective parents' home to interview them and then return to their offices. For local authority social workers on the spot to interview instead would be one way in which partnership would be immensely valuable to people in voluntary societies.
  Clause 3 sets out criteria to be imposed by the Government on these societies as standards. But who will impose standards on the local authorities? Some local authorities are very good but some are not so good. As the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will recollect the Houghton Committee said local authorities have made no systematic attempt to assess need or to develop accordingly. In 1973, 20 local authorities placed no child for adoption. In 47 other local authorities, fewer than five children were placed out of all the children who were in their care.
  I should like to read part of a letter by a man who had adopted a child. He says:
  "It is claimed that social work standards are slipping by those with considerably more

  1875
  experience in this sphere than myself, but I can testify, first hand, to the lack of uniformity and the many shortcomings in local social work systems.
  There is a general feeling for the introduction of an amendment to the Children Bill reinstating the central inspection of social services departments to provide a uniformity of standard.
  Many parents like myself, who have adopted and would like to adopt further, are very aware that despite the general social service attitude that there are no children available for adoption, this is not the case. The little boy we have now was tucked away 'in care' and it was mere chance that we became aware of him. There appears to be a general attitude of 'pawns', with the youngsters as acquisitions of some sort of professional game, rather than an appreciation of them as children who should be destined for a family relationship. The standard of knowledge and experience on adoption seems mediocre at the most, and in the social service adoption game the children themselves tend to become ancillary to the academic exercise itself."
  Parliament should think seriously about that aspect of the matter because, although criteria are necessary for the voluntary adoption societies, they are no less necessary within the local authorities social workers department.
  Clause 25 provides for the adopted person over 18 to be given access to birth records. I agree with the hon. Member for Pontypool because I, too, am most concerned about the mother. Adoptive parents often think that it is probably a good idea to make this information available. However, it is by no means the case that story-book endings, with mother clasping child to breast and joyful tears all round, are inevitable. A friend of mine has devoted the whole of her adult life to voluntary work with the National Adoption Society and she has many years of experience on this matter. I listened to her most carefully when she told me that she thought such access could be disastrous for a mother. The Minister said that there was not much proof that this could happen. There can be no statistical proof of worry and there is no way in which we can judge—if we pass the Bill as it stands—how many women are desperately worried that the child, whom they left many years ago and who forms no part of their life at all, might come back and cause embarrassment.
  Mr. Abse: Fortunately, a great deal of evidence has been available from Scotland where access has always been pos-
  1876
  sible and a considerable amount of research work has been carried out on this subject. Although we need to mitigate some of the consequences, I hope that the hon. Lady will not take too definite a stance on what is an important matter for the child.
  Mrs. Knight: I was going by what the Minister said about the evidence available on the Scottish situation. I believe my correspondent is right in saying that it is incorrect that anybody should be given the right by a Bill in this House to wreck another person's life—because this could happen under Clause 25. Supposing, for instance, unhappily, the child had not turned out well and had grown up a tear-away or even a young criminal, blackmail could easily be involved. The House will have to consider this carefully. I hope we shall find time in Committee to alter this.
  I do not think, although I hope to be proved wrong, that the Bill will end the problem of the battered child. Many references have been made to Maria Colwell. But there are many such as Maria Colwell. There are many children—at least five quite recently—who exactly mirror in their experience what happened to Maria, in that they were killed by their parents, and they now lie in graves which have never been mentioned in the Press, either national or local.
  I know of one case personally. I remember him today, a child who, between the ages of three months and two years, was sent back to his parents on three occasions after abdominal operations for the removal of pins. After the third time the hospital had opened the child up and taken the pins from his stomach, the children's department of the local authority, of which I was a member, applied to court for custody of the child. The magistrates believed what the parents said in the witness box and returned the child to them. Within two months he was dead, unhonoured and unsung.
  I am worried about the provision in the Bill dealing with the way in which children may be taken away from their parents. Clause 11(2) says that the grounds for consideration will include whether the parent has persistently or seriously ill-treated the child. Who is to decide? The evidence is that many courts cannot decide the matter accurately.

  1877
  A parent will go into the witness box and, looking at the magistrates with hand on heart, eye as clear as a bell, and straight face, say that the child fell downstairs or tumbled off the table.
  Professor Selwyn Smith, of Birmingham University, has mentioned a recent case in which the father swore that the child had got two black eyes from falling downstairs. Professor Smith, who is an expert, says that no child gets black eyes by falling downstairs. Magistrates will not always have sufficient understanding of a medical nature which will make it clear to them whether a battered child should be taken away or not. I would like to see consultants in child treatment available to be called in for cases of this kind.
  I do not mean to carp at the Bill, for there is so much good in it. But I give notice that I shall move amendments in due course in an earnest endeavour to make the Bill better than it is.
  1.34 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: Some criticisms of the Government has been voiced for bringing in the Bill so late in the Session. But it must be remembered that the Bill started in another place, where it received detailed discussion. Therefore, I do not think there is much in the criticism because, although we ourselves may put down amendments in Committee, the Bill has had very detailed discussion in Parliament already.
  The Bill is undoubtedly a piece of major social legislation. In introducing new adoption procedures, it seeks to uphold the balance between the interests of the child and the rights of the natural parents. As others have done, I want to pay tribute to the work of the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children. I have read its exhaustive report—I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) took a great part in it—and I am glad that most of its recommendations—almost one hundred—are being implemented.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who seized his opportunity to promote a private Member's Bill on the subject. It must be of considerable satisfaction to him to be
  1878
  able to pilot the Bill through the House and to administer its provisions, so a large extent, in the Department.
  The Bill is long overdue. Many years have passed since Parliament legislated on children and their welfare. In an age when juvenile deliquency presents such a problem, when family life in many cases seems to have broken down, when the Welfare State presents to us not only its advantages but the disadvantages of many distractions, the care of the future of children must bring many anxieties.
  We have long recognised that we ought to put the interests of the child first. I believe that we should use the word "paramount". The words used in the Bill are "first consideration". I do not know whether there is a difference between the two. It is somewhat difficult to tell. But I think that "paramount" is the better of the two. The Bill stresses, rightly, that the first consideration must be the child's interests.
  The case of Maria Colwell shocked us all and made us realise how much we fell short in protecting the interests of the child. The ideal, of course, is the happy family, in which the child can be brought up with the love and devotion of its parents. But that, alas, is not possible in many cases. The increase in the number of divorces, the one-parent family, the parent who pays scant attention to the needs of his children, the violence and cruelty which occur in many homes, and the consequent unhappiness that children have to endure, all require us to find some solution, and as good a solution as we can.
  What are we to do in the circumstances? If a child can be adopted and become a well-cared-for member of a happy family, well and good. But how are we to ensure such a happy result? First, we have to find the happy family and, clearly, precautions must be taken to see that the child is suited to the family and the family is suited to the child.
  Then, of course, there are the cases where adoption is not possible—at least at the time—and a form of guardianship exists. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) referred to the voluntary organisations which have played a great part in providing adoption services. Many local authorities have

  1879
  helped considerably. Hitherto, the local authorities have had the power to make arrangements for the adoption of children, but not all of them have exercised that power and provided such services.
  I am happy that Clause 1 lays a mandatory duty on every local authority either itself to provide the service or to do so in partnership with an approved adoption society. I take it that the point of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the hon. Lady's speech was that voluntary societies go on with their work but in partnership with the local authorities. I think that the combination of the Government, the local authorities and the approved voluntary adoption societies provides a genuine safeguard against what I would call the danger of irresponsible adoption.
  Hon. Members may have read the book by Henry Cecil—otherwise Judge Leon—called "Fathers in Law". It sets out the dilemma of an adopted child in a happy family who is subsequently reclaimed by the mother. The story is very good in illustrating the difficulties which attend the present procedure and the unhappiness it can bring.
  I do not think that such a dilemma will occur under the provisions of this Bill. The procedure set out, enabling parental rights and duties to be transferred to the local authority or an approved adoption society so that the child is freed for adoption, is an important innovation and should prevent much unhappiness in future.
  The Departmental Committee recommended consideration in certain cases of "guardianship" instead of "adoption". This has been provided for in Part II of the Bill, which uses the term "custodianship order". There has been criticism of the word "custodian". I am not sure whether the word "guardian" or even "curator" would not be more appropriate. But I agree that the new concept of a sort of halfway house conferring legal status on relatives or foster parents is valuable. I am sure that it will help in cases where the child is being looked after by a relative but it is not desired to make an adoption order, where the child would be completely lost to the natural parents.
  1880
  I have one point of serious criticism concerning one clause, Clause 20(3), which makes a major change in court proceedings. It transfers jurisdiction in these proceedings dealt with in courts of summary jurisdiction from the juvenile to the domestic proceeding courts.
  I raise this point on behalf of the Inner London Juvenile Court Panel, which comprises 120 lay and stipendary magistrates, and sits a minimum of 20 full-day juvenile courts a week. It accepts that in all parts of England except Inner London this transfer will bring very few problems. That is because both types of courts are staffed from the same justices' clerks' offices and are manned by magistrates on the same bench.
  But in Inner London the juvenile courts have for many years been a separate administration. The staff are entirely divorced from the adult magistrates courts. In Inner London all the expertise, both administrative and judicial, in adoption matters before the courts of summary jurisdiction is concentrated in the Inner London juvenile court.
  Moreover, juvenile court justices in Inner London have been selected by the Lord Chancellor for the work of the juvenile courts, including adoption, and they have undertaken training geared for this work. Members of the domestic proceeding courts will not have received this training unless they are members of a juvenile court. It follows, therefore, that the transfer might well mean a serious loss of efficiency, and I hope that this provision will be reconsidered in the light of these facts.
  I welcome Part III of the Bill, which makes certain amendments to the Children Act 1948 with regard to the care of children. Again, there are a number of amendments that the Inner London Juvenile Court Panel would desire to make in regard to this, and there are a number of others that can be raised. I shall not worry the House with them today because they are clearly Committee points.
  I realise that this is an intricate and complex Bill, and presumably that is why more matters affecting children have not been dealt with in it. I have been very concerned about cases of children charged with offences and remanded in

  1881
  custody, and who have to spend such custody locked in police cells or in prisons such as Holloway. I was very glad to hear the Minister of State say that the Home Office is looking into this matter. An investigation ought to be made into the efficacy of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. It is very necessary and overdue. The Finer Report awaits attention. The greater use of the family court may well assist in many matters.
  I appreciate the difficulties and that we cannot do everything at once. These are very important matters. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, despite the calls there are on the Government, they will be pursued with some sense of urgency. Meanwhile, we have this Bill, and I have no doubt that the Committee will look carefully at the provisions and consider any amendments. It is a piece of major social legislation, and I welcome and support it.
  1.44 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: Maria Colwell was brutally killed by her stepfather in January 1973, a few hundred yards from my home in my constituency. This tragedy has left its mark on Brighton and on the country as a whole. I ask the House to understand that my approach to this important Bill is inevitably dominated by the Maria Colwell case, although, I trust, not to the point of impairing my judgment
  I know that the House will bear with me if I pay one or two tributes in the aftermath of the tragedy of Maria Colwell. My first is to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who, as the Secretary of State for Social Services, agreed to the appointment of a public inquiry to investigate the whole matter. This inquiry had been called for very strongly by thousands of people in Brighton and by many throughout the country. The Brighton Evening Argus played a major rôle in influencing those, including myself, who believed that an inquiry should be held. Brighton Council fully supported it. In particular, a former mayor of Brighton, Councillor Sheldon, one of the ward councillors, played a great part in the campaign, along with many other leading citizens.
  The inquiry was held in public in Brighton and was, I believe, the first of
  1882
  its kind in the history of the Social Services Department. Mr. Field-Fisher, QC, acted as the chairman, very ably assisted by Alderman Mrs. Davey and Miss Olive Stephenson. The inquiry took place in full view of the people of Brighton. Many of them attended the hearings of the inquiry on a regular basis. There was widespread praise and congratulation for the way in which the whole matter was conducted. The House owes a great debt to the chairman and members of the inquiry team, and to all who so fearlessly and courageously gave evidence at the inquiry. There was no legal compulsion. It would have been possible for a number of people who came forward to refuse to do so. Every witness deserves great credit for having given evidence honestly, openly and courageously. We are also indebted to all those who helped in the organisation and operation of the inquiry, and in bringing it to a conclusion. The report will, I believe, be read by generations in the years ahead.
  I cannot conclude my tributes without paying one to the Minister of State himself. His work for children is well known nationally, and I am sure that he revels—rightly so—in being known as a champion of the rights of children.
  The people of my constituency in Brighton—and again, I think, people all over the country—are looking to this Bill to become a worthy and lasting memorial to Maria Colwell.
  It is a pity that we have to discuss this Bill on a Friday. There are many Members on both sides of the House who would have liked to be here this morning and this afternoon but who had longstanding constituency engagements, such as we all have in our diaries for Fridays, preventing them from being present.
  I apologise to the House—and in particular to the Members on the two Front Benches—for the fact that I shall be leaving the House shortly after I have spoken in order to return to Brighton to attend a series of meetings there which are vital to the welfare of my constituents.
  In talking of the timetable for the Bill, I leave one point with the Minister of State and ask him to weigh it very carefully. There is a danger that if we attempt to rush this Bill through the Committee stage before the Summer Recess it will not be given the careful, detailed

  1883
  attention that it should receive. In the light of what the Minister has said about bringing forward a number of important amendments there is the danger that there will not be sufficient time for these to be considered in detail, not just by the Committee but by the outside organisations which are interested in and directly concerned with the Bill. If necessary, we should have part of the Committee stage immediately after the Summer Recess. We must, however, ensure that the Bill becomes law during this Session.
  I am sure that the House will understand if I concentrate on Part III of the Bill, which deals with the care of children. The greatest benefit that a child can receive is a secure, loving and happy home, in which he is cared for by those who truly love him. The term "natural parent" tends to imply that any alternative is unnatural. When we talk about a blood tie, we all accept that there can be no automatic assumption that a child is better off with any particular category of person, be they natural parents, foster parents or adoptive parents.
  Each case must be looked at closely and judged on its merits. What matters above all are the rights of the child. When we talk of the rights of the natural parents, we have to ask what those rights are. Can a person who does not love, care for or maintain a child be considered a parent? A true parent is a person loving, caring and sacrificing for a child. Rather than over-emphasise the natural parent and the blood tie aspect, as has been done in the past, we should be talking and thinking about the bond between a child and those who have cared for it and take responsibility for it. The strength and depth of the bond must concern all those who have a part to play in deciding the child's future.
  When we turn to the problem of children at risk, none of us can forget that Maria Colwell suffered sustained cruelty in her natural mother's home. A child can also be at risk if it suffers psychological and emotional damage. When these cases are considered by the professionals involved we must be careful to ensure that confidentiality is not used in a way which prevents informed decisions being reached about a child. Communications and co-operation between all the professions involved must be con-
  1884
  tinually reviewed and improved. When inquiries are made about a child's future, for the purpose of preparing reports, there must be rigorous investigation into all the members of the potential family, their backgrounds and histories.
  When we consider the conflict of interest which, on occasion, so tragically arises between parents and children, we come to one of the most vital parts of the Bill. Whatever the cost, in the long run we must aim for the separate representation of the child in all proceedings. I accept that at present this has to be restricted to care proceedings, because this is clearly the area of greatest risk and importance. I would like the Minister to think carefully whether it is right that that representation should depend on the discretion of the court. It ought to be mandatory in court proceedings, so that the court does not have to make a marginal judgment about representation. This happens and, on occasions, when separate representation has been refused, the court, with hindsight, might have wished that it had made another decision.
  The cost of implementing the Bill will not be small, particularly if it is implemented in spirit as well as in its letter. The money must be made available, or local authorities will inevitably have varying standards. The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) and the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) strongly believe that the Bill will cost more to implement than the Government have estimated. I, too, believe that the Government have underestimated the cost. Surely the nation will demand, even in the desperately difficult economic situation of the day, that children above all must have the highest standards of protection that can be given, even if it means the extra allocation of financial resources at the expense of something else. The effective implementation of this Bill once it becomes law will depend largely on the good will, dedication and good sense of all the professionals involved. Everyone has a part to play. We all have a responsibility for the care and welfare of our country's children.
  1.57 p.m.
  Mrs. Helene Hayman: Although I regret as much as anyone else the poor attendance in the

  1885
  House today, I am sure that most of those here wish to contribute to the debate in an informed and caring manner. It is a shame that the raging argument over the Abortion (Amendment) Bill should have been allowed to spill over into this quite separate debate. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) made an unjustified, hysterical and embittered attack upon supporters of that Bill, particularly on the Labour women back benchers of this House, with regard to their attitude towards that Bill.
  I want to make it perfectly plain to my hon. Friend that it is quite incorrect to suggest that the only arguments used for a liberal abortion law are those concerning the rights of women. Some of us are deeply concerned not solely with the rights of women but also with the rights of families and the rights of children to be wanted when they are born. That is one of the considerations to which we put our minds.
  Mr. Abse: I hope that the hon. Lady, too, will come to the conclusion that a Bill like this is valuable and effective because it creates the machinery whereby children's lives need not be ended by the scalpel. Instead, they can be received into a caring society, with informed laws.
  Mrs. Hayman: I gave way to my hon. Friend, as he did not give way to me, hoping that he would add his comments to those which I have made. I support fully the proposition that children should be deeply cared for by society and by their parents. In that spirit I recommend the Bill to the House.
  We all subscribe to the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount. Having stated that as a principle, we come to difficult questions of definition and interpretation of what is best for the child. Some of us have reservations about certain measures in the Bill because of the stereotyped idea which some people have about what is best for the child. We talk about a loving family, a caring family, but we cannot define by statute whether a loving family situation is best provided by a lone parent who is capable of giving a home to the child or by a totally separate home provided either by the local authority or by foster parents. It is diffi-
  1886
  cult to lay down by statute how important for a child the link with its natural parents is.
  One of my fears about the time limits in the Bill—I am not a root-and-branch opponent of time limits—is that they may mitigate against the concept of the welfare of the child being of first importance. The Minister referred to the three-year time limit as being an important protection for natural parents—an encouragement to them to allow their children to go into foster care rather than the institutional care of a local authority without the fear that they might be snatched away from them.
  However, the fear of many organisations representing parents, particularly poor parents, and many poor parents themselves, is that time limits, particularly those in Clause 50, will deter parents from seeking the social work help that they desperately need because renunciation on a temporary basis may mean renunciation on a permanent basis. That is a tremendously difficult question to which hon. Members will have to address their minds in Committee. There are no simple answers to it. We are not dealing with a black-and-white situation, or automatically advancing the welfare of children, by putting time limits on the rights of natural parents.
  I point out to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) that one reason why the Bill will not deal with the problems and tragedies of child battering is that they are not simply problems of the care, control or possession of a child. They go far deeper than that. They are not confined—and this must be said in an atmosphere which, in seme ways, is antagonistic to natural parents—to natural parents. Step-parents, adoptive parents, foster parents and strangers have all been known drastically to ill-treat children in their care. We must pay attention to this matter at a time when attention is directed at the faults of the system in returning children to their natural parents.
  I do not share the view of organisations which say that this measure should not be enacted unless all the other measures on child welfare are enacted at the same time. We want the right sort of financial day care social support to be provided for one-parent families and poor families. However, it is no good shutting

  1887
  our eyes to the fact that we do not get everything at once. Primarily, the Bill will do an enormous amount to help potential children for adoption. We have had to wait long enough for this Bill. Let us not have to wait longer for the implementation of the Finer Report before we pass this measure.
  Certain provisions in the Bill dealing with the legal processes indicate the need for one aspect of the Finer Report to be implemented, and that is the need for family courts. We are dealing with specialist situations which make great demands on the people who have to make judgments of Solomon about the welfare of children. I fear very much leaving such matters to the present legal situation. I understand what the Minister said about this matter, but I am an advocate of an extension of the independent representation of children in court cases even if we have a family court system.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) spoke about saving on legal aid in order to provide more funds for this service. The legal aid fund is drained of millions of pounds a year because the Supplementary Benefits Commission is forced to insist that women should go to the magistrates' courts and try to obtain maintenance orders against their husbands. This costs an enormous amount of money, and causes much anguish. It is unproductive in cost-benefit terms. The result in many cases is a reductio ad absurdum because the people who do not pay, after the State has paid the cost of the court proceedings against them, go to prison, where they are kept by the State and have the least possible chance of earning the money to pay the maintenance order. We should consider whether savings could be made in this respect in order to get the additional funds which are necessary to implement the Bill.
  Although I do not stand out for total implementation of all the other aspects of social policy and family welfare to which we should like effect given before the Bill is implemented, the reason why many of us have reservations about it and want care to be taken in its drafting is the inadequacies in our social services and social security system. That puts a burden on us to ensure that the Bill is drafted and passed, as I hope it will be,
  1888
  in a form which takes account of the climate in which it is being introduced.
  2.10 p.m.
  Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I am delighted to have this opportunity to welcome the Bill. I appreciate the wise counsel and experience of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), but I take issue with him on one matter. It is six weeks since Easter, and during those weeks each Wednesday I trotted along to find out from the Whips when the Bill would be coming up. During those six weeks the House has sat long hours, often spending time on matters to which I would give a much lower priority than I would give to the Children Bill. The House will forgive me if I am a little angry that we should have had to wait so long to debate this urgent matter.
  I am told that I am rather old-fashioned in my belief in the family and, because I am divorced, I am supposed not to have a belief in the family. I have a great belief in the family. What bothers me more than anything is the amount of abuse of children, which is never seen and hardly heard about until something unusual happens, almost by accident, which occurs in the natural family and never comes to the courts. As the Minister said, we need legislation which provides rehabilitation, but I hope that more emphasis will be put on Part III of the Bill because there are many families who could, with other support, remain together and provide a viable unit. That is what I dearly wish to see.
  The need for a stable background through the years of childhood is an idea which is often cast aside because it is unfashionable, but it occurs to me that I probably should not be in the House today had it not been for the loving relationships I had during difficult times. I am sure that must be true of many hon. Members. We have a stable, constant force behind us on which we can fall back in times of stress and anxiety. If we fail to provide that stability for youngsters when their parents deny it to them, we are setting ourselves a legacy for the future with which we shall not know how to cope.
  The Bill is the first major attempt for many years to consolidate legislation. The Minister said that six months after the

  1889
  Bill receives the Royal Assent the adoption law will be consolidated. I am not sure how that will be done, but I assume that it may be the subject of an amending clause in Committee. I notice that Clauses 24 to 29 modify the 1958 Act but, in all, the Bill refers to 15 other Acts of Parliament.
  One difficulty which will arise for people outside the legal and professional sphere of child care is that if, under Clause 50, a parent receives a letter from the local authority saying that it intends to assume the child's rights, he or she will not know where to go. Some parents will go to the citizens' advice bureau, but there are many families who are unable even to understand commonplace words.
  The directors of social services were concerned that they might not be able to examine the books of voluntary adoption societies. They have argued this matter since the Bill was read a Third time in another place, although the Bill contains an amendment of the Adoption Act 1958 which puts this matter right. Some of the most experienced people in this sphere are bothered that even at the end of our present endeavours we shall not have a consolidated Act upon the statute book.
  Nevertheless, nothing should hold up this vital measure. I am in considerable disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). It is far better to set the framework now than to allow the present situation to drag on, not for another year but for considerably longer, until we hear about family courts, fostering and other measures.
  I welcome the Minister's statement on the grant of aid to further the provision of care. That will be a partial answer to the lack of resources for the implementation of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, but it is by no means the total answer. I am sure that the Minister is conscious of that.
  I have seen estimates of £14 million and £16 million, leaving aside Clause 54, as the cost of fully implementing the Bill. I am concerned that not only shall we not have the resources to implement the Bill during the next five years, but that we shall not have enough staff. Hon.
  1890
  Members have referred to the pressures which the Bill will inevitably put upon social services departments. They are pressures which the departments will all welcome, but with which they will not know how to cope. The social services departments are under pressure from heavy case loads and from the lack of experience of many social workers.
  Experience is needed to enable a person to decide what is best for a child. That cannot be done by social workers who have been out of training for only two or three months. The problems which surround children are of tremendous complexity. One instance of that complexity is the requirement that adoptions by parents and step-parents shall in future be supervised. In 1970, 50 per cent. of adoptions were by parents and step-parents, and that load is to be added to the existing burden on the social services departments. There is also a limitation on the retraining of social workers which forces us to fall back on the training they have already had. I am told that only 40 per cent. of our social workers are fully trained, and it is reckoned that only 10 per cent. of those will have the ability to deal with adoption cases. The case load on that 10 per cent. imposed by a full adoption service will be unbelievable.
  I hope that the Minister, in his wisdom and with his great experience in this matter, will put forward a method of helping local authorities which genuinely wish to implement the legislation but know of no way adequately to serve the needs of the community.
  One way in which local authorities might implement the legislation when it becomes law is by the establishment of a partnership with voluntary bodies. On both sides there is great determination to ensure equality of treatment. Two-thirds of the local authorities which give adoption advice service would welcome the same inspection as for the voluntary associations and that should be built into the legislation.
  At the beginning of Clause 1 is the proposition that every pregnant woman will need care. That care might be from one of the voluntary bodies in partnership with the local authority. I should like to know how the Minister envisages that, if we are to provide a comprehensive service. It is necessary that the

  1891
  facilities covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) should be provided both by the local authority and the voluntary agency, either in partnership over a given area or separately.
  I have a suggestion to make which might save money. There is often overlapping responsibility where a voluntary adoption society is active in three or four local government areas.
  I refer to a local government area in which there is no adoption association. It would be sensible and economical for neighbouring local authorities to work with adoption societies in the areas outlined by health authorities so that they all know their responsibilities. Whatever happens, each adoption society, he it local authority or voluntary, must know the standards and services which are required.
  Referring to the adoption aspect of the Bill, I am delighted that the Government have agreed the amendment made in the other place to the effect that the child's welfare should be the first consideration. It is vital that we should extend our consideration not only to the material aspects but to the emotional wellbeing of the child. It is the emotional factors which will affect what happens to the child in the long term. We hope that we can extend the argument for a greater degree of consideration for the child to demands for a friend for the child.
  The children's friend would not be the adoption officer, who was suddenly brought in when the adopton was about to take place or when the potential adopters were being sought. The child's friend would be somebody who, from the time when the child's relationship with the natural parent had been disturbed, could be alongside that child for the future reference of the social worker. The person might be a relation or a former foster parent with long experience of the way in which children grow up when they are away from their natural parents.
  I welcome the prohibition of independent placements for adoption. That is a definite advance. I appreciate the wise counsel of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). We know that many private placements have been successful. However, it is regrettable that the majority of them, according to the
  1892
  directors of social services, have been unsuccessful. I hope that we shall be able to extend the banning of private placements to the principle of banning private fostering.
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Pontypool said about birth records. It sometimes happens that a child at the age of puberty is determined to find out something about his past. He has ways and means of doing that, even with our legal system. If people are concerned that parents might receive visits from their children many years after adoptions have taken place, as a result of finding the birth certificate, perhaps we should make one restriction. Birth certificates should be available only through the adoption agency through which the child was placed. The Minister mentioned this problem. We must ensure that the relevant clause is not made retrospective, so that parents placing their children for adoption know where they stand. If the provisions were made retrospective problems could arise.
  Mr. Whitehead: If what the hon. Lady proposes were to become the practice under the Bill, it would mean that we were legislating for 18 years' hence and not for the moment.
  Mrs. Chalker: I do not mean that we should legislate for 18 years' hence. Not every child who is adopted is a few months old. However, this matter is open for discussion and I look forward to hearing the comments of the hon. Gentleman.
  This matter causes a great deal of concern amongst parents who have given their children for adoption within the past few years. I have received representations on the matter.
  Clause 13(2) will discourage parents from placing children in the care of local authorities when it is in their best interests that that should be done. We should not discourage people from seeking help because of their fear of being completely separated from their children. That is the way they will see it, even though it is not the intention of the law. I hope that we shall be able to define the meaning of subsections (2) and (3). I have no doubt that in view of our present housing waiting lists there will be many children who should rightly be in

  1893
  care. Some families may not be able to stay together. That often happens in the case of one-parent families.
  Clause 11(2) makes provision for dispensing with parental agreement where the rehabilitation of the child within the family is unlikely. There seems good reason to extend the provisions of Clause 11(5) to the earlier subsections of Clause 11.
  In the past six months I have had increasing contact with people who are fostering children. Foster parents welcome the Bill. They believe that they have something to offer to new foster parents. Those people can help the local authorities. In some areas foster parents think that they are regarded as less than full parents of the children for whom they care. I have experience of the relationship of foster parents and the less experienced social workers who are younger than those who normally deal with child care cases. The foster parent feels that she is doing a favour for the people involved. I suppose that she is. although she enjoys what she is doing. She feels that she could contribute towards the social workers' identification of some of the problems if only the social worker would allow her to do so. Foster parents have suggested that they might become children's friends.
  The custody clauses of the Bill are welcomed. One matter is not covered by the Bill. I have dealt with a number of cases where custody should extend to matters such as passports. The Minister may be aware of one or two recent cases. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) referred to one such case, where a father had a joint passport. There had been difficulties in the family. The children lived with their mother and stepfather. The father snatched the children away and took them out of the country. I should like the Minister and his advisers to consider the difficult passport situation which can occur in a foster home where there is one natural parent and one stepfather caring for the child.
  I shall not go into the problem of time limits. We can discuss them in Committee. I wish to deal with the recognition of non-accidental damage, child abuse, or whatever it is called. It is my
  1894
  experience that there are a number of warning signs to which we turn a deaf ear or a blind eye; we think that things will get better.
  Having spoken to my local social workers and friends about this problem, I am concerned to ensure that we bring into the Bill something like the register of child abuse that is operated by Lambeth Borough Council. Having read the report of the joint committee of inquiry into non-accidental injury to children, with particular reference to Lisa Godfrey, I am convinced that the way in which Lambeth Borough Council has approached this problem is something that we should recommend to other authorities.
  I say that there are warning signs. Perhaps I may tell the House that during the last six years, while trying to help some families in need, I have frequently seen parents who have come to me in need—very often housing need—to discuss this matter. While the children are running around, anybody who has worked with them can see bruising which is suspect. I am not saying that everybody should start to inform upon people, but there is one case in which the authorities were informed quite by chance, and within three months the child had to be taken into care. The initial comment put a probation officer on her guard, and put the local authority social worker on her guard to look further than what appeared in the net curtains. The curtains were opened, people went into the home and found out what was going on. I hope that we can consider bringing in a register on lines similar to that operated by the London Borough of Lambeth.
  I ask the Minister to include in the Bill an information system whereby, if foster parents and natural parents—and particularly natural parents—move from one local authority area to another everybody concerned with the child in question is informed. This system usually works in the case of a foster parent, but not always with a natural parent, and the lack of information between social service departments is extremely worrying.
  I now turn to the thorny question of private fostering. I do not wish to make a case solely on the basis of the evidence produced on behalf of West African families, where many of the children of students coming to this country to study

  1895
  are put into foster homes, usually privately advertised. I know that this problem is perhaps outside our experience in Britain. We do not have the idea of the extended family in the way that it exists in Nigeria and Ghana. In those countries—and others—there is feeling that children are children and are brought up by responsible adults. Frequently, children are given to relations and friends to care for. When students from those countries come here with their children—and I think that there may be some good in counselling them to leave their children in their homeland—they would be well advised to seek not private fostering but the help of the local authority.
  I say that so strongly because there is a language and an understanding barrier. When a Ghanaian woman places her child in a private foster home and says to a white woman "I give you my child", she does not imply any permanence. It is a language problem and one which we could overcome by banning the sort of advertisements which occur weekly in Nursery World, many copies of which I have here. If we were to ban such advertisements we should get over the problem because local authorities would then become involved and there would not be tug-of-love situations when these students wish to return to their homeland and want their children back.
  Under our Bill as we discuss it now in in the House there could be tug-of-love situations which are never envisaged. I do not read West African papers regularly, but the misunderstanding in West Africa of our measures on this issue is something about which we should be concerned because it is not conducive to good relations.
  I turn to one of the Finer recommendations which, above all, is crucial if we are to keep families together. It is that we put money into day care for children so that we do not split families for a considerable time. If that is done we shall take a further step along the road towards having fewer children taken into permanent care. But if children are in that permanent care it should be remembered that they are individuals and they should be individually represented in any proceedings which take place. If it is a money problem, so be it. We seem to be able to vote through on the nod. night after night, things which cause far
  1896
  greater problems for our borrowing requirement than are likely to be caused by any of the proposals in the Bill, and particularly Clause 54.
  I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) that if we were to do away with legal aid for the purpose of chasing errant husbands we should not save that amount of money. If we were to change the present system we should be in the position of having to spend money in a different way. We should be faced with the problem of looking after mums without maintenance and we should not save the amount of money which the hon. Lady led the House to believe would be saved by doing away with legal aid.
  I believe that we can get to the bottom of this problem. Never since I have been in the House have I seen such unanimity of will to get on to the statute book a measure as significant as this. It is a caring will. It is a will which puts this place far above many of the feelings which are being expressed about it now that people can hear all the interruptions on the media. I hope that the will expressed today will be translated into legislation in a very short space of time, having been amended where necessary in Committee.
  2.37 p.m.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I follow the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) in her exhaustive examination of the Bill both in welcoming it and in appreciating that the prime consideration that will face us in Committee, and must face the House on further consideration, is the financial one.
  We are meeting in a situation of severe financial constraint. There are calls on all sides—and we heard it again from the Leader of the Opposition in her political broadcast the other night—for even heavier cuts in public expenditure. To implement the Bill, even to implement the setting up of what is proposed in the Bill in the first instance, will be costly.
  There is some dispute between the directors of social services upon whom the burden will fall, as it will upon their social workers on the ground, and the noble Lord who replied to the debates in another place about the actual cost involved. As my hon. Friend said, there

  1897
  will be considerable further instances where we need to go into the whole area of children's representation in all legal situations where they might be deemed appropriate. This is a consideration which the Committee throughout will have to bear in mind. There are difficult areas where we are looking at the aspirations which the Bill legitimately seeks to fulfil and the real and grim facts of the present financial situation.
  It is in view of that that I must at the outset say that I greatly regret the statement put out today by five voluntary associations. The statement has been put out over the names of and presumably with the authorisation of the British Association of Social Workers, the Child Poverty Action Group, Gingerbread, MIND and the National Council for One-Parent Families. It amounts to a warning that the Bill or at least Parts II and III in anything like their present form will damage the rights of children. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) suggested that it might even be seen by some, were it to go through unamended, as a child snatcher's Bill, as a measure for the transfer of children—people—from the underprivileged and needy sections of the community whose welfare is the prime aim of these five organisations, as it is of all of us, to the better-off who can use and indeed exploit the law as we might change it.
  I regret that interpretation of what the Bill is about. It is ten years or more since we began, at least in adoption, to consider the area covered by the Bill. It may now, with hindsight, be a matter for regret that we were not, simultaneously with Houghton, considering fostering, and perhaps the terms of reference of that Committee might have been wider. However, as I am at present sitting on a Committee with infinitely wide terms of reference, I can see the difficulties in that. Also, it was a great success to get a unanimous report from Houehton of great clarity, which my hon. Friend's Private Member's Bill, of which I had the honour to be a sponsor, essentially implemented. That is probably why there is less controversy over Part I than over Parts II and III.
  I regret what is said in this joint statement. It is suggested that the Bill, if
  1898
  implemented, could expose more children to risk than present legislation. I do not believe that to be the case. I cannot see the Bill coming out of Committee in a form which would put more children at risk, would leave fewer children rather than more able to go into the care of long-term fostering, able to exploit all the advantages which we hope will be given by the custodial relationship, able perhaps to break through the various legal impediments which over the years have stopped many children enjoying that caring relationship throughout their childhood—as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said, the only childhood they get. I cannot believe that the Bill will make their position worse. Essentially, it must make it better.
  Mr. Abse: My hon. Friend gives a well-deserved admonition to the British Association of Social Workers. May I assure him that, on the basis of the many meetings that I have had with social workers on the Houghton Report, I gravely doubt whether what the association says is more representative of social work opinion generally in the country than Mr. Scanlon is representative of the engineering workers in South Wales.
  Mr. Whitehead: I make no comment on who is representative of whom among the engineering workers. That would be out of order in more senses than one. It has been my privilege, however, over the past year throughout my county authority in Derbyshire to speak to gatherings, large and small, of social workers, foster parents and other concerned bodies. I have not had one representation—as well as the meetings, I have received many written submissions for consideration by the Committee and possible amendments subsequently—reflecting anything like the approach put before us in this statement.
  It is astonishing that, after all the years in which this Bill has been considered—the debate that we had on Houghton when the Conservative Party were in power and the many debates in the House of Lords—now, on Second Reading of this Bill, this onslaught on the whole principle of Parts II and III should have been delivered.
  Mr. Andrew Bennett: Would my hon. Friend not at least accept that the British

  1899
  Association of Social Workers lobbied the House early in the spring and that Committee Room No. 10 was full of their members expressing the points of view contained in this joint statement, that the individual groups concerned have been lobbying individually for some time and that certainly my experience of social workers in the Greater Manchester area suggests that many of them have been disturbed since they realised the full implications of the Bill for fostering and child care practice?
  Mr. Whitehead: I take the point about the lobby, which I unfortunately could not attend. I accept that it took place and that Mr. Bamford and others have been here urging this viewpoint on hon. Members for some time. If that is true of social workers in the Manchester area, so be it. My own feeling is that of course there are points to be remedied in the Bill. Of course some things are wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) said, we cannot make the Bill the scapegoat for all the other problems in the area of familial relationships, social deprivation and so on. Of course we wish to see the Finer Report implemented, but it cannot be said that because we are getting the Bill we shall not get Finer or that Finer will be delayed because the Bill is going through.
  Getting in one of these pieces of social legislation, given the priorities which Governments tend to have, is in itself a serious struggle. But there are situations in which half a loaf is better than no bread. There are situations in this House—this has certainly been true of my limited experience—when Governments simply will not, in their first year or two, because they are committed to all the usual manifesto exhortations, give the proper priority to this kind of social legislation. Getting this through now in the third Parliament after Houghton is a major step forward and a particular tribute to the Minister of State, who has, within the Government as he did as a private Member, lobbied so assiduously for the measure.
  I shall say something about some specific points which the British Association of Social Workers has raised, on which I tend to agree or, at least, to see the drift
  1900
  of their thinking. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North will find our normal alliance on matters of civil liberty re-assumed at that point.
  I want first to consider the part of the Bill which, in terms of those representations, is least contentious—Part I, dealing with adoption. Here, as I did in the debate on the Houghton Report—unfortunately, we never had a debate on the Private Member's Bill because of a certain election in February last year—I must declare an interest. I am, as one might say, a child of the 1927 Adoption Act. I was adopted in a private placement—in, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) might be interested to know, a reasonably successful one of the type which will now be outlawed.
  I can therefore speak with some feeling of the effect on my life that the kind of caring relationship provided, in this case by adoptive parents, has had, as her own relationship with her natural parents had for her. All of us can say this. Most of us, I suppose, are where we are because of the circumstances of our environment and upbringing. We should all also have to say that any measure which extended that kind of close family relationship to another category of children in need, deprived and neglected through their only childhood, is to be welcomed.
  I would strongly support keeping Clause 25 as it is. The hon. Member for Wallasey suggested that there would be a problem—an element, I suppose, of retrospective legislation—if we made this measure, as we hope to do, applicable to those who were adopted in the different circumstances of the 1927 and 1958 Acts. That is true, but if the thing is right, it is right. We cannot now say to people that we propose to reform the law to give people access to their birth records if adopted on the day after the legislation goes through and thereafter for a period of eighteen years on, and not say to those adopted under the previous legislation that they should have the same rights and the same access.
  Mrs. Knight: Would the hon. Gentleman not take into consideration the fact that the natural mother also has rights in this regard and that it could have a disastrous effect on her life?
  Mr. Whitehead: Of course I will accept that point, as all of us must who deal seriously with this matter. I have gone through this in my own life. I met my own natural mother when I was 30 and I know that it is a traumatic experience for both parties. I would not necessarily say that everyone should do it. I would say that there should be counselling at the time that the adoption society or the court makes the records available.
  I would say two things to the hon. Lady. First, under Scottish law, as we have been reminded, access at the age of 16 has been for many years a matter of right. Dr. Alexina McWhinnie has produced a book called "Adopted Children and How They Grow Up", which suggests that there is no evidence of harassment of the natural parents or the relationships of the natural parents being shattered or destroyed by the intrusion of an adopted child, as it were, coming back.
  It is a fact, which perhaps the natural parent finds as hard to accept as those of us in this House might, that the adopted child seeking this information and seeking to make himself, as it were psychologically whole is doing it for reasons which have nothing to do with the creation of another substantial familial relationship. Such a child wishes to know who and what he is. This is true as he approaches marriage. As the result of amendments in another place, we have a provision in Clause 25 that, if an applicant can provide evidence that he intends to marry, he does not have to reach the stipulated minimum age of 18. I believe that that is right. It is at such moments that a person wishes to know all the relevant facts and data about his past. It is that quest for data that is essentially needed.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston should also be reminded that many natural mothers who have in the different circumstances of many years ago given up their children, feel as deprived by the blank in their lives as perhaps do the adopted children whom they have lost. They do it for different reasons. They may not merely feel curiosity but feel able to take up that maternal relationship which was broken when the child was only a month or two old.
  1902
  I have had a good deal of correspondence about this matter since the Private Member's Bill was first broached. An organisation called Jigsaw has been set up by Angela Hamblin and others. It is an association of natural mothers who wish to see a register of adoptions open to them. Whether provision for that can be made in this Bill, I do not know, and whether it will be dealt with in the Bill, I do not know. But it casts a light on the approach of the natural mother which is rather different from that suggested by the hon. Lady.
  I want to make one further point about adoptions. There is an anomaly in Clauses 9 and 10 which we shall have to look at in Committee. This is a point which has been raised by the British Association of Social Workers. It appears that, under Clause 9, married persons who can show that jointly they have reached the age of 21 can adopt a child which presumably they had out of wedlock. However, Clause 10 suggests that a unmarried person who has reached the age of 21 can apply for adoption as a single person. If that is so, it is curious. It appears to be discriminating against someone. In Committee, we shall have to decide whether to remove the age limit for married people, or to attempt to bring Clause 10 into line with Clause 9.
  These are Committee points, but it seems to me that we should acknowledge that there are still anomalies in the provisions for adoption left in the Bill as it has come from the House of Lords.
  I conclude by commenting on one or two areas of real concern under the later provisions of the Bill in Parts II and III.
  Although I do not accept the statement of the five organisations about the deleterious effects of the custodial relationship envisaged and the possible drying up of long-term fostering if the implications of what foster parents may hereafter apply for are either custodianship or as adoptive parents after five years, nevertheless I see a certain number of difficulties.
  We have built into Clause 30 the limits of 12 months on application with consent of the natural parent for custodianship and for three years, not necessarily all of a piece, if there is not such consent. A number of people, including the Deputy Director of Social Services in Derbyshire, have written to me suggesting that there

  1903
  is a considerable evidence that the one-year limit may be too little in view of the records that there are of unsuccessful placements which manifest themselves between the first and second years. In the researches of Victor George and others, there is a suggestion that the rate of unsuccessful placements between the first and second years is still running at more than 25 per cent. That is a large amount if we are to make the provisions of Clause 30 applicable in the Bill.
  Here, I join forces with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North. Many people from deprived backgrounds who have let their children go into care and are glad to put them into fostering do not make distinctions between short- and long-term fostering and may consent to custodianship when too short a time span has elapsed. We shall have to look carefully at these time limitations in Committee and decide whether the 12 months minimum is right.
  There are two other matters on custodianship to which I wish to refer. First, what happens to the child if the custodianship is challenged by the local authority and the application by foster parents is turned down? The Bill allows for the child to return to its pre-existing situation. It remains fostered by the people concerned. We shall have to look carefully at the Bill to see whether there are not possibilities of harm for the child where there has been any kind of contest in the courts.
  The other matter about custodial relationships which causes me concern is that in Clauses 30, 34 and subsequently there is no provision for the financial support of those who have taken custodianship. Simply because a person becomes the custodian of a child, he should not thereby lose the financial support and back-up given to foster parents. We shall have to make it clear that this is not to be the case.
  I want finally to discuss the problem of tug-of-love children. A great deal has been said about the danger that these cases may increase in number as a result of this legislation. Clauses 37, 49 and others dealing with this matter have been shaped by the consequences of the Maria Colwell and other cases. One of the main worries is not that these cases will increase
  1904
  in number and that they may be more satisfactorily resolved by the legislation but that immense harm is done to children in these situations. I suppose that that is the point behind the representations of the BASW.
  If we can get in this legislation some provision for anonymity for children in these cases, in my view it will be of immense advantage. A child in my constituency in a children's home was the subject recently of an application by her former foster parents living in Sussex for her to be returned to them. Her natural mother had taken her back from the foster parents and then, because of other difficulties with the sibling children at home, she had been placed temporarily in the care of the local authority. This fact had been communicated to the foster parents. The foster parents began to make a fuss about that and had applied to my local authority to have the child returned to them. The newspapers saw this as a story—a tug-of-love case, which is the newspaper expression—which would sell more papers. On Christmas Eve and Christmas Day dozens of journalists were parked outside the children's home on the lookout for the natural mother.
  I do not propose to name that child. It would be invidious of me to do so. Her life has been seriously harmed by what those newspaper men did. If we can put into this legislation some provision for anonymity for children who are the subject of tug-of-love cases—and there may be many more coming into the courts as a result of this legislation—we shall have done something to minimise the harm done to their lives.
  There are many other points which one could make, but the House will be glad to know that I do not intend to make them. I look forward to a thoughtful, not overlong Committee stage and I hope that the spirit of bi-partisan welcome that this Bill has received from almost everybody I have heard today will be sustained through the Committee and that this much-needed, much-delayed legislation will be on the statute book before the summer is out.
  3.0 p.m.
  Mr. Jim Lester: I appreciate the privilege of being able to speak in this debate, even at this late hour. I am delighted to take part in a debate

  1905
  through which has run a thread of concern and care and a common desire to see the Bill become law.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) in his view that a Committee stage of only four weeks is disappointing. This is such an important Bill that it should not be rushed. It is essential that the change in direction that it represents should have a careful, unhurried and reflective consideration with the good will of both sides, and I would hope that we could go on after the recess to realise the desire we all have of getting the Bill right.
  We could use the Bill to simplify the many current Acts affecting children's welfare, but I understand the Minister's comment that six months after the Bill has been passed the 1958 Act will be repealed and there will then be one Act covering the adoption of children. That is a major step forward.
  I welcome the assurances by the Minister about the resources element and the rate of implementation of the Bill. As a former chairman of a children's finance committee I share the very real concern of directors of social services about the manpower available, the state of training, the financial limitations that we now face and the priorities for local authorities. One has only to see the very sad rate of achievement of the 1969 Act to appreciate this point.
  I compliment the Minister in one respect. For the first time in this House I have heard the expression of a realistic view of the dichotomy which exists between us, here, passing legislation and those in local government who have to carry it out. The Secretary of State for the Environment has said, quite rightly, that the party is over, yet we here are, in a sense, continuing to lay the table with future major legislation. The different approach adopted by the Minister is very welcome. We must look realistically at what can be achieved, and I accept the Minister's priorities that children should come first, but the fact that we have stated that in the House does not mean that it will automatically take place in the budgeting arrangements of the local authorities. In dealing with such a vulnerable section of the community we should, in the interests of the children, get much closer to reality.
  1906
  In considering the major purpose of Clause 1 adoptions we must not forget that 76 local authorities will be starting from scratch to provide an adoption service. Fortunately, local authorities like my own in Nottinghamshire have long done so as a valuable part of their child care service, and they have established a very good record over many years. However, we must not underestimate the difficulties of doing what the Bill seeks to achieve, to provide a national service of a similar high standard. The Minister, who is responsible for the health service, does not need me to tell him of the terrible difficulties over resources. One is interested to see, as one reads the report of his own departmental committee, that it thinks that legislation is important and vital. It thinks that better casework practice and an improved use of existing powers through a significant increase in qualified local authority social workers should also be pursued as objectives of the utmost importance.
  I do not know whether that suggestion is costed in the figures that we have been given as the cost of implementing this legislation—the Government's £8½ million—or the other figures that have been used, including £14 million, £18 million or £22 million. I sincerely welcome the Government's assurance that they will not impose additional responsibilities without providing the resources, and that the timing and implementation of the Bill will be subject to full consultation with those who will be required to carry it out. It would be good if that approach spilled over into other legislation put forward by other Ministers.
  I support the view that the Bill should be considered in the context of what is provided for the total welfare of children. It should not be seen as trying to establish a new fashion. Everything is subject to fashions. We should strongly resist the temptation to suggest that adoption and custodianship are preferable to support in other ways. I quote the example of day care, which 25 years ago was considered unfashionable and harmful to families. It was dispensed with in many areas, but in today's world we see that it has an increasing relevance in keeping families together and helping one-parent families, in particular, to remain as a unit. I remember the fashion of purpose-built children's homes as against cosy

  1907
  country cottages, and the question whether children in care should be out in the country or in town. All that really mattered was the quality of the house parents who were looking after the home.
  We all recognise that the Bill, the Houghton Report, and all the other work that has gone into the Bill, change the balance of interest between children, natural parents, foster parents and adoptive parents. There is a clear division between responsible bodies on the question whether we have gone too far or not far enough in the Bill, and whether it will help or hinder the good practice of child welfare. All of us involved in the debate today are anxious to break the circle of deprivation which we see through children being in care and then producing children who go into care. The same applies to the battered babies syndrome.
  I must confess that, given the statistical evidence available for the reasons for children coming into care, I am uneasy about the provisions in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 13, under which one can dispense with parental consent and free children for adoption, subject to certain conditions. I welcome the Minister's statement that this area is still under review. We all believe that the first interest is the future of the child. In many cases it is important to maintain contact with the natural parent.
  It is easy to say that, but it is much harder for a social service worker, a house parent, or a foster parent to do it, even though it is in the best interests of the child, because with children in care there are many natural difficulties about maintaining contact with parents. The parents may be only a short distance away, but there may be transport difficulties, and there may be other children who need to be looked after. Anyone who has experience of a children's home knows how important contact is, even if it is limited to a birthday card or a Christmas card.
  No one would suggest that we want to support bad parents. Under the existing legislation, bad parents can be dealt with. However, one does not want to see this legislation tip the scales against the interests of the in-betweens, or marginals.
  Clause 13(3) deals with one-parent consent. We know the Press expression "tug-
  1908
  of-love". I find it difficult to imagine anyone involved with a child in a "tug of love" situation. I prefer to describe it as a tug-of-war situation. The subsection should be widely considered in that context. Where the consent of one parent is dispensed with, and a tug-of-war situation arises, a child may be involved in matters of spite, revenge and blackmail.
  I turn to the question of fostering, dealt with in Clause 50. Foster parents do an invaluable caring job. They have a special vocation to deal with difficult and disturbed children who are not suitable for adoption and who require the support of the social services. Although the National Foster Care Association does not regard the Bill as a means of excluding natural parents—it rightly says that fostering is different from adoption—foster parents are pledged to help families in need by caring for their children, and they are warmed by the successful reuniting of caring parents with their children. There is much in the provision which implies that over a period of time a different philosophy may emerge, and that fostering may mean adoption. The vexed question of time limits, with which the Minister dealt sympathetically, may be involved. However, if limits were badly used, or introduced on arbitrary grounds, they could be considered as an additional hazard in regard to the welfare of the children in care.
  We can understand the thinking behind the principle of payment of custodians or adoptive parents. If we analyse the reasons for so many children going into care, which include poverty and the inability of the natural parents to afford accommodation—homelessness, as we call it—we find that it raises the major principle that adoptive parents could expect special payments for looking after those children—payments to which natural parents would not be entitled. This is a matter of balance, which we can examine in Committee.
  I agree that it is vital to put this legislation on the statute book. The good will of hon. Members and the level of debate point to the likelihood of this being achieved. In the final analysis, the Bill will be seen as a major step forward in child care, and it will help those many over-pressed people who undertake this vital work.
  3.12 p.m.
  Mr. John Watkinson: I rise to give a broad welcome to the Bill and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on having piloted it thus far. I hope that it will emerge from Committee before the end of the Session so that we have an up-to-date provision for adoption and other ancillary matters on the statute book.
  I have been a little concerned about some of the reactions from organisations and social workers who are directly concerned with the welfare of children. An article published in The Times today points out that a group of these organisations has condemned the Bill because it seeks to deprive parents of their parental rights. Indeed, there are some who see the Bill as a success for a powerful lobby to promote adoption of children by reducing the rights of those parents, almost as if there were a Machiavellian intent on the part of the Minister to deny parents their rights.
  This is not the case. There is no partisan spirit involved in the provisions of the Bill. If there is, it is directed towards the children who have suffered and who continue to suffer through the deprivation of a normal family home.
  The keynote of the Bill is found in Clause 2. Every other clause needs to be read in the context of that clause, which states that those who will have to manage and bring the Bill into effect must promote the interests of the child and that first consideration should be given to that child. I confess that I am a little surprised that Clause 2 says in relation to the adoption of a child, that the first consideration in adoption proceedings should be given:
  "… to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout his childhood".
  I believe it to be the case that, in all proceedings involving children, first consideration is always given to the welfare of the child. It is manifest in the Guardianship of Minors Act.
  I think that all of us would be prepared to say that the best interests of a child are served if it can be brought up with its natural parent, and we must all be aware that adoption is not a universal panacea and has not been a universal success. Many adoptions break down. We have to admit also that a large per-
  1910
  centage of fosterings break down. One organisation has suggested that we are tackling the problem from the wrong end and that the social deprivations in housing and social services need tackling in the first place. That is corect. We do need to improve our services. But the brutal reality is that we are unable at present to provide for ourselves and our citizens the social background which we all desire.
  In this context, the House is confronted by the problem of children who need the care and attention of us all. To that extent, it is necessary to have the Bill. I broadly welcome the introduction of a comprehensive adoption service. I note, too, the caveat, which many hon. Members have made, that there is no point in Parliament willing the end if it does not provide the means. I note, too, the publication from the British Association of Social Workers pinpointing the extent to which social work and social care are under direct financial threat. I welcome my hon. Friend's undertaking to ensure sufficient funds to bring the Bill into effect.
  There are those who claim that the Bill is primarily an attack on parental rights and point to Clause 13, particularly subsections (2) and (3), in confirmation. One has to take into consideration what has been said. The removal of parental consent is a very serious matter. But it must be accepted that being freed for adoption may have beneficial effects for those children who have remained in children's homes for long periods and who need and can benefit from adoption services.
  We have been warned of the danger of Clause 13(3) being used to extend rather than diminish tug-of-love situations. I should like clarification of subsection (7), which states that:
  "An adoption agency shall not place a child for adoption"
  unless certain conditions have been fulfilled. It may produce circumstances in which unnecessary delays take place.
  We have heard mention of the time limits to be imposed in the Bill—notably, the five-year and three-year limits. I, too, am worried about them. But those who have cared for children are entitled to an interest in them, and we know that whenever court proceedings have been initiated in the past in relation to fostering children and adoption proceedings, all

  1911
  too often the immediate response has been the removal of the child from the home, and thus the attempts of well-meaning foster parents are thwarted. So I welcome the clauses which prohibit the removal of children from those who are seeking to bring about adoption or seeking a custodianship order.
  I note, too, that the Bill hedges itself around with clauses in order to protect the interests of parents when it comes to custodianship, consent and adoption. Very rigorous tests are imposed by this Bill. Likewise I note that, in the clause empowering local authorities to assume parental rights after three years, there again the Bill lays down very strict and rigorous tests, placing obligations upon local authorities to inform parents of what they intended to do, and giving parents the full opportunity to avail themselves of the courts to oppose the measure if they so wish.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the nature of custodianship. This is an area which requires tightening up. There should be more definition of what is meant by custodianship.
  I share the views of hon. Members who find the nomenclature a little disturbing and distasteful here. To say that one is the custodian of a child smacks too much of the jail, rather than of social service and of care. But I think that within that clause we need, as Opposition Members have stated, to ask ourselves questions about what happens in the case of revocation. What happens to the child in those areas where parental rights and control over the child are not given to the foster parents?
  We ought seriously to consider the reservations of the British Association of Social Workers and the Directors of Social Services in relation to custodianship as it concerns children who are in the care of the local authority, because it is here felt that this might impose a real fear upon parents who place their children with local authorities that the Bill may prevent them from so doing. This needs to be looked into.
  I give the warmest possible welcome to Clause 54, which allows for separate representation of the child. From my own experience in the court I know how useful and welcome this clause will be.
  1912
  I also welcome the provision in the Bill which allows foster parents representation in court at the discretion of the court. I know from my own experience in my own constituency of the heartbreak situation of foster parents who see the foster child brought before the court and are unable to express any opinion or any view to that court. I think that this clause is entirely welcome, and I reiterate the remarks of my hon. Friend here when she said that it is vital that we also bring into operation the family court, as has been recommended by the Finer Report. Family law in this country is in a state of chaos, and everyone will be served if there is reform in this direction.
  I give this Bill a very warm welcome and hope that it will find its way on to the statute book at the end of this Session.
  3.24 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Cohen: I shall leave the speech I had intended to make where it belongs—in my folder—because obviously we want to hear replies from the Front Benches.
  I wish first to pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, not only for his comprehensive introduction to this debate but for the work he has done as a Minister and, prior to that, in connection with this subject.
  Most of us appreciate, as I am sure he will, that not only people in this Chamber but people throughout the country will be very grateful for the work done in this respect. I am pleased that at least there is a recognition on both sides of the House that it is impossible to draft perfect legislation. The Minister made this clear. We all recognise that changes will have to be made in the light of experience. This is a sensitive and emotive subject. I have been a member of the Leeds Children's Committee for 18 years and I am therefore aware of some of the problems. It is important that we should have discussed the subject in such a constructive way.
  The Minister will recognise that there have been, there are and there will be, critics of the legislation. I hope that in Committee it will be recognised that those critics are constructive and serious in their

  1913
  concern about the possible effects of certain clauses. I hope that the Committee will look at such things carefully. I know about some of the problems which face children's departments and social service departments. I speak, too, as someone who appreciates the problems of religious organisations. I am aware of their doubts and fears. While I accept without question my hon. Friend's sincerity, I believe that we have to guard against the way in which this legislation is interpreted by the various authorities throughout the country. It is that which is worrying many organisations. I am sure that with my hon. Friend's guidance the Committee will take this into consideration.
  The problems of implementation have been raised today. I appreciate that those who have attended today, inadequate though the total number may have been, have been greatly concerned about this subject. I do not wish to select anyone for particular reference, but it has been unfortunate that Conservative Members should have made such appeals for us to find money to implement the Bill. This is rather inconsistent at a time when the Conservative Party is demanding public expenditure cuts. I hope that those who advocate finding the means to implement this measure will realise that there cannot be this inconsistency.
  The Bill cannot work without the necessary social workers. At the moment, there is an insufficient number of social workers to operate existing legislation. This shortage is not a question of money or promotion; it is one of status. We have somehow to improve the status of the social worker if we are to attract the people who will be needed to carry out this proposed measure.
  I feel that we are being a little too despondent about the effect of the Bill upon the relationship between voluntary organisations and local authorities. In my local authority area there is an excellent relationship between the authority and the voluntary organisations. Such relationships are more extensive throughout the country than we sometimes imagine. Credit should go to local and voluntary bodies, because they have realised that there is a vitally important job of work to be done in the interests of the children of our community. They
  1914
  are prepared to sacrifice some of their own beliefs to work together to improve the situation.
  Many people talk about depriving parents of their rights. For too long we have concerned ourselves with parents rather than with children. This Bill represents a serious and long overdue attempt to try to rectify the situation, so that we may take care of those who at present are probably not capable of asserting themselves and looking after their own interests.
  3.30 p.m.
  Dr. Gerard Vaughan: We were reminded by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) that today is the penultimate step along what has been a very long road. We have had an outstandingly constructive debate. It is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House will bear in mind the admonition of the hon. Member for Pontypool about having one eye on the interests of children and one on the statutory clock. It is significant that 14 hon. Members have spoken in the debate, which shows the wide and constructive feeling which exists in the House.
  We all want to see the Bill on the statute book, but I hope that the Minister noted the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) that we must not be over-hurried in Committee. It may be necessary for us to extend the Committee a little longer than he has in mind. I congratulate him, not only on his initiative which lies behind the Bill but also on the realistic and modest way in which he presented it today. The Minister was right to open his speech by referring to the general issues which lie behind the Bill. That is one of the yardsticks, but only one, on which people will judge whether this is a good Bill and whether it will do what is wanted.
  There is a widespread view that children are not adequately represented in decisions involving their future and certainly are not adequately followed up. I share that view. The May issue of the New Law Journal carries an article by Mr. Brown pointing out that, having removed many of the obstacles to divorce, society feels the need to give much greater help to the innocent casualties of divorce, the children. Mr. Brown

  1915
  goes on to say that there is now an opportunity for a much greater vision, and he calls for a charter of children's rights. I was interested to hear this theme taken up by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).
  Despite the detailed study given to the Bill in another place—and here I should like to say how valuable has been the work of the noble Baroness, Baroness Young—we are still receiving a large number of anxious representations, not just on the detail of the Bill, but on the principles and main objectives of the Bill, partly because of the wider context in which people are viewing it.
  The figures from the Finer Committee—the 1 million children, the 60 per cent. of children needing care who come from one-parent families, the nearly 3,000 children who come into care as a result of inadequate housing facilities, the falling rate of the pay provision facilities—were referred by the hon. Member for Stockport, North and the hon. Lady the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman). I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be wrong for us to hold up the Bill until we fulfilled the other needs in respect of children.
  Had it not been for the number of hon. Members wishing to speak, I should have been tempted to talk about my other professional activities and my experiences with children damaged by deprivation and the number of people I have had to see in custody wrangles and the awareness that it is the on-going conflict and insecurity which damage the children in divorce cases and not necessarily the divorce itself. We can go into such matters in Committee.
  There is a general view, however, that the Bill could perhaps have included consideration of family courts. We shall want to consider that matter in Committee. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and the very sincere view of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) that there is nothing in the Bill to diminish the general abusing and battering of children, and perhaps there should be. We shall want to discuss that in Committee, and we shall want to discuss whether the Bill should include something more positive about the regis-
  1916
  tering of children who are liable to abuse. There is a danger that the child care section will make cases such as that of Maria Colwell less likely but may induce complacency in us all that with the passing of the Bill all will be well. Of course, it will not.
  I was glad to hear the Minister say that he does not propose to amend Clause 2. I was strongly in favour of "paramount", perhaps because of my experience in the divorce courts, but having looked at the legal arguments, I agree with the Minister that we have arrived at a satisfactory compromise.
  I share the anxieties of the hon. Member for Pontypool about the significance to be given to the views of young children. It is one thing to inquire of a child his views about what is happening, but it is quite another to ask him to decide his own future. I am glad that Directors of Social Services bring out this point in their representations.
  We shall want to look closely at the local authority proposal in relation to voluntary societies. Despite the Minister's reassurance, there is a danger of setting up such a range of tasks that all agencies have so wide a duty, with counselling for the prospective adoptive parents, counselling for the natural parent, advice in the court and counselling after the adoption has taken place, that it will be beyond the resources of some voluntary societies and we may lose these societies by forcing them to close down, not because we legislate them legally out of existence but simply because we ask them to take too much work on their shoulders.
  I was glad to see in the Bill a note of the possibilities of collaboration between organisations, and that point was made strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) asked, is it right that there should be one set of rules for a local authority agency and another set of rules for a voluntary society? Surely if two bodies are doing the same work they should follow the same rules. Why not have an inspectorate for both? Why not have a better appeal procedure than that contained in the Bill?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, we shall want to take up Dr. Kelmer Pringle's proposal for

  1917
  a children's friend. It has much to commend it. We shall also wish to look into the provisions for legal aid for childrens' representatives and to consider the probation officers' proposal, which has only recently come to us.
  A worrying aspect is the lack of resources. That question was raised by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston and Wallasey. Already, in a short period, the estimates have escalated from £3 million to £14 million, excluding all the peripheral costs which are likely to be brought in.
  There is a severe shortage of social workers, and only 40 per cent. are fully trained. Where are the extra staff to come from? The Minister said the Bill will be implemented in stages, but, with the greatest respect, that was what was said about the Mental Health Act, and we know what happened over that. That is what we heard about the Children and Young Person's Act, and the Minister himself said how much dismay and disillusion that had caused. I was only slightly reassured when the Minister said that we must not raise hopes beyond what is achievable, because that is exactly what several of us fear the Bill may do.
  This is, of necessity, a highly complicated Bill. The clauses build up on each other. The hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) has referred to some of the difficulties and complexities. For example, Clause 11 (2) is built on by Clause 13 (2), which in turn is built on by Clause 14 (1). That leads to the appalling possibility of a child being free for adoption but not being placed and of having no parent. In that situation a child could go into the care of a local authority at the age of two or three and grow up to the age of 18 having as his only legal parent an adopting authority.
  Clause 33 (3) links with Clause 37, on the matter of custodianship. This makes a mockery of children in local authority care being placed with foster parents. If the foster parents can assume unilateral powers, there could arise a situation of a tug-of-three between the local authority, the foster home and the natural parents.
  As this is a complicated measure, we shall need to examine it in Committee. However, that in no way detracts from
  1918
  the welcome we extend to the Bill today.
  No group or political party has a monopoly of caring and concern for children. We all share the present concern. However, we believe that more needs to be done, and done urgently. On that basis, we welcome the Bill.
  3.42 p.m.
  Dr. Owen: I hope that I may have the permission of the House to speak again.
  In responding to the debate I must comment on the remarkable degree of concern, understanding and depth of knowledge shown about this subject, which has been discussed in a bipartisan manner. I welcome that spirit, which, if manifested in Committee, will ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book this Session. I am determined that that should happen. I am equally determined that the Bill should be given most careful thought and consideration. The exact length of this Session has not been determined. There is a possibility that we shall wish to resume in the autumn. We may be able to deal with the Bill in Committee in the few remaining weeks, leaving more time for us to consider the amendments on Report. The determination of hon. Members on both sides that this Bill should reach the statute book is the confirmation that it will get there.
  Much work was done on the Bill in another place. We shall be able to build on that work. The principles of the Bill will always give rise to discussion. People will always hold different views. I respect those views. However, nobody can feel that he has not been given a good hearing over the past 18 months. I have seen most people concerned myself.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), played a crucial part in this matter when I was a private Member. We had a great opportunity to go through the legislation and the drafting and see for ourselves some of the difficult problems which can arise from wording. What matters is the interpretation that the courts will place on our words. That is why we must be careful.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), stressed the question of resources. This will be a major problem, but it must be faced. Two problems arise when we deal with resources, either to

  1919
  provide more money or to reorientate or redirect resources. There seems to be a strong feeling among hon. Members that the highest priority should be given to the problems of children. If we are faced with the prospect of very little resources we must be prepared to switch resources, painful and difficult though that may be.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and others raised the whole question of child abuse, and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), who had the tragedy of Maria Coldwell in his constituency, referred to this matter. Following the letter that we sent from the Department asking local authorities and area health authorities to set up area review committees, we have received and analysed their replies. Registered systems are now widely used as an aid to management and early diagnosis of non-accidental injury to children. They provide a source of easy reference for hospitals and field workers wishing to establish whether a child is regarded as at risk. The best recording systems can provide a source of information about a number of seemingly minor incidents which together can be built up to give a clear picture that something is wrong.
  So far, 59 area review committees have some kind of central register. A further 20 were on the point of establishing a register and had gone into method and procedures at the time when they started to reply to my Department. A further 14 have the matter under active consideration. For a few area review committees separate registers are kept by the area health authority and the social service department. All but two area review committees have discussed registers in the year since April 1974.
  When the Committee wishes to discuss whether registers should be made mandatory, it will have that background of a considerable and remarkable movement towards voluntary registers and we shall wish to consider and study registration procedures in other countries. The procedure in the United States has not been altogether successful. I am open-minded about the issue. I tend to think that it will come eventually, but at the present time I am delighted at the progress that has been made voluntarily.
  1920
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) and others raised the whole question of family courts. I have some sympathy with their view. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) feels strongly about this. Until decisions have been taken on the Finer Committee's proposals concerning administrative orders, the Law Commission's Report on matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts has been received and the Children Bill now before Parliament has become law in its final form, it is premature to consider the question of family courts. The provisional proposals of the Law Commission's working party were designed to bring the matrimonial jurisdiction administered by magistrates' courts into line with that of the divorce courts. As the Law Commission's final report will have to take account of the Children Bill, it is not likely to be ready until the late summer.
  I ought to deal with another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. He suggested a radical re-examination of the procedure for hearing divorce cases in England and Wales. The Lord Chancellor has under consideration the question of extending to further classes of proceedings the Special Procedure list introduced in December 1973, and he will take particular note of my hon. Friend's suggestion that it could be extended to cases where there are children of the family. I am sure that there will be many direct representations to the Lord Chancellor.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool that the idea of having regard to the wishes of the child is not a new concept. Section 7(2) of the 1958 Act provides that the court shall give due consideration to the wishes of the child having regard to his age and understanding, so Clause 2 does not break new ground in that respect. I recognise the argument that was put forward but contrary views have been expressed on that issue.
  Many hon. Members referred to Clause 54, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool made a plea that the provision should be retained but he accepted that enactment could not take place now with the wider provisions of the Bill and he wondered whether there was some way,

  1921
  by using the Law Commission, which would mean a redirection of resources, or perhaps by switching round present procedures, we could find some way of enacting more extensive coverage when resources were available.
  This is a difficult question. I have to be blunt with the House. There is a tremendous tendency, when legislation is on the statute book and there is a tragic incident, for everyone to say that if it had not been for the fact that legislation had not been implemented, that child might not have died.
  The pressures on Ministers to give way and enact prematurely are considerable. One of the safeguards that we have on full enactment of legislation is that we do not bring forward provisions until we have adequate resources. If we could rely on being able to withstand pressure and not enact until we were certain that the provisions and the resources were right—many people have stressed that the resources of skilled manpower and womanpower are just as important as the financial resources—I would be more attracted to this suggestion. But this, also, is something that we want to consider in Committee. I am very apprehensive of getting independent representation off to a false start, building up false hopes and not matching them with resources, and not fulfilling the hopes that many of us have for independent representation.
  Many hon. Members have raised specific points. Only one hon. Member, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), raised the Scottish problem, when he mentioned the provision for social work purposes. That is the responsibility of local authorities in Scotland as in England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has only recently advised Scottish authorities of the need to review priorities so as to increase residential and other resources for the care and supervision of children. He is now also considering a provision for inclusion in the Bill which would enable grants to be paid as in England and Wales for the construction of secure accommodation in residential establishments for children. So he is considering the Scottish position.
  1922
  There has been disquiet in Scotland about the Scottish custody provisions in Part II. The proposals included in Clause 41 reflect the consultations with the legal profession and social work interests in Scotland, including the Scottish Law Commission. I understand that Clause 41(1) takes full account of the existing right of persons other than the child's parents to apply for custody under Scottish common law. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take careful note of what has been said in the debate. There will, I hope, be a Scottish Minister in Committee to deal with points of Scottish law. I certainly hope so, anyway.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool expressed anxiety about Clause 12 and felt that there might be an introduction of the welfare principle, not just that of practicability. Clause 12 would be read with the welfare clause—Clause 2. We can discuss this in Committee, but I think that his point is covered.
  Many hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), have raised the whole question of whether we should be creating an imbalance between poorer and richer parents. I greatly welcomed the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield when she said that it was not sufficient to argue that the Bill should not go forward purely because we did not have sufficient resources in all areas and because all aspects of child care had not been dealt with.
  My hon. Friend knows a great deal about this. She has been considerably interested in the question of one-parent families. Many hon. Members have stressed their belief that one cannot consider legislation in isolation from housing, day-care for the 0–5 age group, or the whole question of provision. Those outside bodies which have expressed concern have every right to be concerned—I do not resent that at all—but they are misconceived in thinking that, by holding out for such causes one could also prevent this legislation from going through.
  Nor do I think that their priorities are wholly correct. When we talk about costs of this legislation, we should recognise that there are savings. I have not used this argument before, as I am mighty

  1923
  sceptical about introducing new legislation on the forecast of making savings—but residential care is very expensive and is getting ever more expensive. If, as a result of the Bill, some of the children currently in institutional care can be given foster parents or adoptive parents, there is no doubt that there would be savings. So the costing of the legislation is a difficult question.
  That is why we shall gain in knowledge as we implement, and it is why I attach a great deal of importance to implementation in stages after full consultation. What we might think is a tolerable pace of implementation now, we might not so think in a year from now. Therefore, consultation with local authorities will be continual, and in this way I hope that we can meet some of their anxieties.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred to Clause 68. He suggested that it could be amended to enable mothers to apply to inferior courts outside their own areas. Under the Bill jurisdiction for the inferior courts is normally founded on the place where the child is. Mothers will rarely make application under the Bill. There is always the choice between the magistrates' court and the county court; there will be a considerable amount of latitude under the rules, especially for magistrates' courts, with which paragraph 264 of the Houghton Report was concerned. However, I shall consider the point further and draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
  A number of other questions were asked, many of them technical, and some anxiety was expressed about custody and custodianship. Many hon. Members criticised the name. I cannot say that I took on board the name "custodianship" with great enthusiasm. An alternative was "guardianship", which is how many people still think of it. But the problem of using the word "guardianship" in this context, when what is meant is custody, is very formidable under the terms of the law. For those who think of custody in terms of being taken into custody, there is also another much happier connotation—care and custody—which is old and respected terminology in the law, meaning "love and affection".
  1924
  Once we get used to custodianship, I think that it becomes much less fearsome.
  I deal finally with the voluntary agencies, a matter raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), the hon. Member for Reading, South and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). We look for a partnership. I do not want to impose a definite pattern. The sort of collaboration across boundaries referred to by the hon. Member for Edgbaston in some special areas might be a sensible way of using resources in times of restraint. I do not want to impose barriers to a sensible arrangement like that.
  A number of hon. Members asked about inspectorates for the local authority adoption services as well as for the voluntary ones. The Social Work Service in my Department has regional officers in close association with the local authorities, as well as with the voluntary agencies. To some extent, I think that it will provide an information system, as well as an advisory system, on which Ministers can rely.
  I end with these remarks. The Bill is a very difficult question of balance. None of us wishes to take away a child from a natural parent, but we have to try to ensure the long-term interests of the child, which should be before us first and foremost. It is in that light that we have to look at this legislation, and that will be done carefully in Committee. However, I believe that we are close to achieving the right solution in a very difficult area of social affairs and that, with the help of the Committee, given the spirit of the debate so far, we shall achieve a major piece of social legislation, as this will be judged by history to be.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  CHILDREN [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for

  1925
  children, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) all expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the said Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

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

  FACTORY INSPECTORATE
  3.59 p.m.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an immensely important subject which has been largely ignored and which in some respects has been cloaked in secrecy. In June 1974, the Department of Employment proposed that the existing Factory Inspectorate should be reorganised, and that over 100 local offices should be closed and centralised on some 16 area offices. Additionally, it was proposed that the Inspectorate should adopt a consultative rôle rather than a policing rôle.
  It being Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]
  Mr. Cryer: Report No. 1 (Revised) June 1974, which set out the proposals, says:
  "The traditional rôle of the policeman on his cyclical beat, going round every four years to find out what is wrong, is already giving way to a selective approach to factories and management, and these proposals will enable the Inspectorate's rôle to become even more that of the professional consultant dealing with his client."
  In view of the 800 to 1,000 deaths and the 17 million to 20 million days lost each year through industrial injury, and since the inspectorate has been criticised for lack of urgency in prosecution for breaches of regulations—for example in the years between 1968 and 1973 there were about 50,000 eye injuries each necessitating three or more days off work
  1926
  but which resulted in only some 50 prosecutions—there is a real need for the policing rôle of the inspectorate to be improved and enhanced and certainly in no way diminished. I believe that the reorganisation is being undertaken to reduce the policing rôle and to emphasise the consultancy aspect.
  The Factory Inspectorate was not in the first instance consulted about the change and it became so unhappy with the proposals that it refused to implement sections of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 relating to the imposition of improvement and prohibition notices. In January this year a resolution was carried by the Yorkshire and Humberside Factory Inspectorate expressing no confidence in the Health and Safety Executive. In West Yorkshire, the proposals will mean the closure of offices at Bradford, Huddersfield, Halifax and Shipley, with all the inspectors transferred to Leeds. This will mean more travelling time and less inspecting time. This point has been amply confirmed by reports from two trial reorganised areas at Slough and Newcastle.
  After I put down a series of Parliamentary Questions I was invited to discuss the proposed reorganisation with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, Mr. Bill Simpson, and the Chief Inspector. I requested a copy of the Newcastle Report for background information, and this was refused. The Chairman of the Commission has refused to place copies of either reports in the Library of the House.
  I would be very willing at all times to enter discussions, but full information is an absolute prerequisite for such discussions if they are to be in any way meaningful, and I would earnestly request the Minister to press for publication of these reports. I am told, for example, that the Newcastle Report was edited by the superintending inspector before submission in order to provide a less representative view—perhaps a more flattering view—of the reorganisation experience. Only publication will offset this sort of claim.
  It is to the credit of the Slough area that no editing was apparently done and that the unvarnished observations of those carrying out the experiment are consequently included. On page 7 of that report, it is made clear that accidents

  1927
  have occurred in the food and printing processes which have not been investigated due to the extra burdens of administration placed on the inspectorate. It says:
  "It has been necessary for expediency to cancel investigations of many accidents which ought to have been followed up."
  Of course, as a result of this inability to carry out their functions, a number of the inspectors in the experimental areas have certainly been dispirited. On page 9, the principal inspector commented
  "I have to say that I have found the Area scheme totally disappointing and almost totally disastrous.… I have to insist that my inspectors (and I) have worked far harder than ever before to achieve a lesser result in terms of effective inspection. I have become increasingly alarmed at the effects on inspectors' health, well-being and morale as the scheme has progressed in time. I have become increasingly convinced at the same time that no one outside the Area cares about this aspect or is willing to listen to argument on this point."
  A responsible employee of the commission, one assumes not a person given to outlandish statements, is there saying, in effect, that the reorganisation is being forced through with no recognition of valid objections or of the difficulties which have been created. The same principal inspector concludes:
  "1. My inspectors and I are opposed to the current Area scheme. We found ourselves more efficient (and, possibly irrelevantly, healthier and happier) under the divisional and district scheme.
  2. We accept the propounded advantages of specialisation, but only in certain industries, limited in number, which can be identified and debated in future.
  3. We deny totally that there is any real benefit in centralisation of offices."
  Those are the conclusions of one sector of the experimental area, but trade unionists to whom I have spoken all over the country are extremely alarmed that area offices are now to be so remote from many workplaces that inspectors will not be able to visit a factory to inspect an alleged breach on the same day as the report is made in many cases. This will undoubtedly lead to more breaches of regulations, because the ability of shop stewards to telephone a district office where speedy access is frequently available is a powerful deterrent to employers to avoid breaches of the various Acts. That is clearly borne out on page 8 of the
  1928
  Slough report, where an inspector comments:
  "I must make the bulk of my visits by appointment to produce maximum use of my time … Occupiers and employees are concerned at the 'remoteness of inspectors.'"
  On page 2 he says:
  "It is fair to question the concept of a single area office being able to provide the Inspectorate in particular and the public at large with an efficient and immediate service."
  There is concern that one area office, serving a large geographical area, will not be able to provide the sort of service that has hitherto been provided. I have already made it clear that many of us regard that service as being less than wholly satisfactory.
  The basis of the reorganisation is that it is necessary to build up specialist knowledge and information. That, again, is challenged in the Slough Report, where it is pointed out that 85 per cent. of inspectors' work is common to all industries. On page 13 a senior inspector states:
  "Eighty-five per cent. of problems are common to all industries. Therefore the remaining 15 per cent. can be solved by the Field Support Units."
  An inspector in another group raised on page 21 the question of the difficulties of narrow specialisation, saying:
  "In the district we were all on common inspection, and discussion between ourselves on problems and matters encountered were educational and mutually helpful. I feel we are now breaking down to discussion only within our particular group, which in the long run will lead to a generally narrow field of knowledge individually. It is possible that the versatility of the present inspectors will be lost."
  Indeed, as specialisation develops there will be no foundation of general experience for inspectors to build on.
  The report on the Flixborough disaster, for example, makes it clear that the sort of knowledge required to prevent the design faults inherent in the plant, now falling under Section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, and the subsequent design faults in the repairs, would be far and away more specialised than could possibly be envisaged in any of the proposed area offices. Such knowledge would be so specialised that it could be available only from a special source to

  1929
  supplement the general work of the inspectors.
  The Flixborough report also shows that there was a strong emphasis on getting the plant on stream again, which led to a disregard for adequate design and testing. This emphasises the need for the police rôle of the inspectorate, with less emphasis on the consultancy. The claim that, for example, the health of asbestos workers at Southwark and Hebden Bridge was due to lack of specialist knowledge, a claim made by the chairman of the commission in a letter to one of my hon. Friends, is ludicrous. Every shred of evidence in those unfortunate circumstances points not to a lack of knowledge but to a deliberate and persistent ignoring of various regulations and a lack of will by the Inspectorate to undertake prosecutions for breaches. Affidavits have been made to the Ombudsman to the effect that such breaches have been made for many years. This question is now under investigation.
  A Law Lord described the Inspectorate's attitude towards such projects as "supine"—but, happily, evidence indicates that that attitude no longer persists. But if reorganisation is persisted in, every opportunity will be given to the Inspectorate to evade its rôle as policemen and to supplement that rôle with the rôle of consultancy.
  On average, in each year 250,000-plus visits are made by factory inspectors, let alone about 1,200 or so prosecutions undertaken per year. It is clear that the rôle of policemen should be supplemented rather than diminished. Emphasis is always put on the need to recruit more inspectors, but the Slough Report indicates that under the proposed reorganisation this might be difficult.
  On page 20 of the Slough Report an inspector quotes as follows:
  "In my opinion Area South is a dismal failure. I have tried to work to an acceptable level throughout the year and with myself acting as David and monolithic Slough acting as Goliath. I think I'll win, but it's going to be a long struggle. I have from time to time become very despondent and depressed, a feeling shared by many, as to the futility of the way we are having to operate, greatly understaffed, and having to cover over 130 miles daily just to carry out office work. … Other than leaving the Department, I can see no way in which my lot can be improved, as the next six months seem to have only more misery in store for all of us."
  1930
  Although at a time of increasing unemployment, recruiting should not be difficult, the long-term prospects inevitably mean that factory inspectors are forced to accept a reorganisation which they do not want since it involves excessive travelling. I am told that a principal inspector in the South Area covers 26,000 miles per annum. When trade improves those inspectors will move elsewhere, and we are urgently in need of dedicated inspectors to ensure higher safety standards in industry.
  The Minister may claim—indeed he has already done so—that the Safety Inspectorate, through its organisation the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, has voted for the reorganisation. But this is only part of the case. The vote was for a package deal which included a pay increase, and a certain alteration of structure, and reorganisation was only one minor part of the deal. A letter from the Institution makes this emphatically clear. The letter says:
  "Since we represent all of the Factory Inspectors we have naturally been following with interest your campaign … on the subject of the Factory Inspectorate and, in particular, the idea of concentration in a fairly small number of centres. We are of course engaging in discussions with the Department on this subject… We certainly do not go along with the view that all will be well if the reorganisation report is implemented. We do not think that it will and we are quite clearly on record that we are not having it implemented as it stands."
  One of the items of further concern is that the trade unions representing agriculture inspectors can point to the expressions of concern among the Factory Inspectorate and put forward that concern as a reason for opposing the absorption of its members under the Health and Safety Commission. I am keen—I am sure the Minister is, too—that the inspection of agriculture should come under the commission and I am certain that he is as anxious as I am to ensure that the move is harmonious.
  Although factory inspectors are employed by the Government, a number of them felt justified in drawing the attention of their members to the grave deficiencies in the proposed reorganisation. One inspector came to see me and made a number of points. I am respecting his confidence since he clearly feels—I believe incorrectly—that his career prospects

  1931
  might be prejudiced by a revelation of his position. He says:
  "One of the advantages of the present organisation is that the general inspector, that is to say the inspector dealing with all industries in a locality, is in a position to relate problems to the overall situation. In short, he can place some order of priority on the problems which exist in his district. It seems clear, therefore, that the Health and Safety Executive's proposals for the reorganisation of the Factory Inspectorate are misconceived. They involve a waste of valuable resources, namely the inspector's time. They almost certainly mean a lowering of the standard of service, both to the employer and the working population, in so far as inspectors will not be as accessible as they have been in the past. And finally, they mean eventually that the Inspectorate will lose its ability to deal with matters on a priority basis.
  One final question should be asked. Why has the HSE produced such proposals at such a time? Clearly, they want specialisation. Is it because they wish the state, through the factory inspectors, to provide a safety health and welfare advisory service for the larger firms? For this is what their proposals mean. Is this a job that the state, the taxpayers, should be doing for large-scale private industry? Or is it a job that industry ought to take on itself, leaving the Inspectorate to perform its watch-dog or policing role?"
  Thus, there is genuine concern among the inspectorate about the reorganisation. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares that concern and, like me, would wish to reduce the loss of life and limb in industry by improving the efficiency and vigilance of the Inspectorate.
  I also recommend very strongly to my hon. Friend that he should press the Health and Safety Commission to halt the reorganisation, particularly as a new and much more comprehensive measure, the Health and Safety at Work Act, is to apply, which makes reorganisation at this time doubly difficult.
  Could my hon. Friend institute consultations with the trade unions at district level to see how they feel that the Inspectorate could be improved? Could he encourage further consultations with the Inspectorate so that some of the valuable suggestions contained in the reports can be adopted? The working party on reorganisation is not sufficient, as it is too much committed to the proposals.
  If such suggestions were adopted, I am certain that it would please the Inspectorate and the working people who daily face the difficulties and dangers
  1932
  which cause so much suffering in industry and would be a real step towards reducing the loss of life and limb.
  Finally, can my hon. Friend press for publication of the two reports for Newcastle and Slough, so that the debate can continue in an informed and intelligent manner before the reorganisation is implemented?
  4.17 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the reorganisation of the Factory Inspectorate yet again, as it gives me an opportunity of discussing fully this important and complex subject. The vital questions to ask are, firstly, what it is that the Factory Inspectorate is intended to achieve, and, secondly, is it so organised as to achieve its aims? We must face squarely criticisms of the previous arrangements, but it would be wrong to suggest, as my hon. Friend does, that the factory inspectors of the past have worked other than with energy and dedication. They have made a significant contribution to the safety and health of our work people.
  Looking to the future, the answer to the questions I have posed must surely be that we need a Factory Inspectorate which is vigorous in enforcement and authoritative in its advice. To be this, it must be so organised as to reflect its new duties and responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, so organised as to deal with the industrial realities of the mid-seventies, so organised as to make the best use of the resources given to it to raise the standards of health and safety of all at work.
  If no improvement can be discerned in the workplace, and if industry does not get authoritative advice, it matters little how many inspections are made, accidents investigated, notices served or offences prosecuted. Our yardstick is the benefit to the worker or his neighbour who may be put at risk by work activities. It was with this aim in mind that the factory inspectors and others who made proposals for reorganisation set about their task.
  Let me paraphrase some of the criticisms made in the 1972 Robens Report. The report said that the work of the

  1933
  Inspectorate was based on outworn conceptions of industry and was insufficiently responsive to its changing needs. Modern industrial techniques required a deeper knowledge of specific processes, a readier access to highly qualified specialists and a more closely integrated field structure capable of offering sophisticated administrative, technical, scientific and information support.
  Robens therefore recommended that units in the field should be large enough to comprise a wider range of specialisation and skills and to have the status and authority to deal on the spot with difficult problems and organisations, and that the cyclical pattern of routine visits should give way to a programme which concentrated on major problems identified by a more systematic analysis of all available statistical and other data.
  Serious incidents such as the explosions at Flixborough, Sheffield and Dudgeons' Wharf, the structural failures at Loddon Bridge and Brent Cross, and the ill-health of asbestos workers in Southwark and at Hebden Bridge, contrary to the assumptions of my hon. Friend, have emphasised the need for a more specialised and professional approach to problems arising from new and sophisticated industrial techniques.
  Is it sensible that an individual inspector should be responsible for the advice to be given in 20 or 30 difficult and risky industries? The Mines Inspectorate would not attempt it, and I am sure that several Members of this House would be angry if we tried to make them do so. As my hon. Friend recognises, the present proposals represent a movement away from the "general practitione" factory inspector, dealing with all problems within a given geographical area, towards a greater degree of specialisation by industry.
  This involves, first, creating a number of industry teams; secondly, limiting the range of industries which the other general inspectors cover; thirdly, making the specialist support of engineers, chemists, and so on, more readily accessible to the industry teams in the field; fourthly, providing an efficient local information advisory service to both sides of industry; and, lastly, providing adequate administrative back-up for all these activities.
  1934
  A copy of the report of the Planning Unit set up to make reorganisation proposals is available in the Library. Taking into account the existing manpower of the Inspectorate and the need for units to be sufficiently large to provide the more sophisticated administrative, technical and information support required, the Planning Unit proposed reorganisation, as my hon. Friend said, into 18 areas, a number of which might be increased as the Inspectorate grows larger. I can assure my hon. Friend that there are plans to increase the size of the Inspectorate by about 50 per cent. over the next five years.
  As he recognises, before full reorganisation it was decided to test the validity of these proposals on an operational basis. Two trial areas were therefore set up, one in the North-East, based on Newcastle-on-Tyne, and the other in the South based on Slough. These were chosen because they contained widely differing types and concentrations of industry. Inspectors in the two areas were backed by a group of chemical and mechanical and civil engineering inspectors working from Watford.
  The trial schemes proved extremely useful in identifying both the advantages of the new method of working and also the operational problems that had to be solved. Certainly there were a number of difficulties, including the location centrally of an area office of adequate size, the recruitment and training of new clerical staff, and the inadequacy of temporary telephone arrangements. But valuable lessons were learned from the trials and they will be taken fully into account as reorganisation goes ahead.
  The two main issues which the Inspectorate must face are the increase in travelling time and the closure of certain local offices. Where inspectors have a large area to cover, travel to and from certain factories will take longer than from a local office. This extra travel time has to be balanced against the gain in the quality of the inspection which comes from a more specialised industry approach. Surely an inspector who knows the industry well has seen the best that can be achieved in that industry, and is in touch with developments nationally, is better suited to advise, and more confident to enforce high standards, than an

  1935
  inspector who has not got that depth of knowledge and experience.
  The intention to close a number of local offices has understandably given rise to fears that factory inspectors will be less accessible, and therefore that the service provided for that area will be less effective. I am assured by the Health and Safety Commission that the aim of the reorganisation is to enable inspectors to develop more intimate contacts with both sides of the industries they serve and to provide a better service. The provisions of Section 28(8) of the Health and Safety at Work Act on disclosure of information to work people will in any case lead to closer contact between inspectors and representatives of work people. The provision of better executive and clerical support should provide a better response to telephone inquiries and also enable the senior inspectors in the area to spend more time in dealing with industry's problems at the workplace and less on office administration. Employers and workers alike wish to see the inspector not in his office but at the place of work. That is right.
  My hon. Friend can be assured that the need for local offices in geographically larger areas has been fully demonstrated by the two trial schemes. These local offices will be fully staffed and equipped. This decision means that more of the existing back-up staff will be offered the prospect of employment with the Inspectorate within reasonable travelling distance of their homes. Negotiations are still going on about the number of local offices needed to support the area offices and the towns in which these should be set up. I can say, however, that 87 of the 126 divisional and district offices are in, or are within reasonable travelling distance of, a town where an area or local office, in which the staff could be employed, is at present proposed.
  Although every effort will be made to retain skilled staff from district offices which close it is accepted that in some cases this may not be possible, and in these cases the office will remain open until satisfactory alternative employment within the Civil Service has been found for those members of staff. It should not be forgotten that even under the present system occasions regularly arise where
  1936
  staff have to change offices for purposes of career planning or promotion, and the necessity for this is accepted by staff.
  The advantages of the new method of operation were quickly realised in the trial area in the North-East. Inspectors specialising in such industries as chemicals, shipbuilding and iron and steel generally gained greater satisfaction in their work and rapidly became more knowledgeable and more expert in uncovering and in dealing with the problems in these industries. The size of the area office gave improved efficiency and enabled the area director to exercise tighter control over the staff and its work. The difficulties experienced in the South area can be overcome and discussions with the staff are still in progress on the best means of doing this.
  One of the most important functions of the new style area director is to establish and maintain closer relationships with both sides of industry. In each of the trial areas the new method of operation enabled him to spend more time than hitherto in consulting trade union officials and senior managers in industry and many expressed satisfaction with the new arrangements.
  Before the start of the two trial schemes, copies of the Planning Unit report were sent to the TUC and CBI and informal discussions were held with them. At the end of the trials a paper produced by the executive was also made available for use by the TUC and CBI to consult their members. Subsequently the Commission agreed in principle to the reorganisation proposals but stressed the need, as my hon. Friend asked, for consultation on the details with local trade union and employers' associations. Local consultation was carried out in the two areas where the trial schemes took place.
  The staff of the Inspectorate and the staff associations have been fully consulted from the start on all aspects of the reorganisation. Copies of the Planning Unit report were made available to all staff. During the trial schemes a joint working party of the staff associations concerned and members of the Health and Safety Executive met regularly to consider their effectiveness. The report of this working party has now been circulately widely in the Factory Inspectorate. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House and my hon. Friend has

  1937
  received a copy recently. A statement agreed with the chairman of the staff side, fully setting out the position, was issued recently by the Director-General of the Executive. Time prevents me from reading its contents but I will arrange for my hon. Friend to receive a copy.
  The Director-General, the Chief Inspector and his senior inspectors, all men of relevant experience, agree that overall the benefits of reorganisation in terms of more authoritative advice, heightened impact and greater personal job satisfaction for many inspectors seem to be
  1938
  real, and with careful forward planning there need be few attendant difficulties.
  The Health and Safety Commission, which is strongly representative of trade unions and employers, believes that it is right in adopting this approach to the task of raising the standards of health and safety of all at work in this country. I look forward, as I am sure the House does, to seeing the tangible results of its endeavours.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

INDUSTRY
  RB211–524 Aero-engine
  RB211–524 Aero-engine
  MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY)
TRADE
  Exports (Performance Bonds)
  Exports (Performance Bonds)
  Hang Gliding
  Hang Gliding
  Surgical Products
  Surgical Products
  British Caledonian Airways
  British Caledonian Airways
  Steel Products
  Steel Products
  Butter and Margarine
  Butter and Margarine
  Commercial Travellers
  Commercial Travellers
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
DEFENCE
  NATO Aircraft
  NATO Aircraft
  Women's Royal Voluntary Service
  Women's Royal Voluntary Service
  Royal Auxiliary Air Force
  Royal Auxiliary Air Force
  Air Transport
  Air Transport
  Aircraft (Disposal)
  Aircraft (Disposal)
  Pay
  Pay
  Cheddington Depot
  Cheddington Depot
ENVIRONMENT
  Scottish Parliament Site, Perth
  Scottish Parliament Site, Perth
  Local Authority Staffs
  Local Authority Staffs
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Authorities (Members and Staffs)
  Local Authorities (Members and Staffs)
  Councillors
  Councillors
  Local Authorities (Duties)
  Local Authorities (Duties)
  Water Authorities (Direct Billing)
  Water Authorities (Direct Billing)
  Motorway Verges
  Motorway Verges
  Archaeology (Scotland)
  Archaeology (Scotland)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Research Institutions (Rate Relief)
  Research Institutions (Rate Relief)
ENERGY
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Street Lighting
  Street Lighting
  Gas Supplies (Domestic Consumers)
  Gas Supplies (Domestic Consumers)
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Conservation ("Save It" Campaign)
  Conservation ("Save It" Campaign)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Social Security Benefits
  Social Security Benefits
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Oil Tankers
  Oil Tankers
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits and Incomes
  Benefits and Incomes
  Vinyl Chloride Monomer
  Vinyl Chloride Monomer
  Redhill Hospital
  Redhill Hospital
  Nursing Agencies
  Nursing Agencies
SCOTLAND
  Fishing Gear Damage
  Fishing Gear Damage
  Archaeology
  Archaeology
  Housing (Glasgow)
  Housing (Glasgow)
  Housing (Personal Expenditure)
  Housing (Personal Expenditure)
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
EMPLOYMENT
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Employed Persons
  Employed Persons
  Margarine Production
  Margarine Production
  Public Administration
  Public Administration
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sheep Scab
  Sheep Scab
  Beef Token Scheme
  Beef Token Scheme
  European Community (£ Sterling Rate)
  European Community (£ Sterling Rate)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Beira Patrol
  Beira Patrol
  Mr. Tindemans (Visit)
  Mr. Tindemans (Visit)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Pensioners
  Pensioners

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.
The Viscount Portman—Took the Oath.
The Lord Geddes—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY LICENCES
The Earl of KINNOULL: 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 why the Civil Aviation Authority are phasing out their responsibility of licensing aircraft engineers; whether they will reconsider this decision in the interests of flight safety; and, if not, what safeguards have been made to ensure a level of training among airline operators compatible to the unified standards, demanded by the approved maintenance scheme.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority to decide and Her Majesty's Government have not yet received any recommendation from the Authority. The Authority, however, do not intend to phase out their responsibility for licensing aircraft engineers. The proposed changes which are intended to contribute to safety, while providing for a change from individual to corporate responsibility for the overall maintenance task, would also introduce substantial safeguards by way of control by the Airworthiness Division of the Authority over those organisations which would achieve CAA approval for this task. Such safeguards would include for the first time minimum CAA licence qualifications for all engineering staff employed by these organisations, which provide certification required by the Air Navigation Order.
1080
Further, a meeting has been held between the Airworthiness Requirements Board, who are by Statute the advisers to the Authority in such matters, and representatives of aircraft maintenance engineers. At this meeting some suggested amendments were proposed which are now being considered by the Authority. The Authority have not come to any final decision on the matter. It is hoped that a decision will be reached within a few months.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does he agree that there would be very genuine concern if there were any lowering of the present maintenance standards and, indeed, of the qualifications of the engineers? As the present proposals are almost identical to those which were being considered in 1968, can the noble Lord say what are the changed circumstances? Secondly, can the noble Lord say whether, if it is decided to proceed with the changes, an order will be laid before the House to amend Article 9 of the Air Navigation Order?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as regards standards, the intention is to raise not lower them. Regarding the technical points about re-laying Orders, et cetera, may I write to the noble Lord about the matter?
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, finally may I ask the noble Lord whether the British Airline Pilots' Association will also be consulted during the consultation period?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I imagine that all the people concerned will be consulted.

ELECTORAL REFORM
11.10 a.m.
Lord ALPORT: 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 when, following Lord Harris of Greenwich's statement in the debate of 23rd April, it is intended to institute an examination of the reform of the electoral system by means of a Speaker's Conference or otherwise.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the Prime Minister hopes shortly to initiate consultations between the leaders of the Parties about reconvening a Speaker's Conference, and one of the matters for consideration will be whether such a Conference should examine the question of electoral reform.
Lord WADE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is now widespread recognition of the need for electoral reform? In the light of this, should not the first step be a clear statement of principle in favour of reforming the electoral system, and would it not then be appropriate to set up some body—not necessarily a Speaker's Conference—to study the details and to report to Parliament without delay?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that this matter was debated in the House on 23rd April. On that occasion the matter was gone into in very considerable detail, and I do not wish today to add anything to what I said then.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that when the noble Lord talked about "widespread support" he was talking about a widespread propaganda campaign which is being waged at the present time in favour of electoral reform? Also, will he bear in mind the very great danger that under such a system as the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches proposes, it might turn out that a very small minority Party in this country could wield the ruling power in Parliament?
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they realise that this is not a pure propaganda campaign, but that there is very widespread feeling throughout the country that this matter should be examined? It would be a great mistake to take the point of view of the noble Lord who has just spoken, and take a pre-judged view of the matter, until it has been properly examined.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have noted the views expressed by the noble Lord opposite who initiated the debate in April, and by my noble friend. However I repeat, in the light of what I have said today, that I do not
1082
think it is appropriate for me to add anything.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is taking into consideration the effect of different kinds of representation in other countries, the unfortunate result of which is that in some of them the direct representation of the people in the constituencies is very severely damaged by other methods, and that our method is as good as any that you can find anywhere?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this is no doubt one of the matters which could be discussed at the Speaker's Conference.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, had not we all better keep open minds if the matter is to be examined?
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, are the Government aware that in Scotland there is a very strong feeling in favour of proportional representation to be applied to the proposed Assembly?

BEEF IMPORTS FROM BOTSWANA
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the maximum allowance for the current allocation period for exports of beef from Botswana to Britain under the Lomé Convention, what amount is estimated to be imported, what is the gross amount of the levy and by whom it is initially paid.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the present arrangements for trade in beef between the European Economic Community and the countries covered by the Lomé Convention allow Botswana to send a maximum of 7,567 metric tons of beef to the Community in the period up to and until 31st August 1975. The whole of this allocation has now been licensed for import. The latest estimate is that around 3,200 tons have been imported. About £1 million has been paid in levy so far by the importer.
Lord HALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, and

1083
being grateful for the re-assuring answer given by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts to the observations of my noble friend Lord Brockway in the debate on Wednesday, may I ask whether he realises that there appears to be some apprehension about the Lomé Convention? Does he realise that it is reported that the cattle ranchers are being called upon to pay the levy in advance and to have it repaid later—no easy matter in a country with a population of about three per square mile and limited communications—and that it is of the greatest possible importance, in view of the important developments taking place in Botswana and our very old association with the President (not invariably happy, but that was not his fault) for us to take every step to provide a re-assuring organisation to a country whose production of beef is liable to be very seriously affected by drought?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, of course we note carefully what my noble friend has said. Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the problems caused by the present arrangements. Indeed, that some action might be required was foreseen by the Lomé Convention. We believe that the Community has a moral obligation to ensure a rapid and satisfactory solution. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be raising the matter at next Tuesday's meeting of the Council of Foreign Affairs.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is it not the case that we can now bring pressure to bear in the Community to iron out anomalies of this kind, now that we are staying in?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. I am sure that what my noble friend has said is right.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming the fact that the Government are to take up this matter with the European Community, may I ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the apparently authoritative statement in the Press that Botswana has not been paid for its beef imports since last March? In view of the distress among the farmers in Botswana, if this is true can Her Majesty's Government expedite the payment?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I will certainly look into what my noble friend has said. My information is that about £1 million has so far been paid in levy by the importer and that this is about half of Botswana's total return.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication whether the current allocation of beef—to which the original Question referred—is greater or less than it was before Botswana had the advantage of the Lomé Convention?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the quotas are based on the quantities sent by each country to the Community countries in their best year over the period 1969 to 1974.

EGYPT: SUPPLY OF ARMS
11.16 a.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 a request has been received from the Government of Egypt for a supply of military weapons and equipment and with what result.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, it has not been the normal practice of successive Governments to discuss individual requests or reports about the sale of British defence equipment.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the provision of arms to Egypt in the present situation is a clear departure from frequent declarations by successive Wilson Governments since 1967 that they would not interfere to upset the balance of military strength in the Middle East? Is he also aware that President Rabin made a brief visit to London the other day to make a protest to the Foreign Secretary, and also that the British Board of Deputies has made a protest? Am I to understand that these submissions will not be considered?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: On the contrary, my Lords, we are always

1085
most meticulous about considering anything which the Israeli Government, and indeed the distinguished representatives of the Jewish community in this country, have to say to us. Our over-riding objective in the Middle East is a lasting settlement of the dispute between Arabs and Israelis. We remain completely committed to Resolution 242, the purport of which my noble friend understands very well, and also Resolution 338 which calls for meaningful talks leading to a comprehensive settlement. I have taken full note of what my noble friend has said and can assure him that there is no departure at all from the consistent, even-handed policy which successive British Governments have adopted in this matter.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that following the 1967 war, when a request was made by the Israeli Government for military weapons for which they had actually paid, the request was refused and those weapons were only delivered long after the war was over?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not wish to engage in a discussion of details of this kind of exchange and this kind of contract. However, I would repeat that we consider requests for arms from the Middle East, from whatever quarter the applications come, only in accordance with our policy of seeing that any supplies we make available do not endanger the achievement of a solution in the light of our judgment of the long-term policies of the State in question. This policy has been enunciated in close detail in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State, particularly on 10th June 1974.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us who are deeply concerned about the survival of Israel are by no means anti-Arab? Is he also aware that we understand the pressures on the Government? But will he, in return, make clear that he understands the pressures on Israel and the Israeli Ministers, and if we look at the balance of power in the world at the present time—the enormous strength and wealth of the Arab world, and the
1086
pressures that are being put on Israel from America? Does the noble Lord not feel that the Israeli Government had some justification in believing that the balance is being tipped against them?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I welcome the tone and content of what the noble Baroness has said. I can assure her and the House that Her Majesty's Government fully understand the proper concern of the Israeli State and people for their survival within secure and guaranteed boundaries.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, will my noble friend take into consideration the fact that Egypt has obtained a large supply of arms, from both the East and the West? It surely cannot be for the purpose of defence, because Egypt has no fear of any attack, certainly not by Israel. Is he aware that, in the circumstances, any supply of arms would be regarded as a real attack on Israel's situation? Might I also ask my noble friend whether, in the deliberations that take place, it would not be proper for Her Majesty's Government to suggest that the vast flow of money going into Arab States from the oil blackmail at the present time might be used for the benefit of the people of Egypt and the other countries, instead of for the purpose of proliferating wars?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Janner is fully entitled to take the view he does and, to some extent, we would all agree with him. Certainly, I think we would all agree with the latter part of his observations. It is far better, in the Middle East as elsewhere, that whatever wealth there is—and there is considerable wealth—should be devoted to constructive purposes on the basis of toleration in that country.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that his answers to this Question have been ambiguous and unsatisfactory, for which I hold him blameless. I blame the Government as a whole. Is he aware that one gets a little tired and a little disgusted at the frequent declarations of friendliness by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the State of Israel, which, in view of what has happened, seems to me to amount to sheer hypocrisy?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I very much regret that my noble friend, for whom I have great respect, should take this view of what my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said. I should think it is perfectly clear—and has been for years—that there is full sympathy and support by my right honourable friends and, indeed, by this Government, as by their predecessors, for the survival and security of Israel. This cannot be achieved by a one-sided attitude. It can best be achieved by a comprehensive settlement based on an evenhanded approach to this difficult and complex question.
Lord BYERS: Nevertheless, my Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, accept that there are many of us in this House who are distinctly worried about the recent turn of events, and the upsetting of the balance of power in the Middle East by the action of Her Majesty's Government in supplying arms to Egypt?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said. However, it is not our intention, nor do I think it will be the result of our attitude and policy, that the balance of power will be disturbed through any action of ours.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question, and I do so as one who is not a friend of Egypt? If Egypt wants to buy arms, is it not desirable from a diplomatic point of view that she should buy them from us or some other Western country, rather than from Soviet Russia, with all that that means?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is a very great deal to be said for that view.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, is one right in understanding from an earlier reply to a supplementary that any request from a country in the Middle East for arms to be supplied will be considered, and that no request will not be considered simply because of the place from which the request is made?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Earl put more precisely what I endeavoured to say in
1088
answer to an earlier supplementary. We shall consider every request from whatever quarter, against the background of our policy and intention that anything we do in this matter will not endanger the prospect of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, will the noble Lord say to what extent the terms of payment are taken into consideration when requests are received for the supply of arms?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, to an appropriate extent. But I repeat that the main consideration is what effect any decision we take will have on the prospects for a general settlement in the area.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Selkirk to advance the Second Reading of the Divorce (Scotland) Bill from Friday the 27th to Thursday the 26th of June.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS PROTECTION BILL
11.27 a.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: 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.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Restriction on killing etc. protected wild creatures]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out (", takes or reduces into possession ") and insert (" or takes").
The noble Lord said: With this Amendment, by leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11. All these would delete the reference to the offence of reducing into possession from the provisions of Clauses 1 and 6. I am advised that the expression "reduces into possession" for all practical purposes does nothing to the meaning of the word "take". Therefore, it is unnecessary and should be deleted throughout the Bill. This would bring the Bill into line with the legislation covering birds, seals and badgers, all of which use the term "takes". I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: This is a very appropriate Amendment, and I hope the Committee will agree to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out (",take or reduce into possession ") and insert (" or take ").—[Lord Melchett.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 11, after (" shown ") insert (" by him ").
The noble Earl said: This is a purely drafting Amendment, intended to make explicit what is now implicit in the Bill. It is a little tidier. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I thank the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for accepting my Amendments, and return the favour.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out from (" killed") to (" otherwise") in line 12 and insert (" or taken ")—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HALE: I have not spoken on the Amendments because they were all slight improvements. I am strongly in favour of the objects of the Bill and grateful to those responsible for it for
1090
introducing it today. But I should like to make one observation about the minatory character of all this. Taking the last paragraph of the clause, which is a standard clause for protection of the farmers, I have been a poultry farmer myself—my only venture in agriculture—and I came to know a lot about poultry diseases, and not much else. I wonder what it is for. We have just been talking about taking into possession.
Let me come back to poultry first, if I may. What threat to poultry is involved in the blue butterfly or the wild orchid; how can it possibly have any relevance to the provisions of the latter clauses of the Bill? What are the animals in Schedule 1 which can in any circumstances be a threat to poultry? The Bill seems to have a mass of exceptions which completely eliminate the major offenders. I do not know whether I am in order in pursuing this point. It always seems to me more convenient to put one collective point at the appropriate stage than to keep popping up and talking about the toad and the blue butterfly which is a rather special type. The Bill is full of clauses in which we are told of the powers of a police constable, who has probably never seen a large blue butterfly in his life, because that is one of the rarest of all the species. It cannot be much protected by preventing the slaughter of the butterfly, because its own development depends on the presence of wild thyme and of ants to assist in incubation, a most elaborate and fascinating process which is very rare.
What about "take into possession"? We are told that every effort is to be made to educate children in the love of flowers and animals; that is being done now, and, I hope, being done well. I am not quite sure whether it assists very greatly if their attention is focused on the very rare species which stimulate the desire to collect. Classes are given in herpetology where lads are encouraged to prepare aquaria at home to collect some of these animals. So the first victim of prosecution is likely to be a lad who picks up the wrong kind of toad or the wrong kind of snail. This very unhappy form of toad seems to lead the most miserable life and existence. It is nonselective in its habitat because it has not now got the courage to select the

1091
habitat with the care and the precision which is shown by the more intelligent toads. It is liable to be killed by a motor car if it crosses the road. Its favourite habitat is the South Devon and Dorset Coast, which is also mine; it cannot go down there, because, of course, the whole place is being dug up and built on, and I cannot go there because I have got no money; so we suffer in a similar way.
Later on we come to the blue butterfly, which is not found in most parts at all now; indeed it is fair to say that it is so reduced that there is very limited habitat. A constable can wander about a field; see a shapely young lady handling a net; arrest her on reasonable grounds of suspicion for pinching a blue butterfly; search her in her country clothing on the spot. This is not a humorous contribution; I am trying to speak with the greatest possible gravity. All the constable has to show is that he has reasonable cause. Well, many people have reasonable cause for searching young ladies. If you are really going to take that case to court, and she is going to say "It was a hairnet "—
Lord MELCHETT: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I shall be moving an Amendment, No. 17, which will to some extent deal with the points which my noble friend is raising on the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part. I wonder whether he would like to come back to this when we reach Amendment No. 17.
Lord HALE: Yes; and I am grateful to the noble Lord. What I was going to say is that the spirit of some of this Bill is like taking the Leeds football enthusiasts and giving them lessons on how to stroke railway carriages and make a pet of the cushions. It can be counter productive. I passionately share the desire of the authors of the Bill to protect every rare species that we can and to take whatever reasonable steps that can be taken. But I do not think that having the clerk of the county council examining everything, duties being spread and new offices being created, is necessary. I should have thought that this was the real model of a Bill I have been hoping to see all my political life in which we say, "We are going to give new warnings; we are going to pass menacing Statutes, but we are not
1092
going to lug in the police court and have anti-nature societies financing appeals to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal considering whether the constable had reasonable cause, or considering whether the man knew that it was this odd type toad or this rare kind of butterfly when he took it away ".
The EARL of CRANBROOK: I do not know whether your Lordships would wish me to make another Second Reading speech on whether the clause shall stand part. I would merely remind the noble Lord that the dangers against which this clause is directed are those of the deliberate taking and killing without reasonable excuse, and are aimed at the professional, either paid or unpaid, collector. If some small boy takes the wrong toad or the wrong butterfly by mistake, I do not think he would be prosecuted. if he was, I think the words "without reasonable excuse" would probably cover him. The point made by the noble Lord is one which could be made about absolutely every conservation measure which protects any wild creature or any wild plant of any sort. I do not believe the dangers which he fears really do exist. I think this is the best way of dealing with the problem we have to face.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I will not detain the Committee very long. Adding a little to the clarification of whether the clause shall stand part, looking at Clause I. lines 15 to 20, all it means, in very simple English once again, is that a farmer or anybody will not be guilty of any of these offences if he is, in his belief, preventing serious damage to land, crops, chickens—I use the word "chickens" because I think that is clearer—or any other form of property. Take that one phrase, "any other form of property ". On my little smallholding in West Wales which I was once interested in, the problem was the hedges and ditches. If a badger had holed up in any of those, I would have been able to kill, shoot, or maim any wild creature at will. Consequently, this clause is wide enough for a juggernaut—and we see so many of them—to run through. Finally, all this talk about little boys picking up toads. Most little boys today, in this materialistic system of society in which we live, never have the joy which I had, of putting a toad in teacher's pocket. I am also quite sure that a good many do not know what

1093
a toad is, because we are building a system of society so materialistic that the nearer to the sky the buildings the further from heaven do the people living in them become. Consequently, we want to have some other philosophical discussion some lovely Friday morning to develop the wonderful argument raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hale. I think the Committee has listened to me enough, and I will sit down.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Restriction on sale of protected wild creatures.]:
11.40 a.m.
Baroness BERKELEY Baroness BERKELEY moved Amendment No. 5.
Page 1, line 24, after (" Act ") insert (" or any skin or skeleton of such creature")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Somers, who is unable to be present today, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name, to include the words "or any skin or skeleton of such creature." If these words were added better protection would be given to the wild creatures listed in the Schedule. This is necessary as there is a good deal of trade in rare animals. High prices are paid by collectors who may not be too particular in the way that they add to their collections of rare species, either alive or dead, skeleton or skins.
This kind of trade is most undesirable, and it is to be hoped that the clause in the Bill will do much to restrain and control this type of sale, if not entirely stopping it at once. I hope that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook will agree to the addition of Clause 2, as I think it would strengthen the Bill. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will see fit to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Baroness has said, this Amendment will restrict the sale of the skin or skeleton of any creature of a species specified in Schedule 1 of this Bill. As the clause stands, the sale of live or dead creatures is restricted.
But it seems likely that stuffed animals and skeletons would not be covered because they would be regarded as part of animals rather than as whole animals. There may well be some trade between
1094
dealers and collectors in stuffed creatures of protected species, so it seems desirable to close this loophole. There is a similar provision in the Protection of Birds Act 1954, to restrict the sale of the skins or plumage of wild birds. The one reservation I have is that I am not sure that we have the most elegant form of wording in the Amendment of the noble Baroness, but if necessary I will undertake to bring forward a Government Amendment at the next stage. In the meantime, I would urge your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: I ask the Committee to give a little further consideration to this Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said that this Bill was mainly for collectors, but in fact it must affect a large number of the general public. The Amendment refers to anyone who,
" without reasonable excuse sells, offers for sale or has in his possession for sale … any skin or skeleton of such creature "—
or reptile mentioned in Schedule 1. I am not very knowledgeable as to where the smooth snake lives or what are its habits, but I know that if I find a snake, smooth or rough, on my property it gets a good knock on the head.
Someone goes into a shop and buys a snakeskin purse, or a snakeskin pair of shoes—perhaps from the snake that has been knocked on the head on my property. So far as I can see, under this clause that member of the public would be guilty, and equally the taxidermist who sells it would be guilty. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, shakes his head. I hope that he will be able to reassure me on this, because otherwise we are imposing on the public the possibility of committing an offence, which they would do innocently and because of the undue width of the proposed Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I wonder whether I could clear up a point. As I understand it, the "without reasonable excuse" provision in Clause 2 would provide a defence for actions arising from mistaken identification. In case somebody else raises it, maybe it would be helpful if I add that anyone in possession of skins before the passing of the Act would not commit an offence. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord and tell him that

1095
smooth snakes are not poisonous, and there is certainly no need for anyone to hit them on the head.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: That is no real reply. I am not concerned with someone who already has a skin before this Act is passed. I am concerned with the possible commission of a misdemeanour by someone who buys a smooth snakeskin fabricated into a particular appliance. I do not object to the skeleton part of this Amendment, but I think that the skin part goes far too far, and I trust that the Committee and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will consider whether it would not be wiser to omit "skin" while leaving "skeleton" in the Bill.
Baroness GAITSKELL: The Minister said that no one need hit on the head a snake which is not poisonous. I once found a snake in my dustbin and I hit it on the head because I did not know whether it was poisonous or not. It happened to belong to a collector next door, and I was mortified when I found that it was not poisonous.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: The sort of reaction which some people have in response to a snake, "Here is a stranger. Heave half a brick at him ", does not seem to me to have any reasonable excuse for it. I am glad that the noble Baroness has learned by bitter experience that it is a most unreasonable thing to do, and I hope that my noble friend will learn the same. As to the possibility of somebody buying a pair of shoes made of snakeskin derived from a smooth snake or any of the creatures which could be protected under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, I would remind the noble Lord that the creature is not more than an inch in diameter. I suppose it would make an admirable finger stall, but you would need to have so many and the skin is so tender that if you bought a pair of shoes made of it, or even a lady's handbag, it would probably disintegrate before you got home. I think that "reasonable excuse" covers the matter, and I hope that noble Lords will agree with this Amendment.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I find it a little difficult to understand why there should be any serious objection to this
1096
Amendment, because the noble Baroness has made it perfectly clear that its purpose is to deal with trade in the skin or skeleton. The Bill itself says:
" … any person without reasonable excuse sells, offers for sale or has in his possession for sale …"
That surely does not include the person who happens to have something in his house, because he is not offering it for sale. It is stated clearly in the original Bill that it is the sale which is being prohibited, or the intention to sell. I should have thought that the noble Baroness's Amendment is perfectly sensible in bringing in just that little extension to this clause which will, or may, prevent unscrupulous people from actually intending to sell the skin or any other part of an animal.
Lord MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I think that my noble friend Lord Balfour's worry about the skins in this case is not necessary. I quite agree, and I imagine all your Lordships would agree, that as Schedule 1 stands at the moment it is unlikely that this point is going to arise. One of the beauties of this Bill is that the Secretary of State is able to add to it at any time other creatures which may at some time or other become in need of protection. It could well be that an animal which had a more attractive skin for commercial purposes might have to be added. Therefore, I strongly advise the Committee that "skin" as well as "skeleton" should be in, in case another animal is included later on.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.50 a.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 27, at end insert—
(" (3) Where by virtue of an order made under section 7 of this Act certain members only of a species of wild creature are specified in Schedule 1 to this Act, subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in the case of a member of that species which is not so specified.')
The noble Lord said: Perhaps your Lordships would consider this Amendment in relation to Amendments Nos. 13 and 18 which deal with the same problem. The three together fill a gap which now exists in the Bill, the necessity for filling which was brought to my

1097
attention shortly after the Wild Creatures Bill was first presented in this House, when it was pointed out to me that it was the considered opinion of most scientists that the pearl mussel, which has a wide distribution throughout Northern Europe, was becoming exceedingly rare not only in this country but throughout the whole of Northern Europe, probably by pollution to a considerable extent but also by over-exploitation, and it was suggested to me that it should be added to the Schedule as a protected species.
When I looked into the matter I found that the position was not quite so simple because there has been a pearl fishery in this country since Roman times and, having consulted my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, I was able to look it up in the original Latin and eventually to find a crib which enabled me to translate into English a number of references to it, but I will not trouble your Lordships with that. The Romans did not think very much of British pearls, which they looked on as being largely yellow or lead colour and nothing like so good as those in the Red Sea. Nevertheless, there has been a small pearl fishery in this country for the better part of 2,000 years and I was able to see a pearl fisher doing his work. I was interested to see that he was probably using the method which his ancestors, who were doubtless covered with wood at that time, used in Roman times, picking them off the bottom of the river with an ash plant cut from a neighbouring hedge and split down the middle so that it made a pair of pincers.
What is interesting about what the professionals do is that they pick the animal from the bottom of the river open it, feel for pearls and then chuck it back and the poor thing dies, but they do not take the smaller ones, those under three inches long. It is obviously a highly destructive fishery because the animal is inevitably killed, but the smaller ones, which they say do not often contain pearls, are sufficient to maintain the population. I have little doubt that with the amount of pearl fishing which takes place at the moment, if that were universally done, the industry at its present very low level could continue without much trouble.
Unfortunately—I received this information from a number of people in Scotland and I daresay that noble Lords who come from North of the Border will be able to confirm this—this has now become a sport for amateur skin-divers. Your Lordships will know that where amateur skin divers have started doing this kind of thing in other countries—I suppose the worst examples are the Mediterranean, the East coast of Malaya, the East coast of Africa and various areas like that—incalculable damage has been done and all those countries are having to introduce legislation to control it. If there is continued predation by people who do not know what they are about and who take all the smaller mussels which the professionals have been throwing back, the animal could be reduced to a very low ebb and perhaps be in danger within a very short time. Once something like this becomes fashionable an enormous number of people take it up and the damage is done very quickly.
These three Amendments will allow an animal not to be protected entirely but to be protected by size or sex, and if it is found that skin-diving increases to the extent which I fear it may, protection of the smaller ones should do the trick and the status of the animal will be prevented from deteriorating. There is a gap in the Bill in this respect and I hope your Lordships will agree to fill it.
11.55 a.m.
Lord MELCHETT: It might be helpful if I gave the Committee a preliminary idea of the Government's view of this series of Amendments. The Bill already allows the Secretary of State to add all members of a species to Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 by Order. The effect of Amendment No. 13 would be to allow him in suitable cases to add only such members as may be described by reference to their size or sex. Amendment No. 18 would require the Nature Conservancy Council to offer appropriate advice in these cases. Amendment No. 6 would amend the provision restricting sale by making it legal to sell such members of a species as are not protected by the Order. This Bill has been described by several speakers as being a simple specific measure designed to afford strong protection to a limited list of truly endangered species. These Amendments

1099
extend the Bill significantly by introducing the concept of partial protection. I am afraid that such a facility may prove complex to operate and will add to the already considerable problems of enforcement, which I think have been acknowledged throughout the Bill's passage in the other place and on previous occasions when we have discussed the measure in your Lordships' House.
I have sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in his aim to make the Bill as flexible as possible to deal with future eventualities. But I do not find it easy to conceive of situations, apart from the one the noble Earl mentioned, either real or hypothetical, where such a facility would be useful. It might be useful to the Committee if the noble Earl would provide some examples of other instances where he thinks this series of Amendments would be used. As your Lordships will have gathered, I have some strong reservations on these Amendments and similarly on the concept of protection for certain periods of time, which we have yet to discuss, but I will listen with interest to the views of other Members of the Committee.
Lord CRAIGTON: I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment and that the Minister will think about it again. If this Amendment were applicable to the public as a whole, I would agree entirely with what he said, but we are making a Bill not for today but for tomorrow to protect species which may not be threatened at present but which may be threatened. We do not know entirely what will happen and all that my noble friend is asking is that the representations made by societies and bodies to the Nature Conservancy Council should be slightly widened and that instead of having their hands tied as they are now, the Nature Conservancy Council should have a slightly greater latitude in the representations they make to the Secretary of State. This is simply a widening of the representations made by the Nature Conservancy Council to the Secretary of State. It is not a widening of the law in any other respect and though, for example, I could refer to Omers in Jersey, which is a case such as that my noble friend mentioned, it is not right that we should ask for
1100
examples; we should think ahead of the possibility of there being examples of which we know nothing and I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his decision.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I have only a few comments to make on what my noble friend the Earl of Cranbrook said in respect of the question of sex and size, particularly in relation to shell fish. I am not intimate on this subject but I can give one example; the oyster starts out life as male and when it is fully grown becomes female. Therefore in the case of the pearl mussel, by merely removing the biggest one could, if there are very similar species, be removing the female of that species which could affect the future of that type of crustacean. I think the provision of both sex and size in a number of cases needs to be carefully considered and I, too, ask the Government to look at this question again.
Lord LEATHERLAND: The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in moving Amendment No. 6, linked with it Amendments Nos. 13 and 18. Both of those Amendments introduce a factor regarding the size and the sex of the animals concerned. Presumably those animals of one sex may be exempt from this measure, while those of the other sex may come under it. I feel that that is making the Bill far too complicated. What happens if a person like myself, not widely versed in matters of sex, encounters a greater horse-shoe bat as specified in Schedule 1? Perhaps I would be able to take that animal, perhaps not; it would depend on its sex. What measures am I to take in order to determine the sex of the greater horseshoe bat, and whether or not I am able to take it? It might be said that I could seize the animal and examine it, but with my knowledge that would not get me very far. But by the mere act of seizing that animal I should have contravened Clause 1 of this Bill which says that no animal may be taken.
A similar problem arises in the case of the natterjack toad, because with my limited knowledge I would not be able to determine between a male and a female. I might in all innocence be committing an offence. I think this Bill as originally drawn was very sensible, and was one which certainly commanded my

1101
wholehearted support, but the more we attempt to embroider it and add modifications the more we detract from its real value. I sincerely hope that we shall pass this Bill as nearly as possible in its original form.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I am slightly puzzled by what my noble friend Lord Leatherland has just said. As I understand it, this Amendment does not write into the Bill specific provision for anything being illegal on the grounds of the sex or size of the animal. It says that the Nature Conservancy Council in advising the Minister may suggest that it is desirable to do it in this way. They will presumably consider at the time whether it is practicable. It is then up to the Minister, with his expert advice, to consider further whether it is practicable. In other words, we are not writing anything into the Bill except a permissive statement to a clause allowing the Nature Conservancy Council to advise the Minister in a way which they could not do at present, and for the Minister to take action by order, which apparently at the moment he could not take. It seems to me that this is quite different from saying that we are writing into the Bill all sorts of new prohibitions. As I understand it, that is not being proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. Rather it is granting permission primarily to the Nature Conservancy Council.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in his interpretation of what my noble friend is trying to do. I have a certain amount of experience of the South Esk and Tay rivers. Amateurs occasionally read in the local paper, "Pearl found worth £10,000 ". The following Sunday you can be assured there are literally hundreds of amateurs out taking the oyster shells, and in the case of the South Esk they do not throw them back into the river; they throw them on the bank where they eventually create a rotten smell and look very ugly. There could be a problem here, but I should have thought that this Bill was educational, amongst other things, so I do not think this clause can do any harm.
The EARL of CRANBROOK: Before the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, replies, I was asked to mention some other animal
1102
which is likely to be affected by this clause. During our debates on this Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Earl Lord Arran, both mentioned the decrease in the number of common frogs and toads, which is apparent to almost everybody who lives in the country. The example given by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, was probably due to pollution or to the filling up of ponds, drainage from silage pits, slurry in ponds and the like. Those are the factors which are having a major effect, but which one cannot deal with under a Bill of this nature. Both frogs and toads are much in demand in biology classes in schools, and to a lesser extent, I believe, in universities—though I never went to a university so I do not know. In some parts of England there is a considerable trade in them.
At the moment, the population in the areas where there is trade—and "for sale" advertisements appear in trade papers—seems to be sufficiently large to be able to sustain it. But if that trade increases—and there is every possibility of its doing so, because it is a relatively new market which started only in the last decade or so—a serious position could arise and we should have to start defending what we have always looked upon as two very common animals. None of us would want to see little boys branded as criminals because they took some frog spawn or tadpoles and put them in a jar to keep them. It is not possible to raise animals on a commercial scale in that way, so the commercial people would not do it. In that case it would be necessary to protect only the adult animals and not the juveniles.
Lord MELCHETT: May I say that I have been much impressed by the arguments put forward in favour of these Amendments by noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber and by the further examples which have been given to indicate the way in which they might be moved. However, I still feel that we may not have thought through all the ramifications. To give one small example, will the Amendments allow protection to adult insects and not to the pupae, and if so is this desirable? If the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, would be prepared to withdraw this series of Amendments, I undertake seriously to consider the whole question, particularly in view of what has been

1103
said this morning, and if appropriate to move Amendments at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: When my noble friend is giving further consideration to this matter, whether or not the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, agrees to withdraw the Amendment, I hope that difficulties of enforcement will not of themselves disqualify a clause of this kind from a place in the Bill. For example looking back over the Race Relations Act, and considering the Sex Discrimination Bill as we shall shortly do, we see that in these days we are passing a good deal of legislation in Parliament as much for educational purposes as for law abiding purposes. After all, the clauses in the Sex Discrimination Bill may be riddled with causes for cynical comments about difficulties of enforcement, but we shall no doubt retain them in the Bill because they will be necessary to convey the message from Parliament to the people.
Obviously, there are always difficulties of enforcement in a matter of this kind. We are dealing with wild life and the activities of many different kinds of people, some commercially motivated but others quite innocent—children as well as adults. We must bear in mind that this is a Bill to protect wild creatures and the bias must be in favour of the protection of the species and not the protection of human beings who, on the whole, can protect themselves quite well. If there is difficulty in dividing up a species for protection as between sex and size, then I think one should protect the lot. That is the purpose of the Bill.
I sincerely hope that my noble friend will take into account the underlying purpose of the Bill, and the need in these days to err on the side of strictness rather than laxity in matters of protection. The access of people to the countryside, the opportunity for the motorist to go anywhere, the person who is unsophisticated and ignorant about country life and about species—all these constitute serious additional dangers to wildlife and to plants in this country. One of the notable features of your Lordships' House is that it gives so much care and attention to this part of the heritage in this country.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I wish to support my noble friend Lord Leatherland on this matter. I am not very well educated in the matter of wildlife and I think that the Bill may be educational. But it should not make too great demands, as it will affect many people who, like myself, do not know a great deal about wildlife. Today I learned a very interesting fact, when a noble Lord opposite said that the oyster started life as a male and ended up as a female. I think that until today I have considerably underrated the wisdom of the oyster. I still support my noble friend Lord Leatherland.
Earl FERRERS: I wish to introduce only one possible note of discord, that is to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I hope that when the noble Lord and my noble friend reconsider this matter, they will consider whether the proposal will be enforceable. I do not believe that it is right or sensible to produce Acts of Parliament which contain a whole minutiae of offences and no one knows whether or not he is committing them. The noble Lord referred to the fact that these days we are introducing Bills which are as much to educate people in their way of life and thinking as they are to prosecute them for the offences they commit. I believe this to be a very real danger, and that we are cluttering ourselves up with Bills and laws which are totally unenforceable and which render the individual quite incapable of knowing whether he is on the right or the wrong side of the law. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will consider very carefully whether any Amendments to this Bill will be practicable and enforceable. Of course we all want to protect the wild species, but we do not want to make life so intolerable for the average person that he does not know what he is doing.
Lord CRAIGTON: If my noble friend who has just sat down is correct, then all the Acts concerned with the protection of birds, which work so well today, would have failed in their purpose, which they have not.
Lord HALE: I was returned to Parliament on behalf of the people of Oldham, not on behalf of the natterjack toad. I

1105
disagree entirely with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I have listened now to something like six different interpretations of the Amendment, and with my own limited faculties I have not been able to decide what it means. I agree with every word spoken by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I do not know how a constable, who is already grossly overworked and dealing with major crime, will be able to enter into all these botanical studies. I do not want to make a false argument. I appreciate that there can be designated officers and I accept the noble Lord's intent to try to stop a trade in rare flowers and animals.
I could not follow the arguments about sex. This is a difficult matter. The only case that I ever remember that determined the sex of an animal dealt with a human being. In that case, of the Chevalier d'Eon, the greatest of the Lord Chief Justices, Lord Justice Mansfield, gave a ruling on law which he afterwards admitted to be wholly wrong and which he reversed. The jury made a finding of fact which a post-mortem on the Chevalier d'Eon proved to be truly and wholly wrong, too, because he was found to be virile, although not very much so.
The noble Earl who moved the Amendment has a point in which he sincerely believes, and which he regards as being of importance in a certain sphere. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says that Amendments have been made, that there is to be a Report stage and we shall have an opportunity of looking at this again. If we are to look at it again, I think that the noble Earl should accept the noble Lord's invitation to put his Amendment in a form in which it will be more intelligible and less liable to misapprehension.
Lord ROBBINS: Those who are suggesting the withdrawal of the Amendment have failed to put to themselves the critical question of whether in this instance this permission is likely to be overdone. After all, the recommendations are likely to be made by experts. They will be assisted, as regards enforceability, by the high officials of the Home Office advising the Secretary of State. In general principle I am entirely in favour of the sex discrimination proposals, but one can argue too much by analogy. It may be
1106
that in the latter cases I have mentioned it can be overdone. I should not have the slightest fear that it would be overdone in the case which your Lordships are now considering.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I must confess that I am not convinced by any of the arguments produced against this Amendment. All that the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, could say was that he did not quite know whether or not it could be applied to pupae, but quite obviously it can. That is the size of the animal and I should have thought that it could perfectly simply be applied to it.
Other noble Lords have expressed fear at an extension of a Bill, but they have failed to see that this is only a permissive extension, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, made clear. It gives the Nature Conservancy and the Minister a greater width at which to look at a problem, and it if leads to any unnecessary Orders, then the Orders are subject to control of both Houses of Parliament; and if we find that the Nature Conservancy is too often advising a Minister to make extensions we can always stop it.
I feel strongly about this matter and I think that the general feeling of the Committee is with me. I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment, but I should be very happy indeed to look at any Amendments to it which the noble Lord produces at a subsequent stage. We want to establish the principle that we wish to make this a Bill which will last and which will be useful, and I think that the best course would be to establish that now.
Lord MELCHETT: I had hoped that the noble Earl would withdraw these Amendments. When I asked him to do that I said that I had listened very carefully and had taken on board all the points which noble Lords made about this matter. I accept many of the points made in favour of the Amendments. I readily acknowledge that fact. However, these Amendments lay a duty on the Nature Conservancy Council, for example, to advise the Minister, in particular respects rather wider than any duties laid on them so far by the Bill. I would have hoped that the noble Earl, in view of the assurance that I have

1107
given about accepting a lot of the argument and reconsidering his Amendments carefully, would withdraw the Amendments if only to give us a further opportunity of discussing them with the people who will have to carry them out.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: We can do that. I should be happy to join in those discussions.
Lord MELCHETT: I was asking the noble Earl whether he would withdraw his Amendments so that we could have these further discussions.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his request and have the discussions after we accept it.
Lord MELCHETT: The other advantage in asking the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendments at this stage is that we will be able to get the details right with the Nature Conservancy Council and, if the Amendments are acceptable to the Government, put down Government Amendments at the next stage. There will be nothing to stop the noble Earl from putting down Amendments at the next stage if I do not come forward with suitable Government Amendments.
In view of the co-operative spirit in which this Bill has passed through the other place and here, and in view of the very late stage in this Bill's passage—we have discussed it, I think, twice before—I hope that the noble Earl will not now press me at this stage to accept these Amendments but would accept the generous (I think) assurances that I have given and will withdraw his Amendments at this stage and allow us to consider them very carefully before the next stage.
Lord FOOT: Before the noble Earl replies, may I say that I am a wholehearted supporter of this Amendment but I would ask him to consider what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said; because I think it would be most unfortunate in a Bill of this kind if this matter were brought to a Division. I think it would introduce a spirit of animosity into our discussions. I am sure that we can rely on the assurance given by Lord Melchett that this will be seriously considered and that he will be coming forward with
1108
something of this kind at the next stage of the Bill.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: By nature I am an obstinate man; but I will try to be unnatural and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
12.24 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: I should like to raise one point on the question of whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill. It is for Parliament to decide what ought to constitute a breach of the criminal law and I speak as one who has great sympathy with the purpose of the Bill. I do not want to create any difficulties in its coming on to the Statute Book, but I should like to call attention to the words in Clause 2:
" any person without reasonable excuse ".
It is an absolutely fundamental principle, surely, of our legislation that the citizen should know whether he is committing a criminal offence, what is the criminal offence which is set up by Parliament, and that it should be in language which is clearly and easily understood by the citizen.
Clause 2 makes it an offence, and quite a serious offence, for an individual to offer for sale or to have in his possession for sale live or dead creatures of a particular type. It is an offence for him so to do unless he has a "reasonable excuse" for so doing. A learned judge sitting on the Bench with a case under this clause before him has to ask himself what is, in the circumstances of this case, a "reasonable excuse". What criteria is he to apply in answering the question whether an excuse put forward by the accused person is a "reasonable excuse" within the meaning of the clause or not?
I am perfectly conscious that the expression "without reasonable excuse" appears over and over again in legislation setting up criminal offences. The expression appears again in this Bill in a number of succeeding clauses, for example in Clauses 4 and 5. Learned judges are told that when they try to answer a question of that sort to themselves they must look at the language of the Act that they are applying, conceive its general

1109
purpose and try to set a reasonable, sensible meaning on the expression. But I should have thought that it really was extremely difficult for any learned judge, with the best will in the world, to apply that sort of criteria in the case of Clause 2. I am not a judge and I have never sat on the Bench, but I think it would be extremely difficult to decide in an individual case whether what the accused person asserts on his own behalf does or does not constitute, within Clause 2, a "reasonable excuse ".
I am very fond of toads—not the human sort, but the other sort. If asked what was a natterjack toad, as set out in Schedule 1, I should have no idea; nor would I know any more of what a natterjack toad was if I looked at the Latin description and found it was a bufo calamita. Let us suppose that I appeared before a learned judge and I sold toads of that sort—and the noble Earl who introduced the Bill discussed a moment or so ago the circumstances in which toads are sold. Suppose that I said that I had never heard of the expression "natterjack" but that I sold toads, and I still do so, that I make a lot of money out of it; but that otherwise I am a poor man and have no means of livelihood except by carrying on my business of selling natterjack toads and similar creatures. Would I have a reasonable excuse? I would not know, if I were a learned judge, how to answer that question. It is wholly contrary to our whole legislative tradition, I submit, to put a learned judge in the position of, in effect, having to decide according to his own ideas as to what was reasonable and what was not reasonable and whether or not the accused person has transgressed against the criminal law.
I raise this point simply on the Question, Whether this clause shall stand part of the Bill, because not only is it fundamental to this clause but it occurs later, and I cannot find any indication from the general language and purport of the Statute which might afford me, at any rate, guidance if I am trying to construe those words in the conduct of a case from the judicial Bench. I hope that the noble Earl will give some consideration to that between the present stage and the next stage of the Bill. I assure him and the Committee that I am not desirous in the least of being obstructive and that my
1110
intention is exactly the opposite. But what is one doing in this clause? One is setting up a number of rather serious criminal offences. If one looks to see what the penalty is, one goes to Clause 11. The penalty is £100 on summary conviction; and if you commit a number of such offences each is to be treated as a separate offence; so that if you sell 12 natterjack toads, for example, the maximum fine is £1,200.
These are serious offences. In any event, surely it is part of our democratic instinct that it is always serious to transgress the criminal law, that one should not do so, but that one should live within it. I believe, as I hope the Committee believe, in the rule of law being supreme in this country and that this is a principle sacred to it and one which should always be maintained so far as we can. I can assure the noble Earl that I am not trying to be obstructive—and I hope that he and the other members of the Committee will accept that—but I raise this as a matter of principle for it seems to me that it requires further consideration.
The EARL of CRANBROOK: I would be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord could produce Amendments with a phrase better than "without reasonable excuse" which, as he said, is a common form in a great many Acts of Parliament. For that reason it is in this Bill. I am not learned in law; I have sat on a Bench for many years and I have had many excuses put before me. I have had to decide whether or not they are reasonable. But if he thinks that this is a difficult point, perhaps he will consider this between now and the next stage and let us have an Amendment in place of it. It is intended to protect people who have a reasonable excuse, whatever that may be, and who have done something without any criminal intent. One wants to find something which covers that.
Lord STOW HILL: I will certainly give the matter thought to see whether I can find a form of language which may be more acceptable. I am only too glad to help in any way I can.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Will my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill consider a simple Amendment to delete the words "without reasonable excuse"? Everybody will then know where they are, and adequate protection

1111
will be given. Otherwise, if the reasonable excuse is so wide that any excuse is reasonable, there will be no protection at all.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I sincerely hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill will not accept the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. We see from the Schedule that one of the creatures to be protected is the smooth snake. Let us assume that I am walking through Epping Forest and a serpent comes wriggling towards me. I stamp on its head because I think it is an adder. But subsequent inquiry descloses that it was a smooth snake. I have no reasonable excuse. I cannot go before the Bench and say, "I thought that was an adder ". That is no excuse at all. I will be fined £100 or sent to prison—probably in default. My noble friend's suggested Amendment is not going to meet this case.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Protection of rare plants]:
12.34 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
(" Provided that, if an owner or occupier of land within a site of special scientific interest, who has been informed in writing by the Nature Conservancy Council within the previous twelve months of the site within that land on which a protected plant is growing, carries out work which results in the uprooting or destruction of that protected plant, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section unless he has given notice in writing to the Nature Conservancy Council of his intention to carry out such work not less than twenty-eight days before the commencement of the work.")
The noble Earl said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who has to be in Strasbourg, I beg to move this Amendment. This proviso was in the wild plants Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, introduced last year. He said on the Second Reading of the present Bill that he would move an Amendment to introduce it into this Bill at Committee stage. A large number of the rare plants which are in the Schedule are in Sites of Special Scientific Interest, most of them in mountainous districts,
1112
rough grazing, and the like, and most of those SSSIs were chosen because they had colonies of those plants in them. Rare plants tend to be found in discrete colonies as opposed to wild animals which even if rare, tend to be spread fairly widely over their natural habitat. So if you destroy several acres of land you may not kill more than one or two animals, but if you destroy the colony of rare plants, then you have destroyed them all.
Until recently in areas of that kind, on which very small agricultural operations took place, such as herding flocks of sheep or cattle, and the like, you were unlikely to do any damage to a colony of rare plants. Recently, a new spray was introduced to kill bracken, which is a pest on many areas of that nature. The only way in which you can kill bracken economically is by spraying from an aeroplane—inevitably a relatively inaccurate method—and, either by drift or misfortune, it is possible that the spray could fall on to a colony of wild plants and exterminate the lot.
That raises a problem which the new clause in the noble Lord's Bill was intended to meet: but provided the Nature Council, which had declared the place an SSSI, gave notice to the owner or occupier every year of the site on which the rare plant was growing and exactly where the plant grew, the owner or occupier would be expected to give 28 days' notice before he undertook arty operations which were likely to damage it. At the moment the only operation one can think of is spraying from the air. It is not an onerous burden; on receiving his notice certificate at the beginning of the year, he can write back immediately and say: "At some time during the year, 28 days after today, I hope to spray the bracken ". The Nature Conservancy Council can then either make some financial arrangement with him, or others, that he does not do it, or if the colony is small it can be covered with a plastic sheet, or in the last resort the plants can be dug up and replanted in an exactly similar habitat, where they will continue to flourish. Those are the reasons which led the noble Lord to include them in this Bill, and those are the reasons for asking the Committee to include them in this one. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Earl has explained, this Amendment would require owners or occupiers of land within a site of special scientific interest who had been informed in writing by the Nature Conservancy Council within the previous 12 months of the presence of a protected plant on that land to notify the Council in writing 28 days before commencing any work that would destroy that plant.
When we debated the Wild Plants Protection Bill last November, your Lordships will remember that I reserved the Government's position on an identical provision. There was no equivalent provision in the original print of this amalgamated creatures and plants Bill as it was introduced in another place. As your Lordships will know, these sites of special scientific interest are declared under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, but their only legal effect, at present, is that the local planning authority must consult the Nature Conservancy Council before giving planning permission for any development. The landowner is not placed under any legal obligation at the present time.
I can appreciate the need to try to strengthen the protection afforded to protected plants. But this Amendment would place a legal obligation on owners which was not envisaged when the sites were first notified. The Nature Conservancy Council fears that such a provision would upset the friendly relationships which they have built up over the years with the owners of over 3,000 sites. As an alternative to the proposal, the Council have devised a voluntary scheme which may offer the strong protection which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, are seeking. The Nature Conservancy Council are inviting the sponsors of the Bill to supply a list of locations where protected plants and creatures—and I stress the inclusion of creatures—are known to exist. The Council would review the list. It is highly likely that those locations which are not already within national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest would then be notified as SSSIs. The Council is prepared to write to all landowners and occupiers of SSSIs who are known to have a protected species of plant or animal on their land and
1114
to seek their co-operation in the vital task of safeguarding them. The Council is also willing to undertake with the sponsors a review of the effectiveness of these voluntary arrangements after a reasonable period of time.
I stress that, in our view, voluntary arrangements are likely to be at least as strong as the statutory proposals put forward by the noble Earl, both because the Nature Conservancy Council has undertaken to cover both plants and creatures within the voluntary scheme, and also because of the nature of the problem and the nature of the obligations which we are seeking to place upon the owners of land. I feel that noble Lords on all sides will agree that something which is entered into voluntarily by both sides is much more likely to work in practice. In view of the successful voluntary arrangements which already exist between the Council and owners and occupiers of SSSIs, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept the proposals which I have just outlined as a satisfactory alternative and will not feel obliged to press the Amendment.
Lord CRAIGTON: I am a little worried about this. I understand the point of view of the Nature Conservancy Council and of the Minister. I might make an obligation and adhere to it, but I might equally let my land and then I could not be sure that it would be kept to. Also, as the Minister knows, there are uncooperative owners, to put it mildly. Such people have deliberately taken action against precious wild life on their sites. I would not for a moment make a suggestion to my noble friend as to what he should do, but I feel that we in this House should let the Nature Conservancy Council know that we should be prepared to strengthen their hand if they thought it posssible for that to be done.
Lord CAMOYS: I had intended to move an Amendment to the Bill but, owing to circumstances beyond my control and relating to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, about which I do not propose to go into detail, I was not able to do so. However, your Lordships permitting, I intend to move a "blanket" Amendment at Report stage covering many of the points that have worried certain Members of this House. I hope to draft it so that people can understand what is intended. For example, one cannot move wild

1115
orchids nor the wild pasque flower. You cannot replant them; it never works. I shall try to make my Amendment as clear as possible, and add to it certain things that have been left out of this Bill. I also hope to have an opportunity of discussing the case of the otter.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: I am not too happy about the Amendment, because I think that, in certain cases, it may deprive plants of protection which they might otherwise enjoy. That would be so in the case of an obstructive landowner who was determined to take no notice of the Nature Conservancy Council or anybody else. His arm will be strengthened by the fact that all he has to do to justify the destruction of a plant or a colony of plants is to tell the Nature Conservancy Council that he intends to do so. Then it will be all right and the Council cannot stop him. I believe that my noble friend Lord Camoys was almost certainly right in saying that one cannot move wild orchids, and I do not believe that one can move any plant totally regardless of the season. I should hesitate to say that one could do so. So I doubt whether there is much protection there. However, the chief danger seems to be that the really awkward landowner can do exactly as he likes as long as he says he is going to do it.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: The noble Earl has my sympathy. I feel that the voluntary co-operation of landowners and farmers is far more likely in the long run to achieve the object of the Bill. I can think of ways in which plants might be endangered other than those suggested by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. I can conceive of areas where landowners might decide to plant trees on bare patches where some of these rare plants flourish. I believe that that is quite likely to happen. Barren areas are being reclaimed. I feel that, on the whole, co-operation would be better, the more so as the Nature Conservancy Council does not seem to want these powers.
The Earl of CR ANBROOK: I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord that a voluntary scheme of this nature is very much better, though the trouble is that one is a little cynical about voluntary arrangements because, so far as archae-
1116
ological sites are concerned, there has always had to be the ultimate sanction that the Department was able to step in when a site was in danger. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would do well to consider the difficulties of archaeologists in relation to important sites and the occasions when a legal sanction has had to be invoked.
Fundamentally, what is important, not only with rare plants but with scheduled houses, is that there ought to be some obligation upon a statutory body to remind the owner that he has the plant or house in his possession. All too often, an owner of a site forgets that he has a rare plant or something of the sort, especially if he is not particularly interested in it, just as he may forget that one of the houses which he owns or the house in which he lives is scheduled. We want to make quite certain that, whether legally or by voluntary arrangement, people are constantly reminded of what they have and of their obligation to maintain it. However, I am satisfied with what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [General exceptions]:
12.48 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11:
Page 2, line 18, leave out (" reduction into possession or ").
Page 2, line 19, leave out (" reduction into possession or ").
Page 2, line 21, leave out (" reduced into possession or ").
Page 2, line 22, leave out (" reduced into possession or ").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 with Amendment No. 1 and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Variation of Schedules]:
The Earl of CR ANBROOK: Amendment No. 12 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, leave out (" and ") and insert (" or ").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: Amendment No. 14 is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, after first (" or ") insert (" any ").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
Lord MELCHETT: I had understood that this Amendment was contingent on the acceptance of Amendment No. 6. I may have misunderstood that point. I wonder whether the noble Earl would let me look at this matter again before the next stage, because we had understood that it was likely to be moved only it' the noble Earl's Amendment on restrictions according to size and sex was accepted.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I believe that this Amendment is purely drafting.
Lord MELCHETT: I would repeat to the noble Earl—
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I am happy to withdraw. Perhaps if the noble Lord thinks it is unnecessary he will reconsider it. I thought it effected emendation of the English. However, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert—
(" (2) An order made under this section may be made so as to have effect either at all times while the order is in force or during such period or periods as are specified in the order.")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is not exactly consequential upon the Amendments we have already discussed. It relates to a different problem. I referred to it when we were speaking about frogs and toads and protection being necessary against commercial exploitation only during the breeding season when they congregate in ponds and are therefore very vulnerable. We have of course the same problem with seals, which congregate on islands during their breeding season when they are very vulnerable, and they are protected in exactly the same way. I do not think I need say any more than that. The intention of the Amendment is fairly obvious. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Earl has said, this Amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make an Order
1118
that would be in force for a specified period or periods of the year only. Amendment No. 19, which I think is consequential on this one, would require the Nature Conservancy Council to offer appropriate advice. Once again, I have some sympathy with the aims of these Amendments, but the drawbacks which I mentioned when we were discussing partial protection by size and sex would seem to apply to some extent here.
There is one additional point. Protection by periods of time is tantamount to the imposition of close seasons. Such a measure is normally aimed at keeping stocks of common species high for sporting purposes rather than at preserving rare species. But again it would be helpful if the noble Earl could give us some examples, even if only hypothetical ones, of the cases he is thinking of. In view of the full debate on the Amendments designed to allow conservation on the grounds of size and sex, it would be a good thing if the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment to enable us to look again at this one as well. I should be happy to hear the views of any other Members of the Committee who have something to say on this Amendment.
Lord CRAIGTON: I made a short interjection before. I make the same one again. I hope that the noble Lord will look at this point because, even if we cannot find a sound reason now, within the next 10 or 20 years there are to be so many sound reasons for a close season.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power to grant licences]:
12.55 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert (" after consultation with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Farmers' Union, the Conservation Society and the World Wildlife Fund (United Kingdom)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, requiring consultation with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the

1119
National Farmers' Union, the Conservation Society and the World Wildlife Fund (United Kingdom). This Amendment arises from a comment I made on Second Reading about the need to require the Minister to have proper consultations with those who can advise him before he makes an Order for the destruction of any species, covered by this Bill, which might be endangering the health of other species or of human beings. Unfortunately, I thought that by my Amendment I was protecting the badger, but I found, on the advice of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that I had protected everybody else but not the badger. Happily, they made good my omission by a similar Amendment to Clause 16, which I shall warmly support in due course.
I have a profound suspicion that Ministers do not always read the papers put in front of them, or do not read them carefully enough, or have not taken enough advice about them. I know the pressure under which Ministers work, and one knows what is stuffed into their red boxes when they go home weary, red-eyed and tired at night. I want to make sure that before an Order is made for the destruction of species under this Bill the Minister has consulted bodies which have greater leisure, probably more concern, and certainly a wider experience than most Ministers will have who are called upon to make Orders under this Bill. So I thought of those whom we might require the Minister to consult. He is not, of course, bound to take their advice. He may have some overriding public interest in mind which he thinks must take precedence over the advice of such responsible bodies as those named in the Amendment.
If there are any other bodies which should be consulted, I should be glad to add their names to the list. If there are any in the list which your Lordships think are not qualified to give the Minister advice, I would carefully consider their deletion. But a serious point is involved here. I end my remarks by saying that I believe we are reaching the stage when conservation must be more than permissive; it must be mandatory, and in my opinion it has to be very strict. If we envisage this country, indeed the world, in a few years' time, with the
1120
present rate of population increase, tourism, travel, mechanical devices and powers of destruction, we see that the perils are enormous. We should provide adequate safeguards before we begin to destroy species protected by this Bill. When we reach Clause 16 I shall be able to reveal my profound affection for the badger, which is perhaps a little deeper than my affection for some of the species covered by the Amendment I am now moving; nevertheless, I am very glad to be of service to them as well.
Lord MELCHETT: I wonder whether it would help the Committee if I gave an indication of the Government's view on this Amendment at this stage. The Amendment, as my noble friend has explained, would require the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or in Scotland the Secretary of State, to consult'. the list of bodies named in the Amendment before granting a licence to kill or take protected wild creatures to prevent the spread of disease. It is not normal practice to mention the names of non-statutory bodies in Bills, because it would be so difficult to update the legislation to conform with changes of name, mergers and so forth between such bodies. And it would seem invidious to select some names to the exclusion of others. If formal consultation were thought appropriate, it would be better to follow Clause 14(2) of this Bill and oblige the Secretary of State to consult such bodies as he considers appropriate. This Amendment would, however, impose a requirement to consult before any licence could be issued. Proper consultation would take perhaps two to four weeks at a minimum and the situation could well arise where much more rapid action was required to stamp out disease. Therefore, it appears that statutory consultation of this type is not a practical proposition in this situation. I hope to have more helpful comments to make on the rather similar Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to Clause 16 which I understand is the clause which my noble friend hoped to strike up with this Amendment. In view of that undertaking, I wonder whether my noble friend would consider withdrawing his Amendment.
Lord CRAIGTON: May I ask the noble Lord whether consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council would come

1121
under not being mentioned or whether it should be specifically mentioned because it ought to be consulted.
Lord MELCHETT: This underlines the point that I made about the difficulty of coming up with any list. There are two difficulties. The first is that it is very difficult to get the right list; anybody who is left out is likely to feel offended. Secondly, as bodies other than non-statutory bodies change or merge, or their character changes as the character of voluntary societies will change over the years, the Act will become seriously out of date and legislation would be needed to amend it. That is the objection to listing any particular bodies.
Lord CRAIGTON: Including the Nature Conservancy Council?
Lord MELCHETT: The Nature Conservancy Council is a statutory body and it is to them that the Minister would be likely to turn for advice when he needed it. But it would be better in the case of any such provision as was considered necessary—and I hope I have made it clear why the Government do not think it is appropriate—for it to be left to the Minister's discretion as to whom he consults.
Lord HALE: The noble Lord is giving the Government's views before he has heard the comments of the Committee. I rose and then sat down as a matter of courtesy when the noble Lord rose and I shall listen intently to the observations that are made by anybody on the other side of the Chamber. However, from this side of the House may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that it is suggested from time to time that the Civil Service is increasing in numbers and should be diminished. Secondly, I think that the arguments which were put by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in favour of his Amendment were the precise opposite of the impression which he intended to convey. He made a plea about red-eyed Ministers going home at the dead of night with a box full of papers, so intent and absorbed that they left secret papers in the train despite the fact that they had a carriage to themselves. He said that the way to deal with this is to add four completely useless papers to their box. It is quite obvious that the Government will be in constant con-
1122
sultation with the Nature Conservancy about every problem raised in this Bill. In my experience, the RSPCA almost always entirely disagree with the National Farmers' Union on any point about animals. There are to be four more consultative papers which the Minister will have to consider. There will be a note on them saying, "You need not take any notice of this, but we must be polite ", but they will add to his labours and will make no contribution. It is open to these four bodies to make representations whenever they like. To embody a special clause in the Bill saying that the Minister has to do that seems to me to be wasting Parliamentary time and adding to his statutory troubles.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: I was surprised at the omission in the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The National Farmers' Union is included both here and in the later Amendment dealing with the protection of badgers. If the National Farmers' Union are included, they are largely the employers. In these days of industrial democracy and worker participation I am shocked and surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, did not include the Union of Agricultural Workers, because I think that they have an equal say with the National Farmers' Union in the interests which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, defined. If the Amendment were withdrawn and the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, were adopted, I have no doubt that we should revert to the Secretary of State having complete power to consult all interests. No doubt he will be able to assure us that the point I make about the Union of Agricultural Workers will be taken into consideration. However, I was deeply shocked that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who takes such an interest in labour relations, did not include the Union of Agricultural Workers.
Lord BALERNO: I was even more shocked that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has completely forgotten Scotland. We have a separate Farmers' Union and a separate society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Earl FERRERS: If one goes on like that one can say that one is equally

1123
shocked that the Farmers' Union for Wales were not considered, or, indeed, the Country Landowners' Association.
Lord MELCHETT: While I was pointing out technical difficulties in the Amendment of my noble friend, as we see it that is not the important point. A Minister who is to make an order to prevent the spread of disease under this clause will wish to consult as many people as possible. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that the Nature Conservancy Council will be one of those bodies. However, the important point to remember is that in a case where it is necessary to prevent the spread of disease the Minister may have to act so quickly that he will not have time to consult. This is the fundamental objection to the Amendment and it would be wrong to place the Minister under a duty which would prevent him acting quickly to prevent the spread of disease. For the moment this is an entirely hypothetical case because nobody has yet suggested any diseases which any of the animals currently in the Schedule would be capable of spreading.
Lord FOOT: I appreciate the difficulties in this Amendment as it is drawn which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. However, I still hope that something may be saved of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and that its object may be fulfilled. As the Bill is now drawn—I am referring now to Clause 8—when the Minister decides to issue a licence for the taking or killing of a protected animal there is no requirement upon him to consult anybody. If I understand correctly the point of the noble Lord's Amendment, what he is worried about, and what worries me, is that a Minister should be protected against himself and protected against the possibility of making an error because he has not received the necessary advice from the people who know best. The situation is not met by Clause 14 to which the noble Lord referred. In subsection (2) of Clause 14 we read:
"The Secretary of State shall not make any order under Section 7 of this Act except after consultation with such bodies … as he thinks fit".
1124
Section 7 is an order adding an animal to the Schedule.
Lord MELCHETT: I think that the noble Lord has misunderstood the point I was making. I was saying that if an obligation were to be laid on the Secretary of State or the Minister, the wording to be used would be more appropriate if it followed the wording in Clause 14. I was not suggesting that the existing provision in Clause 14 covers the point which my noble friend was attempting to cover.
Lord FOOT: I was coming to that and I was going to ask whether the Minister would be prepared to consider an Amendment to Clause 8 requiring the Minister to consult before issuing a licence with such bodies as he may think fit, including, it may be, the Nature Conservancy. That would go some way towards meeting the difficulty and the concern of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, regarding the protection of wild creatures. Later on, I hope to introduce a somewhat similar protection for the badger. I will not speak about that now, but I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to consider at a later stage of the Bill an Amendment of the kind that I have suggested.
1.10 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I should like to intervene for a moment because I think a number of noble Lords have been unnecessarily suspicious. On this Amendment they are concentrating entirely on paragraph (d). There are four other paragraphs which vitally affect a great number of people in so far as they authorise the Minister to drive a coach and horses through the Bill. A number of people feel very strongly about this. In the experience of those of us who are members of scientific authorities and the like before any of these things are done the Minister always consults with the appropriate body to find out whether it is a sensible course to take. I have had very little experience of consultations to prevent the spread of disease, but in connection with the recent controversy about badgers. I attended at least two, possibly three, meetings of quite a number of

1125
bodies—I represented one—who were consulted by the Minister about this difficulty regarding badgers. I do not move in Ministerial circles and never have done but concerning conservation, though not the point which is worrying noble Lords, I have always assumed That the Ministers consult the appropriate bodies before they make any order under this sort of clause. For that reason I should not have thought of including it in so far as it refers to the conservation clause.
Lord MELCHETT: I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, whether I could consider something along the lines he suggested, and I may have misled the Committee by stressing the problems about the list of bodies, which I do not think is fundamental. In this case the fundamental problems seem to the Government to be these—and I stress that I am speaking about this Amendment and not the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, which we shall come to later—and I stress again that this is hypothetical: were a disease to arise where it is necessary for the Minister to enable animals listed in the Schedule to be destroyed it may well be that the Minister would have to act very quickly. Noble Lords all know that under the Rabies Act Ministers are required to act very quickly in order to prevent the spread of disease, and only by acting quickly are they able to prevent a large number of animals and possibly human beings being made very That is the fundamental point which would have to be seized of in any suggestions noble Lords might wish to make to replace my noble friend's Amendment.
Lord BALERNO: May I suggest to the Minister that he might consult with his experts as to whether or not rabies could possibly be spread by certain of the specified animals, because if that were the case it would be essential that the Minister should act at once without consulting anybody else.
Lord MELCHETT: Again I may be guilty of misleading noble Lords. I mentioned rabies as an analogy, but of course the Rabies Act would not be overridden by the provisions of this Bill unless that were done specifically. So in the case of rabies Ministers will be able to act as they do at the moment.
The Earl of ARRAN: I wish to give my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, my fullest support. The die is seemingly cast, and what we now have to do is to ensure, so far as we conscientiously can, that we are doing the right thing. I was in South Gloucestershire last week with a Member of the other place—
Lord MELCHETT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl but I have a suspicion in my mind that he is going to address the Committee on the subject of badgers. I had hoped that we could take the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and there are some points of which I have been given notice which my noble friend wishes to raise on Clause 16. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we could take all those points together.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I am sure we want to get on and I will try to help, without prejudice to later discussion on badgers on Clause 16. I will endeavour to think of something better for a later stage in our proceedings. We have to bear in mind that at the present time we are talking about the species set out in Schedule 1. We are not under this Bill dealing with rabies but with natterjack toads, and so on, and the same urgency may not arise. Nevertheless, I do not wish to go further into the matter now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, entirely without prejudice to the Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will move on Clause 16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Enforcement]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 18, leave out from (" search ") to (" of ") in line 19 and insert (" that person if, with reasonable cause, he suspects him ").
The noble Lord said: the purpose of this Amendment is to remove a possible ambiguity in this clause. As drafted, it is not clear whether the "any person" referred to in lines 18 and 19 must necessarily be the same person as the "any person" in line 16. The Amendment would make it quite clear that a constable's powers of search are conditional

1127
upon his having reasonable cause to suspect the person not only of committing or having committed an offence, but also of having evidence on his person of the committing of an offence. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Amendment of s. 9 of Badgers Act 1973]:
1.19 p.m.
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 22, after ("inserted") insert—
(" (a). at the end of subsection (2) the words "after consultation with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Farmers Union, the Conservation Society and the World Wildlife Fund (United Kingdom)", and
(b).")
The noble Lord said: Some rather different issues arise here other than those we were discussing on the earlier Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, because the object of this Amendment is to introduce into the Badgers Act the words printed on the Marshalled List requiring the Minister to consult with these various bodies before he issues a licence for the taking or killing of a badger in order to prevent the spread of disease. In dealing with the earlier Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made two points about it: first, that he thought the choice of these bodies was invidious and, indeed, there were objections to non-statutory bodies being brought into consultation and being nominated in the Bill. I see the force of that objection, but he himself said that it was not the main ground of objection. The real ground was that he thought that if the Minister was required to consult before issuing a licence that might in some cases impose unacceptable delay.
Whatever may be the situation with regard to other wild animals, I suggest that that requirement of urgency cannot arise, or is very unlikely to arise, in the case of suspected diseased badgers. I say that for this reason: the right honourable gentleman the Minister in the other place has already made it clear in correspondence and otherwise, that if and when the Minister is given the power to issue a licence for the gassing of badgers, the
1128
procedure which will be followed is that there will first be the taking of specimen badgers in the suspected affected areas. These specimen badgers will then be subjected to an autopsy. If there are found to be traces of bovine tuberculosis, then, and then only, will the Minister consider issuing a licence to someone to exterminate the badgers by gassing.
If that is the procedure which will be followed—and, of course, that seems to be a very sensible procedure—it will allow longer time, will it not, for the Minister, between the time when he takes a specimen badger to see whether there are traces of tuberculosis and, the time when he issues the licence for the use of gasssing, to consult with such bodies as it would be proper for him to consult. Therefore, I suggest that the objection which the noble Lord himself said was the major objection to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, does not apply in the case of my Amendment to Section 9 of the Badgers Act.
I accept, as I did just now, that there are manifest objections to consulting these bodies. Indeed, I am not at all sure that, for example, the Conservation Society deals with matters of this kind at all. They paint with a very wide brush and cover a very vast field. Whether they would be a proper body for the Minister to consult with, I do not know. I should have thought it was possible to devise a form of words which would at least require the Minister to consult, in the case of badgers and before issuing a licence, with such other bodies as he thinks fit, including the Nature Conservancy Council. Obviously, I am not going to carry this Amendment to a Division, because as it stands it is defective on those grounds. But would the Minister be good enough to indicate whether, between now and the next stage, he is prepared to consider the Amendment on the lines I have just outlined? I beg to move.
The Earl of ARRAN: I give my strong support to my noble friend Lord Foot—support I also gave to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, although his Amendment was not directly concerned with badgers. After the badgers, the die is seemingly cast. We must now ensure that insofar as we conscientiously can, we are doing the right

1129
thing. Last Saturday I was in the South of Gloucestershire, with the honourable Member of that constituency. A map was shown to me of the area to be covered and the action to be taken. Believe me, the Minister has set himself an awesome task—an inevitable task, he thinks, but none the less awesome for that. I pray that his efforts may be crowned with success. I pray also that, above all, we have chosen the right animal. The thought that we may not have done so is too terrible to contemplate. I would not care to have on my hands the blood of perhaps 1,000, perhaps 10,000, innocent animals, nor do I think the Minister, who is a humane man, would care for it. I beg the Committee to pass this Amendment or, alternatively, I beg the Minister to reply to it in a satisfactory sense. The Amendment carries the clearest assurance that in introducing the top animal welfare bodies, we may say to ourselves, cold-bloodedly if you like, that the badger did not die in vain.
1.25 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I strongly support this Amendment and any action which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, may decide to take upon it. I hope that we can get from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, some assurance or explanation of what the Minister may have in mind when this Bill becomes law. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, has just referred to the map of the area over which this destruction might be proposed as soon as the Minister is free to make the order for that to be done. There is death and destruction of badgers waiting to be done under this Bill—let there be no mistake about that. It is perhaps the most serious clause in the Bill, because it is the most immediate in its action. It is to modify a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament only very recently for the protection of the badger. It is going to be a strange state of affairs for the protection of badgers, if a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament is applied, after many years of agitation to get the badger protected, and is then undermined more by the Minister than by anyone else.
Of course we understand what this destruction is intended to do. It is intended to reduce the risk of further
1130
infection in cattle by tuberculosis. It appears that there are some doubts among the experts as to whether the cattle infect the badgers, or the badgers infect the cattle. I want two things from the Minister. First, I want an assurance that whether it is in this form of words or in any other, the obligation to consult shall be in the Bill. It would be unlawful for the Minister to act without consultation under the terms of the Bill, as I hope it will eventually be passed. It may be that we do not achieve our purpose, but run into difficulties such as those explained by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, a little while ago, that if one specifies bodies one probably leaves out some which should be in. There is also the difficulty of organisations changing their name, or fresh organisations being created which might claim to be brought within the ambit of consultation.
understand these difficulties. It may be a form of words which will combine the obligation to consult before granting an order with not necessarily only such bodies as the Minister sees fit, but such bodies having an interest in animal welfare as he sees fit. Otherwise, he might consult, as he sees fit, with some body which many of us would not regard perhaps as important as others.
For example, I would not think it enough for the Minister to consult the British Medical Association or the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I would not regard that as completely adequate for the form of consultation which we ask the Minister to undertake. This is a very serious matter. I sincerely hope that the Minister understands that it is not an easy proposition to ask your Lordships' Committee to undo what we have previously done to protect this animal, and to permit its destruction by methods not permitted under earlier Acts of Parliament. These are two most serious breaches of what the House originally intended. I can say quite definitely that if my area of Surrey were within the area of possible destruction on these grounds, which would bring the gassing equipment and the people on to land near where my badger setts are, I should feel deeply emotional and deeply indignant about it. I should want to be fully assured that this was really necessary in the public interest, and not merely in the interest of a small

1131
area of grazing land or something of that kind.
One has to consider the relative priorities here. Cattle are more easily replaced than badgers and have no more right to live, except on commercial grounds. There is a great deal of hypocrisy in our attitudes towards animals. We do not have our sense of priorities right; we do not have our relationships between one species and another right, nor do we have our relationships between animals and human beings right. I believe that if the world is to survive for the centuries ahead this will be one of the biggest issues which will be a condition of the survival of the world as we now know it, and not only for human beings.
I hope that this can be taken very seriously and that before we finish with this Bill we shall have something in it which will tie the Minister quite definitely to the obligation to have reasonable consultations. He will not be asked to act in a hurry, but even if he is he can have consultations very quickly. After all, bodies which are well acquainted with the problems, ecological, scientific and medical, of these issues are just as easily obtainable for consultation as the Minister's own officials. There is no difficulty about that. Ministers who want to consult quickly can do so. They have been known to consult in the middle of the night in order to decide some question of extreme urgency.
Do not let us hear from the noble Lord, I bee of him, that the Minister may have to act so quickly that he will not be able to get hold of the people who can give him proper advice. That, if I may say so with great respect, is sheer nonsense, and I speak with Ministerial experience on these matters. I hope, therefore, that we can get an assurance. I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure the Committee that when the Minister gets authority to make an order we may know something about it.
My final plea is, that the area of destruction should be as small as is consistent with testing the value of destruction, for the purpose of eliminating cattle disease. Do not let us have an overkill here, a much bigger overkill than is necessary to achieve the purpose. The areas
1132
of this map probably ought to be very much smaller, for a year's test or longer, to see whether the destruction of the badger reduces the degree of infection of cattle there. Do not let us have the badgers destroyed in the bottom half of Britain, and then find that, after all, perhaps it is not the badgers which are responsible. I beg of the noble Lord to give the Committee some assurance that the Minister will confine the orders to the minimum area necessary to provide adequate grounds for a test to be made on a matter upon which there is some veterinary doubt.
Earl FERRERS: This is an important Amendment. Nobody wants to see badgers destroyed. That is absolutely basic to people, whatever views they may have about this Amendment. But the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, rested the whole of his argument on the fact that there should be consultation. Whether or not this Amendment is accepted, he said there should be consultation before anything is done about the destruction of badgers. I do not believe that the powers which the Government will have under this Bill are wrong or too extensive. What we are considering here is whether, if there is an argument about badgers having tuberculosis, there should be a destruction of those animals in order to prevent the spread to cattle and thereafter to human beings. I do not believe that this is a matter for consultation. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was right when he asked: if you consult where does consultation end? We had a few examples of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, said that this is not really a very important point, because you can always cut down the amount of people whom you consult. But I would put this point. If there is a disease which may be transmissible to cattle, and thereafter to human beings, is it right that the Ministry, who have the right to protect—as Governments have the right to protect—people from disease, should consult with other people whose motives may be different? I do not think they should. Of course, the Ministry of Agriculture has always had fairly stringent powers with regard to disease. If the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, were here, she would have things to say—and indeed she has—on

1133
the question of brucellosis and how this can be transmissible to man, and how the Ministry has never taken enough action to cure that. Yet brucellosis can be transmissible by foxes. What about swine vesicular disease, swine fever and foul pest? The Ministry of Agriculture have very sweeping powers over all these diseases in order to control and contain the disease.
It is sometimes necessary to take very strong action against other people's animals which do not have the disease. Then we come to foot and mouth disease. Again, the Ministry have very wide powers in order to stop that disease. I do not believe the powers which the Government have under this Bill as it stands are unreasonable. Certainly, we would not wish to see the wholesale destruction of badgers, but if it were a fact that there were badgers which had TB and which could infect other animals in an area, and could then in turn infect human beings, I do not believe that would be an occasion when consultation should be required. I believe it would be an occasion when the Government should have power to take the necessary action.
Lord BALERNO: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Ferrers very much indeed. I think he has made the case most clearly for leaving things as they are under the control of the Minister of Agriculture. I should just like to add this to noble Lords who have proposed this Amendment. In the long run, it is to the benefit of the badger population that tuberculosis or other disease should be eliminated. Otherwise, these diseases may well become endemic in the badger population and the situation of the badger population will be worse than it was before.
Lord MELCHETT: I should like to agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord has just said. The fact is that bovine tuberculosis is endemic in badger populations in a limited part of the South-West of England. That is why the Government wish to have the power that we are taking under this clause. I spoke at considerable length on Second Reading on the position of bovine tuberculosis in badgers, and I do not intend to reiterate today everything I said then. However, I am in the unhappy position of being able to give the Committee some more
1134
information about bovine tuberculosis in badgers since I last spoke. It is an unhappy position from a personal point of view, because I am afraid that further evidence tends to support what we have been saying all along.
Experimental laboratory work has shown that the virulence of the organism isolated from badgers is similar to that isolated from cattle. Badgers infected with bovine tuberculosis have been found only in those parts of the country where breakdowns in cattle have persistently occurred. Examination of the records from 1971 in, for example, a larger area of North Avon in Gloucestershire shows that 105 out of 150 breakdowns have occurred within a half-mile radius of places where infected badgers were found, and a further 15 within a one-mile radius. I think that those figures emphasise that this is a local problem in the South-West of England, and it is something I shall be returning to rather later.
During a recent survey of a part of that area, 170 occupied setts were noted, of which 95 were in fields or hedges accessible to cattle. At two locations only a mile apart in another part of the area, 31 infected badgers have been found, and nine herd breakdowns have occurred. At yet another location eight infected badgers have been found and 21 herd breakdowns have occurred. The carcases of many other wild creatures and birds, the majority of which come from the problem areas, have been examined for the tubercal bacillus, but this bacillus has been discovered only in four; that is in two moles and two rats. I think that this was the point which the noble Earl, Lord Arran, raised as to whether we were going to be killing the right animal. The post-mortem findings in these four cases—the two moles and two rats—showed that the disease was not progressive, indicating that the two species have a high resistance to bovine tuberculosis.
It is considered from the evidence accumulated up to the present that apart from badgers no other wild species is involved in the spread of this disease. I should like to stress that unfortunately it appears that badgers are extremely susceptible to the disease. Referring to something my noble friend Lord Houghton said, I quite agree that badgers

1135
have an equal right to live with cattle. I personally would much rather see a badger than a cow. But our very strong feeling is that to eradicate populations of badgers in limited areas where the disease is endemic in the badgers is going to be for the good of the badgers as well as for the cattle. I said that deliberately before coming on to give the Committee some figures, because I do not want anybody to feel I am stressing economic factors and thinking only of the good of the cattle—though of course, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, pointed out, that is extremely important—if for no other reason than that in some circumstances the disease is transmittable to humans through cattle.
Noble Lords may like to know that during the year ending 31st March 1975 compensation paid for breakdowns in the South-West region reached a total of nearly £210,000 compared with only £82,000 for the whole of the remainder of England and Wales. That compares with the figure I gave on Second Reading for the calendar year 1974, in other words a slightly earlier period, of £90,000 for the whole of England and Wales, to about £200,000 for the South-West. The figures indicate not only the size of the problem but also that it appears to be getting worse.
To turn from the general points to Lord Foot's Amendment, I would say, first, that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has consulted widely with interested organisations before introducing the Government's Amendment, which is now Clause 16 in this Bill, and will be prepared to do so again if any radical change in approach were contemplated in relation to badgers. Although I cannot accept the Amendment, and I do not want to reiterate the technical reasons for that, my right honourable friend would welcome the views of persons with a legitimate interest in this matter. Accordingly, he is prepared to set up an appropriate form of non-statutory consultative panel comprising among its members six independent persons who can speak with authority on such matters as, for example, badger biology, bovine tuberculosis, farming interests, wildlife conservation, veterinary science and animal welfare. My
1136
noble friend will be pleased to hear that. This could keep under review the general question of tuberculosis in badgers, and its relationship to tuberculosis in cattle and the use of the proposed licensing powers.
I might say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who said that he did not think that consultation on a statutory basis was necessary, that we would agree with him so far as that is concerned if there was a statutory obligation before issuing licences. We do not think that that would be practical. But this consultative panel, with a wide range of interests, which I think all noble Lords would agree covers all the main points which need to be covered, would have a slightly different function in that they would be able to keep under review the progress of the use of the powers which the Government are taking under this clause.
We have always agreed that there is not conclusive evidence that badgers give bovine tuberculosis to cattle. There cannot be conclusive evidence by the nature of the problem. What we have said is that only by trying out the extermination of badgers by gassing will we ever know whether this is the source of the problem or not. I hasten to add immediately that we are absolutely convinced that this is the cause of the problem, but by the nature of the evidence we cannot claim that it is conclusive. I think that noble Lords will agree that because of the way in which disease is transmitted, we are very rarely able to come up with conclusive proof about these things. I would remind the Committee that the original decision to slaughter cattle affected with brucellosis was taken on the basis of circumstantial evidence that they were transmitting the disease to human beings, and the result of that policy has caused a dramatic decrease in the incidence of the disease in human beings. I think that that covers the points that the noble Earl raised in objection to having any consultation.
Earl FERRERS: If I may interrupt for one moment, I do not have objection to consultation if the consultation is concerned with what is the best method in general of dealing with the situation. I think that that is perfectly right. But

1137
will the noble Lord confirm that the Minister will not be obliged to consult with this body before taking action?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, I would confirm that. The non-statutory consultative panel which my right honourable friend has now given an undertaking to set up would be for the purpose of keeping under review the general question of tuberculosis in badgers and its relation to tuberculosis in cattle, and the use of the proposed licensing powers, so that it would be a question of keeping the operation of this clause under review.
To turn to the point made by my noble friend Lord Houghton, the evidence for the transmission of tuberculosis from badgers to cattle is now so strong that we feel it would be irresponsible not to take action in individual cases outside the control areas where herd breakdowns occur and badgers in the locality are established to have the disease. I think I referred on Second Reading to this as being akin to fire brigade action. The initial control area which he asked me about will be a pre-selected part of Gloucestershire Avon up to about 40 square miles in total. This area is bounded in the west by the River Severn, in the East by the M5, in the South by the M4, and in the North by the Little Avon River. My understanding is that in this area control operations will, as it were, start in the centre and work outwards, and it is likely in the end that probably only about half the area will actually be covered by gassing operations.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: I am afraid this is a very ignorant question. I have kept cows, but I have not kept badgers. How does the tubercular germ get transferred from the badger to the cow? Is the badger a grass-eating animal? I did not think that it was. How does the transference come about?
Lord MELCHETT: I am glad to hear that the noble Baroness does not keep badgers, because I think we all agree that they are happier not being kept, but living wild and free. I went into this in great detail on Second Reading, when I explained, and I reiterated it today, that we cannot say exactly how the disease is transmitted, but the circumstantial evidence is very strong. If the noble Baroness would care to read what I said
1138
at Second Reading about the habits of the badger and the incidence of herd breakdowns in relation to badger sets, and in particular the behaviour of badgers which have bovine tuberculosis, I think she will see that the evidence we have of the fact that the disease is transmitted is very strong indeed. I hope that that answers her question without having to take up more time than I already have done on this point.
Lord BALERNO: It is most probably the droppings of the badgers.
Lord MELCHETT: I was hoping to avoid that, because I did not want to get into a technical discussion about where badgers normally leave their droppings, but diseased badgers tend to behave rather differently from healthy ones in this respect, and the noble Lord may be right.
I was intending to say, as an assurance to my noble friend, that blanket extermination of the kind of the spectre he raised, at least by inference, would in our view be premature at this stage and will not be undertaken and unless and until experience has shown this to be fully justified. I think that the undertaking I have given to have a consultative panel looking at this and advising the Minister makes this a very worthwhile assurance. As I say, experience has shown this to be fully justified, for example from the results of work in this control area. I do not expect that any blanket gassing operations will take place outside the control area, the details of which I have given, until we have at least a year's experience of operations in the control area on which to draw.
When I speak of "blanket extermination" and "blanket gassing ", I want immedately to emphasise to all noble Lords, to all wild life lovers, and in particular to all farmers all over the country, that I am talking only about blanket extermination within limited areas in South-West England where bovine tuberculosis is proved to be endemic in wild badger population and not anywhere else where badgers are to be found in the United Kingdom.
If one message were to go out from your Lordships' House as a result of our discussion of this Amendment today—and I hope that this one message is taken by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who has

1139
such an interest in badgers—it will be to emphasise and emphasise again all over the country that this is a limited problem, limited to a particular area and that the blanket gassing operation will be carried out within a maximum of 40 square miles bounded in the way I have described. It is vital that farmers in the rest of the country do not get a mistaken impression, which I am afraid they have because of the very real worries of noble Lords and Members of another place about this clause. I am afraid that it is undoubtedly true that farmers and others throughout the country have the impression that this problem is a lot more widespread than it actually is and that the action we intend to take is more widespread than it actually is. I hope that these assurances will settle any doubts in noble Lord's minds and that we can go from here, all of us who care for badgers, to make absolutely sure that no misunderstanding about what we are proposing remains in anybody else's mind. I hope, therefore, that my assurances will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and that he will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord FOOT: I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his very full explanation of what the Government have in mind, what they have been doing and the way in which they propose to proceed. I will read the Official Report of the noble Lord's speech with great care tomorrow. I found it most reassuring as I listened to him, but I ask whether, if some of us had not campaigned on behalf of the badger, we should have got these assurances which he has been able to give today. Indeed, as I understand the noble Lord, he is saying that it is proposed to set up this non-statutory consultative board or body; that it will remain, as it were, in permanent session keeping under review the destruction of the badger in this control area; that the destruction of the badger by gassing will be limited to this area; that it will be an experiment which will be carried out over a period of time working from the middle outwards, and that at the end of a year the situation will be reviewed before any further licence is granted either for another area or for any other part of the country.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Lord is right with one exception, which I hope he will not feel is too important. It is that we have all along said, and it still remains the position, that where isolated herd breakdowns occur—again, this is only likely in this region of the South-West, and I emphasise that—and bovine tuberculosis is found in the local badger population, in those isolated incidents licences will also be issued, because we feel the evidence is so overwhelming that it would be quite irresponsible of the Minister not to act to control the spread of the disease in those isolated breakdown situations. I might add that it would be irresponsible for us, from the badgers' point of view as well, because if we were to allow the disease to remain endemic in isolated pockets outside the control area, the likelihood from our past experience is that the disease would spread among the badgers and make the situation worse.
Lord FOOT: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that further explanation, and I find it reassuring, too. The argument on this matter—I say this particularly to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—is really on a narrow basis. We do not in any way object to the Minister taking powers to control, kill and issue licences for the taking and killing of badgers where the disease exists, because that may have to be done for the sake of the badgers themselves, quite apart from the cattle. Nor do we object to the method of gassing, which is to be made lawful under Clause 16. Indeed, although I am not an authority on this, we accept that gassing by cyanide may be the most humane way of dealing with badger setts in infected areas. We are not arguing about that.
What alarms and worries us is what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was saying. The assumption is that where one finds bovine tuberculosis in cattle, and in the same area one finds that some of the badgers are infected, that statistical fact is claimed to demonstrate that it is the badger which communicates the disease to the cattle. Perhaps it does not much matter for practical purposes whether the badger transfers it to the cattle or the cattle to the badger; one must exterminate the cattle and the badger. That is why I say that perhaps

1141
it does not matter very much for practical purposes, but this is the risk as we see it: if in fact that is only a statistical connection and it is not the badger which is the carrier to the cattle, the Government will be off on a wild goose chase and they will not be applying their mind to discovering the real cause. There may be some reason for bovine tuberculosis occurring in the limited areas and infecting the cattle and the badger which we have not yet ascertained. Our worry is that one might have the wholesale slaughter of badgers all based on a false premise and all avoiding the discovery of what may be the real cause of the infection of the cattle.
As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will know, there is a good deal of statistic evidence to suggest that the badger is not the carrier. Again, it is statistical; it is not proof—it is cause and effect. It is not positively proven that the badger does not convey the disease, but there is quite a lot of statistical evidence to suggest that there has been bovine tuberculosis in cattle in areas where the badgers are entirely unaffected. If that is the case, then those cattle cannot have been infected by the badger but must have been infected by something else. However, I will not go into that question now.
Reverting to what the Minister has been good enough to tell us about the consultative procedure he proposes to follow, I take it that he does not want any words written into this Bill requiring the Minister to consult before he issues a licence. May I take it that although he will resist that it will be the normal course for the Minister, before he issues a licence other than in this control area, to go through the procedure I was talking about; that is, to take specimen badgers and conduct an autopsy? Will the Minister agree that if that procedure is followed before gassing is used there will be ample time to confer with this non-statutory consultative body?
Lord MELCHETT: I do not think I have quite grasped the point which the noble Lord is making. Certainly I can give him the assurance that gassing will be undertaken only in those areas where it has been proved that the wild badger population has the disease. Obviously, to achieve that it will be necessary to
1142
catch specimen badgers and have the carcases analysed. I am not sure whether the noble Lord was asking about further blanket operations over a considerable area, or to what I have referred to as "fire brigade" operations.
Lord FOOT: As I understand it, the Minister is saying that there will be this gassing operation in the 40 square mile area, and at the end of a year the matter will be reviewed and there is no intention of carrying out a blanket operation in any other area—only a fire brigade operation where there is an outbreak. In the case of this fire brigade operation, can the Minister give an assurance that there will be plenty of time for the results of the autopsy of the badgers that are taken to be considered by experts in the consultative body, before a decision is made to use gassing in that area? Different experts may give quite a different opinion.
If it was found that very few of the badgers taken were showing signs of affection by the disease, it might be the view of some experts that it would not be justified to destroy all the badgers there. If the incidence were much higher, it would be right to exterminate. I am merely asking for an assurance that this consultative body—of which I am very glad to hear—will be consulted at all times and, in particular, that there will be ample time in the fire brigade operations for this process of consultation to take place. I said at the beginning that I would not carry this Amendment to a Division, because I agree that the nominating of these bodies is obviously unsatisfactory. I feel that it is no use my asking the Minister to consider between now and the next stage writing something into Clause 8 about the requirement for consultation. Perhaps the most helpful thing for me to do would be to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: It might be help ful to the noble Lord if I dealt with it now. I think that the idea behind the consultative committee is that they will review the progress of the main gassing operation in the experimental area. In the meantime, as I said it is our intention to carry out fire brigade operations when there are particular herd breakdowns. I have the feeling that it would

1143
probably not be right to give any undertaking that the body will be consulted before those are carried out. No doubt the genera! principles on which action is taken in those cases will be a matter which the consultative committee is able to consider. I would certainly take that point on board. That would probably cover some statistical argument about what percentage of badgers caught would need to have the disease before it was felt that there was disease in the wild badger population. That general point might well be something on which the Minister would welcome the views of the committee. The point about the fire brigade operations is that they are limited and they are done very quickly. It is possible very quickly to snare and analyse badger carcases to discover whether or not the disease is present, and it would not be right to suggest that the committee could be consulted in all those cases. It will be able to review the general operation of the use of gassing.
There is one other point which I should like to make, and I am afraid I must disagree with the noble Lord. I cannot accept that there is any substantial evidence that badgers do not transmit the disease to cattle. I am afraid that there is overwhelming evidence that the badgers are responsible for transmitting the disease. It is not just a statistical link. For example, there is the link between the areas where cattle on farms get the disease and the areas where badgers are living. It would be misleading the Committee, and I think anybody outside the House, if I were to give the impression that there was not overwhelming evidence that badgers are responsible for giving the disease to cattle.
Earl FERRERS: The point which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, made was quite important. As I understood it, this consultative body would he a forum to consider the way in which this part of the Bill is working. I think that where there was to be an autopsy of badgers in special areas, and a certain amount of time was to elapse, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, wanted that time to be used for consulting that body. I hope that that will not be agreed to. There may well be conditions in which the Minister wants to take the opportunity of asking, but it
1144
would be wholly wrong if the Minister were to be committed to consulting such a body on every occasion before taking those measures. From what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said I gather that he would not be so obliged.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Earl has understood me correctly. We have found from experience that there is not necessarily any great time-lapse where autopsies are concerned and that this is a procedure which can be done very quickly. Apart from any other considerations, it would probably be impractical for the Minister to undertake consultations when the majority of these isolated outbreaks occur. I believe that I have covered the general point which the noble Lord was raising.
Lord FOOT: Again, I should like to thank the noble Lord. I think he has been very fair to the House. He has made perfectly clear the extent of the Government's assurances and has not tried to cover it up at all. He has made it quite clear that he is not giving an absolute undertaking and that there will not always be consultations. I feel that we now understand the situation and I do not propose to continue the argument. I was going to say that it was evident that the Minister would not be prepared to consider writing in a consultative requirement and that it would not therefore be worth asking him to do so, but I hope that when we read tomorrow what the Minister has had to say, we shall find some cause for satisfaction and some real re-assurance that the badger will not be made the innocent victim of ill-thought-out attack. Therefore, I thank the Minister not only for telling us this but also for the great interest which he has shown in this matter throughout the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
2.10 p.m.
Clause 17 [Short title and extent]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 34, after (" the ") insert (" Conservation of ").
The noble Earl said: When this Bill was given its Second Reading, I said

1145
that, since it was based on the Conservation of Wild Creatures Bill, to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading six months ago, it would be more appropriate if the title contained the word "conservation" rather than "protection ". In fact, I believe that that is the wish of the entire conservation movement, which wishes to try to separate the two sides of caring for animals—conservation in the wild and protection.
The Bill is so drafted that it is a conservation Bill and it should please people like the noble Lords, Lord Stow Hill and Lord Hale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who were nervous of having too many offences which people would find it difficult to know about. There is provision in a sensible conservation Bill that the list of protected creatures and wild plants is kept as small as possible and that they are only put in the Schedule if it is considered essential. That keeps the number of potential criminals to the minimum and I feel sure that your Lordships will welcome it. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I should like to say that the Government welcome the Amendment.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
Amendment moved—
Page 7. line 35, leave out (" Protection").—[The Earl of Cranbrook.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Wild creatures protected by this Act]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 8, line 7, leave out—
(. Dormouse … Muscardinus avellanarius ").
The noble Lord said: The Amendment would delete the dormouse from the Schedule of wild creatures. I confess that it gives me no pleasure to move it. Though it appears that the dormouse is a declining species in this country, the Nature Conservancy Council has advised that it does not show the same degree of rarity as the other creatures which are to be protected by the Bill. There is some evidence to indicate that in past years the dormouse has been regarded as a pet and this may still be true to a
1146
limited extent. Nevertheless, it does not at the present time fall within the criteria set out in Clause 12, namely, that it has become so rare that its status as a British wild creature has become endangered by any action designated as an offence under the Act. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I think there is some truth in what the noble Lord says. We know remarkably little about the dormouse. It is widely distributed but we do not know how thickly populated are the areas in which it is distributed. However, it is sufficiently widely distributed not to be in any danger unless the present tendency to take it for commercial purposes becomes stronger. The Mammal Society is making a survey of the creature at the moment. If that is found to show that it is very rare, it can easily be put back on the list. I am perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
2.14 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Species of protected plants.]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 22, leave out—
(" Fingered sedge … Carex digitata ")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment would delete the fingered sedge from the Schedule of protected plants. Although this species is rare, it, again, does not fall quite into the same category as the other plants listed in the Schedule. The Fingered Sedge is known to exist on 25 sites, many of which contain a large number of individual plants. I am advised that there are at least four sedges which are more rare. The Nature Conservancy Council has therefore advised that this plant is not currently in need of the special protection which would be afforded by the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I find it more difficult to agree to this Amendment. The Fingered Sedge was introduced into the Bill as it went through another place by the promoter of the Bill, Mr. Hardy, MP, who feels very strongly about it. The Fingered Sedge occurs rather sporadically in his constituency

1147
and he is very anxious that it should be protected there. I must confess that I am not a botanist and such advice as I have been able to take leaves me equally balanced between the noble Lord opposite and Mr. Hardy. While I am not prepared to accept this Amendment, I certainly would not wish to divide the Committee on it.
Lord MELCHETT: In view of what the noble Earl says, it might be better to end on a happy note. Therefore I should like to withdraw the Amendment and reconsider it on the understanding that I shall be moving it at the next stage unless some further evidence is brought to light. On that basis I wish to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BERKELEY Baroness BERKELEY moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 35, at end insert—
(" Spurred Coral Root Orchid—Epipogium aphyllum")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment, which seeks to add
(" Spurred Coral Root Orchid—Epipogium aphyllum")
to the list of protected plants. This orchid is sometimes referred to as the "Ghost Orchid ". Some of these species appear to have more than one name, which makes it somewhat confusing. This orchid has a curious root formation, said to be of scientific interest. It is very slow in growth as it is known to flower only once every three years. I understand that it used to grow in Herefordshire but is now found only in Southern England. Therefore it has become very rare and is obviously in need of protection. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will agree to accept this Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I agree with what the noble Baroness said about this plant. We accept that it ought to be included in the Schedule. The only reservation I have is that it is our view that the "Ghost Orchid" would probably be the correct common name by which to refer to it in the Schedule. But, again, in the interests of harmony it would he best to accept the Amendment on the understanding that I will probably move an Amend-
1148
ment at the next stage to change the common name by which the plant is known.
Baroness BERKELEY: I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

MOBILE HOMES BILL
2.20 p.m.
Lord ELTON: 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 Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Maybray-King in the Chair.]
Clause 1
[Duty to offer agreements.]:
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out (" or main ").
The noble Baroness said: I consider that if this Bill is to be successful in helping the homeless, the overhoused and the young married couples, surely the mobile home must be the only home. It is for this reason I should like to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. For 19 years as a Member of the House of Commons I had an interview session every Saturday and I learned, much to my sorrow, of the great problem of homelessness. It was not only that, but when there were debates in the House it seemed to me that this was a universal problem throughout the country. Various Acts of Parliament have, regrettably, stopped many people either from letting their house or from selling their flat. I believe very sincerely that from the moment children are born the whole environment begins to affect them. Overcrowding leads to wife beating, to baby battering, to divorces and also to vandalism because young people leave homes which are overcrowded. People are sleeping in undesirable places.

1149
Quite a number of times they are sleeping in vans—they have nowhere else to go—or in damp basements or in attics or women having to share kitchens. Many people have no shelter at night and sometimes they are found shelter by the local authorities but afterwards have to wander again.
As, in this Bill, it is to be the main and only home, I should like to know how it is to be judged, how many months have to be occupied in the main home? In my opinion, what are being created are second homes which I consider undesirable. Many people have homes and take the mobile home as a second home. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that this Bill was to help the homeless. I find that it will not do so unless this Amendment is accepted. If it is the only home and should the owner sell it at a profit he does not have to pay Capital Gains Tax.
A Minister recently put forward Circular No. 24 on housing needs and action from the Department of the Environment. It has been summarised as follows:
" To meet immediate needs mobile homes or other forms of housing which can be made available quickly should sometimes be provided or allowed and such proposals will be sympathetically"—
that is, by the Minister—
" considered for key sector loan consent.
" Local authorities are asked to speed the lengthy process of designing and building local authority dwellings, and in particular designs should avoid complexity intended ' to seek an interesting scheme '."
I think that this Circular to the local authorities should be helpful if it is carried out. The immediate need is for mobile homes and other forms of housing that can be made quickly available. I think that with this Circular from the Minister there is no reason why it should not be carried out.
In many areas there were "prefab" houses which were in good condition but, unfortunately, they were pulled down too soon. I think it unfortunate that in Clause 9 of the Bill "mobile home" regrettably has the same meaning as "caravan" in Part 1 of the 1960 Act as amended by the 1968 Act. I have brochures here but I cannot mention names; but I think that a mobile home is completely different from a caravan and should have a different distinctive title.
In Gibraltar for example, the Royal Navy was housed in these mobile homes. They preferred to have permanent homes, of course; but this was much better than them having to share, and it was better for the wives to be able to be with their husbands. In Devonport recently the Navy used "prefabs" while rebuilding on the site of "H.M.S. Drake ", and there are some nice "prefabs" in Wiltshire. There are plenty of sites and they will go on standing empty for economic reasons. Certainly roads will not be built. There is one road, where several hundred prefabs were pulled down in order for it to be made into a main road, which will not now be constructed, after all. With unemployment rising, a family could take a mobile home to a certain area, particularly Scotland where so many men have to work and leave their families behind. In America it is not unusual to see mobile homes being taken on a lorry from one place to another.
Who is to decide the meaning of "main"? I suggest that we take out "or main" but leave in "only" in view of the housing shortage. The expression "only or main residence "has been used in the Bill because of the expression in Section 29 of the Finance Act 1965 dealing with the exemption of capital gains. But if it is an only home and it is sold at a profit, capital gains tax will not be payable. My noble friend might consider some other phrase such as "usual place of abode" which I gather is used in Section 38(1)(b). of the Land Compensation Act 1961.
I am astonished that this Bill defines a mobile home and states that it has the same meaning as caravan. Surely to call this the Mobile Homes Bill is a misnomer. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, regarding the attitude of the Government to the Bill, said that the problem of mobile homes was the responsibility, in the main, of the Secretary of State for Trade. He also said that, in certain circumstances, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection was involved, but that he would be keeping in close touch with both. How absurd can one become when the main desire is to create new homes for the people themselves! There is a

1151
waiting list for these sites of approximately 20,000 people who could be moved into mobile homes in the not too distant future. More sites could be made available. At least 10,000 houses or flats might be released.
If the noble Lord cannot accept this exact Amendment, I hope he will give me an assurance that he will look into this to see that this Bill creates new homes for the homeless, and that the other people who have another home somewhere else, can either have a caravan which they can tow, or provide themselves with a caravan site. We shall be doing a great service not only to individual people, but to the whole country if we can relieve some of the destitute people who are in need of homes. I beg to move.
2.28 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, but I am not sure I followed her argument or whether, with this Amendment, she was intending to probe the sponsors of the Bill to see if a more precise definition of the word "main" could be ascertained. As I understood what the noble Baroness was saying, the connection between the availability of mobile homes and the provisions of Clause 1 was not immediately apparent. Nor was it clear to me how, by striking out the word "main ", as she suggested, any additional sites were to be provided, and the waiting list of 20,000 people, to which she referred, was to be diminished.
The noble Baroness made an important point when she referred to the definition of main " in the Finance Act 1965, which applies to owner-occupiers of ordinary dwellings. She said that provision was made in that Act for exemption from capital gains tax where a person had two or more homes and had to choose one of them to which the exemption applied. That was obviously sensible because the Government and their successors would not have wished to extend that concession so that an unlimited number of houses were to come under it, if anybody was fortunate enough to have more than one place of residence. Precisely the same argument must apply in the case of mobile homes, although hitherto it has been very unusual for anyone to make a capital gain on dis-
1152
posing of his interest in a pitch. Of course, that position may change now under the Bill since the right of transfer of an agreement is written into a later clause and the occupier might have a capital asset of which he could dispose. In that case it would be very important, I suggest, that the provisions of the Finance Act 1965 should be extended to the capital gain which the occupier would then enjoy.
However, if one looks at Clause 1 in full one sees that it refers only to persons who are occupying, or intending to occupy, a mobile home on a protected side. The definition of "a protected site" is found in Clause 9, which excludes sites for which the licence is only for holiday use or, in equivalent terms, such as to allow occupation only at certain times of the year. Therefore, if the noble Baroness has in mind those sites which are entirely for holiday makers, they are already excluded and the person occupying a caravan on one of those sites for two weeks of his annual holiday, or even for much longer periods of the year, would not qualify for the protection given to others under this Bill. So that leaves to be dealt with sites which are entirely residential, and there are a few where the licences allow a mixture of both holiday and residential use. We have a minor problem here, and perhaps the Minister can say something about the number of places on sites which are not specifically residential or holiday but have a mixture of the two uses, where the respective numbers are not clearly laid down in the licence.
What the noble Baroness is saying is that on those sites where the occupation is incontestably of a residential nature—and, after all, the person has to sign a declaration that this is the case the protection conferred on everybody else under the Bill will be denied to an occupier if he is in any other premises for some fraction of the year, however small. The noble Baroness asked the question, to which it would be interesting to know the answer: When we speak of "main", does that imply some minimum length of residence? Certainly in debates on the electoral law, the noble Baroness may remember—I think she took part in the debates on the Representation of the People Bill in 1968—this point came up.

1153
The question arose whether, if a person had a residence, say, in South Kensington and another in North Cornwall, and he was not specific as to the amount of time he spent in each of one of them. would he be able to pick and choose which was his qualifying address for the purpose of exercising his vote under the Representation of the People Bill? The answer is that this point has never been really gone into by the courts and it is a matter for the discretion of the householder.
As I read this Bill, if the occupier declared that a mobile home is his main residence the courts would not be entitled to ask him detailed questions about the length of time which he spent there and the length of time he spent in any other residence where he had a right of occupation. But the principle which the noble Baroness is suggesting—that is, that the protection should vary according to the nature or length of occupation of the pitch—is not one which has ever been suggested for application to housing. And I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it would be decisively rejected if it ever were.
The person who lives in a council house or in a privately rented dwelling might own a caravan and reside there at some period of the year, either on holiday for two weeks or over the weekends—or, if he is fortunate, he might have even longer for his vacation than that. Because he owns or rents a caravan or some other holiday home, he does not thereby forfeit the protection conferred on him by the Rent Acts in his council house or privately rented dwelling. Therefore, I suggest that in this Bill it would be quite illogical for us to prevent a person who owns or occupies a caravan as his principal residence from having the same protection if he is fortunate enough to own or have rights of occupation in any other premises.
2.36 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I am sure that members of the Committee will forgive me if I start to talk about the conservation of caravans half way through my speech! Indeed, my sense of schizophrenia is added to by the fact that I am rising from these Benches to resist the Amendment of the noble Baroness and
1154
am thereby, as I see it, benefiting people who own more than one home. It is an unusual position for a Member of this Government to be in. However, the effect of the Amendment of the noble Baroness would be to limit the application of the Bill to occupiers who have no other residence except the mobile home in which they live. Even if this Amendment were accepted, without doubt the majority of permanent mobile residents would stand to benefit from the legislation. However, it seems harsh to exclude those who have a second home elsewhere and who occupy their mobile home as their principal residence.
The noble Baroness mentioned one previous example of where this form of words is used. There is another precedent for the phrase "only or main residence" in section 1(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The noble Baroness is concerned lest protection is offered to second home dwellers. However, the Bill does not apply to occupants using their mobile homes as second homes or holiday residences. This is a point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Most of these occupants probably occupy sites or parts of sites which are not used all the year round, and thus in any event are not covered by the Bill. These people are different from those who live in their mobile home as their main residence, even though they have another but secondary home elsewhere. Such residents are similar in kind to those whose caravan is their only residence, in that both categories would regard it as home. Therefore it seems only fair that the protection offered by the Bill should extend to both categories. When Parliament has granted the very substantial benefits conferred by the Leasehold Reform Act to people who occupy the houses concerned as their main but not their only residence, it seems not unreasonable that the residential entitlement to the benefit of this Bill should follow a similar procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about the definition of "main ". As I understand it, no further definition is thought to he required. In any dispute ultimately it would be a matter for the county court to decide, and the fact that it has been used in previous legislation

1155
would mean that there was some experience of deciding this matter.
Lord ELTON: I do not wish unnecessarily to extend this debate. The most that needs to be said has been said. I hope that in the light of what has been said the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw this Amendment, which in my view does not extend protection to a significant class of people. It will not ensure the release on to the market of more housing stock than is at present available, and if it did it would be so marginal as hardly to make any difference. All of us are concerned to increase the available housing stock and to put roofs over people who have no roofs under which to live. That is a principal aim of our whole society and our political effort at the moment, and a good deal of our political argument centres on the way in which it should be done. This way would not have a sufficiently significant effect to justify narrowing the Bill so as to exclude from security of tenure a number of people for whom this is not their second but their principal home, who may need a pied a terre elsewhere for their work and who may have a caravan on a park in Cornwall which they occupy for a fortnight a year and which they would have to own up to, thereby excluding themselves from the protection afforded by this Bill.
Baroness VICKERS: In view of what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Term of agreements etc.]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(" (2) Where—

(a). an owner of a protected site who is deemed to have complied with this section by virtue of paragraph (a). of the proviso to subsection (1) above subsequently acquires a new or extended estate or interest in the land comprising the site; or

(b). an owner of a protected site is deemed to have complied with this section by virtue of paragraph (b). of the proviso to subsection (1) above and planning permission is subsequently granted for the use of the land
1156
comprising the site as a site for mobile homes either without limitation or for a specified period,

the owner shall offer to extend the term of any agreement entered into in pursuance of a duty imposed on him by section 1 of this Act for a period which expires on whichever of the following dates first occurs:

(i) a date which is five years from the date on which the agreement commenced;

(ii) the date when his estate or interest in the land ceases; or

(iii) the date on which planning permission expires.").

The noble Lord said: This is largely a technical matter, and I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that it had not been foreseen. The Bill as it at present stands provides that agreements which are to be offered under Clause 1 must be for a minimum term of five years. Subsection (1) deals with the situation where either the site owner's interest in the land or the planning permission for use of the site for caravans is insufficient to enable a five year term to be granted. Subsection (2) then caters for the situation where an owner who has necessarily had to offer agreements of less than five years, because of limited interest in the land or limited planning permission, gets his interest or planning permission extended and in these circumstances he must extend the duration of the agreement.
However, subsection (2) of the clause as it stands in the Bill applies only where the interest or permission is extended to a date which is more than five years from the date of the commencement of the agreement. It fails to cover the case where the owner's interest in the land or his limited planning permission is extended but to a point less than five years from the commencement of the agreement. This Amendment ensures that whenever a site owner gets his interest or planning permission extended for any period, he must extend the agreement either up to five years from the date of the original commencement, or, where this is not possible, because the renewed interest or permission expires before then, up to the end of that renewed interest or permission. This is clearly what the sponsors of the Bill had in mind at the outset, but it was overlooked that if the precise length of time did not match the permission there would be a gap, which would make nonsense of the intentions of

1157
the Bill and provide little advantage to anybody. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Particulars to be contained in agreement]:
2.44 p.m.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) the description of the mobile home stationed or to be stationed on the site and provisions to enable the occupier to replace such mobile home with another during the period of the agreement, subject to the owner's consent which shall not be unreasonably withheld; ").
The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is that unless there is some provision in the Bill for the mobile home itself to be identified in the agreement, considerable difficulties and uncertainties could arise. These would be greater if the terms of the agreement had to be specified by the courts as provided for in later clauses, and the courts are given no guidance in this matter by the law. I am sure your Lordships will agree that vagueness in legislation should be avoided wherever possible. Precision is desirable and here is a case in point.
From the practical point of view, and in the draft form of agreement that I am advised is so near to mutual acceptance by the three parties concerned—the National Caravan Council, the National Federation of Site Operators and the Mobile Home Residents' Association—it has not been disputed that the mobile home should be identified in the agreement. That being so, it would seem desirable that it should be included. If it is not so identified, any resident would be quite within his rights to replace his present home for another. The new home might, or might not, be suitable from the point of view of its compliance with the relevant British Standard, and there are a number of standards, mostly related to safety and comfort in all seasons of the year. But a home can infringe the site licence conditions because of its dimensions, and this is of some considerable substance. This would then put the park owner in an impossible position. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that it is important
1158
that the site owner should be consulted before any replacements are made.
Having identified the mobile home at the time of the commencement of the agreement, I suggest that it is equally important to provide for its replacement. That might become necessary in the case of an accident, such as a fire or something of that kind, which would make the original mobile home uninhabitable or, indeed, the owner might quite naturally wish to replace it with a more modern home. I suggest to your Lordships that it might also be to the advantage of the occupier to have the mobile home identified if he is seeking credit for the purchase of a unit. For these various reasons, I suggest that the Bill is improved if the Amendment is included. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: I regret that I have to resist this Amendment on two sufficient grounds. First, it seems to me to be unnecessary; and, secondly, it does not seem to me to achieve its declared intention. I hope it is understood by those who have read the Bill that the terms which have to be included in the agreement, and which are listed in this clause, are not the only terms which may be included in the agreement. It is open to a site owner to put down as many other agreements as he thinks proper, and as the home occupier is prepared to sign for.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, said that if the specifications were not included, a replacement home might be unsafe, because it did not conform with British Standard Specifications, or might infringe the conditions upon which the licence for a site had been given to the site owner. I should have thought it was a very imprudent and improvident site owner who did not put in his agreement words to the effect that no home occupier might introduce on to that site something which would result in his loss of the licence. Almost anything might be dragged on to the site if the owner did not put that in. I doubt very much indeed whether many site owners at present extend this extraordinary generosity in terms of admission to their sites. Nevertheless, if such people exist, it is open to them under the Bill as now drafted to protect themselves by putting in those specifications for their own protection. To that extent, therefore, I feel that the Amendment is superfluous, because it

1159
introduces no new rights whatsoever to anybody.
Lord AVEBURY: If the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will forgive me for interrupting him, apart from the words at the beginning of the preamble to Clause 3, "without prejudice to the generality ", would not the site operator also be able to specify the dimensions and other characteristics of the mobile home under the provisions of paragraph (g), which says that "such other provisions" may be included in the agreement as are "necessary to maintain the standards ". That phrase presumably includes the standards imposed on the site operator by the local authority under the licence.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord helpfully anticipates my next point, which is this. There is an understandable alarm among site owners that the Bill as it stands might be something which I think they term a "banger's charter ". I should explain that a "banger" is not something which makes a noise, but something which looks as if it will collapse. It is perfectly possible for the site owner to put in specifications as to the standards of maintenance and the dimensions, as the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, helpfully said, and indeed anything else he thinks is helpful, under the Bill as it now stands.
I presume this is intended by the site operators to meet their point that the duty to offer to enter into what is, in effect, an eight year agreement will mean that existing residents who live in old worn-out homes will be given the right to remain in occupation of them. Either they can say, "The only agreement we can offer you is one that you will not be able to meet with your present residence because it will have deteriorated in the next three years and you must take the risk if you sign it ", or, if the occupant then signs that undertaking, he has to maintain his home at the acceptable level so that the standard of the site does not decline. If he refuses to do so, which he may do, he may be allowed to remain on the site but he loses the protection of the Bill.
The point is that the Amendment would not appear to have the desired effect which the noble Lord seeks, as the option to replace the existing mobile home would rest with the occupier, as the
1160
Amendment is drafted, and there is no provision giving the owner the right to require that it be replaced by another because of its deteriorating condition. That is something he would still have under the Bill, and which is not due to the Amendment as it now stands. It should be in the agreement. The owner who wants to preserve the standard of mobile homes on his site is not protected by this Amendment, but is perfectly capable of protecting himself, and I would be astonished if he did not do so.
Baroness VICKERS: I was going to support this Amendment, because I thought it was very reasonably aimed at greater clarification, which I always think is advantageous. Also, the exact location of the pitch would facilitate subsequent administration.
Lord ELTON: Is this Amendment concerned with the location?
Baroness VICKERS: As it has already been turned down rather forcibly, I will leave that. May I put one point which might be of interest to the sponsors? There was a conference between the National Caravan Council, the National Federation of Site Operators and the Mobile Homes Residents' Association, and that was frustrated by the refusal of the residents to return to the conference table. They have now sent a letter saying that they have agreed to do so. This may be advantageous in the future.
Lord ELTON: I welcome this sign of growing good will between the parties concerned. That is all I have to add, except that I do not think the Amendment would achieve what it sets out to achieve, and therefore I must ask your Lordships not to support it.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: We have had from my noble friend a very full statement of the reasons why he considers this Amendment will not achieve the objectives it was hoped would be achieved. In the circumstances, therefore, I should like to withdraw this Amendment. I should also like to study very carefully all that has been said, in case it may be necessary to return to the subject on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.55 p.m.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 15, leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
(" (d) the annual charge to be made, the intervals at which payment is to be made and provision for reviews of that charge at intervals of twelve months subject to the right of an occupier who has determined the agreement to be repaid by the owner such proportion (if any) of any payment made by him as is attributable to a period after he has ceased to occupy part of the site, any such repayment being apportioned from day to day; ").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be for your Lordships' convenience if at the same time we could discuss Amendment No. 7. The reasons for proposing this Amendment are that the system of splitting the annual charges was introduced as a compromise to meet the needs and the requirements of the site owners and the mobile home occupiers. On the one hand, the longer the gaps that exist between reviews the greater the sense of security of the occupiers of mobile homes. On the other hand, with inflation running at its present very high rate, the site owner needs to be able to make adjustments to meet higher costs.
The site owners have been opposed in principle from the very beginning, and this was made clear to the promoters of the Bill by both the National Caravan Council and the National Federation of Site Operators when the Bill was introduced. I think it is the fact that all values and costs rise in inflationary situations, and while wages and costs of materials and services may be more easily seen to be rising that does not mean that land values, for example, and the capital costs and interest rates are not also rising. Therefore, the site owners see that it does not seem to be justifiable to separate the charges, but they indeed see that there are serious disadvantages to the mobile home occupants if these charges are split.
It is fairly obvious that the longer the gap between reviews the higher must be the increase in charges each time in order to anticipate inflationary trends. It must be obvious to your Lordships that each increase that is made must come as an ever bigger shock to the mobile home occupant. Most other factors are reviewed annually, such as
1162
pensions, rates, and salaries; indeed, at the present time owing to the high rise of inflation, we often have biannual reviews of quite a number of items. If the charges continue to be split it is probable that the site owners will load as many costs as possible into that part that can be reviewed annually. This also would be a disadvantage to the occupiers of mobile homes because VAT will automatically be attracted by the management services.
Perhaps I should here explain that the service element in the site fee is liable to VAT in any case, but it is not always easily definable, and then not only would this system of splitting the original charge precisely define the services element, but it is likely to inflate it too. I suggest that that would be to the disadvantage of the mobile home occupier but would make no difference to the site owners. For these reasons, I very much hope that this Amendment and Amendment No. 7 may be agreed. I beg to move.
3.0 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, has discussed this matter in detail with the National Federation of Site Operators and the National Caravan Council and that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, are putting forward the views of those organisations. Perhaps I should say at the outset that I have the honour to be President of the National Mobile Home Residents Association and therefore it will come as no surprise to the noble Lord that I shall not agree with everything that he said, or with what the noble Baroness said in her brief speech at the end of the last Amendment.
I must take issue with the noble Baroness for raising a correspondence of which we in this Committee have no knowledge and for saying things in this Chamber which are not likely to encourage, harmonious relationships between the site operators' organisations and the National Mobile Home Residents, for whom I have the honour to sneak. I knew nothing about the correspondence to which she referred, but I must say that if one looks back over the long history of negotiations between the site operators and the residents one sees that it has been a question of intransigence on the part of the site operators and a willingness

1163
to move by the residents which did not result in any progress until this legislation was brought forward, and we could have gone on arguing ad infinitum without making any progress if Mr. Tom King had not brought forward the measure which we are now discussing. I am sorry to have had to say this, but the noble Baroness provoked me by what she said at the conclusion of the last Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord will agree that he does not speak for the Mobile Home Residents' Association, but for himself? I do not think any noble Lord speaks on behalf of anyone.
3.3 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: I was using a shorthand term and what the noble Lords says equally applies to the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. They speak of course for themselves, but one knows that the views which they are expressing are likely to be as acceptable to the site operators as mine are to those for whom this Bill is designed, those who live in mobile homes as their permanent residences. Perhaps I used a form of shorthand which could be misunderstood and I accept the noble Lord's clarification. One looks at this Amendment in the light of one's knowledge of the fact that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are representing the site operators and one must say that despite the fact that the noble Lord maintains that it is in the interests of the residents because of the VAT implications—and we went into all that on Second Reading and quite thoroughly in another place—what is the snag?
As I see it—I mentioned this briefly on Second Reading—if we accept that an annual review of both elements of the charge is the most convenient and simple answer to the problem, then we must have some provision which restricts the increases which the site operator can demand at those intervals. If there is no rule by which the increases in charges are to be determined, then every time the matter will have to be referred to the courts in the case of a dispute and therefore I see the Amendment as being to the disadvantage of the residents. I have already said that so far as I can see it would be perfectly acceptable to have the annual review of both parts, but only on
1164
that condition, and if the noble Lord has any further suggestions to make as to how the residents can resist demands for what are perfectly unreasonable increases at these annual intervals, one would be happy to hear about that.
The noble Lord mentioned that costs of site operators go up like everything else in an inflationary era and one accepts that in general, but the three elements to which he referred were land values, capital costs and interest rates. If one takes the first, land values, they do frequently go up pari passu with inflation, but over the last two years that has not been the case, as the noble Lord is probably aware. If one looks at the indices which are published, at any rate of agricultural land values, one sees that they have been falling quite steeply from the peak of 1972. Thus, on the noble Lord's argument that the value of the land on which these mobile homes stand has been dropping since 1972, at the annual review so should drop the charges which are levied. I think I heard the noble Lord say "Exactly ", but we never find this happening in practice. The noble Lord is aware that when the individual rating of caravans was introduced, so that the site operators were relieved of the charges which they formerly had to bear, those charges were transferred to the individual residents. That never led to any reduction in the charges that were made to the mobile home residents. The landlords simply pocketed the money which they formerly had to pay out in rates. Similarly, if land values are going to fall I cannot believe that this is going to be taken into account in the annual revisions which the noble Lord is proposing.
The second element which he suggested should be considered was capital costs. If the site is one in which model conditions have already been implemented before these agreements are offered, then there is no question of additional capital cost being incurred. Assuming that they already have hardstandings and adequate washing facilties, that there are roadways on the site, children's playgrounds and all the rest of the things laid down in the model rules, and that individual caravans are connected to main drainage and have proper electric light and so on, would the noble Lord care to say what

1165
additional capital expenditure he envisages might be incurred during the course of the 12 months period which is going to justify a review at those intervals?
The last thing the noble Lord mentioned was interest rates. I do not suppose anybody embarking on the substantial expenditure of providing a caravan site is going to do so with money borrowed from the bank. He is going to do so, or he will have done so in the past, on the basis of medium-term loans on which the interest rate would be fixed. It would be a most unwise landlord who, in a year of rapid inflation, would incur long-term debts at variable rates of interest, or would incur short-term debts which may be recalled when the going is tough because banks have been asked to reduce their lending and he is thereby placed in a difficult situation at the end of 12 months because the charges, which may have been reasonable at the beginning of that period, have been overtaken by the increase in interest rates. Other than that, the kind of factors that would be taken into consideration in an annual review of rents do not come in and the analogy ceases. Of course, with local authorities and private landlords of residential property there are increases. We all know this.
We have read in the newspapers during the last few days that in the case of some of the London boroughs rents now being charged vary, if at all, only to meet the cost of the repairs which are incurred by the local authorities and private landlords. Therefore a case can be made, as the Secretary of State has been doing, for a fairly substantial increase in the amount that tenants should pay, and with possibly more frequent revisions than have taken place in the past. But none of those arguments apply to people living in mobile homes. Their agreements relate to a small piece of land on which costs have already been incurred before the occupation is taken up. I cannot see that the position is on all fours with those of tenants of private houses. Nevertheless, I am prepared to go along with the noble Lord provided he can assure me that in these annual reviews, without the separation of the charges to which he may otherwise be liable, adequate protection will be afforded to the occupiers against unreasonably increased charges which
1166
are not warranted by the costs incurred by the landlord.
Earl FERRERS: I have a great deal of sympathy with this particular Amendment, and indeed with what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just said. Obviously it is absurd if you separate the two charges and then make an obligation to pay VAT. That is an absurdity which will help nobody. Equally, if it is the case that annual charges are to be so extortionate as to be unreasonable, clearly that must be taken account of. But, in an era of inflation, the great danger in having biennial rather than annual charges is not only that the increased charge, when it comes, will be greater but that there is a very real prospect that the site operators may find themselves out of pocket. If that happens, one can imagine the deterioration of the site, which will be to the benefit of nobody. Not only will it not be to the benefit of those who own the sites and of those who live on them; it will also not be to the benefit of all those who live round about. If the standard of the site drops, this will have an effect far wider than upon just the site operators and the residents. I hope that we can come to some form of arrangement under which the annual charge can be retained but can make sure that extortionate increases are not provided for.
Lord ELTON: Noble Lords have prefaced their speeches by declaring their interest. My interest is simply as the sponsor of the Bill in this House. It has been sponsored elsewhere in another place and my brief is to try to produce fair legislation. In my view, the Amendment which is before us is a satisfactory conclusion to a long review of the various contingent factors. My noble friend Lord Wakefield who moved it was kind enough to keep me in the picture and I can say that the arguments he has advanced this afternoon, crowning those which he advanced earlier before the debate, convinced me. No such arguments were advanced on behalf of the National Mobile Home Residents' Association and nothing was offered to me on the subject, so I judged their case on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
I do not want to take up much of the Committee's time because the noble Lord,

1167
in his concluding paragraph, revealed a willingness to accept the Amendment, on terms. It may not be necessary, therefore, to prolong the argument very much. As a result, I shall only refer in passing to the fact that it seems to me that it is no more difficult to resist unreasonable demands made annually than it is to resist doubly unreasonable demands made biennially. I do not think that there is an advance in making that change which the noble Lord implied would be an improvement. I was slightly left out of the picture by the suggestion that changes in the value of land once it had been bought and was occupied would in any way alter the costs of running the site except in so far as they affected the rateable value. I should have thought that that would normally be marginal. The rest of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, against the Amendment revolved—
Lord AVEBURY: I mentioned the cost of land only because it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield. I did not introduce the subject.
Lord ELTON: I did not impute the introduction of the matter to the noble Lord, I am sorry if I appeared to do so. I said that the argument about the change in values escaped me. However, I do not think we should pursue that. Similarly. I do not think we should pursue the rest of the reasons of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for appearing to be about to resist the Amendment because they seem to me to be much more relevant to the Amendment which he has put down later on in relation to rent control. That is a separate matter. Therefore, if your Lordships are content to believe that heinous injustice by landlords of a grasping nature can be avoided—and I feel that we all believe that they should be resisted and that we may have to review how this can be done—I should recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I am grateful for the sympathetic way in which the Amendment has been received by the Committee. Perhaps it would be helpful, if between now and Report stage, consultations take place with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with a view to his possibly moving an Amendment which
1168
might be considered appropriate to give further protection as he might think desirable. I hope that the promoters of the Bill would be willing to look sympathetically at any Amendment moved in that way—
Lord ELTON: Before the noble Lord concludes his remarks, may I say that of course the promoters of the Bill will look with care at any provision and will look sympathetically at what they regard as sensible provisions. This is delicate ground upon which we are walking and I urge noble Lords to be aware of this when they approach their consultations before the Report stage, because I do not think that the interests of any parties will be served by an acute and hostile divergence of opinion on the Bill which might delay it and mean that it either became unworkable, or was replaced by something which some noble Lords might think was worse.
Lord MELCHETT: As someone who has kept out of the warfare raging on the other side of Committee, may I say that I think that the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, of consultations on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would be welcome? Perhaps it would be considered suitable that, as the Government have kept out of the discussions so far, we could be involved in a neutral capacity in any further discussions.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: In the light of what has been said, perhaps it is desirable that I should take no further part in the debate on this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Wakefield of Kendal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.17 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) undertakings by the occupier to observe regulations made by the owner in common for all occupiers of the site governing the conduct of occupiers in relation to their occupancy of the site; ").
The noble Viscount said: We are concerned here with compulsory conditions that go into the agreement. On reading paragraph (g) it seemed to me that it was not necessarily apt to cover the sort of house rules that one would expect on many sites, governing the ordinary standards of conduct, the making of noise, perhaps the hanging out of washing, and other matters on a communal site of this kind, with people living fairly close to one another. It seemed that it would be as well to ensure that there was a communal and common set of standards to be adhered to by everybody. With regard to the disputes procedure, your Lordships will see that one of the functions of the courts is to make any disputed agreement contain all the provisions in Clause 3. I therefore felt it would be advisable to spell this out and to ensure that there was no doubt that the kind of rules I have just mentioned should be included in the provisions of the agreement and that the occupiers should undertake to abide by them.
It has been pointed out to me that the way the Amendment is drafted would require there to be rules in every case. I suppose that at some sites—perhaps small sites, or those where there are large distances between the mobile homes—it may not be so necessary. I wonder whether the Committee would agree that I amend my own Amendment by way of a manuscript Amendment, so that it would read:
" undertakings by the occupier to observe any regulations made by the owner in common for all occupiers of the site governing toe conduct of occupiers in relation to their occupancy of the site;".
The inclusion of the word "any" after "observe" would take account of the fact that there may be circumstances where there are no common regulations, but would nevertheless deal with the situation where there are and would make everybody subject to them.
I do not know what my noble friend Lord Elton has to say about this proposal, but I think it would be as well to deal with the point specifically. If the Committee is prepared to accept my manuscript Amendment to my Amendment the matter would be even clearer, and in any event I very much look
1170
forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
3.20 p.m.
Lord ELTON: A good many of the observations I was about to make concerned the insertion of the word "any" between the word "observe" and "regulations ". I gather that the Deputy Chairman has accepted my noble friend's suggestion and therefore the Amendment is slightly different from that which we were about to consider. I cannot refrain from making an observation which I have already made: that the regulations as they stand allow the insertion of such an undertaking in the form of agreement. But I accept that there are perhaps strong arguments that social behaviour should be encouraged just as much on mobile home sites as on council housing estates, and that the grievances of tenants who suffer from unsocial noises, in particular, would be magnified if they live in structures of thin walls as on mobile home sites. Therefore I do not welcome this Amendment, because I do not feel it is necessary. But I do not think it is in any way harmful and I believe it could in some respects encourage higher standards of behaviour.
I wonder whether the noble Viscount has considered that if the inclusion of such regulations is made obligatory, then quite a new field of litigation would be opened and it would be necessary for the associations concerned to have standard drafts of agreement which could be adhered to by site operators and endorsed by the occupants. Subject to what might be said on either side of the Committee in support of this Amendment, I would not wish at this stage to resist it.
Lord AVEBURY: I should be interested to know where the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, got his Amendment from or whether he thought it up from his own knowledge of what happens on caravan sites. If it was suggested by any other person, I should like to know the etiology of it; because I do not know what the noble Viscount's experience is. I have found that in many cases the rules promulgated by the operators of these sites are extremely unreasonable, and I can see a possibility of conflict between the Amendment which the noble Viscount has tabled and the disputes procedure under Clause 4(4) where the court

1171
is required to make an order granting agreements to comply with Section 3 of the Act containing such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. I would suggest to the noble Viscount that these requirements on the court might be in conflict. He says plainly that the occupier has to give an undertaking to observe any regulations whatsoever which may be made by the owner; but these regulations may be unreasonable and so the court is obliged to uphold the provisions which require the occupier to observe the regulations, and is also obliged to see that the agreement is reasonable. The two might be totally incompatible.
Perhaps I might be allowed to give the noble Viscount two examples. I had a site in my former constituency which was run by a real "shark". He made a rule that no person on the site was to have more than one child. If occupiers were unfortunate enough to become pregnant, already having one child, they were given instant notice. After this had been argued for a considerable time and there had been some publicity about it, the owner graciously agreed that in future two children would be permitted by each occupier on the site. The other example is this and it is much more common. I am not suggesting that it happens frequently that site owners make an attempt to impose restrictions on the size of the residents' families, but frequently you will find—and I am sure the noble Viscount will have some knowledge of this—site operators who restrict access to tradesmen by persons on the site while, of course, getting a "rake-off "from the tradesmen who are permitted to operate. For instance, you may only get paraffin or coal from a certain tradesman who is granted the monopolistic situation on the site. That is written into the rules.
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that if operators are going to make that regulation, he would not wish to have their power to do so upheld specifically in the Bill. I would much sooner leave this to the sense of the courts, who have to make decisions as to what is reasonable and who would be able to examine any regulations that the site operator attempted to impose, and I would accept those rules which are for the benefit of all occupiers. I agree that there may be
1172
some which are generally desirable for the good conduct of the site, just as on housing estates. These ensure that people do not disturb their neighbours with noise, or hang out washing at times which may be greatly inconvenient to their neighbours. I accept those things. On council estates and private estates there are limits on what the landlord is expected to require from the tenants, and so on caravan sites there must be reasonable limits on the rules which may be imposed. The courts should be the right people to determine that, and we should not give the site operators the power to impose any regulations that they think fit.
3.26 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I urge the noble Viscount not to press this Amendment, particularly, to reiterate something the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, as the conditions which the operator writes into the agreement are not restricted to those specified in Clause 3. Agreements specifying additional undertakings will comply with the requirements of the Bill, provided its additional conditions do not conflict with those specified in the clause. I think it may weaken the generality of Clause 3. and the fact that what are listed are only things which shall be included and are not meant to be exclusive. If we add many more details to the already long list in Clause 3, the more it is likely to be thought that they are exclusive and that other conditions may not be written into the agreements. I hope the noble Viscount will accept that what he wants may be included in the agreement provided it does not conflict with anything else in the Bill, and that therefore his Amendment is not strictly necessary.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: This leaves me very puzzled. First of all, as to the etiology of it, it is really a matter of law. I was looking in my own past and found I had been drafting model by-laws and leases for a local authority who ran a caravan site. One of the things that the occupiers had to do was to stick to the site by-laws. There appeared to me to be a good deal to be said for that. May I ask the noble Lords, Lord Elton, or Lord Melchett, whether I am right in understanding that Clause 3, paragraph (g) does not, as it is drafted at the moment, include the provision of undertakings to abide by site

1173
by-laws? It must follow from what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, that the Bill is drafted not to include that, otherwise he could not object to my spelling it out in detail. I thought it was intended to be comprehended by the wording, and the Bill talks about the provisions
" necessary to maintain the standards reasonably required … in relation to the occupation of the site ".
I thought that included the by-laws I was talking about. The noble Lord, I imagine, is now saying it does not and should not.
Secondly, I shall have to raise something with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, when we come to Amendment No. 16. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that it would be a good thing that the courts should be able to consider the site by-laws, and I think I am right in saying that I have not put down anything in this Amendment which necessarily precludes them from doing that. If the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will look at subsection (2) of Amendment No. 16, he will find that in
" a case falling within paragraph (b). of that subsection "—
that is, where the occupier has been offered an agreement which falls within the terms of the Bill and has not said anything about it one way or the other—the owner of the site goes along to the court and the court is strictly limited in the powers that it has. It has not powers to approve or to make an agreement which contains the Section 3 provisions and such terms and conditions or such other terms and conditions; it only has power to approve an agreement, as I read it, that complies with Section 3. There is no question of any other conditions for powers at all.
Therefore, if nothing is put in to cover the provision I am speaking about, if the occupier chooses to be idle or pigheaded and not to agree with the ordinary rules that apply to everybody else, he forces the owner to go into the courts and the courts then cannot make that man, and that man only, comply with those rules, however reasonable they may be. That seems to me an insane situation—and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will now tell me why I am wrong.
Lord MELCHETT: No, I shall not. The noble Viscount should not jump to
1174
conclusions just because I am on my feet. I was going to ask the noble Viscount a question. He is a lawyer and I am not. I should have thought that the reference to Clause 3 in paragraph (b). in my Amendment, to which he referred, would cover the fact that Clause 3—and this is the question I am asking the noble Viscount—includes the words "without prejudice to the generality to the foregoing shall include ", quite clearly saying that Clause 3 is not an inclusive list. I should have thought that the court would be able to take that into account in the reference to Clause 3 later.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Perfectly right. That would be an admirable answer, if I may respectfully suggest so, if the noble Lord had not put in, in addition to that, in paragraph (a). of subsection (2), that in addition to complying with Section 3 it may also contain such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable or such other terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. This may well be a point that comes up in the construction in the county court, and it is a point of some importance.
Lord MELCHETT: I have a feeling, unless I am in a muddle, that we are on a point which an Amendment of Lord Elton will raise on the existing clause—that is before my new clause is moved—and it may well be one I am disposed to accept. I hope I have the right wording. Therefore, we shall be coming on to this point at a later stage.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I had to deal with the point as to what the courts could do, because the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised it. I am answering the point he made to the Committee a little earlier. But may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his assistance in the point he put to me a little earlier? If I am invited to withdraw this Amendment on the grounds that we do not wish to have anything further that suggests that the list in Clause 3 is exclusive, is it or is it not right that paragraph (g) as it stands is capable of including a requirement or an undertaking by the occupier to stick to the site rules? If it is—and I thought that it was, albeit rather heavily disguised by a number of other things—it may well be that my Amendment is unnecessary. If it is not, and we do not get the procedures right

1175
in the disputes clause when we come to it, then I would suggest to the Committee that my Amendment is extremely necessary because otherwise we shall get into the difficulty I have just mentioned.
Lord MELCHETT: I think this is something on which I need to take further advice. My feeling at this stage on paragraph (g) is that whether it is wide enough to include the site rules would very much depend on the rules themselves. But were it not, there is nothing in Clause 3 and in any of its subsections which prevents other rules from being written into an agreement so long as they comply with the rest of the provisions in the Bill. I do not know whether that answers the point the noble Viscount is asking about.
Lord AVEBURY: I am not sure whether we have altogether cleared up the point that I raised about Clause 4(4). A later Amendment, No. 16, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may be accepted. The wording in subsection (2) of that Amendment is identical. Whether we accept Lord Melchett's Amendment or not, my point still stands: the court is required to do two things in determining what should be said in an agreement. It is required to see that the agreement applies to Section 3 and it is required to see that it contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. My main objection to the noble Lord's Amendment is that the two requirements which are placed on the court may be incompatible with each other— that if any rules, as the noble Lord wants to say in his Amendment, are unreasonable, nevertheless, because they are laid down in Section 3, the court has to uphold them. But in doing so it is infringing the other part of paragraph (i) which is set out in Section 4(1)(a). It is upholding terms and conditions which it may well think are unreasonable.
I gave two examples of the kind of rules which I am sure nobody in your Lordships' House would defend. So long as the words "any regulation ", or a similar term, without a preceding qualifying adjective such as "reasonable", appear in this Amendment, I am afraid we shall get ourselves into this difficulty.
Lord ELTON: Surely the word "in" is used in the sense " any rain that may
1176
fall on Friday " or any hope that we have of getting the Bill through this House today or next week ". We are getting into unnecessary difficulty. Quite clearly, on the Bill as it stands or on the Bill as amended, as the case may be—because it does not make any difference —a court which was presented with unreasonable rules would rule that no unreasonable regulation conformed with Clause 3.
I would go further and ask whether noble Lords wish to continue this discussion without technical advice, because it is a technical point. The noble Lord who speaks for the Government has already said that he wants technical advice and I would not recommend your Lordships to proceed to the conclusion of the Bill without first having obtained that advice. And perhaps your Lordships' House may wish to take that advice. I say this in no pontificating manner but in the hope that it may facilitate the speedier progress of this Bill through the Committee.
Lord AVEBURY: The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who has moved this Amendment is a distinguished lawyer. He is fully seized of the point which I make now and would be capable of answering it and advising your Lordships in Committee.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, either. Certainly I do not wish to waste it by giving advice, which may be wrong advice, to the Committee. Apart from speed, which is very important, I am interested in two things. First, I want to know whether or not my noble friend Lord Elton wishes paragraph (g) to include site rules. Secondly, I want to know in a minute what is to happen about Clause 4, because until we get that straight—and we shall not until I have withdrawn the Amendment or it has been agreed to—we shall not know where we are. We require a certain amount of further thought to be given to this matter behind the scenes. We have raised a problem which ought to be looked at. I am not suggesting that there should be unreasonable regulations, but I think that people should be subject to site rules, particularly if they go to court. Therefore, if we can do something elsewhere

1177
before next Friday I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I announce now that through the usual channels it has been agreed that we should adjourn the Committee at around 4 p.m. today until next Friday, when it is hoped that the Committee stage will be completed.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: May I ask what opportunity there will then be for consideration between the Committee and the Report stage, because it seems that time may well be required for discussions to take place. I hope, therefore, that reasonable time will be allowed.
Lord STRABOLGI: I can give that assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal. Without committing my Chief Whip, may I say it is probable that the Report stage will be a week later—on 4th July.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I am much obliged.
Lord ELTON: May I make the observation that the usual channels are agreed on this procedure on the under standing that sufficient time is provided at an early enough date for this Bill to reach the Commons in time for them to discuss your Lordships' Amendments before the Bill would otherwise lapse. I believe the date is 11th July and therefore it is possible that this may be done: but would your Lordships please bear that in mind.
Lord STRABOLGI: I will certainly give that assurance, always bearing in mind, of course, that the different stages of the Bill are completed with some rapidity.
3.40 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 41, leave out paragraph (h) and insert—
(" (h) the right of the owner to determine the agreement for breach of an undertaking, subject to the requirement, in the case of a breach which is capable of being remedied, that he has served written notice of the breach upon the occupier and has given the occupier a reasonable opportunity of remedying it:").
The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment can be dealt with a little more quickly. It is a technical Amendment to stop up a loophole in Clause 3(h). The main requirement remains as at present drafted, that before bringing to an end an agreement for breach of undertaking, the owner must give to the occupier notice in writing of the breach. This affords to the occupier a reasonable opportunity to put matters right before the owner actually terminates the agreement. The undertakings to which this provision refers are those in Clause 3(f) and (g) which relate to the prompt payment of charges, quiet enjoyment, the provision of services, mutual undertakings by the owner and the occupier about the mobile home, and maintenance of the site and its facilities. But other undertakings not listed in Clause 3 may also be included in the agreement. However, the breach may be of a kind which in practice is not capable of being remedied by the occupier. The Amendment therefore contains the proviso that the main requirement that notice in writing should be served, applies only in the case of a breach capable of being remedied. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Disputes]:
3.42 p.m.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 34, leave out from (" conditions ") to (" so ") in line 35.
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of your Lordships if the discussion also covers Amendment No. 12. These Amendments are concerned with disputes. This is really a very complicated matter and one which, because of lack of time, did not receive detailed consideration in another place. Lengthy Amendments were tabled overnight before the Report stage in another place, and I am advised that the National Caravan Council was unable to get a copy of the precise wording until after the debate was over.
As I see it, the essence of these clauses is to give the mobile home occupier the opportunity to apply to the courts for an agreement in the event that the site owner fails to offer one—I think no one

1179
would take any exception to that—or, if having offered one, and having agreed terms, the owner then fails to put them into effect. If, having gone to the court and no agreement having been offered, the court grants an agreement in terms that the occupier does not like or perhaps even cannot meet, it is just that the occupier should be given the option in Clause 4(6) to apply for the order to be revoked. All obligations are then discharged and the occupier must presumably rely on the 1968 Act for his security of occupation. However, the parts of the new clauses about which I am now objecting extended that situation, so that even if the parties had agreed the terms the courts could alter them as they thought fit. While the mobile home occupier still has his right under Clause 4(6) to apply for revocation, the site owner apparently holds no such rights.
Supposing the site owner and a mobile home occupier agree the terms of an agreement for a mobile home occupier to have a five-year agreement at a charge, say, of £12 a month for the first twelve months. Then, for some reason, the site owner fails to get the written agreement in its final form to the occupier in the three months allowed by Clause 4(1)(b).; the occupier is at liberty to go to the court to ask for the granting of an agreement under Clause 4(4)(a).. As this is now drafted, and without the Amendment I propose, the court, having heard both sides, would be within its right to grant an agreement to the occupier for ten years at £5 a month. How can the site owner then get out of such a situation? It seems to me clear that some Amendment is, needed to this clause to redress the balance of interests. For the reasons I have given, I hope that this Amendment may be accepted. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, has said, this is a rather complicated matter. I apologise in advance to the Committee for taking a minute or two in order to set out the feelings of the Government about it. These two Amendments relate to Clause 4(4)(a). which sets out the powers of the court to deal with applications from occupiers in the following circumstances: first, where the occupier has
1180
not offered an agreement under Clause 1; secondly, where the occupier and the owner have agreed the terms of an agreement but the owner has failed to sign the agreement.
Under Clause 4(4)(a). the court has power to make an order, first, in the case where no agreement has been offered at all granting an agreement which complies with Clause 3 and contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable; or, secondly, in the case where the occupier claims that terms have been agreed and the court finds that they have, and the court then grants the agreement in those agreed terms. Or thirdly, in the case where the occupier claims that terms have been agreed, but the court is not satisfied that this is the case, and the court then grants an agreement which complies with Clause 3, and which contains such terms and conditions as it thinks reasonable. Paragraph (a). refers to such other terms and conditions in this latter context, but this is a reference to the fact that the court is not required to include terms which the occupier alleges have been agreed, but which have not.
These Amendments seek to delete the references to terms or conditions which the court thinks reasonable in the first and third case of the three cases I have just outlined. Presumably, the intention is to ensure the terms imposed by the court comply with Clause 3, but if this is the case the Amendments are unnecessary, since paragraph (a). already provides not only that the terms shall be reasonable, but also that they shall comply with Clause 3. Deletion of the words in question seems undesirable on two counts. First, the provision that the court shall grant an agreement which complies with Clause 3 seems to me insufficient in view of the fact that Clause 3 does not set out model terms for an agreement. Here we return to a theme which has run through much of the debate on the Amendments today. Clause 3 does not set out model terms for an agreement, but merely indicates the types of provisions to be included in agreements. It is necessary for the precise terms and conditions which are to be included, for example the amount of the annual charge, to be worked out, and therefore it seems desirable to make it clear that the terms

1181
are to be such as the court is satisfied are reasonable.
The second reason for resisting the Amendment is that the parties may themselves propose terms which are not reasonable. The court should have discretion in such a case to impose its own terms. If the intention is that the court does not grant agreements which include terms in addition to those which Clause 3 expressly provides, then this Amendment will not achieve that object either. The power to include extra provisions is implicit in Clause 3 which provides, at page 3, lines 31 to 43, that agreements, "shall contain full particulars of the terms and conditions" of the arrangements between the owner and the occupier, and shall include provisions of the kind described in paragraphs (a). to (k) of that clause. It would, in any event, be undesirable to exclude the power to add provisions to the ones in Clause 3(a). to (k), because these paragraphs omit a number of provisions normally included in caravan agreements; for example, the provision to secure that the site licence conditions are complied with by the occupier.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, further argued, if I understood him correctly, that it is unfair to provide the occupier with a right in subsection (6) to apply for the revocation of the court's order when he is dissatisfied with the agreement granted. The noble Lord contrasts this with the fact that the owner, who was taken to court in the first place, is bound by the court's judgment without any means of revocation. I think the noble Lord would accept that the answer to this point is that in choosing not to accept the agreement handed down by the court, the occupier would be forfeiting such protection as is afforded by the Bill and would expose himself immediately to expulsion from the site, subject only to the protection afforded by Part I of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Accordingly, it is the Government's view that the right does not bear in any way harshly on the site owner.
Lord ELTON: It may be helpful if at this stage I draw your Lordships' attention to the Amendment which stands in my name. That may go some way to redress the balance which the movers of this Amendment may feel is unfairly Tilted at the moment, should the Amend-
1182
ment be withdrawn. But I should like to hear what my noble friend Lord Wakefield has to say.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I think we all agree that this is a complicated matter. Clearly, the very full explanation which the noble Lord opposite has given, for which I am much obliged, suggests that what he has said must be looked at carefully. In the light of what he has said, I would ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.53 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert (" and contains such other terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable;").
The noble Lord said: As I have already suggested, the object of this Amendment is to redress somewhat an unequal balance which appears to lie between the site owner and the home occupier as regards their rights in the case of a dispute. In the first case, where you have absence of an agreement which appears to be, as it were, by lapse or default on the part of the site owner, there is a power for the court to alter the agreement in terms which it thinks reasonable; whereas, as the Bill now stands, where the lapse or default is on the part of the home owner such an adjudication does not exist and is not given to the court. Since a good many of the difficulties which are felt about this Bill stem originally from a feeling that one or other party is being dealt with more or less fairly than the other, it seemed to me right to mirror in subsection (4)(b). the phrase in subsection (4)(a).. That is the intention of this Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will see fit to agree. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: If we are going to do this, it certainly gets us out of one of the difficulties. When we come back next Friday, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will probably have a slightly different Amendment No. 16 on the Marshalled List from the one which appears there today. If so, all to the good. If there is to be further thought about this matter, may make one further point about the whole drafting of subsection (4). I should like to remind the Committee that these proceedings are going to be in the county

1183
court, and nowhere, so far as I know, are reports of the adjudications in the county court made generally available to practitioners. It may be that through specialist channels in the world of caravans and mobile homes there will be a certain amount of intercommunication, but this is not going to help the people arguing the case to and fro before a number of county court judges all over England and Wales and, for all I know, Scotland as well.
The difficulty is that, looking at subsection (4)(a)., the first of the three situations to go before the courts is in a case falling within paragraph (a). the order for grant of the agreement must include material which complies with Clause 3 and contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. With the Amendment that my noble friend has just moved to paragraph (b). we bring the words of the second limb of subsection (4)(a). into line with the wording of subsection (4)(b)., but we have as an extra word the word "other". In the second limb of subsection (4)(a)., and in subsection (4)(b). as it is now proposed to be amended, not only must the agreement comply with Clause 3 but it may also contain such other terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable.
As I understand it, what everybody wants in whatever circumstances a dispute arises and comes before the courts, is. first, that the court should be seized of the matter and be able to decide it; secondly, that it should listen to both sides, regardless of whose fault it was that the matter had to come under the dispute procedure anyway; thirdly, that whatever agreement is approved by the court includes all the things that are compulsorily brought in under Clause 3; and fourthly, that if anything is put in purportedly under Clause 3—and this is Lord Avebury's point—but still contains something which is unreasonable, the court should be able to strike that out and instead put in something reasonable; and fifthly. that there should be power for the court to put in things which are not listed in Clause 3, but to put them in in terms which are also reasonable. I think that that is agreed, and that is the intention behind what the county court is to do.
1184
What worries me is that it can do that under the second limb of (4)(a). and under (4)(b). as amended by my noble friend's Amendment, but I am not sure that that is what the courts are going to think that they have the power to do under the present wording of the first limb of (4)(a). because the word "other is not there.
Lord AVEBURY: Yes, it is.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: It says "such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable ", if the noble Lord will look carefully. I think that the county courts are going to think that the only matters of terms and conditions which are reasonable for them to deal with are those which fall within Clause 3. They will not think that they can deal with anything other than the list in Clause 3 in the circumstances peculiarly described in the first part of (4)(a).. This is a fault which is common to the present Bill and to Lord Melchett's Amendment. I raise it now not in order that we need to go into it, but so that notice is given that I mean to go into it next Friday if they do not cure it.
Lord MELCHETT: If the answer is the inclusion of the word "other", I am sure that we can arrange for that before next Friday. Certainly, in principle, Lord Elton's Amendment seems to be acceptable. I should like the opportunity to make absolutely certain that technically we have got it right as, as I confidently hope, we will be moving a completely new version of this clause next time we come to discuss the Bill. I think that would give me an opportunity for producing an Amendment along the lines of the one now being moved, and also to take note of the points made by the noble Viscount. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
Lord ELTON: Since the clock hovers at 4 o'clock and we are due to adjourn, may I ask whether it would be helpful, in order to record the sense of the Committee, if we could accept the Amendment in the knowledge that there will be a new drafting of Clause 4, and that then it will be possible to include this intention in the Bill when the noble Lord has read

1185
Hansard and also the views, which I entirely endorse, of my noble friend Lord Colville. Therefore, I should like to move this Amendment. Has the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, anything of substance to add before the guillotine falls?
Lord AVEBURY: I am not sure whether it is a point of substance, but since the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is to consider the word "other" between now and Friday, I am wondering whether it should be retained in all parts of this subsection because we have
" … without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing "
and that seems to indicate that one could put anything into the agreement one wanted, and therefore rather than put "other" in later where it does not occur, we might as well delete it earlier where it does occur.
Lord ELTON: That is a point which the Minister will no doubt wish to take on board. I hope that noble Lords will agree to this Amendment, because it will act as a starting point from which he can spring forth, fully armed to deal with the hydrolight problems which confront him over the next seven days.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to break now. I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

GUARD DOGS BILL
4.1 p.m.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill deals only with a limited and clearly defined issue namely, the use of guard dogs. The Secretary of State for the Environment has set up a Working Party to consider all aspects of the law relating to dogs, so that any noble Lords who have other ideas and views about what should be done about dogs will have to await the report of that Working Party.
This Bill arises out of two tragic events. In April 1971, a two-year-old boy was grievously injured by two guard dogs on premises in Islington, and in
1186
July 1974 a ten-year-old boy was killed in Glasgow by two guard dogs owned by a private security organisation. In the light of those tragic events, an honourable friend of mine in another place introduced and got through a Bill to control the use of guard dogs. The Home Office, after some doubts about the Bill, agreed that it was necessary and gave my honourable friend great help in drafting Amendments to the Bill, which received its Third Reading on 18th May. Perhaps I had better point out two things that the Bill does not do, because this was not wholly understood in the debate in another place. It is not concerned with dogs, even if in ordinary parlance they are guard dogs, in private houses. That is made quite clear in Clause 6. Secondly, and this is not quite so obvious, by restricting a person protected by a guard dog to a person guarding premises as defined in the Bill, it exempts the use of guard dogs to protect a handler collecting or delivering money on premises such as shops and banks when the dog is present for only a few minutes.
The main provisions of the Bill are simple. Clause 1 prohibits the use of unattended guard dogs at premises as defined in the Bill. A guard dog may not be used at such premises unless at all times under the control of a handler capable of controlling the dog. If the handler is engaged for a period—for example. making himself a meal—and cannot have the dog under his immediate control, the dog must be chained or otherwise secured so as not to be at liberty to go freely about the premises. The handler can leave the premises only if another handler assumes control of the dog, and where a guard dog is on premises notices to that effect must be clearly displayed at all entrances. The other main provision of the Bill is in Clause 2, which says that a person carrying on the business of hiring out guard dogs must hold a licence in respect of his kennels. A person who contravenes the provisions of Clauses 1 or 2 renders himself liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £400. Clause 3 says that local authorities shall be the licensing authorities for kennels, and the Local Authority Association has concurred with this provision.
Everything cannot be put into the Bill and therefore the Secretary of State can

1187
make Regulations governing the issue of licences enabling, for instance, local authorities to charge a fee for a licence. The intention of the Bill is that it shall be self-financing, that it shall not impose any financial burden upon local authorities or any other organ of the State. The issue of licences will be annual and they will run for a year from the date on which they are first issued. The local authority can revoke a licence or amend its provisions. Regulations will also enable appeals to be made to a Magistrates' Court (or the equivalent court in Scotland) against a refusal by the local authority to grant a licence or the conditions imposed in a licence or the revocation of a licence. All regulations made under the Bill are subject to Negative Resolution procedure.
A court may cancel a licence granted by a local authority if the licensee is convicted of cruelty to animals under various Acts. Clause 7 states that the Secretary of State may by Regulation bring different parts of the Bill into force on different dates. This is because provisions about licensing are likely to be brought into force only after considerable delay. The Home Office will require considerable further consultations with the local authorities and although no financial burden falls on local authorities there would be some burden on their manpower and it would be unwise to impose this on them at this time.
As has been indicated by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office in another place, Clause 1, which deals with the prohibition of the use of unattended dogs at premises, could be introduced very soon. This is the most important clause of the Bill in regard to the protection of members of the public against attack by guard dogs. I hope that it will be agreed that this is a useful and valuable Bill and that all reasonable interests have been consulted and properly catered for, and I hope your Lordships will grant this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Gordon-Walker.)
4.8 p.m.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, we on this side of the House are in general sympathy with the principles and motives of this
1188
Bill. It is certainly a vast improvement on the Bill which was originally introduced in another place in the form of the Dogs Bill. Consequently, with a few minor reservations as to some of the detailed provisions of the Bill which no doubt will be further improved in the Committee and on Report, we give this Bill our support.
It is not before time that comprehensive legislation has been introduced into Parliament in order to control the use of guard dogs. As the crime rate in this country has soared so the number of security firms and the use of these animals to protect property has increased. In 1961 there were only 20 companies in this country in the security business. Today, in the London area alone, it is estimated that there are over 500 such firms in operation, the majority of which are one-man-bands. Of course it is the less reputable firms that give cause for concern. The dangers are obvious. To begin with, if one employs one of these less reputable companies, the possibility is that no inspection will be made of the perimeter fencing around the property. The owner of the dogs may not be able to visit in one night all the sites where his dogs are being used. Possibly most serious of all, the dogs might not be properly trained for the job in hand.
The result is that more and more people are being attacked by guard dogs each year. In 1970, according to Home Office figures, 200 people were reported as being attacked by such dogs, and if the noble Lord. Lord Wells-Pestell, can tell the House, when he gives us the Government's attitude to the Bill, what are the latest figures for these attacks, I shall be grateful. One should remember, however, that these are only the attacks which have been reported. I do not believe anyone knows how many attacks really take place each year. These attacks can have tragic results, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, has pointed out. Possibly the two most infamous cases have been that of the two-year-old child who was seriously mauled by two guard dogs in Islington some four years ago, and the more recent case of the 10-year-old boy who was savaged to death in Glasgow last July.
It would be wrong to condemn all the security companies for the abuses and

1189
lack of control in certain sections of the industry. The more reputable firms, especially those belonging to the British Security Industry Association, follow a very tight code of practice when using guard dogs, and that code of practice tits very well into the terms of the Bill. I understand that Securicor bans the use of guard dogs without handlers. However, that code of practice is binding only on the members of the BSIA, of which there are only 60 in the whole country and only 10 of them employ guard dogs. There are companies which do not feel bound by the code nor do they take any notice of it, with tragic results such as that in Glasgow.
I realise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, has already said, the Government have set up an informal Working Party to examine the use of guard dogs by security organisations and to draw up a code of practice. This code of practice has now been in being for some three months. I feel that, because of the short time for which it has been in existence, it would be unfair to judge it at this stage. However, when all is said and done, that code is still only voluntary and, while I am certain that the reputable firms have been implementing it for some years, there is no legal requirement for all the firms to observe its provisions.
I also understand, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, has pointed out, that a Working Party of the Department of the Environment is examining the whole question of the law relating to all dogs. Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, replies, he can say how the provisions of the Bill fit in with the thinking and the plans for future legislation of that Working Party. I believe that statutory controls are needed and that in many ways they will be more effective than purely voluntary codes of practice. Furthermore, the BSIA and the more reputable firms are in favour of such control. One has only to go through Kennington or Brixton to see how the voluntary codes of practice are ignored. That is plain from the number of warning notices about loose guard dogs which appear on premises in those areas.
With regard to the details of the Bill, I have a few comments to make. It appears from the definition of "guard
1190
dog kennels "in Clause 6, and from the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3, that a person who owns a guard dog and uses it to guard his own commercial premises is not covered by the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3, and, consequently, does not need to licence the premises where the dog is kept. I appreciate the fact that such a person is subject to the provisions of Clause 1 but he is able to avoid the conditions which a local authority may lay down as to the control and keeping of the dog when granting a licence under Clause 3. Thus we could have a situation in which an individual—for example, the owner of a garage—used a guard dog which was totally untrained and possibly ill-treated, consequently posing an unnecessary risk to the general public. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, will comment on this point when he replies, and will say whether he intends to rectify what appears to be an obvious shortcoming in the Bill.
My Lords, the successful implementation of the Bill depends largely on the vigilance and the work of the police forces in this country. I should be interested to know what consultations the noble Lord has had with the Home Office and the police representatives, and what were the results of those consultations. Bearing in mind that the police are already so overworked and undermanned, it is important, if the Bill is to be properly implemented and enforced, that the police are both capable and willing to undertake the extra work. Clauses 3 and 6 read together show that district councils will grant licences and impose conditions on such licences. There is the danger that the conditions imposed will vary drastically from one area of a county to another, or from one part of a metropolitan district to another. This might create a rather unsatisfactory situation, as well as a certain amount of confusion for those implementing the Bill when it becomes an Act. The answer to this problem could lie in giving the power to grant licences to larger local authorities than district councils.
Under Clause 1(3) a person is required to put up warning notices only at the entrance or entrances to the premises. I should have thought that in circumstances where premises are surrounded by a perimeter wall or fence there would

1191
be strong arguments for requiring notices to be erected at regular intervals around the perimeter and not merely at the entrance to the property.
Clause 5 states that:
" Regulations may be made … enabling appeals to be made to a magistrates' court …".
Does this mean that the right of appeal is subject to Ministerial regulations, or is it concerned merely with the manner in which the appeal is put forward? I think that the former would be totally objectionable, whereas we could certainly accept the latter. While we have some rather minor reservations about the Bill, we welcome it and hope that it will have a speedy passage through this House and will become law in the near future.
4.18 p.m.
Lord de CLIFFORD: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships briefly on this Bill which I think, without doubt, everybody welcomes. I shall not go into the events which have led up to the Bill, but there have been a number of happenings known to everybody, as well as a considerable number which are not known. I am not so happy about the Bill as it stands. and there must be some additions and Amendments to make it workable. The Bill appears to apply virtually to only commercial owners of guard dogs and I do not think that this is wide enough. I am not all that happy about the situation whereby Clause 1 can be brought into operation immediately, while the remainder of the Bill is to be brought in at a time suitable to the Minister, together with all the regulations which he is given powers to make.
I hope that we shall have assurances from the noble Lord who is to reply this afternoon for the Government that this part of the Bill will not just sink into the limbo of forgotten things but will be brought on as speedily as possible. I also ask the noble Lord to consider the position regarding the report of the Working Party of the Department of the Environment. The report may include recommendations about the Bill, but could involve delay for years. We want action far more quickly.
My Lords, may I come to the Bill and quickly go through it? So far as Clause 1 is concerned, some of the societies who
1192
are interested in the welfare of dogs are not very happy about the words "otherwise secured ". They have a feeling that this might mean that when the dog is left it will always be tied. The word "secured" always gives the impression that you are going to tie a dog. I shall suggest when we come to the Committee stage that we might find a better expression than "otherwise secured ". It might perhaps be that the dog should be suitably kennelled. "Secured" is not a good word; it always gives the impression of the tethering of an animal.
I should like, if possible, to add to Clause 2 some words about the vehicles which are employed to move these guard dogs, so that we can ensure that they will be clearly marked. It is possible that a handler who is moving dogs from kennels to work would temporarily have to leave his vehicle. Knowing what people are these days and with children it is possible they might attempt to enter the vehicle somehow and there might be the most disastrous results. I would suggest we might do something about adding conditions for vehicles. Under Clause 3 of the Bill regulations are to be made,
" subject to the prescribed conditions (if any) and to such other conditions as the local authority thinks fit."
Regulations on various subjects will be made later on. Every other recent Act relating to dogs has had the conditions in the Act. I would refer your Lordships to the Boarding Kennels Act and the Breeding of Dogs Act. In both of those Acts the conditions under which the dogs are to be kept and looked after, and everything else, are clearly laid down. The local authority interprets those to fit each individual case. I have a feeling that the closer one can standardise all these Acts of Parliament dealing with dogs and the care of dogs the better; because, whatever ore says, a dog is still a dog wherever it is and the same care and husbandry is desirable all the time.
I was most impressed with the guard dog code which was issued by the Ministry. I thought it an excellent piece of work. Might I ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he could, so far as possible, insert this code into any regulations which may be issued? It covers most of the things which are required and

1193
is very helpful. Regarding paragraph (c) of Clause 5(1) perhaps some consideration may be given to the question: Is there to be an inspection fee and a licence fee, or simply an inspection fee in order to issue a licence? If a licence is refused, we assume that the person who applied for it will have to pay for the inspection. One then assumes that if he applies again he will pay for the second inspection. I feel one should not have just a licence fee, because if it is refused there is no means of making the man who has applied pay for the inspection.
I come now to the nub of this Bill. What is a guard dog? I understand that if you take a guard dog and premises together you are supposed to have a good interpretation, but I am afraid I do not see it. There are a number of circumstances in which dogs are obviously guard dogs, but they are not necessarily commercial guard dogs. For instance, there is a girls' school where the headmistress owns three dogs. In order to deter prowlers and marauders she permits the dogs to wander at night around the enclosed grounds of the school. Are these guard dogs? If so, this Bill must apply to them. If the owner of a public house lives on the premises, are his bars downstairs to be considered as part of the private dwelling or as part of a commercial business? I know of a pub where a nice dog is kept which, when "time" comes, ushers everybody out and will not let them back in again. He sleeps in the bar and literally guards the contents of the bar. Is that a guard dog, or not? Is it covered under this Bill? I do not believe it is.
Not long ago, just outside Birmingham, two gentlemen kept two dogs in a hut on some allotments. The dogs were used to guard tools and produce from the allotment. They were two extremely savage alsatians which did some damage to people. The owners said that the dogs were not kept there for guarding purposes but only for the night, because they were too big for the house. I should have thought they were guard dogs, but according to this Bill they are not covered. Those premises belong to the two gentlemen and they own the dogs and look after them. I know of cases where dogs sleep in cars which are parked in the street, in order to make sure nobody steals the cars or any parts of them. Are they
1194
guard dogs? I do not know. They do not seem to fit into the Bill.
I shall not detain your Lordships much longer. As to guard dogs in kennels, one firm I know—Securicor to be exact—kennel their dogs with another commercial body, the Canine Defence League. They are licensed for hoarding. Will they have to be licensed for guard dog kennels as well? A number of security firms have dogs which go home with their handlers at night and live at their handlers' homes. The dogs are not the property of the handlers but of the firms. Do the handlers' homes become guard dog kennels? I do not know. The police make a habit of letting their handlers take their dogs home.
I hope that I have not detained your Lordships too long, but we have had some horrid results from the Breeding of Dogs Act. We suddenly found that we ran into many Town and Country Planning Act provisions. I have a feeling that with this legislation, unless we are careful, we are going to find the same difficulty again. We come up against local authorities and we are going to run into a large number of Acts which really have no bearing on this matter at all. With these few words, my Lords—and I hope to speak later in the Committee stage—I should like to welcome this Bill, although I may have sounded rather disgruntled about it. Basically it is an excellent Bill and I sincerely hope that we shall have it nicely tidied up and made law as speedily as possible.
4.32 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, having regard to the hour and the day of the week it will probably be in order for me to be brief. Therefore, I do not want to say anything at all with regard to the Bill which my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker introduced with great simplicity but nevertheless with great clarity. May I deal with one or two points which have been raised by noble Lords opposite. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, raised the whole question of the number of attacks on dogs to which I replied last year—
Earl COWLEY: On people, my Lords.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: On people. It would be interesting to have it the other way round! I replied to this point raised last year in a Question. There are

1195
no figures available generally. The figures given were especially ascertained for that occasion. Attacks by dogs on people are not in the normal way recorded. It may well be that they ought to be, but they are not. I cannot give any figures other than those he knows and which I gave some time last year. Reference has been made to the Working Party set up by the Department of the Environment. This Working Party are concerned with all dogs, not one group. They will concern themselves with dogs generally—the licensing of dogs, the keeping of dogs, fouling of the public footway, stray dogs and the behaviour of stray dogs. The inquiry is going to be an extensive one into dogs and not solely concerned with the matter we are discussing now. While there may be some connections, we shall have to await the outcome of the inquiry generally. This Bill, as the noble Earl will know, does not deal with domestic pets.
The noble Earl also raised the question of regulations and appeals. The regulations may be made—I refer to Clause 5(1)(a).:
" enabling a local authority to revoke a licence and, on the application of the licence holder, to vary the conditions … "
I should have thought that if regulations contain authority for a local authority to revoke a licence they must also state the rights a person has if he or she wishes to appeal. It suggests to me that this is the right place to put it. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised the question of the speed necessary to bring in the various clauses. Perhaps I may repeat what my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker said, that it is intended to bring the first part in quickly but, as the noble Lord himself pointed out, it will impose on local authorities a good deal of responsibility. Consequently, this will have to be done strategically.
I have dealt with the Report of the Working Party, which the noble Lord also mentioned. We should like to look at a number of other points which he mentioned—vehicles used to move dogs, whether we can include the guard dog code in this Bill and whether it is necessary. The Government would like to look at this, and perhaps the noble Lord will not mind if I say that that we will do
1196
and we will give our views at a later date. The inspection fee will be prescribed in the regulations. With very great respect, it seems to me that that is where it ought to be. I cannot answer the question about dogs in public houses and the other situations. The acid test is whether the dog's function will be for guard duties. There are bound to be a large number of anomalies which can probably be settled only in the courts. I do not know whether one will be able to include in this Bill, as a result of amendments, a clause or clauses which will cover all of the situations which one is likely to find.
It was the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who raised the question of the transport of dogs in vehicles. This is a matter which could be dealt with more appropriately by regulations rather than in the Bill itself. If noble Lords will look at page 3, Clause 5(2)(b). says:
" … includes power to make such incidental or supplemental provision in the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate ".
I should have thought that the transport of dogs in vehicles could be brought into the regulations.
The only other matter that I have been specifically asked to deal with is the question of enforcement. It is expected that the enforcement of all aspects of the Bill will fall mainly to be dealt with by local authorities, not by the police. It was the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, who wondered whether it is right to put enforcement upon all local authorities and whether it should not be under the jurisdiction and control of a much larger authority. If one does that, one runs the risk of not Keeping as tight a rein and control on the situation as one would like to see. If it is kept to local authorities that have a defined area—
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, I meant county councils rather than district councils because of the fact that the district councils cover a much smaller area. Therefore, they may have their own set of conditions which may be different from the conditions imposed by the district council next door.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is a possibility of that. This is found already when it comes to other matters which are under the control of

1197
the local authority. However, this is a very serious matter and there is a danger that much of what the Bill sets out to do could be defeated if it were given to the larger councils—which in some areas are very large—rather than to the district councils, which are usually very tiny bodies and can exercise a great deal of supervision and control over their areas.
I do not want to say any more than that, except that the Government welcome this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker pointed out, they have given a certain amount of help in its drafting and framing and it certainly has the Government's blessing.
4.40 p.m.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for the very important points that they have made. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, asked about the use of a guard dog in a garage. One purpose of this Bill is to exclude its application to private houses and private dwellings because that would involve enormous apparatus and a great enforcement force, and so on, and therefore it would really depend whether the garage was part of a private dwelling. Obviously it would be different if it was a garage occupied by a number of buses or lorries, but if it was a garage attached to a house it would be excluded because the curtilage of a house is excluded. This is deliberately done. These provisions were in the original Bill, but they were taken out because they were clearly unenforceable and unreasonable and would apply to pets and all sorts of things.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, what I was getting at was not the garage where one keeps a car but the garage as a commercial premises, and it was really under Clause 6 where it says:
" other than a dog which is used as a guard dog only at premises belonging to its owner."
This was what I was concerned about.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, if a garage is premises and not part of the dwellinghouse it comes under the mischief of the Bill. A guard dog means a dog used to protect premises. The word used is "or", not "and".
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, it comes under Clause 1, but it does not seem to to come under Clauses 2 and 3 about the control of kennels.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, it is Clause 6 that defines what a guard dog is, and one definition is that it is a dog guarding premises. I thought the noble Earl was referring to a garage attached to a private house, but if it was premises it would clearly come under the mischief of the Bill.
Answering the noble Lord, Lord De Clifford, I think the Government must be able to decide when they bring in Parts of Bills because they have to take into consideration what is imposed on local authorities, and so forth; but I think we should be glad that they intend to bring in Clause 1 quickly. since this is the clause that will primarily protect the public.
Whether we can find another phrase for "otherwise secured ", I do not know. It is the alternative to chaining up the dog. There are two provisions: one must either chain up a dog when a man is not watching it, or secure it. I do not know that "secure" has a sinister meaning. even more sinister than "kept ", which I think the noble Lord suggested.
Lord De CLIFFORD: My Lords, I suggested "securely kennelled ".
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, that would have to be a quite considerable amendment. There would need to be kennels at every premises on which there was a guard dog.
Lord De CLIFFORD: My Lords, when one uses the expression "securely kennelled" it is not necessary to have a special kennel; the meaning is to shut it up.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, yes, but that would have to be provided and it would be an extra cost that on all premises where there was a guard dog, even quite a small one, there would need to be something like a kennel that could be shut up, and failure to have a kennel would be an offence subject to a fine up to £400. That would be rather a fierce thing to do, but we could consider it.

1199
The essence of this clause is that the dog should not be allowed to run loose when the handler is not actually watching it. The condition of vehicles is included in the code of conduct, and whether or not that could be put into the Bill I do not know. In some ways it would be quite difficult to define. As my noble friend suggested, it might be possible to deal with it by regulation.
The condition of guard dog kennels depends entirely on the local authority, which need not grant licences or can grant licences on conditions, and I think in many cases it would be very necessary to impose such conditions. The owner of the kennels would certainly have to pay every time there was an inspection, but he would not have to pay for a licence if he did not get a licence, which is what I understood the noble Lord to say.
A guard dog is not necessarily a commercial dog; it is a dog guarding premises. It does not have to be a commercial dog. It can be the owner. If a dog is used for watching premises, it comes under the Bill. I do not know the exact cases; the court would have to decide, but a headmistress who left a dog guarding the premises—because a school would be premises—would need to have a handler. With regard to the pub, it would depend on whether or not it was a dwelling house. It would depend on each case. If the pub were a dwelling house, the publican could keep a dog, but if it were not a dwelling house, he would not be able to. I am sure that allotments are premises. People would not be allowed to leave dogs running free, guarding allotments. Kennels would have to be licensed, whether or not the handlers were with the dog. I think that would make no difference.
My Lords, I hope that I have dealt with some of the more important points. I am grateful to noble Lords for all that they have said during the debate. My noble friend and I will look at the suggestions made to see whether we can meet certain points, either by saying there will be regulations, or by amending the Bill if necessary.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ON BABOONS
  MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ON BABOONS
  SERPENTINE PRESS LIMITED: APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
  SERPENTINE PRESS LIMITED: APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
  ALTERNATING CURRENT: USE FOR VEHICLES
  ALTERNATING CURRENT: USE FOR VEHICLES