Sitting of 5 November 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BROOKWOOD CEMETERY BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  SHARD BRIDGE BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    M5 (Report)
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish the report by Messrs. George Corduroy Ltd. into alleged contractual irregularities concerning the M5 motorway.
    The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): I hope to publish the report later this month.
    Mr. Whitehead: I am grateful for that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that it is now more than 15 months since the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and I first approached the Department about this matter? Will my hon. Friend undertake to publish the Corduroy Report in full and not merely in extract form, in view of the serious nature of the allegations, the reputation of the firm and the representations of the individuals who brought forward the allegations?
    Dr. Gilbert: There have been certain technical problems about publishing the report. We received the results of the investigation in September last and the final report was received only a few days ago. However, I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

    Caravan Sites (Area Designation)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to amend the Caravan Sites Act to enable areas smaller than counties to be designated thereunder.
    The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): No, Sir.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under the law as it stands, when a local authority provides an authorised caravan site, that provision is rapidly followed by unauthorised users occupying adjacent land, such as the present site in my constituency adjacent to the Park Street roundabout, land that is owned by the right hon. Gentlemans Department? The filthy state of such sites merely antagonises those who might otherwise be in favour of producing

    375
    further authorised sites. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter again? If he wants the policy to succeed and to have sites provided legally throughout the land, something must be done to ensure that a difficult situation is not created, for that merely produces objections to legal sites.
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think that there will be much disagreement in the House about the importance of the problem and the difficulties that are involved. The question is whether the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman would help or hinder the situation. I understand that in the hon. Gentleman's area it is the county that has responsibility. Incidentally, it is a county that has done very well in tackling this problem. However, if we are to tackle the problem in the way he suggests—namely, by the designation of smaller areas—I think that the effect will be wrong in that we shall create a patchwork quilt of designation, which will mean that thereafter travelling people will be camping in unauthorised camps. That is exporting the problem. That is not the way in which to proceed. The problem needs to be considered, for undoubtedly there are many people who are engaged in this way of life. I do not think that the splitting up of designation is the right answer. There is a school of thought that believes that counties are too small an area to be designated and that it might be worth considering larger areas.
    Mr. Ward: As the largest London borough—namely, Bromley—has an area of about 40,000 acres and possesses these powers, does my right hon. Friend agree that a district such as Peterborough, which has 82,000 acres and which has energetically pursued proposals to look after the gipsies in its area, should not have to wait for extra powers for controlling travellers on the highway because the rest of the county area is perhaps slow to respond?
    Mr. Silkin: It is clear that this is a genuine difficulty. There is the danger that we may be exporting the problem to someone else. It is easy to consider the matter only from a relatively narrow point of view. I understand the problems and I sympathise with those affected, but I believe that the answer is the provision of more sites.
    Mr. Beith: In view of the situation at Berwick-upon-Tweed, in which he has taken a close personal interest, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that special difficulties arise if a large number of caravans are imported into an area so as to inflate the demand for a site? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that unless some kind of estimate can be made of the number of people for whom the local authorities are obliged to provide, there is potentially no limit to the number of people who might like to park a caravan in an attractive seaside place?
    Mr. Silkin: It is a difficult problem, but the point about the nomadic way of life is that people are imported, or import themselves, from one part of the country into another. That is exactly what has happened in Berwick.

    British Railways
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Chairman of British Railways concerning the reduction and curtailment of services; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Gilbert: The Chairman has informed me of the general lines of the management action the board proposes to take so as to meet its financial targets.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that the Government's railways policy is having a disastrous effect on passenger and freight receipts, despite an increase in charges of 48 per cent. last year? Does he realise that the Government are on a collision course with the railway unions and the public over any cut-back in services? I warn the Government that they will face a fight from the unions and the public, not only on any cut-back, but on any reduction in services. There must not be another Beeching.
    Dr. Gilbert: My hon. Friend will be aware that the passenger deficit this year is running at £330 million and the freight deficit at £70 million. I assure him that all the trade unions represented in the railway industry are being consulted, and will be further consulted, in the preparation of a fundamental review of transport policy now being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and myself.
    Mr. Raison: Is it not increasingly clear that the Government are moving towards the abandonment of the transport policies on which they fought the last two elections? Will the Minister say when we can expect a White Paper—a document that is clearly becoming more and more urgent? Will he also say specifically what the Government intend to do about the unauthorised freight deficit?
    Dr. Gilbert: As my right hon. Friend has made clear, no decision has yet been taken on whether the results of the transport policy review will be published in White Paper or some other form, but we hope to bring it out to the public probably very early in the New Year. The question of the freight deficit of British Rail is under consideration on the lines of reducing it to zero—in other words, of eliminating it—by 1978.
    Mr. Bagier: Will the Minister take note of the fact that Conservative Front Bench spokesmen seem to be implying that they would agree to some form of increased public expenditure on public transport? Will he ensure that, whatever the Treasury's view on this matter, any action taken will not be the thin edge of the wedge towards any further cutback in British Rail services leading to the placing of more and more traffic on our already overcrowded roads?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier comments. On the question of the funds available to British Rail, part of the problem is that so much is going out in subsidies on current account to freight and passenger services that less money is available for investment—which is where we should like that money to go.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister have a word with the Chairman of British Rail to ensure that transport users' consultative committees and local authorities are consulted about the cuts, of which we read daily in the Press? Will he say whether these consultations will take place before cuts are imposed?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been around long enough to know that he should not believe everything he reads in the Press. There is a great deal of speculation about what is involved. The Chairman of British Rail is well aware of the need to keep in touch with the transport users' consulta-
    378
    tive committees, and I recently met their central committee.
    Mr. MacCormick: Will the Minister assure the people in the Highlands of Scotland that the cuts will not extend to the closing of railways in Oban, the Kyle of Lochalsh, Thurso and Wick?
    Dr. Gilbert: I have received no such proposals.
    Mr. Ovenden: Will the Minister confirm that British Rail has already sent to many local trade union officials proposals to close railway stations on Sundays? Does he accept that this is the beginning of a policy that will inevitably lead to no services at all for the majority of rural areas outside peak hours? Will he, while we still have a public transport system, abandon the targets he has set?
    Dr. Gilbert: The service cuts to which my hon. Friend refers are a matter of management responsibility for the British Rail Board [HON. MEMBERS: 'Oh."] My hon. Friends may not like it, but it is a fact. In view of the continuing deficit, which last year reached a figure on passenger account of £330 million, the choice we have to make is between some retrenchment and some economies in services and fares.
    Mr. Moate: Will the Minister explain why the proposed peak hour cuts in the Southern Region will save a meagre £760,000, according to proposals put to the unions, whereas next year British Rail will cost public funds £500 million, including support for pension schemes? Therefore, will he stop tinkering with the problem and consider a major shake-up of the British Rail Board and institute a full inquiry into the whole operation of British Rail?
    Dr. Gilbert: I cannot see any need for a full inquiry into the operations of British Rail. The facts of the situation are well appreciated. It is for the board to manage the railway system within the constraints set by the Government.

    New Towns (Sale of Houses)
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now lift the ban on the sale of new town houses to sitting tenants.
    Mr. John Silkin: No, Sir.
    Mr. Morris: That is a tragic answer. Why does the Minister persist in pursuing in Northampton and other development corporation areas a policy that is against the wishes of his own chairmen appointed by him, against his own general managers, and indeed against the desires of my tenants and my constituents? [HON. MEMBERS: "My tenants?"] Will the Minister just for once put aside party policy and bear in mind the wishes of the tenants in new towns who wish to buy their own homes?
    Mr. Silkin: The problem that faced us in March last year was that under the previous Conservative administration the waiting list periods in all the new towns had reached intolerable proportions. To some extent this was a result of the sale of rented houses to sitting tenants under the doctrinaire policies of the Conservative Government. Up to 30 per cent. of the rented stock had been so sold. I shall be prepared to lift the ban when I know that the waiting list period has gone down sufficiently to enable those who are on waiting lists to benefit.
    Mr. Moonman: Will the Minister confirm the date when legislation will be introduced to ensure the transfer of housing assets from the development corporations to local authorities—which has been Labour Party policy for many years and which has been given recent support by a Select Committee?
    Mr. Silkin: The traditional answer is that I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish me to anticipate anything that may or may not be in the Queen's Speech.
    Mr. Carlisle: Will the Minister confirm that all the chairmen of the new town development corporations have jointly asked him to remove this ban on the sale of council houses? If that is the case surely it is a matter that he should bear in mind. Furthermore, will he explain how, if a person remains in a new town house as an owner rather than a tenant, that makes any difference to the length of waiting list?
    Mr. Silkin: Conversations between a Minister and the chairmen are confidential. I cannot confirm what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, because it is not strictly true. In regard to his second point, can he explain to me—although I appreciate that he is not
    380
    allowed to do so now, but I hope that he will take the opportunity to explain on some other occasion—how it is possible to increase the stock when one is selling off rented accommodation?
    Mrs. Hayman: Will the Minister continue to reject suggestions from Opposition spokesmen that will do nothing to add to the stock of rented accommodation which is needed in new towns? Instead, will he concentrate on making sure that the Bill to transfer housing assets and housing-related assets from the Commission to democratically-responsible local authorities will take priority next Session?
    Mr. Silkin: I am grateful for the support my hon. Friend has given, and I shall bear her second suggestion strongly in mind.

    Housing
    Mr. Matherasked the Secretary of State for the Environment on which areas of housing expenditure the cuts of £50 million in subsidies and £65 million in capital expenditure will fall.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The £65 million cut in housing subsidies announced in the April Budget has been restored as part of the counter-inflation policy announced in Cmnd 6151. I have not yet decided the capital expenditure programmes for 1976–77.
    Mr. Mather: How does the Minister explain the increase of subsidies of some £80 million under the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act to hold down housing rents? Does not that mean that, far from there being a cut, there is an increase of £30 million? How will the hon. Gentleman explain that to those who are expecting home loans and who are now suffering from a cut of £100 million and half of whom will be disappointed?
    Mr. Freeson: The latter point does not relate to the first. The £80 million is the total national figure. The figure for subsidies in England and Wales is £65 million, which is not an increase. It maintains the figure that was in this year's Estimates. It was to have been cut in the figures for 1976 but will now be retained.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend state once again that there is no reason why local authorities in areas requiring local authority housing should hold up the local authority programme and that they can get on with the job and build the houses required? In this matter the Government are doing a first-class job.
    Mr. Freeson: I thank my hon. Friend. I am happy to confirm that that is Government policy. We have introduced a whole series of measures during the past 18 months to enable the house-building programme to improve, and it has done so by about one-third during that time. We wish to see local authorities, particularly in stress areas, such as the one I know my hon. Friend represents, go ahead with a much bigger building programme than there has been over a number of years in the recent past.

    Expanded Towns
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now take steps to establish the appropriate level of public investment in expanded towns in South-East England in the next three years.
    Mr. John Silkin: No, Sir. The Government have no special control over the development programmes of expanding towns. Like other local authorities, each decides its own priorities.
    Mr. Spearing: Although the Government may not have the responsibility, surely it is public money. As my right hon. Friend has said that he will publish a Green Paper on the future of the South-East Regional Plan, an announcement that is widely welcomed, it is necessary to know the amount of public expenditure already committed in the South-East, so that those areas from which people and jobs have gone, such as the docklands of London, can get their fair share of future investment.
    Mr. Silkin: The major point that my hon. Friend makes is important. We must ensure that there is the right balance between the amount of money going to expanding towns and new towns and the amount preserved in the conurbations from which these people come. I accept that part of what my hon. Friend says. The difficulty about expanding towns is twofold. First, resources coming to them
    382
    come not only for their development but for their general purposes. Secondly, the expanding towns are rather larger than they were two or three years ago, because of the local government reorganisation, which has totally altered the administrative districts of some of them. But I agree that what we need is a proper assessment of whether we are using resources wisely in the inner cities as against the new towns, which I take to be my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: Is the Minister saying that expenditure within the overall limits is open-ended for the new towns? If not, how do the Government control the expenditure? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the balance between public and private expenditure in new towns and the use of those joint resources? Will he have in mind what was said earlier about the sales of council houses and development corporation houses in new towns, sales which produced not less than £199 million? That had a considerable beneficial effect on the funding of the operations of new towns as a whole.
    Mr. Silkin: I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about new towns. My hon. Friend's Question was about expanded towns, which are financed somewhat differently.

    Housing Developments (Public Services)
    Mr. Newtonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements exist within his Department to ensure that major housing developments are accompanied by an adequate expansion of health, education and other public services.
    Mr. John Silkin: The regulation of development is the statutory responsibility of local planning authorities. Proposals for development, including housing, are considered by these authorities on their individual merits. Authorities take into account the availability of the necessary infrastructure.
    Mr. Newton: Is the Minister aware that, however well the plans are supposed to work, there is no evidence on the ground that they do, and that these problems are likely to grow steadily worse

    383
    with the growing financial crisis throughout public services? Will he consult his right hon. and hon. Friends to make sure that future plans at least give proper priority to the areas where the population has already expanded—for example, in Essex?
    Mr. Silkin: I am not aware that there is any particular difficulty in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but if there is perhaps he would care to write to me, when I shall certainly look into it. This is a question which has been previously dealt with. Circular 122/73 gave advice to local authorities about infrastructure. But the wider problem is how local authorities deal with needs and priorities in their areas, and it is with precisely this that the Community Land Bill is designed to deal. Therefore, I sincerely hope that in a day or two we shall have the hon. Gentleman's support in the Lobbies.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science recently sent a circular to local authorities advising them where cuts and savings could be made in their building programmes and including a paragraph—paragraph 12, I think—advising them to cut back on their nursery education plans? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that advice has caused enormous concern throughout the country? Does he not think that in order to keep architects' teams together and architects employed it would be a jolly good idea if he were to do as the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) suggests?
    Mr. Silkin: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science would be delighted if my hon. Friend were to ask him an appropriate Question on the matter.
    Mrs. Short: That is dodging the question.

    Building Programme
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent steps he has taken to encourage the public and private building programme.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The public expenditure provision for local autho-
    384
    rity housing has been sharply increased, the levels of the cost yardstick raised substantially and guidance given to local authorities on ways of speeding up the house-building process. The measures taken to stabilise mortgage lending are restoring confidence in the private housing sector. As a result, private starts, public starts, private completions and public completions are all significantly higher than a year ago.
    Mr. Allaun: Does my right hon. Friend support the TUC call for a massive housing programme, and does he agree that it would not be inflationary? How could it be, with 180,000 unemployed building workers, who, with their families, cost £2,000 a year each to keep in social security benefits and in loss of income tax to the Treasury, when they could be fully employed for very little more turning out the houses that the people need?
    Mr. Crosland: If what my hon. Friend is suggesting is a crash housing programme, I am not in agreement with him, for two reasons. First, it would mean imposing an even greater element of stop-go on the house-building industry. Secondly, a massive crash programme, given present demographic trends, would imply the demolition of existing houses on a massive scale, something that I and many other hon. Members think has already gone too far. I want to see a sustainable increase in the programme, and I think that we are in sight of achieving that.
    Mr. Raison: Will the Minister explain why, when the Question referred to the building programme, he answered it only in terms of the house-building programme? Can it be that he did so as there are great difficulties in the rest of the building programme? Will he say whether he will extend his action and give close attention to the private rented sector, which is languishing as a result of the Rent Act 1974?
    Mr. Crosland: I answered the Question in terms of house building, as I understood that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) referred to that. Indeed, he nods affirmatively and confirms that understanding. I shall be happy to discuss the private rented sector, the decline of which long

    385
    predates this Labour administration. Indeed, it proceeded with exceptional rapidity in periods of Conservative Government.
    Mr. Lee: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although there has been a commendable increase in housing starts, there is considerable danger, under the take-over by the housing authorities in the spring, that his efforts will be stultified by their sabotaging activities? Will he ensure that the ban on the sale of council houses, which applies in the new towns, is extended universally to all local authorities so as to stop the Conservatives in Birmingham, for example, from wrecking the programme?
    Mr. Crosland: The Conservatives are not in power in Birmingham. As I informed the House three weeks ago, the sale of council houses is under close review. I have not taken a decision. I am watching the situation. My hon. Friend is right. If there were any considerable change—which I think and hope there will not be—in the political control of housing authorities, that would constitute the biggest imaginable threat to the council house-building programme.
    Mr. Michael Latham: As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that the question concerned all building, not just house-building, why has there been a drop of 47 per cent. in private industrial building over the past three months? Could that be a clear indication of the lack of confidence by industry in the Government's economic policies?
    Mr. Crosland: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has not repeated the grossly misleading statement that he made when he last asked a supplementary question.
    Mr. Latham: I did not.
    Mr. Crosland: I thought that he did. He stated, contrary to the facts, that new orders for council house building were falling. In fact, they are rising.
    If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question on the wider matter of industrial investment, I shall be happy to answer it.

    Caravan Sites (Electrical Installations)
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to amend the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by adding a requirement before a licence is given to a caravan site that the electrical installation must be of such a standard that it will create no hazard to life.
    Mr. John Silkin: One of the aims of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 is to ensure that caravan sites are properly equipped and run. Accordingly, local authorities have the power to attach wide-ranging conditions to site licences. When they are deciding what conditions to impose they must have regard to the model standards specified by my right hon. Friend. A model standard with respect to the electrical installation on caravan sites is being prepared as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Is the Minister aware of a tragedy in my constituency when an eight-year-old girl was electrocuted on such a site? Is he further aware that the Rother District Council was advised by his Department that it would be exceeding its powers if it took steps to attach conditions of electrical safety to a licence? Will he therefore speed up the steps that he is taking so that this matter can be dealt with?
    Mr. Silkin: I promise that I shall do my best to speed this matter. There must be discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I understand that there are two fatalities a year as a result of faulty electrical installations on caravan sites. I shall see that we get a move on.
    Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. constituent aware, from knowledge of conditions in his village, that he is talking utter nonsense? The entire problem, as the Minister will know from his personal experience, is that the nomadic population is rising much more sharply than the house-dwelling population. Far more sites of a lower and simple standard are required. That is what the bona fide nomad wants. He wants a water pipe, clean water, and not much else Does

    387
    the Minister agree that this discussion of electricity is rubbish? Will the Minister amend the regulations and provide more sites?
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I regret I did not vote on two occasions, should get together with his hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine), whose Question referred mainly to holiday sites.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the difficulties encountered by many local authorities in monitoring small sites, especially those on farms of over five acres that operate for 28 days per year? Would it be helpful if owners of such sites had to state for which 28 days of the year they were applying so that at least some measuring rod could be applied to the sites when in operation?
    Mr. Silkin: That is an interesting suggestion. I shall consider it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Immingham Docks
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pay an official visit to Immingham Docks.
    Mr. Crosland: I have no immediate plans to do so, although I am frequently in that area.
    Mr. Brotherton: That reply will be received with regret in Immingham. Does the Minister realise that in the ports of Immingham and Grimsby there is great concern about the constant increase in port and dock charges? Will he use his influence with the British Transport Docks Board to explain that raising charges in profitable ports such as Immingham, which may thereby become non-competitive, is a foolish policy? Does he agree that it is not for the profitable ports such as Immingham and Grimsby to subsidise ports such as Hull, on the north bank of the Humber, which make losses?
    Mr. Crosland: I am sorry to hear that I should not be welcome in Immingham.
    Mr. Brotherton: No. The right hon. Gentleman would be welcome.
    Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman is extremely welcome in Grimsby, where we like to catch a glimpse of so eminent an eccentric.
    388
    I strongly disagree with most of the hon. Gentleman's views, as reported in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph. If I formed the slightest suspicion that the policy of the British Transport Docks Board was to penalise Immingham or Grimsby in favour of Hull, I should march arm in arm with the hon. Gentleman at the head of a demonstration.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has held with representatives of the construction industry regarding workload, output and employment; and what action he has taken in the light of those discussions.
    Mr. Freeson: These topics have been discussed recently in the National Consultative Council for the Building and Civil Engineering Industries and in the Construction Industry Liaison Group. The industry will benefit from the measures recently announced by the Government, in particular the additional expenditure for public sector construction programmes, for factory building and for the encouragement of industrial investment.
    Mr. Latham: Is the Minister aware that the NFBTE will report tomorrow that two-thirds of all building firms axe now operating at less than three-quarters capacity and that two-thirds have already substantially shed labour? How much longer will the Government continue to waste on municipalisation and land nationalisation resources that could be put to more constructive use?
    Mr. Freeson: I hoped that we should receive a slightly deeper comment from the hon. Gentleman, who should know better about these matters.
    I am well aware of the serious situation in the construction industry. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain on another occasion whether he wishes us to embark upon a major expansion in public expenditure in present circumstances, bearing in mind that 50 per cent. of the building industry's workload comes from public sector requirements.
    Mr. Ward: Is the Minister aware that in some places where the industry is working and achieving a good rate of

    389
    progress there are already shortages of key materials such as bricks? Is he investigating this situation?
    Mr. Freeson: I am aware of the existence of difficulties about supplies. We are probing the problems put to us about the situation in different parts of the country. If my hon. Friend will give me further information on these matters, about which I know he is concerned, I shall probe it further.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Is the Minister aware that in Westminster the building industry could do useful work and ease the housing shortage by converting office accommodation to residential accommodation, as the Westminster City Council wishes? Why does the Minister's Department overrule the Westminster City Council's appeals when that council wishes to convert office accommodation to residential accommodation?
    Mr. Freeson: If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the cases he has in mind, I shall examine them. As a general proposition, I wish to see the clawing back of appropriate office accommodation. I refer to accommodation designed and built originally for housing purposes. However, zoning planning matters are not directly my concern. There are economic issues involved in such clawing back and reconversion. That is a matter in which I am interested. I shall be glad to hear further from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Noble: Will my hon. Friend refrain from chastising those Opposition Members who have seen the light with regard to public expenditure? Does not he agree that the main reasons for the increase in the borrowing requirement are the continuing recession, the fall in productive employment and therefore revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the increase in the unemployment benefit that has to be paid? In the light of that, will my hon. Friend do everything he can to encourage further building, both in the public and private sectors, and so reduce the level of unemployment?
    Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend's supplementary question ranges much further afield than my direct responsibilities. I do not accept as correct the reasons my hon. Friend gives for the increased public sector borrowing requirement. Within
    390
    the budgetary limits imposed upon me by the present economic situation, I shall seek to get as wide an expansion of housing construction and other construction activities as I possibly can. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that we have achieved a great deal in that direction in very difficult circumstances during the past 18 months.

    Water Authorities (Sewerage Schemes)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the system whereby water authorities can refuse to carry out a sewerage scheme unless "requisitioned" by the local authority concerned.
    The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): This is one of the matters which will be considered in the full review of the water industry which my right hon. Friend expects to initiate in the New Year.
    Mr. Ridley: I do not urge greater expenditure on sewerage when already expenditure by the Department of the Environment is far too high, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is undesirable that responsibility should be passed from the water authority to the council and back again? Should not there be one authority responsible for the provision of sewerage schemes and one authority only?
    Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman is not urging additional expenditure, he is certainly urging a switch in existing priorities.
    Mr. Ridley: No.
    Mr. Howell: With great respect, he must be. He is urging that when water authorities find it impossible to carry out certain sewerage schemes, the decision should not be left to the requisitioning arrangements in the Water Act 1973, for which he voted. That must mean a switch in existing priorities, which at the moment are new housing, industrial development and the maintenance of public health standards. Those priorities must remain for the time being. By the Water Act local authorities were enabled to requisition sewerage schemes, as had always been the case with water schemes, and the two systems were brought into line.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that an improvement in representation on water authorities will not await a full review of the water industry? Is he aware that water authorities are subject to criticism because they wield extensive powers without representation from the local authorities that impose rates decided by the water authorities? Will my hon. Friend take drastic and urgent action to ensure that large local authorities are properly and adequately represented on water authorities?
    Mr. Howell: More than 50 per cent. of the representation on all regional water authorities is made up of local authority nominees directly elected by the local authorities involved. To change that system would require legislation. I cannot undertake to produce legislation in advance of the full inquiry that we are conducting and our study of the results. A consultative document—either a Green Paper or a White Paper—will be published early in the New Year. Like my hon. Friend, we are anxious to have the considered view of everyone about what arrangements should apply in future.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that one objection to the Water Act is in respect of the smaller number of members of each regional water authority? Would not a modest change in the numbers meet the problems referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and accord with the wishes of most people?
    Mr. Howell: That is one reason why we opposed the Water Act. The management of water on a water basin principle involves very large areas, much larger than any previously known units of local government. The difficulty is to equate the principle of managing the water cycle in that way with any form of local government democracy.

    Slum Clearance
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether restrictions on spending are adversely affecting local authority slum clearance programmes for 1975–76–77.
    Mr. Freeson: No restrictions have been imposed on local authority capital spending on slum clearance, nor on their house-building programmes.
    Mr. Thorne: Will the Minister tell me why my local authority constantly offers the explanation that it is prevented from new house building by Government restrictions on this sphere of spending?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not aware of any district representations from the local authority concerned. The point having been put to me, I shall make it my business to find out the grounds for any such statements. As far as as I am concerned, there are no such grounds.
    Mrs. Knight: Does the Minister agree that it might make good financial sense at this time to issue advice to local authorities not to tie up any more land in inner city areas until the land they already own is utilised for house building? Is the Minister aware that vast tracts of land have ben standing vacant and useless for many years?
    Mr. Freeson: I wish to see the reverse. I wish to see local authorities continuing to maintain a steady policy of the assembly of land and sites for construction purposes. However, if the hon. Lady will give me details of the sites causing her concern, I shall make it my business to probe the matter.
    Mr. Heffer: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's house-building programme. Will he now turn his attention to the difficulties of Merseyside, where 10,000 building workers are unemployed, 3,000 of them skilled workers? Is my hon. Friend aware that local authority modernisation programmes are being held back for various reasons, although they have had generous support? Will my hon. Friend re-examine this matter, help our local people to find employment and, at the same time, give decent homes to those who live in local authority houses built well before the war?
    Mr. Freeson: The joint working party looking into social ownership and improvement policy is about to report. On the basis of that report we shall consider how best to allocate resources around the country. In the meantime, we are making available an additional £12 million over and above the budgeted figure for improvement work. I shall make it my business to get that money allocated to areas most in need of improvement works and capable of undertaking the use of the resources. As my hon. Friend knows

    393
    from previous conversations, I am a little anxious about the position in Liverpool where there is a risk of underspending the present allocation. We are in touch with the local authority about that.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister ensure that local authorities that have suffered a cutback in their programmes for improvements to pre-war council houses make proper use of houses standing empty—for example, for short-stay accommodation? I welcomed the Minister's visit to my constituency last Friday. If the local authorities will not use the many empty houses in my constituency, cannot they be passed on to housing associations?
    Mr. Freeson: I see no reason why there should be large numbers of houses standing empty. There will always be a few properties standing empty at any one time, but if many houses are standing empty because it has been impossible to programme works over a period, there is something questionable about the management policies and practice leading to that. Those policies and practices need to be reviewed, and we shall do our best to encourage such a review.

    M1 (Repairs)
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the rate of progress in repairing the M1 between Luton and Hemel Hempstead; what lessons his Department has learnt as a result of this work; and how long it will be before further repairs on this section of the M1 are necessary.
    Dr. Gilbert: Yes, Sir. Weather permitting, it is expected that the resurfacing between Junctions 8 and 10 will be completed by mid-November. That is earlier than originally expected. There will be consequential alterations to the central reserve and safety barrier.
    Two short sections between Junctions 7 and 8 remain to be treated next year. After this, no further major repairs are likely to become necessary for about 10 years over the whole length between the M10 and Luton.
    All aspects of the performance of the work are being monitored and reviewed, but it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions yet.
    Mr. Madel: In view of the number of accidents that have occurred during this work and the huge traffic jams that have built up, will the Minister see to it that when future major work is needed, it will be done at night during the spring and summer months? Will he also look again at the contra-flow system, because it has caused great chaos and has added to the burden of the Hertfordshire police in sorting out the traffic?
    Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman has asked several supplementaries in one. First, traffic control arrangements were made with the full agreement of the police. Secondly, we are sorry for the delays, of course—I have suffered from them myself—but this problem always arises when a motorway is already saturated with traffic, as in the case of the Ml, and when necessary repairs of this sort occur. If the repairs were to be undertaken only at night, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, I am advised that in this case that would have added about £500,000 to the cost of what was expected to be 12 weeks' work and will now, it appears, be only 11 weeks' work.
    There is, unfortunately, always a certain increase in the incidence of accidents when repair work of this sort is carried out. I have no evidence yet to suggest that the increase is anything beyond what would be normally expected.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend take steps to congratulate both the management and the men involved in this dangerous and difficult work, which has been done under appalling conditions?
    Is my hon. Friend aware that one reason for many of the accidents during this work was the absolutely scandalous and idiotic behaviour of drivers ignoring police speed restrictions?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and hope that the general public will take note of them.
    Mr. Les Huckfield: Although I recognise the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred, is it necessary to have, particularly at weekends, either one lane or two lanes coned off for mile after mile? Would not it be possible, for example, to put the cones off the roads at the weekends so that we do not have these

    395
    traffic jams for no reason at all on Friday nights and Sunday nights?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am advised that it is not practicable for work to be suspended at peak hours, as my hon. Friend suggests. The traffic arrangements are organised to take peaks into account on a weekly but not a daily basis.

    Rent Act 1974 (Survey)
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the results of the departmental survey into the effects of the Rent Act 1974.
    Mr. Freeson: Research has been commissioned into the detailed effects of the Act, but this will take some time to be completed.
    Mr. Miller: Is the Minister aware that there is a very great deal of dissatisfaction about the operation of this Act, and that, far from contributing in any way to security of tenure—I speak from personal experience of looking for a flat—it is impossible to obtain any furnished flat, except for a very limited period, and that the supply is extraordinarily limited directly as a result of the Act?
    Secondly, when are we to have the report to which the Minister has referred?
    Mr. Freeson: The question related to research, and I answered that.
    I think that the hon. Member will agree that the shortage of accommodation, particularly in the London area, did not start in August 1974. There was a greater loss to the private rented sector in the three and a half to four years of the previous administration than had been experienced over a period of years before. I accept that dissatisfaction has been expressed in some quarters, but there is also a great deal of satisfaction among people who now have security in their homes.
    Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend accept that a great many tenants will be deeply grateful to the Government for passing the Rent Act 1974? Will he tell the House whether he has yet received the missing file from the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who is still seeking evidence of the destructive effects of the Act in relation to the private landlord? Will my hon. Friend also accept that many of us here are not interested
    396
    in the protests of the landlords' apologists on the Opposition side?
    Mr. Freeson: I received the missing file, which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) had been promising me for a year, a month or two back. It consisted of a little over 400 letters, which are still in process of being examined closely. However, on first analysis it is clear that more than 200 of them relate to matters that have nothing to do with the Rent Act 1974, and that most of the other 200 relate to matters on which people have been misinformed, partly due to the activities of the hon. Member for Hornsey.
    Mr. Rossi: I cannot possibly accept that. Is the Minister aware that the letters he has received were sent as a result of advertisements in a limited number of newspapers in the Greater London area, that they were passed on to the hon. Gentleman within a short period of the replies to those advertisements being received by me, and that therefore what he has said is misleading, to say the least?
    Concerning the evidence, will he not accept that those letters, from a limited sample, all show that there has been considerable reluctance to let on the part of private landlords because of the unfairness of the law towards them at the moment? Will he accept that that is the general message coming through quite clearly from those letters?
    Finally, will the departmental survey include an inquiry into the situation of students, about whom we have been promised legislation, which has not been forthcoming?
    Mr. Freeson: The survey does not relate to any specific group occupying furnished accommodation, though no doubt students and other single people will be involved.
    Our information via my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is that the position of students is not as serious as some people, including the hon. Gentleman, had feared a year or so ago, despite one or two statements to the contrary, which are still being received. The evidence is that there is no demand or need for such legislation. However, if the position changes and I receive further information

    397
    from my right hon. Friend, I shall certainly look at the matter again.
    I stand by what I said earlier about the survey of the file sent to me by the hon. Gentleman. I add only the further point that nobody has ever denied—I certainly have not—that there is some reluctance to let on the part of landlords in situations where there is legislation controlling their activities. But this is outweighed by the large number of tenants, in both unfurnished and furnished accommodation, who would otherwise have been put out in order that their properties might be sold on the market.
    The biggest single factor causing a reduction in the private rented sector for many years now has been the increase of owner-occupation in the old areas and a certain amount of speculation in the handling of property.

    Provisional Driving Licences
    Mr. Trotterasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there is any limit on the number of consecutive provisional driving licences which can be held by a person who has not passed a driving test.
    Dr. Gilbert: No, Sir.
    Mr. Trotter: Is the Minister aware that on Tyneside recently a motorist who was convicted of a number of motoring offences was found to have driven for over 20 years continuously on provisional licences? Is there not, therefore, a case for requiring such people to show reasonable cause before the issue of further provisional licences when it appears that they are deliberately evading the test regulations? Is not the present situation making a farce of those regulations?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am not aware of the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but prior to 1970 it was possible for a licensing authority to refuse a third successive provisional licence if the holder had not taken a test, or booked for one in the next six months. Those provisions were virtually never invoked. On the basis of the experience of the limit before 1970, it is very unlikely that there would be any significant gain in road safety, but I shall look at the matter.

    Building Design Teams
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what
    398
    action he is taking to assist in maintaining established design teams of consulting engineers and architects during the present period of declining contracts in the private and public sector.
    Mr. Freeson: We have recently announced action to alleviate the problems of the construction industry, and are setting up a construction exports advisory board to promote overseas work. These steps will help to maintain established design teams. We are also considering suggestions put forward by the RIBA at a meeting I held with it on 30th June.
    Mrs. Short: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the export potential of consulting engineers and architects depends on a firm home base and that they cannot operate without a steady home market? Will he consider drawing up a list of major civil and structural engineering projects required over the next 10 or 15 years and arrange feasibility studies in order to keep teams together and provide jobs for the offices?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not think that I can accept the suggestion in the form in which it is put to me by my hon. Friend. However, the underlying proposition is accepted, and we are examining the possibility of what is loosely described as "a moving shelf" of jobs. For this to be effective in any gradual upturn of the construction industry or the economy that would allow it, we should have to concentrate, at least initially, not on major but on small schemes, which could be quickly brought off the shelf and put into the pipeline of work. We discussed this and a number of other matters with the RIBA, and we are pursuing the matter further.
    Mr. Costain: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the Third Report of the Public Accounts Committee, published in June, making it clear that a number of public contracts have been grossly overspent because of the lack of available drawings? Is not this an excellent opportunity, during the recession, to prepare proper drawings, so that when the recession is over we can get more buildings more cheaply?
    Mr. Freeson: Without going into the hon. Gentleman's comment about the PAC Report, I think that it can be said that he has just endorsed what I said to

    399
    my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short).
    Mr. Moate: Ought not it to be Government policy to ensure that the position of consultants with teams should not be undermined by an unreasonable build-up of design teams in the regional water authorities and the regional road construction units?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not aware of any unreasonable build-up of that kind.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect that during Questions, on Question No. 9, there were exchanges about the Minister's answer. I appreciate that it is not for the Chair to intrude into matters affecting the nature of a reply to a parliamentary Question. However, the point was raised that the Secretary of State replied not to the Question on the Order Paper but to a Question which had not been asked, the Secretary of State saying in essence that he understood through an exchange with the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that that was in fact the Question that the hon. Gentleman wanted answering—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) must admit that his point of order is directed to the content of an answer to a parliamentary Question. It has nothing to do with me.
Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect to you, I appreciate that the matter of a Minister's reply to a Question is not for you, but surely it is for you to decide whether Ministers may choose to answer Questions which are not on the Order Paper, otherwise we can all play this hilarious game of putting down one Question on the Order Paper and arranging for the Minister to reply to a different one if he finds that the answer to the original one will embarrass him.
Mr. Speaker: I doubt whether that course would have much success with the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 (Continuation) Order 1975 (S.I. 1975, No. 1705) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. John Ellis.]
Ordered,
That the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 (Relaxation of Time Limits) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4, the Motion in the name of Mr. Peter Snape may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and at that hour or at the end of that period Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of those proceedings.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

ANTI-DUMPING
3.34 p.m.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969.
From all sides of this House, especially in recent months, concern has been shown at the exposure of important and quite efficient British industries to manifest dumping by foreign exporters. Our existing law, intended to resist dumping, has proved inadequate and at the very least needs substantial amendment.
The Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, which my Bill would amend, is firstly a translation into law of the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade against dumping, and it is no part of my purpose to seek to tamper with any of the GATT regulations. Secondly, the Act is an instrument of total power for the Department of Trade in administering these provisions. Wrongly, in my opinion, the Act gives the Department of Trade entire and unsupervised authority, subject only to the Prayer procedure in Parliament. For instance, the Department is free to decide whether to pursue complaints and evidence of dumping. It is free to leave as much of

401
the burden of proof as it thinks fit to the industry concerned. The Act also leaves the Department free to decide whether to make an anti-dumping Order and how to administer the provision for interim provisional anti-dumping duty. From the decisions of the Department in these matters there is no right of appeal.
This is not a firm legislative stance from which to act against a flow of artificially low-priced goods sent to this country with the likelihood, if not the purpose, of disrupting, damaging and perhaps destroying some sectors of our industry. As it stands, the Act is not even a substantial deterrent to potential dumpers.
Under the Act as it stands, the Department can and often does require relatively small industries to try to conduct delicate and highly detailed investigations overseas as to the prices being charged for the same goods in other countries or about the costs of production in the country of origin. Often this has proved an impossible task for private industry without governmental power or influence. In many cases only the most powerful of our industries have been able to approach success in this unequal task.
If and when the Department of Trade under the Act agrees to take over these investigations itself, it has been known, as in the case of footwear imports, which was regarded as a difficult one, to spend more than a year on one case and then to pronounce that, although dumping has occurred, nevertheless a further period of investigation is considered necessary; and there was nothing that the footwear industry could do in reply to that.
Since there is nothing in the Act to require reasonable speed, it is no wonder that there are at present only 10 antidumping Orders in force and that last year only one such Order was imposed and three were suspended.
The Act was consolidated in 1969 in a climate of rapidly expanding world trade in which few exporters had any desperate need to resort to artificially low prices in order to capture markets. Since 1969, of course, international trading conditions have sadly changed. The decline of world trade and the loss of confidence about future growth have proved a hothouse for the spread of dumping. There can be no doubt of the danger of what is happening. This was long
402
ago recognised in the text of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The world-wide signatories, including ourselves,
"recognise that dumping, by which products of one country are introduced into the commerce of another country at less than the normal value of the products, is to be condemned if it causes or threatens material injury to an established industry in the territory of a contacting party or materially retards the establishment of a domestic industry."
Under present conditions, some dumping could eventually give overseas suppliers a near monopoly of our home market. After a brief heyday with lower prices, the British consumer would eventually suffer from the reduction of competition after the victims of dumping had been driven out of that sector of their previous business. For example, it may at first glance seem rather attractive for the British shopper to be able to buy a check tweed imported from the Prato district of Italy at a price below the true cost of its production rather than having to pay perhaps an additional 25p a yard for the similar Yorkshire product. But if the present Italian wool textile tactics are allowed to persist in this country—I concede that no application for anti-dumping duty has been lodged formally, because the industry has had depressing experience in this sphere in the past—the Yorkshire manufacturers of similar check tweed will go out of business and the Italians will then be able to charge virtually what they like because there will remain no direct competition anywhere in Europe in fancy woollen cloth.
One response to this threatening situation is to put some sharp statutory spurs behind the anti-dumping procedure. My Bill therefore requires the establishment of a small committee of independent persons with wide experience of international trade charged with the duty of considering all applications for antidumping measures and assessing evidence provided by applicants. Where the committee decides that there is a case to investigate, the Department of Trade will have immediately a statutory obligation to pursue the work with all possible speed. If at the end of three months there has been no decision, the committee will inquire automatically into the progress and pace of the Department's work. If, when the investigation has

403
been completed, the Department declines to make an Order, under my Bill the applicant may appeal—this would give for the first time a right of appeal—to the same committee against the Department's decision. If during the investigation the Department refuses the application for a provisional and temporary anti-dumping order, the Department will have to try to satisfy the committee about that decision.
I submit that these requirements are likely to produce more decisive conduct by the Department, especially when dealing with State exporting by Iron Curtain countries or with particular overseas industries, elsewhere, with equivocal financial records. For example, it will have to decide promptly whether foreign refusal to answer its questions implies guilt in respect of dumping. The committee will require the Department to react realistically to deliberate delay by those being investigated.
There will also be realism in assessing cases where the landed price of imports is manifestly below any conceivable cost of production. For example, the 91,000 men's suits imported during the first half of this year from Romania into this country at an average landed price of £6·50 per suit and the 12,000 similar garments from East Germany at an average landed price in this country of £6 per suit would substantially condemn themselves, especially when these prices are compared with the much higher prices of other traditionally lower-cost producers such as Portugal and France.
The Department would, of course, under my Bill, continue to give foreign suppliers a proper chance to defend themselves but not to take advantage of us by prevarication, subterfuge and deliberate delay. The full legal rights of British importers to resist an applicant's case would be in no way whatever reduced by
404
my Bill. It would also remain necessary for the applicant to show that the dumping was causing or threatening material injury to his industry.
I emphasise that the Bill does not tamper in any way with the definition of dumping to which this country pledged assent in the GATT. We are not trying to introduce protectionism by any back-door method or in any other way. Parliament has always shown a strong concern down the centuries to protect those who work in our manufacturing industries and to protect ultimately the consumers themselves from the end result of dumping.
The trading nations of the world, in GATT, have condemned dumping. I submit, therefore, that Parliament should provide a system for the enforcement of these rules. Such a system should be established before the European Community takes over in this field, as it will do, so that Britain shall contribute to the Community a realistic and workmanlike anti-dumping procedure. That is what my Bill is intended to provide, and although I appreciate that time will not be available for it to proceed I hope that the House will express its concern by giving me leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. Cyril Smith and Mr. David Steel.

ANTI-DUMPING
  ANTI-DUMPING
  Mr. Richard Wainwright accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 249.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PETROLEUM AND SUBMARINE PIPE-LINES BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
  3.43 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: On a minor point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have selected Lords Amendments Nos. 2 and 10 to be taken separately. I have had discussions with the Government about this and we feel that it would be sensible and would save time if those amendments could be debated together. I wonder whether you would be prepared to assent to this procedure.
  Mr. Speaker: If that is the wish of the House, I will have the provisional list amended accordingly.

  PETROLEUM AND SUBMARINE PIPE-LINES BILL
    Clause 1

      CONSTITUTION OF THE CORPORATION
      Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).
      The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take Lords Amendments Nos. 25 to 30.
      Mr. Benn: All these amendments relate to a provision which we put into the Bill when it went through the Commons that there should be two official members of the British National Oil Corporation. We thought that was right. We argued for it in Committee and on Report and we carried the House with us. Another place has thought it right to remove these two official members. I urge the House to stick to its original view, and I shall quickly rehearse the reasons for so doing.
      We want to have a civil servant as a BNOC member because we want close and continuing links between the BNOC and the Government. We think this is urgent and necessary in the case of the oil industry because of its vital economic and strategic importance. I am not necessarily drawing a parallel with other nationalised industries because they have
      406
      different problems and there is clearly a need for different types of arrangement governing nationalised industries. But in this case it is absolutely critical that the relations between the BNOC and the Government should be of the closest and that there should be a flow of information going both ways.
      If it may be argued, as it sometimes is, that this is undesirable, I would point out that there are many foreign precedents. In other countries the boards of public corporations more generally include civil servants on them. Those who are wont to criticise civil servants for lacking industrial experience might ask themselves whether this method of providing official members on the board of nationalised industries, and in this case the oil corporation, would not help to remedy that situation. In Australia, France, New Zealand, Italy and Germany there are official members on the national corporations. I know that there is sometimes a difference of administration, but in other countries civil servants serve on a variety of public corporations and these are not connected only with the oil industry. There is no reason why we should not have an equal success in this case.
      It has been argued that if this were done, some problem of confidentiality of information would arise. It is true that official members may have confidential information about private sector companies in competition with the BNOC, arising from their departmental duties, but I do not think anybody in this House—and everyone taking part in this debate knows the traditions of public service very well—would for a moment suppose that official members working with a nationalised industry would break their confidence any more than they would in respect of similar confidences as part of their normal work in the Civil Service. In any case, there is the protection of the law because the model clause in the Bill prohibits any disclosure.
      I feel that the reason why these amendments were moved was to attack the idea of public involvement through the BNOC itself. I do not think it is sensible that we should allow such a very important corporation with such enormous resources at its disposal to be entirely outside the range of daily contact with the Government. I believe that this is one of the main purposes of the Bill.

      407
      It is true that the Government may acquire information about licensees which they would not otherwise have. But part of the whole purpose of establishing the BNOC is to improve the information available to the Government about the oil industry; and the Public Accounts Committee, which criticised the earlier licensing round, did so because it said that the Government knew too little about the oil industry and the firms within it which were engaged in offshore exploration. Therefore, we think that it is absolutely right and justifiable that the Government should have more access to information about the activities of the licensees, given the fact that they are dealing with such vital resources to this country, and the licence terms, in accordance with the Public Accounts Committee observations, have been modified to permit of a better and more comprehensive flow of information.
      This will be the main source of information to the Government. But all information to which civil servants have access in the course of their duties will be protected by the Official Secrets Act. I repeat that no one has any reason to doubt that the public service in conducting its duties under this measure will behave with the normal high standards of responsibility.
      We have had throughout the passage of the Bill many strong arguments by the Opposition which we have been able to identify clearly as the views of the oil companies. I make no complaint of that. Oppositions are the natural vehicles for points to be put to the Government which they may not wish to limit solely to direct representations. But in this case the offshore operators have not made much of the official representations. They are dealing happily with the Department, and I have no reason to believe, from my contacts with them, that they have found their relations with the civil servants other than helpful. Therefore, I do not think that in this case the Opposition are even championing an important interest of the companies. I think that the companies themselves do not see it so.
      That in itself would not, of course, rule out the Lords amendments, but what lies behind the amendments, which I ask the House not to accept, is an attempt to separate the BNOC from the Government
      408
      of the day, of whichever party. That would be a great mistake.
      The Government are in earnest about the establishment of the BNOC. No one should be in any doubt at all, whatever the comment in the Press or speculation from others: there is no weakening whatever in our determination to have a BNOC, to build it and to see it become an immensely-powerful State oil company, and the more powerful it becomes the more necessary will be the requirement that the links with the Government should be close.
      Some hon. Members were in Aberdeen on Monday when the Forties oil came ashore, and the Bill, which I hope that Parliament will agree to put on the statute book next week, will be equally important for the interests of the country. Many countries have found natural resources within their territories, but not all of them have benefited from the discovery, and we are absolutely determined that the BNOC shall be able to defend and safeguard our national interest.
      I asked for a list of the countries which had national oil companies of their own. It is an enormous list. I do not know whether I should occupy the time of the House in going through it, but perhaps I should do so. It includes Abu Dhabi, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei-Malaysia, Burma, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Taiwan, Thailand, Austria, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Spain, Portugal, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, Tunisia, Canada, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Equador, Mexico, Peru, Trinidad-Tobago and Venezuela. They all have national companies. We are to have one. It is going to be strong and powerful. It is going to be linked to the Government of the day representing the national interest. For these reasons, I hope that the House will not follow the other place in attempting to separate the BNOC from accountability to Parliament through Ministers.
      Mr. John Hannam: But how many of that long list of countries insisted on majority participation?
      Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to put in Hansard a list of those countries doing exploration, I point out

      409
      to him that the table from which I was reading had lists covering exploration, participation and distribution. It is lengthy. It would occupy too much time to go through it, but it would be of interest and educationally valuable to the Opposition and the public to realise that, in coming forward with the proposal to establish the BNOC, we are safeguarding the national interest and that we intend to uphold it with at least as much vigour and determination as other countries which have discovered oil and do not wish to see it controlled entirely by others over whom they have no supervision or control.
      Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Speaker: I did not stop the Secretary of State, but I hope that we are not going to have a general debate on the clause. The amendments are a more limited matter.
      Mr. Hamish Gray: Earlier in the passage of the Bill we discussed the question of civil servants on the Board of the BNOC. We argued that such appointments were unnecessary and that to have civil servants in such a capacity was undesirable. We argued that they would be serving two masters, the Chairman of the Corporation and the Secretary of State. We pointed out the anomalous situation in which they would find themselves, with no voting powers as directors on a Board in which they might be influencing their colleagues. We argued the question of confidentiality.
      The Government unfortunately have not listened. They did not listen to our reasoning on these points, and they have insisted on going forward with their intention of appointing two civil servants to the Board. We must at least be grateful to the other place for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter again. I hope even now to persuade the Government of the folly of their ways.
      In creating the Corporation the Government have established what we believe to be an unnecessary and money-hungry monster. Its functions could well have been carried out by the creation of a United Kingdom oil surplus authority. Parliament, however, has decided that we are to have a Corporation, and we believe that we must do all we can to try to make it work.
      410
      How can we make it work sensibly? First, we must appoint a powerful Board. At present we have the Chairman—Lord Kearton, the Lone Ranger, the general without any troops. There is no one in front of him and no one behind him. He is there in glorious solitude. When are we to have further announcements? When are we to find out who is to assist him, apart from the two civil servants we have heard so much about? Or are the Government having second thoughts? Are they perhaps getting a bit worried about the position they have taken?
      The Government still have time to change their minds. Let us hope that they will do so. Is it necessary to have civil servants on the Board at all? We believe that it is unnecessary, and certainly that it is not necessary to have two of them. Why are they there? Is it to keep an eye on each other? They have nothing else to do at present. Are they suitable for membership? Have their training or their work in the Civil Service given them special qualifications to act in a Corporation of this sort? We think not. Are they likely to fill the boardroom with ideas of profit-making ventures for the Corporation? Are they likely to give the Corporation the flair and enthusiasm it so desperately requires if it is to be successful? Are they likely to give it the entrepreneurial approach which it must have if it is to be succesful in competition?
      We are told that the Corporation will be out to make money. Therefore, it must back winners. At present we do not see much evidence of owners, trainers or jockeys likely to pick winners in this field. Let us look for a moment at what the Earl of Halsbury, himself a former civil servant, had to say in the debate in another place on 24th September:
      "If civil servants were capable of doing the work"—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman quoting from a ministerial statement in the other place? It is not the custom of the House to quote the words of a Member of the other place who is not a Minister. The hon. Gentleman is at liberty to paraphrase what the noble Lord said, but it would not be in accordance with our custom to quote his words.
      Mr. Gray: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I shall paraphrase it. In effect, Lord Halsbury said that if civil servants were capable of doing the work of such corporations, it would not be necessary to set them up at all. In this, we of course agree. We believe that the Civil Service of this country is the finest in the world, but we also believe that it should be left to get on with the work for which it was trained. Civil servants are not industrial or commercial leaders, and it is not appropriate that they should take part in this sort of body. It is a great mistake that civil servants have in the past been appointed to the chairmanship of public bodies. That is a mistake, but it is one for which there is precedent. That, however, is no excuse for having civil sevants on this body.
      4.0 p.m.
      There are two aspects of this matter which should be considered. The first is the question of responsibility to two masters and the second the question of confidentiality. In another place the Minister, Lord Balogh—I trust that this will be in order—said:
      "The official members obviously will have a double loyalty, but the double loyalty is conjuncted to the single loyalty to the State to the Government, to maximising the revenue of the BNOC, and therefore of the people of Britain from this arrangement. We have heard much about confidentiality; but the confidentiality aspect, if our plans go through—and no doubt they will do so—will be resolved because the BNOC will have all the information which the Secretary of State will have, being a member of the various consortia who will operate the oilfields."
      He went on to say:
      "…obviously it is expressly provided in the Bill that confidentiality will be preserved in all the operations of BNOC, and this includes the civil servants."
      But that is not strictly correct, because the only specific provision for confidentiality is under model clause 31—[Interruption.] Perhaps I might have the Minister's attention. We are debating something, and, although the Government have a majority which they will undoubtedly use, it would be as well if he did us the courtesy of listening to our arguments.
      The only specific provision for confidentiality is under model C, clause 31 of the licences. That is upstream. That does not meet the concern about confidentiality downstream, either that com
      412
      mercial information available to the Department might get back to BNOC or that commercial information available to the BNOC might get back to the Department. That is a worrying situation which the Minister has not dealt with completely.
      The noble Lord later tried to justify having two civil servants. He said:
      "I said that the two civil servants are necessarily there because closer contact between the on-going operations of BNOC and the Department is necessary. This is not snooping: it is communication."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th September 1975; Vol. 364, c. 323, 326–7.]
      That may be what the noble Lord cares to call it, but it is certainly not what we would call it. If it is not snooping, I do not known what it is.
      The right hon. Gentleman dealt at some length today with the activities of BNOC, but so that I do not go out of order I do not propose to follow him in that matter now. There are other debates to come in which we may be able to refer to matters that he has raised. But I would ask the House to consider carefully what we have said about the implications of having civil servants on such a Board, to realise that they will be in a difficult position in serving two masters and that they do not have such a great amount to contribute, particularly at this starting stage of what is to be a commercial concern.
      Much more are they likely to sit with their ears open and mouths closed, the pin-striped puppets of the Department, and to carry tales to the Minister—the "Big Brothers" of the boardroom, the inevitable product of doctrinaire Socialism in practice. I hope that the House will have nothing to do with the suggestion that we appoint them to the Board and that it will agree with the other place.
      Mr. J. Grimond: I put down the original amendment to strike out the appointment of civil servants to the board and I was joined by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). The Secretary of State is right to say that I did not put it down at the behest of the oil companies. One of the most curious features of his speech was his statement that this was not a matter of great importance because it had not been raised by the oil companies. I regard

      413
      this as a matter of constitutional importance and one which could gravely damage the public administration of this country.
      Mr. Benn: I know that the right hon. Gentleman will want to be fair. What I said—and this is true—is that many of the amendments of the Opposition were known to have originated from points made by the oil companies. I said that this matter was not of concern to those companies, but I said that at the end of my speech. The rest of my speech I devoted to the substantial reasons that the civil servants should be there. My disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman is on constitutional and practical grounds and has nothing whatever to do with the views of the oil companies in this matter.
      Mr. Grimond: I am glad to hear it. It seems odd to drag the oil companies into the discussion at all, but I will let that pass. Let us be clear—I have opposed this appointment because it is damaging to the public service.
      The Secretary of State then said that, of course, confidentiality would be respected and that these civil servants would be in no way influenced by the fact that they might acquire information in their capacity as members of the Department. But how could they fail to be influenced? What is the point of putting them on the Board unless they are to be influenced by the knowledge of the industry that they acquire?
      What is the reason that Ministers, on taking office, have to give up all their directorships? What is the reason for keeping civil servants away from contact of this kind with commerce? It is just so that they can discharge their regulatory functions of advising Ministers and carrying out their decisions without any possible accusation that they might be influenced by being in particularly close contact with those with whom they have to deal. That is the whole basis of the conduct of the British public service. One might just as well say that Ministers should be on the board, that they would not be influenced by anything that they found out in their capacity as Secretaries of State.
      I am wholly unimpressed by the view that it is done in other countries. They have a different public service position.
      414
      In any case, I do not believe that any country appoints public servants and then says that they may not vote.
      The Minister said that the purpose was to increase the accountability of the BNOC. Is that so? The accountability presumably will be through the Secretary of State. Are these two civil servants to be available to be cross-examined in Parliament? If it is said that this will increase accountability, we have to look seriously at the constitutional implications of what the right hon. Gentleman apparently insists upon doing.
      I do not want to reiterate at length the arguments that I used in Committee and on Report. It has been said time and again by people distinguished by long service to this country that this provision is unnecessary. If it were not in the Bill, the Secretary of State would not be prevented from appointing civil servants. The other nationalised industries find that they have perfectly good contact with the Government without having civil servants on their boards.
      I beg the Secretary of State to look at the remarks of one of the most distinguished public servants this country has ever produced when he said exactly what was said again and again in Committee. It is wholly wrong to confuse the regulatory functions of the Civil Service with commerce. It is wholly unnecessary to have civil servants on the Board and it is obvious that they are there as watchdogs. I got into trouble for saying that they would be commissars. The difference between "commissar" and "watchdog" is that one is not parliamentary language and the other is. Their functions are broadly the same, and every argument that the Secretary of State advances makes it doubly clear why they are there. Their appointment debauches the public service in a hole-and-corner way in a Bill which does not require that approach.
      It appeared in another place that it was not even known from which Ministry the two civil servants will come. I think it was understood in the Commons that they would be appointed from the Department of Energy, but we have a right to know—
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman might care to ask the Secretary of State for confirmation on this matter and whether it has already been

      415
      decided that one of the civil servants is to come from the Treasury.
      Mr. Benn: It was our intention that the Department of Energy and the Treasury should be represented on the BNOC. Certainly this issue was never kept private as far as I was concerned. We made it clear from the beginning in our discussions that we had in mind that the Treasury, in view of the enormous sums of public money involved, would be an appropriate Department to have represented.
      Mr. Grimond: I am not accusing the Secretary of State of hushing this matter up. Nevertheless, the argument was that these appointments would enable the Department of Energy to find out what goes on in the oil industry. I do not remember it ever being advanced that the Treasury should find out what was going on in that industry or that it was important for the Treasury to keep track of public money in that way. Vast sums of public money are put into all sorts of public corporations—the National Coal Board, the British Steel Corporation and so forth—but the Government have not advanced their argument in respect of those organisations.
      I hope that, simply as a matter of public propriety and for the safeguarding of the public service, the House will accept the Lords amendments.
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: Obviously the proposal to place civil servants on the Board of the Corporation showed that the civil servants did not quite trust the Corporation to carry out its work. Now we learn that the Treasury does not even trust the civil servants from the Department of Energy to supervise the Corporation. There will therefore be the fail-safe device at BNOC Board meetings of the Department of Energy being represented and the Treasury, like big brother, looking on. This must be disappointing to the civil servants in the Department of Energy. They produced a Bill giving them additional rights and powers but now they find that one of their toys has been taken away and that one of their members is to be replaced by a Treasury representative. Obviously the Treasury does not trust the Department, and from the way
      416
      in which the Department has been tackling things, many of the rest of us do not trust it either.
      As things are proposed, representatives of the British Civil Service will be taking part in the activities of the Corporation which will be located in Scotland. After the events of the last week we are very much involved in the momentum of devolution. On a television programme on Monday night in Scotland a professor of politics said that devolution without a Scottish Civil Service would be a fraud.
      What is to be the rôle of the Corporation? What are to be its relationships with the Assembly? Will it be a case of the Assembly operating in Scotland with powers over certain aspects of industry—electricity is one which immediately springs to mind—but having no influence over the BNOC? Should there not be Scottish representatives on this body? Unfortunately the answer appears to be "No". We are perhaps to be asked to introduce an English Trojan horse into the BNOC set-up. The last thing that we as Scotsmen want is to have spies reporting back to Westminster on what is happening in Scotland.
      These activities concern oil and gas fields off the Scottish coast, so this is overwhelmingly a Scottish matter. If the Government apply their majority to the Lords amendment and defeat it, there will be representatives of the English Civil Service on the BNOC. It is as well therefore to let the Government know at this stage that when it comes to the exercise of sovereignty, that sovereignty is vested in the Scottish people, and this piece of legislation, if it does not fit in with Scottish needs, can be completely and utterly repudiated at a later stage.
      Mr. William Small: I wish to deal with the relationship of the Civil Service with the public The innovation embodied in the Government's proposal is a good one and should be supported. I strongly support the stable framework of reference which would be provided by the Bill, and to that extent it has my maximum support.
      The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is like Hamlet—he casts a long shadow. It is 60 years since his party enjoyed any sensation of constitutional reform. That is how long the Liberals have been out

      417
      of power, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman has failed to recognise that the Government's proposal does not represent a constitutional issue.
      The Scottish National Party illustrates the case of Dante's hell—a continually unseen object but a continually observed subject. That sums up the SNP contribution. It is the observed subject which has no power.
      I support the Government's proposal on both philosophical and historical grounds, and I therefore support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in seeking to reject the Lords amendments.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I support the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). I hope that the Secretary of State will concede that the appointment of civil servants to the Board will have far-reaching implications. I hope that he will concede that there is no reason for appointing them either to this or to the other boards of public corporations. I hope that he will give us more of an insight into his reasons for proposing these appointments.
      Mr. John Moore: I could not endorse more warmly the words of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). We are hung on one of the difficult dilemmas facing this House. A proposal has been introduced for supposedly valid reasons. We have been told by the Government in Committee that the appointment of civil servants to the Board is to be a new experiment in modern Government. After analysis and scrutiny we find that the experiment is related to the communication of information, but the information is to be confidential so that little communication will occur. We are told that the proposal is to enable control to be exercised, but anyone who has been involved with this legislation knows that the Secretary of State already has under the Bill as drafted powers exceeding any powers that would be necessary for the running of the BNOC.
      I turn to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. This is a high constitutional matter. We demean ourselves by examining the way
      418
      in which the issue was discussed in another place and by suggesting that we are in any way denigrating the Civil Service. Quite the contrary is true. There are people who seek to maintain the essential independent nature of the Civil Service and who seek to prevent it becoming entwined with commerce and government to the extent that it is entwined in commerce in this suggestion.
      The Secretary of State may look puzzled. The degree to which our society has been unable to allow civil servants the freedom to manage effectively the governmental machine has in large part, been caused by the inter-relationships of the Government with the economy. I suggest that the last thing we should do is to allow the civil servants to become ensnared with the obvious despair which will be created by the disaster of the BNOC. I strongly support what has been said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
      Mr. Cyril Smith: I am astounded not only by the Government's attitude to this matter but by what has been said by the Minister who is taking the Government's line on this issue. I have often disagreed with what the Minister has said, but I have always respected what I believed to be his sincere desire for public accountability in public services. I beg him to think again about this matter. The best way to get public accountability is to clip the wings of the Civil Service and not to allow it to spread further than it has spread them already.
      Some of us are slightly suspicious about the public accountability of the Civil Service, especially the Treasury. We believe that to give it further powers and influence and to appoint civil servants to nationalised boards would be a retrograde step and certainly completely contrary to the views that the Minister has expressed about public accountability in the past.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am sure that the House wants to make progress. However, I have been astounded by what I have heard during the past two or three minutes—namely, that we should set up a Corporation which will give civil servants even more power than they have already. My right hon. Friend has assumed his new mantle of Secretary of State for Energy. It is true that some

      419
      would argue that he did not want the job but was simply kicked into it. However, having taken on the job, I believe that he should have done something about this matter. When he took office the Bill was still proceeding through the House. I assumed that he would examine it from top to bottom, line by line and clause by clause, to establish whether in his own mind he could reconcile the Bill with his general attitude towards not only the House of Commons but the Labour movement generally.
      We are considering the setting up of a Corporation which will include two more civil servants. One of them will come from the Treasury, and I have not gathered from where the other one will come, but no doubt he will be of the same breed. Moreover, unless there is a sheer fluke of selection, their general view will be against the policies of the Labour movement for which my right hon. Friend is responsible. Of course, it is true that my right hon. Friend is responsible to the House of Commons, but initially he is responsible to the Labour movement. In my view it is an affront to the Labour movement for us to think in terms of having two more civil servants on the Board of this nationalised corporation.
      Reference has been made to the possibility of some civil servants being added to the National Coal Board. That idea is not as fanciful as some hon. Members might imagine. There will be several vacancies on the National Coal Board during the next 12 months. If this trend catches on I can visualise interfering civil servants becoming members of the National Coal Board. The proposal reeks of State capitalism and yet here we are setting up a brand new so-called nationalised industry and taking a step backwards instead of forwards.
      I should like to suggest to my right hon. Friend the type of people who should be members of the Corporation. Why do we not have Ron Hayward, the Secretary of the Labour Party, as a representative to ensure, as custodian of the manifesto and the Labour movement, that the interests of the Labour Party and the nation are kept well in mind, because the two go together. I also believe that there should be somebody from the National Union of Mineworkers on the Corporation, because with the North Sea oil
      420
      developments in the next few years I can visualise a situation in which, if we are not totally in control of what happens, there will be another merry-go-round of pit closures. Provided we can make the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster move ahead on the participation plans, I want to see someone in the higher echelons whose natural instinct is to safeguard the interests of the coal-mining industry. I want my right hon. Friend to apply his mind to those matters.
      My right hon. Friend took over the Department of Energy when the Bill was in progress. It may well be that he was not totally happy about the way in which the matter was developing. However, I suggest to him that even at this late stage he should have a fresh look at the matter. Even if he cannot do so now, if he stays in his present job long enough he will have a duty to ensure that we do not travel along the road that has been put forward today.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: After that outburst of comradely love I shall return to the amendment. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his proposal to put civil servants on the Board of the BNOC has been supported in the House by only one of his own back benchers. It has been attacked from every corner. I beg him to think again.
      Before I raise two further questions which seem to me to cast some doubt upon what the right hon. Gentleman told us in opening this brief debate, I should like to comment on his closing words. Every time the right hon. Gentleman reaffirms his determination to have a BNOC and all the rest of this ridiculous bag of tricks, he merely serves to renew the doubts to which the Government's inaction in this whole area has given rise.
      At present BNOC totally lacks credibility. The Government have entirely failed to find anyone with any experience of the oil industry to serve on it. Until there is some evidence that the Government are persuading people of standing in the industry to give of their time and expertise to serve on this board, not even all the Government's fulminations will convince anyone that the Economist was wrong when it said that
      "the government would like to wriggle quietly out of its commitment to a 51 per cent. state participation in the North Sea fields".

      421
      The Economist went on to point out that such action would create some difficulties in
      "avoiding a back-lash from Labour's left wing".
      The right hon. Gentleman has stood up to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) before and no doubt he will do so again.
      I turn to the questions I asked about the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman sought to argue that there would be no difficulty about confidentiality with the presence of these two officials on the Board. He will know that we have argued at length that the Government have two clear, separate and distinct functions. They have their regulatory function whereby they administer the model clauses which are contained in the schedules to the Bill and they also have their function in the promotion and sponsorship of the industry, including the BNOC. Are those two functions to be kept separate within the Department of Energy or was Lord Balogh right when he said—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but we are discussing the narrow point whether to leave out paragraph (c). There will be opportunity for wider discussion on wider amendments later.
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Jenkin: It is indeed my intention and I am about to quote from the debate in another place on this amendment. The Secretary of State sought to argue that there would be no damage to confidentiality through the appointment of civil servants to the Board of the BNOC. Yet the Government, through their regulatory function, will get a vast amount of information which ought on no account to be conveyed to the Board of the BNOC, let alone to any of its partners.
      The noble Lord Balogh said:
      "the BNOC will have all the information which the Secretary of State will have."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th September 1975; Vol. 364, c. 323.]
      Is that the position? I invite the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not prepared to contradict that statement, at any rate to put a gloss on it. If all the information which can be demanded by the Department of Energy, through its operation of
      422
      the regulatory function, is to be channelled through to the BNOC via the civil servants and, therefore, perhaps indirectly to the BNOC's partners through the joint committees on which the Corporation will be represented, we shall have a very serious situation. I ask the Secretary of State to deal explicitly and positively with that matter.
      The second question relates to the problem of downstream activities. The Corporation and the Department will have a lot of information on the exploration and production side. We are told that the Corporation will act strictly commercially downstream. The Government will have a lot of information through their operation of the refinery controls about the downstream activities of the companies. Is information about those activities to be made available to the BNOC through the Civil Service directors on the Board?
      The noble Lord Balogh said:
      "I do not think this problem will arise in the near future."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th September 1975; Vol. 364, c. 323.]
      The noble Lord is obviously not up to date. It is well known—I quote from the Scotsman—that
      "Lord Kearton, the chairman designate of the British state company, has displayed enthusiasm for the idea of BNOC becoming involved in downstream activities".
      Certain people believe that some of the downstream activities may precede some of the upstream involvement. This problem will arise, if not in the immediate future, at any rate in the very near future. The question of confidentiality about the industry's plans for downstream operation is directly threatened by the presence on the board of the BNOC of two civil servants to be appointed by the Government.
      This proposal has failed to find favour among most hon. Members who have spoken. The Government should think again. If not, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House in favour of retaining the provision which their Lordships have inserted into the Bill.
      Mr. Benn: This has been an important debate. Indeed, it has covered the same ground as debates in Committee and in another place. I must ask the House to set aside as being less than worthy of the

      423
      magnitude of the issues we are discussing some of the phraseology which has been used about commissars, debauching the public service, pin-striped bureaucratic puppets and English Trojan horses. We are discussing the extent to which it is possible for this country to gain some control over resources estimated to be worth £200 billion. The House, in considering this entirely new situation, should be addressing itself to whether it is sensible to have some modest innovations in the degree of supervision that we achieve.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made an important speech. Yesterday some of his constituents came to see me about a colliery closure in his constituency. My hon. Friend must know very well, because he knows the mining industry, that when the Government of the day, with parliamentary approval, set up the National Coal Board, they made provision for a total separation of responsibility of the National Coal Board from the House of Commons. Indeed, many of my hon. Friends in the Labour movement, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, have put great pressure on Labour Ministers to see whether, within a nationalised industry, there could be greater accountability than there is. It is not my desire—
      Mr. Skinner Mr. Skinner rose—
      Mr. Benn: I am not seeking to avoid the strength of the point made by my hon. Friend. There are many who feel that in the ordinary nationalised industries, which we are not now discussing—this is a separate issue, but the point was made and it deserves a serious answer—the degree of accountability to Parliament is virtually non-existent.
      The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) criticised me on the ground that civil servants will not increase accountability. I hope to show that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If there is no link, save this statutory arm's-length link with an independent public corporation, a Minister seeking to exercise the public interest as he sees it, subject to parliamentary control, has a statutory bar on any but the most indirect links with a nationalised industry.
      Mr. Skinner: May I take it from what my right hon. Friend has said that only
      424
      by appointing civil servants as such could he, in his capacity as Secretary of State, have any accountability or any opportunity to intervene in matters of this kind? I agree that we should have somebody there and that there should be an opportunity for the Secretary of State, if the institution or nationalised corporation is acting contrary to the wishes of the Labour Party, to which we both belong, to intervene and make changes or modifications at appropriate stages. The point is that my right hon. Friend has no need to appoint civil servants in that capacity. He can get the accountability and the intervention powers by appointing somebody else.
      Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend has raised a point of importance and substance. This is not the only way in which a Minister can exercise influence over a nationalised industry. My hon. Friend knows that in the two public corporations which the Government are setting up—the National Enterprise Board, the proposal for which I was responsible for bringing before the House earlier this year, and the British National Oil Corporation—there is a second important function; the power of specific direction. It is arguable whether it should be extended to other nationalised industries. But even if people who were acceptable to my hon. Friend, to myself or to the Labour movement generally were appointed, the statutory position is that when a man is appointed, whatever his origins or views may be, in our nationalised industries there is no accountability to a Minister and, through the Minister, to Parliament because of a statutory arm's-length relationship.
      We are concerned whether, when dealing with oil resources of this magnitude and importance to the nation, it is wise or sensible to have as remote a relationship as we have with those who run the railways and other nationalised industries. I do not believe that it is. I am not trying to bulldoze this proposal through. I am trying to persuade the House that it would be inadvisable to vest so much power in the hands of a body of people without any possibility of a Minister, on behalf of this House, knowing what was happening and being able to give instructions for which he would be answerable to the House of Commons. I genuinely believe that by having two civil servants answerable to the Minister and by having the

      425
      power of specific direction, accountability to the House of Commons is increased. If I did not believe that, I should not have advocated this provision.
      I come now to the question of confidentiality. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) has had a lot of experience in Government in both the Treasury and the Department of Energy. For him, as a former Minister, to make much of the confidentiality issue is to do less than justice to his experience.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose—
      Mr. Benn: Let me finish the point. The right hon. Gentleman said sharp things. I shall not say sharp things to him, but I must point out that he knows better than many others that Governments of any party, through the various agencies of the Civil Service and of Ministers, are the recipients of detailed information about individual firms and have executive responsibility for taking action in certain areas.
      Let me give an example by quoting the Conservatives' Industry Act 1972. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), was responsible and received an enormous amount of information from industry. He exercised executive powers under that Act which involved selecting certain firms and helping them, as was the case in the wool textile industry for which a scheme went through. To imply in Parliament that in the arrangement which we are putting forward civil servants would in some way be in breach of confidentiality is grossly irresponsible.
      The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford has acted grossly irresponsibly because he knows that such a suggestion is contrary to the reputation and experience of Whitehall. He knows that his words, misunderstood abroad or elsewhere, might do damage not only to BNOC but to the reputation of the Government in the handling of confidential information. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his suggestion.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I do not mind being attacked by the right hon. Gentleman, because we can both give it and take it. I am quoting what his junior Minister, Lord Balogh, said in the House of Lords, which was that:
      426
      "the BNOC will have all the information which the Secretary of State will have."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th September 1975; Vol. 364, c. 323.]
      Will that be so, or is the right hon. Gentleman ready to give an undertaking to the House that the information which reaches him and his Department through the operation of the regulatory function will not be disclosed to the BNOC or its competitors?
      Mr. Benn: I cannot comment on a single phrase from a speech. Nor is it common, and Mr. Deputy Speaker will confirm this, when considering Lords amendments for there to be an exchange of debate between the two Houses at arm's length. One of the major objects of this scheme is that the Government should know more about the oil industry than did the previous Conservative Government, who in this respect gravely betrayed the national interest—more than they allowed us to know.
      It is part of the objective of getting information that those concerned—I speak now about civil servants—should be properly influenced by the information they have. That is wholly different from saying that information received for one purpose is improperly to be conveyed for another purpose outside the strict provisions of the Official Secrets Act. Governments are always influenced by the information they have. That is quite different from implying that the information is improperly transferred.
      It is a pity that this big issue should arise on a day when there are other Lords amendments to be considered. This is a sensible change which I believe the House, on reflection and in the light of experience, will think right. I put it forward on the grounds that we need at least this system if we are to establish the degree of control and supervision over these resources which, although they will not automatically transform our future, undoubtedly offer to us great opportunities for exploitation to our benefit. It would be wise for Parliament to insist that upon the BNOC Board there should be the two civil servants at present contemplated, from the Department of Energy and from the Treasury. In this way, among others, the House should have proper accountability for the conduct of BNOC in its intended 51 per cent. participation in our offshore oil resources.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 243.

      Division No. 383.]

      AYES

      [4.45 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Anderson, Donald

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Marks, Kenneth

      Archer, Peter

      Forrester, John

      Marquand, David

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Ashley, Jack

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Atkinson, Norman

      George, Bruce

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Mendelson, John

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mikardo, Ian

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Golding, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Bates, Alf

      Gould, Bryan

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Bean, R. E.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Graham, Ted

      Molloy, William

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Moonman, Eric

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Boardman, H.

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Morris, Rt Hon J, (Aberavon)

      Booth, Albert

      Hardy, Peter

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Newens, Stanley

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Hatton, Frank

      Noble, Mike

      Bradley, Tom

      Hayman, Mrs. Helene

      Oakes, Gordon

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Buchan, Norman

      Hooley, Frank

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Buchanan, Richard

      Horam, John

      Orbach, Maurice

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Ovenden, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Owen, Dr David

      Campbell, Ian

      Huckfield, Les

      Padley, Walter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Park, George

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Parry, Robert

      Carter, Ray

      Hunter, Adam

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Pendry, Tom

      Cartwright, John

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Janner, Greville

      Radice, Giles

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Coleman, Donald

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Corbett, Robin

      John, Brynmor

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Judd, Frank

      Roper, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Kelley, Richard

      Rowlands, Ted

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Kerr, Russell

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lambie, David

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Deakins, Eric

      Lamond, James

      Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Dempsey, James

      Lee, John

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Doig, Peter

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Sillars, James

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Skinner, Dennis

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Small, William

      Dunn, James A.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Litterick, Tom

      Snape, Peter

      Eadie, Alex

      Loyden, Eddie

      Spearing, Nigel

      Edge, Geoff

      Luard, Evan

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Stoddart David

      English, Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

      Ennals, David

      McElhone, Frank

      Stott, Roger

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Strang, Gavin

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Swain, Thomas

      Faulds, Andrew

      Maclennan, Robert

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Madden, Max

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Flannery, Martin

      Magee, Bryan

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mahon, Simon

      Tierney, Sydney

      Tinn, James

      Watkinson, John

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Tomlinson, John

      Weetch, Ken

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Tomney, Frank

      Weitzman, David

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Torney, Tom

      Wellbeloved, James

      Woodall, Alec

      Tuck, Raphael

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Woof, Robert

      Urwin, T. W.

      White, James (Pollok)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Whitlock, William

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Ward, Michael

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Watkins, David

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Moate, Roger

      Alison, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Monro, Hector

      Arnold, Tom

      Grylls, Michael

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Hall, Sir John

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Baker, Kenneth

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Banks, Robert

      Hannam, John

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Beith, A. J.

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Mudd, David

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Neave, Airey

      Bitten, John

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Neubert, Michael

      Blaker, Peter

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Newton, Tony

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Normanton, Tom

      Bottomley, Peter

      Henderson, Douglas

      Onslow, Cranley

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hicks, Robert

      Osborn, John

      Brittan, Leon

      Holland, Phillip

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hordern, Peter

      Pardoe, John

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Howe, Rt hon Sir Geoffrey

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Budgen, Nick

      Hunt, John

      Percival, Ian

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hurd, Douglas

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      James, David

      Raison, Timothy

      Cockcroft, John

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir

      Cope, John

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Cordle, John H.

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Reid, George

      Corrie, John

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Costain, A. P.

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Crawford, Douglas

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Crouch, David

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, David

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Lamont, Norman

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Durant, Tony

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lawson, Nigel

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Emery, Peter

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Lloyd, Ian

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Eyre, Reginald

      Loveridge, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Luce, Richard

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Farr, John

      MacCormick, Iain

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fell, Anthony

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shepherd, Colin

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      MacGregor, John

      Sims, Roger

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fox, Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Fry, Peter

      Madel, David

      Speed, Keith

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Mates, Michael

      Spence, John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mather, Carol

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Maude, Angus

      Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Sproat, Iain

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mawby, Ray

      Stainton, Keith

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stanley, John

      Gorst, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mills, Peter

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Gray, Hamish

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stokes, John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Welsh, Andrew

      Tapsell, Peter

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Viggers, Peter

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Wakeham, John

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Wall, Patrick

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Walters, Dennis

      Younger, Hon George

      Thompson, George

      Warren, Kenneth

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Watt, Hamish

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Mr. Anthony Berry and

      Trotter, Neville

      Wells, John

      Mr. W. Benyon.

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 3

      GENERAL DUTIES
      Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 5, line 9, at end insert—
      "(6) In any case in which the Corporation is in competition with any private company operating in the energy sector the provisions of this and the next succeeding subsection shall have effect for the purposes of securing that such competition is fair.
      (7) Neither the Treasury nor the Secretary of State nor any other Minister nor local authority nor any public corporation conducted wholly or in part under national ownership or control shall, or shall counsel, procure or incite others to discriminate unfairly as between the Corporation and a petroleum company operating in the private sector in competition with each other in favour of the Corporation, whether in respect of the terms of any loan, or any contracts, the making available of land, buildings or equipment, the granting of contracts, the prices and other terms for supplies or purchases of petroleum, goods or services or otherwise howsoever. For the purposes of determining whether discrimination is unfair, regard may be had not only to the economic but also to the social consequences of any matter.
      (8) No criminal proceedings shall lie against any person on grounds that he has committed, or aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of or conspired or attempted to commit or incited others to commit any contravention of this section. But any person who suffers or apprehends that he will suffer any loss or damage by reason of any such contravention may bring civil proceedings in respect of such contravention or an apprehended contravention whether for an injunction or interdict or for the recovery of the full amount of the loss or damage or for any other appropriate relief or for any two or more of them."
      The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords Amendment No. 10.
      Mr. Smith: I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I state the
      432
      Government's position fairly shortly. The amendment was dealt with fairly shortly in another place.
      As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment was to offer some protection against what was feared might be some form of unfair competition by the British National Oil Corporation. In asking the House not to approve the amendment, the Government are in no way saying that they will pursue a policy of preference for and subsidy to the Corporation. On the contrary, I want to make it clear—this stands on the record, as the point was made throughout Committee and throughout the various stages in this House—that we want the Corporation to become, as the British Gas Corporation and the National Coal Board already are, a respected and wholly commercial partner in licences. We want it to work in cooperation with private licensees. We have given an assurance that the Corporation shall not receive preferential treatment in public sector purchasing.
      I find it a little surprising to think that the mighty oil companies need some form of protection from the Corporation. However, that appears to have been the reasoning behind the amendment. Perhaps this reaffirmation of the Government's view will make it clear to the House that our objection to the amendment does not arise from any feeling that we want to give special subsidies or privileges for the Corporation. On the other hand, that is not to say that we do not think it appropriate that in certain circumstances the Corporation shall become a sole licensee. As we made clear earlier, we intend the Corporation to perform services for the Government. We do not think that those activities are inconsistent with the Corporation acting as a fully commercial enterprise when it is in partnership with private sector licensees. Our main objection to the amendment is that it would create practical difficulties for the Corporation.

      433
      5.0 p.m.
      Every public corporation is necessarily close to the Government and engages in a vast number of transactions with the Government. The opportunity to appeal to the courts with the prospect of compensation for the complainant will no doubt be welcomed by the unsuccessful competitor. This could happen every time the corporation borrowed from the National Loan Fund or, under Government guarantee, from private lenders at rates not available to all its competitors. The Government could be taken to court because an unsuccessful applicant for licences thought that the corporation was getting an unfair share. One cannot predict what would be likely to happen, but these are possibilities that the Government must bear in mind.
      It is not simply that the Corporation would be hobbled or weakened by these conditions, but we must bear in mind that the Corporation will be an instrument of the national interest. It will become the Government's adviser on oil matters and may manage the Department's pipeline and storage system. I hope that the House will wish to see the Corporation becoming strong and vigorous in extending its activities. That is largely the point of setting up the Corporation. We have given assurances time after time to reassure the Corporation's partners and competitors. But it is clear that, if the Lords amendment is allowed to stand, this aspect of the Corporation's functions will make it more vulnerable to vexatious litigation even than the other public corporations.
      I believe that the procedure suggested in the amendment would be excessively restrictive of the Corporation's operations. I say this in the context of an industry where most of the oil companies are fairly large enterprises, and I am sure the House would agree that they are not the least powerful of commercial enterprises operating in this country. I do not think they need the special protection that is offered to them in the amendment.
      If one examines Lords Amendment No. 10, one feels that it is difficult to see how in practice that protection would operate in the way suggested. In view of the background of Government policy, which has been made crystal clear, we believe that it would be wise for the House to resist the amendment.
      Mr. Peter Rost: The Minister's answer was disappointing and hardly did justice to the debate in another place when this amendment was agreed to. It is disgraceful that the Minister should attempt to reject an amendment without putting forward one single profound or cogent argument.
      When we look at the nationalised industries and their performance at the present time, we can be forgiven for asking why even the present Government do not seem to have the sense to have second thoughts before creating yet another monstrosity, especially where there is no justification for it on economic grounds. The British National Oil Corporation will be unnecessary, expensive and damaging to the national interest. It will have no proper commercial discipline and will be a waste of national resources. We cannot stop it, but at least we can attempt to harness it to prevent it from ravaging and ruining the thriving private sector oil and petrochemical industry and ancillary industries. We can do this by ensuring that the State industry competes fairly with the private sector.
      For these reasons, the Lords injected into the Bill two important amendments. We have not yet been given any reason to help us to understand why the Government have stubbornly resisted these amendments and are now attempting to throw out these safeguards. The safeguards are aimed at preventing the Government, in the public sector, whether it affects the nationalised industries or the BNOC, from trading unfairly. The safeguard contained in Amendment No. 10 seeks to give those who claim to have been subjected to discrimination in unfair trading the right of complaint against the Corporation.
      We believe that these amendments should remain in the legislation. Although we have had numerous verbal assurances from Ministers that the Corporation will trade fairly, we have had no written guarantees in the legislation to safeguard those verbal assurances. Why have we had no written guarantees? Why is the Minister now attempting to throw them out? Surely the reason is that the Government know, even if they dare not admit it, that in practice it will not be possible for the Corporation to trade fairly against private sector industry.

      435
      A number of apprehensions have been expressed on a number of occasions to which there have been no satisfactory answers. The first, and probably most important, is the vastness of the Corporation as it is proposed to be set up. The Secretary of State for Energy earlier this afternoon said that it was the intention of the BNOC to become an immensely powerful oil company. The very vastness that will be created in terms of power to dominate the rest of private industry and the limitless financial resources put at the disposal of the Corporation will make it a powerful organisation. It will own 51 per cent. of the whole industry by voluntary or bullying persuasion. It will take the royalty income from oil found in the North Sea, and that will be siphoned off by the Treasury into the oil accounts and put at the disposal of the Corporation. The Corporation will have a huge cash flow and wide-ranging powers.
      There are various ways in which those powers and pressures can be brought to bear on the private sector, and this can lead only to unfair trading. We all know that the Government, for political reasons, will need to justify the success of the Corporation. They cannot afford to have a flop. Therefore, there will be endless ways in which favoured treatment through the patronage system can be exercised to ensure that the Corporation has certain advantages. We need to spell them out to know what they are.
      Let me give one or two examples. First, we have the public sector as a major buyer of oil products, and power can be used to arrange special deals, if that is desired. The public sector is also a major supplier—or will be—to the nationalised state oil industry. Public authorities will have the opportunity to assist the nationalised oil industry against the interests of the private sector.
      Then we have the most important factor—namely, that the nationalised State industry will be exempt from the petroleum revenue tax, whereas the private sector will have to pay it. How can the Minister explain that there can be fair competition between two industries operating in the same area in the oil industry—one industry that has most of its profits extracted in taxation, and the
      436
      other not having to pay tax at all? Inevitably, this must lead to unfair competition. One will have a substantial cash flow and the other will have to raise its cash in the normal way, either by using what little retained profits it is allowed, or from marketing operations carried out in a normal commercial way. I believe that this can lead only to unfair competition.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: Following the rough logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, is he suggesting that the private sector industry should now be withdrawn?
      Mr. Rost: I do not see the relevance of that intervention. The hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution to the debate, and we await it with interest.
      There are various other matters that cause concern. In particular, we must be concerned about downstream operations in the petrochemical industry. With the vast resources which will be available to the State industry, and with the declared intention to move downstream, there could be unfair competition. New refineries or petrochemical plans can be put up only if the demand exists, and as demand for them expands, the Minister will have discretion as to those to whom he grants planning consent for new refineries. One wonders to what extent those powers will be used against the private sector and in favour of the nationalised State sector, to allow it to expand into the refinery business.
      There is a great deal of uncertainy in the petrochemical industry, and uncertainty is the greatest danger to capital investment. What we need is not vague assurances but something written into the Bill to provide the safeguards to which the industry is entitled if it is to continue to plan its major capital investment projects and to insure itself against any possibility of unfair State competition.
      There are a number of other areas in which unfair competition can develop. We have already had the debate about the powers of the civil servants and how they will undoubtedly have inside expect knowledge. Even if it is not disclosed to the Board of BNOC, they will still have it. How can the Government have those civil servants on the Board without admitting that their presence must represent some

      437
      element of discrimination and possibly unfair competition with the private sector?
      If the House wants evidence, we already have the first example of jiggery-pokery by the State industry, before it has even got off the ground, in a way which involves unfair competition. BNOC is taking over from the National Coal Board for a nominal face value of £50,000 assets estimated to be worth £100 million. That must mean a hidden subsidy, which will fudge the calculations of return on capital employed, if any are to be attempted. Failure to have assets realistically valued on the balance sheet must have an effect on the calculations and assessments of proper commercial practice, and must therefore result in unfair competition. I regard that as an inauspicious start, and hardly good accounting practice. It represents the beginnings of cross-subsidisation before BNOC has even started.
      The powers to force BNOC's partners in the North Sea, perhaps under authority from the Secretary of State, to develop uncommercial fields, against the best interests of the private sector, perhaps, but to the advantage of BNOC, constitute another area in which we could see unfair trading. There are also the powers for revocation of licences which can be applied against the interests of the private sector and to the advantage of, and extension of the powers of, the State industry.
      In addition, there is the possibility that if—perhaps I should say "when"—BNOC decides to move downstream into the refineries there will be arbitrary political decisions which will create unfair trading by a nationalised concern at the expense of the private sector.
      5.15 p.m.
      Those are some of the anxieties, some of the areas in which we feel that it will be extremely difficult to draw the line between what is fair trading and what is not. For those reasons, we believe that safeguards should be retained in the Bill, and we cannot understand why the Government wish to remove the amendments made by the other place.
      The Government have given plenty of assurances—we heard more this afternoon—that BNOC will act and trade commercially. If those assurances are valid, why are the Government afraid to write them into the Bill? We believe
      438
      that there is evidence that it will not be possible for BNOC to trade fairly in every respect. Therefore, we must challenge the motives behind the Government's resistance to including these protective provisions.
      We are told that there is already a guarantee against unfair competition in the Fair Trading Act and that anybody who feels aggrieved can have a reference made to the Monopolies Commission. But the Minister will know only too well that that Act is designed especially to protect consumers and is hardly suitable for application to industries.
      Then we have the explanation from the Minister that the amendments might result in vexatious accusations of unfair trading. If the Government are to argue that we cannot have a complaints procedure because there might be vexatious complaints or chronic litigants, should not that argument apply to all independent appeals, tribunals and arbitrations—indeed, to all courts of law? Why should it be so different in this case? That argument is arrogant and suitable for a dictatorial point of view rather than one acceptable to a democratic institution.
      We believe that there is a special need to protect the smaller companies. The hon. Gentleman said that the large oil companies could look after themselves. That may be, but there are many smaller operators who will be particularly endangered by unfair trading practices by the State, and who need protection. We also need long-term assurances for the sake of the confidence needed for capital investment if the private industry is not to be smothered. The assurances by Ministers so far are not enough.
      The vastness of the proposed new nationalised industry represents a threat to fair trading in many ways. If our suspicions of Government motives are unjustified, the Government should be happy to accept the amendements. They say that BNOC will trade fairly. If that is so, there is no need to reject the amendments.
      Unless the assurances are written into the Bill and the Government remove the uncertainty about unfair competition between a State monstrosity and the private sector, future relations between the two sectors will be endangered, as

      439
      will the industry's prosperity. If our fears will prove to have been unjustified, there is no harm in accepting the amendments. The Government claim that favouritism and abuse will not occur. The removal of any risk of their occurrence would be a small price to pay for a concession by the Government in allowing the amendments to stand.
      The BNOC is being created as an entirely new nationalised industry in direct competition with the private sector, and it is starting in a privileged position. Therefore, it is not a question of justice being done but one of justice being seen to be done. I therefore urge the House not to reject these amendments.
      Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I have strong reservations about what I understand to be the nationalised industries. That does not mean that I could be persuaded to pursue a line which might be difficult to incorporate in a Bill of this kind. Even if we adopt an attitude of using phraseology which suggests that there is to be discrimination, we must still seek the best definition of what we mean.
      The word "discrimination" caused great difficulties in another context in deciding what was right and what was wrong. It is not sufficient to write into a Bill of this kind:
      "to discriminate unfairly as between the Corporation and a petroleum company operating in the private sector in competition with each other in favour of the Corporation,"
      There is something wrong with that. If that amendment were accepted, as a corollary to that language we should have to write into the Bill equivalent discriminatory restrictions on oil companies. On that count the Opposition argument falls.
      All reasonable Members of Parliament must agree that—apart from the normal political discussion which is bound to occur in the House—there cannot exist in law a purely one-sided state of discrimination. On that ground the hon. Gentleman's case fails. Much of what the hon. Gentleman said is not his own homework, as he retailed some of the concerns of the oil companies.
      The last sentence of the amendment to Clause 3(7) reads:
      440
      "For the purposes of determining whether discrimination is unfair, regard may be had not only to the economic but also to the social consequences of any matter."
      In terms of reasonable practice, how can we pursue either litigation or the actions specified in the amendment—the remedying of a complaint in a manner which would be satisfactory to all parties—when we use the words "of any matter"? But, worse than that, how do we measure the economic and social consequences?
      Having realised the impractical nature of this amendment. we should proceed to reject it so that we can pass the Bill at an early stage. The Opposition should not persist in using valuable time on an amendment such as this. Front Bench Members on both sides know that if this amendment is written into the Bill it will create problems.
      On those grounds, we should not support the amendment. We should agree with the Secretary of State. We should not agree to the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) deployed a formidable case in favour of this pair of Lords amendments It would be superfluous to repeat his case. However there are one or two points which I might add and of which the Minister would be wise to take account before he replies. I shall also comment briefly on what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said.
      The issue is simple. This is a test of the Government's good faith towards the oil industry. Although the Department of Energy sponsors the BNOC, it is responsible for the whole of the oil industry. Ministers therefore have a continuing responsibility for the health and confidence of the whole industry.
      Having read the speeches of Lord Balogh in another place, I have the impression that the current attitude is that what is good for the oil industry must be bad for the British people, and vice versa. [Interruption.] I am grateful for the sedentary renunciation of that view from the Government, in view of the impression which is left with the person who reads the speeches of Lord Balogh.
      Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House. I have read the speeches of Lord Balogh.

      441
      There are frequent references in them to a concern for the health of the whole oil industry, both public and private.
      Mr. Jenkin: Those sentiments are negatived by the often snide remarks made when attacking the oil industry and the frequent references to the seven sisters. Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out in debate that the effect of exempting the BNOC from petroleum revenue tax would be to leave a tax loophole, as the whole of the oil allowance would accrue to the private partners. The immediate reaction of Lord Balogh was to the effect that that suggestion would not have originated from those who were to benefit from the loophole. The fact is that that suggestion emerged from the oil industry, members of which pointed out that the exemption of petroleum revenue tax would leave a tax loophole which the Government should close. That provides an instance of the reaction of the noble Lord.
      It would be wise for Ministers to recognise, when considering this amendment about discrimination, that the industry's confidence has been badly shaken over the past 18 months. All but the mose rabid apologists for Government policy will put that down to political uncertainty. The prolonged hesitation in development is affecting jobs, the pace of exploration and orders for platforms. I beg Ministers to recognise the truth of that.
      In a recent Panorama television broadcast, Lord Balogh was at pains to point out that there was a carefully orchestrated campaign and a conspiracy of self-impoverishment by the industry in the hope that it would thereby put pressure on the Government. Does that extend to the bankers, suppliers and contractors? Of course not. It is rubbish. It is a dangerous belief. It underestimates the risk of doing lasting harm to the pace and momentum of the exploration and development which we so badly need. The fear is that, not in the next two or three years but further ahead, there will be no new exploration, no developments and no new oil fields.
      All our debates—especially the debate on the amendment about discrimination—have to be conducted against the background of two facts. One is that the Department of Energy is the sponsoring
      442
      Department for the whole industry. The second is that the confidence of the industry in the Government has been badly shaken. Here are two realistic proposals, positive steps which the Government could take to reassure the industry in a clear and practical way.
      5.30 p.m.
      I come to the speech made by the hon. Member for Hartlepool. There is a precedent in the hon. Gentleman's constituency where important parts of the steel industry are located. When the Iron and Steel Bill was going through the House in 1967 the Government yielded to Opposition pressure to insert a non-discrimination clause and to provide a remedy in the event of discrimination by the British Steel Corporation against the private sector. Further, the hon. Gentleman will know that that procedure had to be invoked.
      In 1972 the Government appointed Lord Hirshfield to examine a complaint made by the private sector that by pricing its products differently the BSC was effectively squeezing that part of the industry which remained in the hands of the private sector, namely, the special steels. It would be wrong for me to go into detail, but Lord Hirshfield found that the complaint was well founded. Mr. Richard Marsh had been wise in yielding to the arguments addressed to him to include such a clause in the Iron and Steel Bill. There is a precedent, it has been used and it has been found necessary.
      I deplore the fact that the Government are still rigid and adamant against inserting a similar clause in this Bill when it is their own desire that the BNOC should become a large, powerful and integrated oil company. I hope that even now, at the eleventh hour, the Government will accept one or other amendment, or preferably both, but if they are not prepared to yield I must advise my hon. Friends to join me in resisting the motion.
      Mr. John Smith: With the leave of the House, I shall try to reply briefly to some of the arguments put forward by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. I was not surprised when the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) began by saying that my opening remarks had been unsatisfactory. As I have become accustomed to being condemned

      443
      by the hon. Gentleman for unsatisfactory replies in Committee before I had even addressed the Committee, I am not completely surprised. In the months that have passed since we heard the hon. Gentleman's contributions in Committee, his style has become no more emollient. He remains completely devoted to the protection of every private company interest, whether British or foreign, and completely neglectful of any form of protection of the national interest against private interests. Unfortunately, that has been characteristic of the way in which the Conservative Party has approached not only the setting up of a new public corporation but the regulation of companies which is a major feature of the Bill.
      Mr. Rost: Would it not be more helpful if, instead of attacking me personally, the Minister tried to justify his attempt to throw out these Lords amendments?
      Mr. Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is as good at taking criticism as he is at handing it out. The amount of criticism he has made of me and the Government over many hours of proceedings on the Bill entitles me to make the odd remark back in his direction.
      I am happy to take up his arguments. The notion that the BNOC is to be seen as a vast, powerful, economic conglomerate which will dominate the oil industry is surprising when one remembers that the BNOC will have to make its way against some of the most powerful multinational corporations that the world has seen in its economic history, corporations which have more assets at their disposal than have many nation States. The notion that the BNOC will frighten and crush these multinational corporations into submission I find laughable.
      We have given the BNOC wide powers to operate as a fully integrated oil company. Why should it not have those powers? Every one of its competitors will have those powers, and not to give a public corporation exactly the same rights would be seriously to neglect the public interest.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the point that competitors are not being fed with the royalties that all the rest of the oil industry is paying?
      Mr. Smith: The BNOC has to be financed by public funds, and that is one way in which it will be financed. I shall answer each of the criticisms that has been made in the debate in my own time and in my own way, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.
      I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not speak very closely to the terms of the amendment, no doubt because he had reservations about it. The Conservative Party is not only reflecting but magnifying private worries and sometimes even distorting them in its anxiety to hobble, restrict and attack a new public corporation.
      One of the most important issues in the short debate was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) who drew attention to one of the provisions in the amendment and pointed out the impossibility of deciding whether any discrimination could arise on the basis of
      "the social consequences of any matter."
      I do not understand how a court would be able to make sense of that provision. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East who asked whether the setting up of an independent appeal tribunal would encourage vexatious litigants. The way in which the supposed protection is framed could not be of more assistance to the vexatious litigant if it had been framed for that precise purpose. The vagueness of the phrasing is such that it would encourage a litigant to take up a case however doubtful might be his prospects of success. The BNOC, engaged in making its way in the world against powerful and intense competition, would have to keep on meeting complaints, some of which were totally unfounded. It would be ridiculous to expect that arrangement to work in practice. I noticed that Opposition Members were much more concerned to state the principle behind the amendments than to justify their working out in practice.
      Mr. Rost: Is the hon. Gentleman opposing the amendments on technical grounds or on principle? If he is opposing them on technical grounds, he has had the opportunity in another place, and since, to tidy them up.
      Mr. Smith: It is not opposing an amendment on technical grounds to say

      445
      that it is unworkable. I am opposing the amendments because they are completely impracticable. They could not be made to work in practice.
      Conservative Members have a wrong sense of proportion if they think that the oil industry needs protection from the BNOC. It is more likely that the BNOC might need a little care for its interests when it is facing powerful competition from private interests. Ministers have made clear that they wish to see fair trading, fair competition, co-operation and partnership when the BNOC and private interests—as licensees—work together, as they will often do. Public corporations are already working with private interests in the North Sea, and both sides are satisfied with the arrangements they have made.
      The attitude of Conservative Members is completely out of proportion. In their handling of oil policy the protection of the public interest has not figured very largely. It is inappropriate for the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Wood-ford to read to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a lecturette about the political uncertainties of the oil industry. Perhaps he will tell his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—who made silly remarks about selling off part of the BNOC if a buyer could be found in the unfortunate event of a return to power by the Conservatives—that nothing would cause more uncer-
      tainty in the oil industry than a serious belief that the Conservative Party had a chance of electoral success. It does not lie in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to give us lectures about uncertainty. When the right hon. Lady made that statement I imagine it was heard with dismay by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, who had carefully refrained from making any such statement during all the months when we were engaged on the Bill. I do not think it lies at his hand to give us any lectures about political uncertainty. He knows perfectly well that the Government have made a whole series of reasonable concessions to legitimate points made by the industry—and accepted far more generously by the industry than by the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons.
      But we have insisted on certain rights. We have insisted that the BNOC shall have an opportunity to develop into an important addition to the public sector in this country. The amendment would hobble it before it started. That is why we ask the House to reject it today.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 247.

      Division No. 384.]

      AYES

      [5.41 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dempsey, James

      Anderson, Donald

      Cant, R. B.

      Doig, Peter

      Archer, Peter

      Carmichael, Neil

      Dormand, J. D.

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Carter, Ray

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Ashley, Jack

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Dunn, James A.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Cartwright, John

      Dunnett, Jack

      Atkinson, Norman

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Eadie, Alex

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Edge, Geoff

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Cohen, Stanley

      English, Michael

      Bates, Alf

      Coleman, Donald

      Ennals, David

      Bean, R. E.

      Conlan, Bernard

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Boardman, H.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Booth, Albert

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Cryer, Bob

      Flannery, Martin

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Bradley, Tom

      Davidson, Arthur

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Forrester, John

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Buchan, Norman

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Deakins, Eric

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      George, Bruce

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Campbell, Ian

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Ginsburg, David

      Golding, John

      Gould, Bryan

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Gourlay, Harry

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Graham, Ted

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Grocott, Bruce

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Madden, Max

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Magee, Bryan

      Sillars, James

      Hardy, Peter

      Mahon, Simon

      Skinner, Dennis

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W

      Small, William

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Marks, Kenneth

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Hatton, Frank

      Marquand, David

      Snape, Peter

      Hayman, Mrs. Helene

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hooley, Frank

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Stallard, A. W.

      Horam, John

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Mendelson, John

      Stott, Roger

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Strang, Gavin

      Huckfield, Les

      Millan, Bruce

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Swain, Thomas

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Molloy, William

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Hunter, Adam

      Moonman, Eric

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Tinn, James

      Janner, Greville

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Tomlinson, John

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Newens, Stanley

      Tomney, Frank

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Noble, Mike

      Torney, Tom

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Tuck, Raphael

      John, Brynmor

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Urwin, T. W.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Ovenden, John

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Owen, Dr David

      Ward, Michael

      Judd, Frank

      Padley, Walter

      Watkins, David

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Palmer, Arthur

      Watkinson, John

      Kelley, Richard

      Park, George

      Weitzman, David

      Kerr, Russell

      Parry, Robert

      Wellbeloved, James

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Pendry, Tom

      White, James (Pollok)

      Lambie, David

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Lamborn, Harry

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Whitlock, William

      Lamond, James

      Price. William (Rugby)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Radice, Giles

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Lee, John

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Lipton, Marcus

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Woodall, Alec

      Litterick, Tom

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Woof, Robert

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Luard, Evan

      Roper, John

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mr. David Stoddart and

      McCartney, Hugh

      Sandelson, Neville

      Mr. Joseph Harper

      McElhone, Frank

      Sedgemore, Brian

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Brittan, Leon

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brotherton, Michael

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Alison, Michael

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Durant, Tony

      Arnold, Tom

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Elliott, Sir William

      Awdry, Daniel

      Budgen, Nick

      Emery, Peter

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Banks, Robert

      Carlisle, Mark

      Eyre, Reginald

      Beith, A. J.

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Farr, John

      Benyon, W.

      Cockcroft, John

      Fell, Anthony

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Biffen, John

      Cope, John

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Blaker, Peter

      Corrie, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Costain, A. P.

      Fox, Marcus

      Bottomley, Peter

      Crawford, Douglas

      Fry, Peter

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Bovson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      MacGregor, John

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Goodhart, Philip

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Goodhew, Victor

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Madel, David

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Gorst, John

      Mates, Michael

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mather, Carol

      Shepherd, Colin

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Maude, Angus

      Silvester, Fred

      Gray, Hamish

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Sims, Roger

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mawby, Ray

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Grist, Ian

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Grylls, Michael

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Speed, Keith

      Hall, Sir John

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Spence, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mills, Peter

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Sproat, Iain

      Hannam, John

      Moate, Roger

      Stainton, Keith

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Monro, Hector

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stanley, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Morgan, Geraint

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Stokes, John

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Henderson, Douglas

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Heseltine, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Hicks, Robert

      Neave, Airey

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Holland, Phillip

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Neubert, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hordern, Peter

      Newton, Tony

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Howe R. Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Normanton, Tom

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Thompson, George

      Hunt, John

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Osborn, John

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Trotter, Neville

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Pardoe, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      James, David

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Viggers, Peter

      Johnson Smith, S. (E Grinstead)

      Percival, Ian

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Wakeham, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Wall, Patrick

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Walters, Dennis

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Raison, Timothy

      Warren, Kenneth

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Watt, Hamish

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Wells, John

      Knox, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Welsh, Andrew

      Lamont, Norman

      Reid, George

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Lawson, Nigel

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Younger, Hon George

      Lloyd, Ian

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Loveridge, John

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Mr. Michael Roberts and

      MacCormick, Iain

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Mr. Richard Luce.

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 6

      BORROWING POWERS ETC
      Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 6, line 6, leave out
      "temporarily, by way of overdraft or otherwise, "
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to consider Lords Amendments No. 4 and 5.
      Mr. Smith: The effect of the amendment is to enable the BNOC to borrow long term in sterling from sources other than the Secretary of State and the organs of the European Communities. For reasons which were explained in another place, it is not usual to allow this option to nationalised industries. The view has been taken in the past by Governments of both major parties that the direct involvement of nationalised industries in the market is likely to disrupt and increase the cost of borrowing of the Government concerned. However, in the case of the BNOC there are likely to be joint financing operations with parts of

      451
      the Corporation's production licences. This may involve borrowing in sterling or having to make currency loans of which sterling is a component. We feel that the Corporation should be able to play its part in these operations like any other licensee. That is the underlying reason for this and the subsequent Lords amendments, which are felt to be a desirable addition to the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 10

      ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
      Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 8, line 38, at end insert
      "and, giving separate information with respect to, and showing as far as may be the financial and operating results of, each of the main activities of the Corporation."
      Mr. Benn: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, we may consider Lords Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
      Mr. Benn: These amendments effect minor but worthwhile changes in the provision for BNOC's accounts. They provide that the accounts should give separate information about each of the main activities of the Corporation. We always intended that the Corporation should follow the practice of other nationalised industries—for example, gas—but as there was sensitivity on the point in Committee, the Government moved the amendments in another place. The Corporation will now be required statutorily to break down its own or its consolidated accounts by main activity.
      Amendment No. 8 gives the power to the Secretary of State to call for separate accounts for the Corporation's subsidiaries. By the operation of subsections (4) and (5), these accounts, like others, must be laid before Parliament. This is in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Opposition welcome this change of heart on the part of the Government. It represents an
      452
      additional help in making sure that the Government's pledges about the areas in which the Corporation will operate commercially can be tested and proved. Therefore, it is wise that the Government have agreed to these amendments, especially to remove the element of discretion on the part of the Secretary of State about whether the activities should be reported upon and accounted for separately.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 15

      ANNUAL REPORT
      Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 12, line 3, at end insert:
      "(cc) a statement of the amount by way of petroleum revenue tax and the amount by way of corporation tax which the Corporation estimates would, but for section 9(1) of this Act, have been payable by the Corporation and relevant subsidiaries in respect of their profit for that year;".
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Tim Renton: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end insert:
      'and a statement of the discounts, concessions and any other benefits that were, in the view of the corporation, available to the corporation by virtue of its being a public corporation'.
      It is with diffidence that I move this amendment since I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. The fact remains that many Opposition Members regard the BNOC as another hydra-headed monster in the public sector and fail to understand why at a time when there is so much concern about the growth of employment in the public sector and its decline in the private sector, the Government should create yet another public corporation.
      Government Ministers, notably Lord Balogh in another place, have assured us constantly that the Corporation would be efficient and that it would trade fairly. The noble Lord said on one occasion that the Government had gone out of their way to stress that when the Corporation was in competition with the private sector it would act commercially.
      In moving this amendment, therefore, I am saying, in effect, that the Corporation should declare its hand openly and

      453
      clearly in its annual report that it has acted commercially and fairly as if it were a private company, and that in cases where it obtains benefits which are not available to a competitor in the private sector, that should be set forth in the accounts.
      Before I go further I should declare an interest in this matter as a director of a company which has some interests in oil exploration.
      Ministers may say that this is purely theoretical and that it could not arise that the BNOC should obtain such special concessions or benefits. I wonder whether that is the case. I can imagine a situation developing in which, for example, the BNOC was given a monopoly to supply all the oil and gas used by Government Departments or when the Corporation was given preferential treatment in its planning applications for filling stations. These things, if they happen, should be specified in the annual report of the BNOC. I regard them as real possibilities.
      6.0 p.m.
      At present, in negotiating the 51 per cent. participation in existing licences, the Government are asking the oil companies to have regard to special factors of importance because of the Government's involvement. They are asking the oil companies to grant a discount on the purchase price because oil projects will be that much more creditworthy, they say, as a result of the Government's involvement. Alas, and without in any way wishing to be unpatriotic, I fail to see that the involvement of the Government makes these projects more creditworthy. Indeed, the opposite is the case, in my opinion. None the less, that is the argument that the Government are putting forward, that because of their involvement the cost of obtaining 51 per cent. participation should be reduced below normal.
      It is because one sees this special benefit for a public corporation, which is part of the Government's structure, continuing in the future that my hon. Friends and I, have tabled this amendment. We wish these exceptional circumstances to be brought out into the open. When the Secretary of State moves that this House should agree to the Lords amendment, stating that all that the BNOC should
      454
      theoretically pay by way of PTRT should be specified in the accounts, he will already be going some way to accepting the unusual position in which the BNOC will find itself. I think it is wrong that the BNOC should not pay PRT in the first place, but if it is not to pay, and if a figure is to be produced in the accounts of the amount of tax which it would have paid if it were liable, the Government are already ensuring that the BNOC's accounts will take an unusual form. Let the Government go further and say that in line with their commitment the BNOC will act commercially in the same way as any other independent oil company. Then let them agree that if the BNOC as a statutory corporation obtains special privileges, these should be spelt out in the annual report.
      Mr. Tim Rathbone: May I add a few words to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said about the purpose of this amendment? It is, to pick up one point in his theme, essential to enable people in this House, in industry and those outside analysing these affairs, to have a system of real comparison between these special circumstances which pertain to the BNOC and the operations of the normal commercial oil company. This is particularly important in view of the rejection of Lords Amendment No. 2 to Clause 3 earlier in the debate.
      We believe that it is essential to disclose wherever the BNOC may discriminate between purchasers of its crude oil, either to suit its own ends or because of some political end which the Secretary of State may have particularly in mind in his dealings with other countries or with other parts of the oil industry in this country. There should be disclosure wherever the BNOC may charge un-economically low prices in order to gain some advantage vis-à-vis other companies and vis-à-vis other countries by buying a share of the market or, in extreme cases, in deciding to put some other commercial oil company out of business.
      We are not arguing the pros and cons of the operation of the BNOC. We are concerned purely with the report. We maintain that if the Government were to accept this amendment it would be in the interests of more open business and more open government.
      Mr. Benn: There are two issues before the House—the amendment which has just been moved and the motion that we should agree with the Lords in the amendment about PRT. May I take the amendment first—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is only one question before the House, and that is the amendment.
      Mr. Benn: I apologise for linking the two issues, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you will forgive me for not having quite understood the order in which we are taking our business. In that case, I address myself to the amendment to the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I freely confess that this is a matter of my ignorance. Mr. Speaker has selected Lords Amendment No. 9 and the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) for debate together. You have just ruled that because my hon. Friend's amendment is the only one that has been moved, we have to address ourselves solely to that.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has established his point. The ignorance is not on the Government Front Bench. It is in this quarter. Therefore, the Secretary of State may discuss the two together.
      Mr. Benn: I am so bewildered by confessions of guilt and offers of help that I am not quite sure what I should do. Perhaps I need be no more precise than say that I shall take the two points together. Both relate to the degree of disclosure.
      The amendment to the Lords amendment invites the BNOC to operate under—I am not quite sure how to describe it—a bubble of transparency under which no oil company in the world is asked to operate. For hon. Gentlemen opposite, one of whom has fairly disclosed an interest, to suppose that any oil company could operate under a statutory provision that all discounts, concessions or other benefits available to it should be made public, is an absurdity.
      Mr. Tim Renton Mr. Tim Renton rose—
      Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I will give way in a minute. If there is one thing that is absolutely clear about the oil industry, whether one is talking about the young John D. Rockefeller or some of the young Arabs in OPEC who are now trying to establish a commanding position in the oil industry, it is that there has not been at any stage disclosure of this character. It would be wholly wrong to ask us, who are entering this industry fresh, to operate under such a disadvantage.
      Mr. Tim Renton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has, not for the first time, failed to read the whole of an amendment. We are not asking the BNOC to declare all the discounts and concessions available to it. We are asking that it should declare those concessions and benefits which are available to it by virtue of its being a public corporation—not those which would be available to it if it were to become an eighth sister with the other seven sisters, but simply those which it receives by virtue of its being a statutory corporation.
      Mr. Benn: That does not very much alter the argument which the hon. Gentleman is developing. Different companies in the oil business enjoy advantages of a different character arising from their status, from the arrangements which they have inherited, their links with other Governments and the concessions which they have received from other Governments, and they are in exactly the same position as the BNOC, given that some companies receive concessions embodied in some form of treaty arrangement with the host country, and they are not empowered to disclose them in detail to the world.
      One of the great problems that we shall face as we build up expertise in the BNOC is the difficulty of getting to the core of the oil business. It is very difficult for a Government to find out what happens in these great multinational companies. One of our objects is to find out, because we think it would be in the national interest if we knew. But to saddle the BNOC with a requirement to operate under this bubble of transparency, when its partners and others would not be so doing, would greatly damage the national interest. I cannot put it higher than that.

      457
      According to the amendment, it would be only
      "in the view of the corporation",
      so one would be subject to what the Corporation thought would be an advantage to it, and generally that would not have much validity. The House should bend its mind to the fact that getting information is going to be one of the most difficult things to do, and it would be ludicrous for us to provide a requirement for the Corporation which operates in not one of the major companies, including the State companies in other countries. I hope that the House will not be tempted, therefore.
      I come now to an area where we have gone along with an appeal for greater transparency—Lords Amendment No. 9, which I commend to the House. It provides that we should make known, in public in the annual report, an estimate of the amount of petroleum revenue tax that the Corporation would have paid if it had been liable to it. We were sensitive to the arguments on this subject in Committee. We recognised that there were those who wanted the PRT to extend to the Corporation. I do not want to go over the arguments again because we had them out fully before the Bill went to another place. We have been at pains throughout these debates to point out that, given the national oil account into which all the Corporation's revenues will be payable gross, and given the financial duties which will be laid down under Clause 5, it is of no consequence to its competitors whether it pays PRT or not. I adhere to that view.
      But, having maintained that view, we have no objection to and welcome the idea of the estimate being made public so that people can see how the division of revenue lies between the notional PRT and the earnings of the Corporation. We are not proposing an audited figure but an estimate. I hope the House will recognise that we have gone as far as we feel we honestly can to meet the anxiety of those who have argued that without PRT applying there would be no possibility of sorting out how well the Corporation was doing in its own right. In that spirit, I ask the House not to accept the Opposition amendment to Lords Amendment No. 9 but to agree to the Lords amendment.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) have performed a valuable service in drawing attention to the kind of advantage and benefit which a corporation set up, as this one has been, with highly novel features, not least its financing and the extent to which it exists under Government control and patronage, has as compared with those of its principal competitors.
      The Secretary of State resists our amendment on the ground that no other company is subject to the same kind of detailed scrutiny and obligations. There was also an echo of the argument that the Government need to have a State oil company in order to gain an understanding of the workings of the oil industry. This is the kind of thing which I would expect an effective regulatory authority to concern itself with. It is the sort of authority we outlined to the House earlier in the passage of the Bill, an authority which would want to make sure that companies enjoying the kind of advantage that this one will have were not competing unfairly and were subject to the same kind of constraints and operating factors as the rest of the industry.
      I can see the difficulties of trying to make the Corporation write into its own report some of the advantages and privileges that the Bill will confer upon it, but I offer this comfort to my hon. Friends—that, if they are not disposed to press their amendment, at any rate they will know that the Conservative Party has taken account of such proposals in those it has put before the country and has spelt out in the debates on an independent regulatory body. That is the way to get information about the oil industry.
      I hope that one of these days the right hon. Gentleman—whose attention we need to call for again—will make it his business to call on Mr. George Govier and his team on the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board to find out just how much they know about the industry operating in that Province simply because for years they have had the necessary regulatory functions under Alberta legislation.
      One does not need to own or compete with an industry in order to understand

      459
      how it works—I will go on saying that until I am blue in the face—because the waste of money involved in this exercise simply to gain information, which is the Government's only argument, is totally absurd. My hon. Friends may take comfort from the fact that our way of getting this information is likely to be a great deal more economic than that of the Government.
      I recognise that Lords Amendment No. 9 is in response to a pledge given on Report in this House and it is welcome as far as it goes. It is right that the Corporation should declare publicly the value of the PRT exemption which it is to enjoy. But I must place firmly on record that we regard it as profoundly unsatisfactory that the Lords amendment needs to be put into the Bill at all. It is necessary because the Corporation is to be exempt from the special tax which will apply to every single one of its competitors on the Continental Shelf.
      Lord Kearton, in his first public speech as Chairman of the BNOC, called upon the industry for partnership and good will. Partnership and good will are meaningless and empty concepts if the partners are to start by playing the game according to entirely different rules. Lord Balogh said in another place:
      "There is not a shred of evidence that the money can be used as a type of subsidy in whatever form. It is not a subsidy; it is a remission of tax."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th September 1975; Vol. 364, c. 375.]
      I suggest that that is a totally absurd argument when looked at in an economic context with commercial companies competing against each other in the market. If there are two competing firms, and one is paying a heavy impost on its upstream products and the other is free from that impost, no one will convince me that that freedom from tax is anything other than a straight subsidy.
      We must look at this once again. I must apologise if the Secretary of State and his colleagues accuse me of lecturing the Government, but the Government seem so deaf to all rational argument that we are reduced to lecturing. The context is the need to inspire the confidence of the industry and give it the reassurance that it has a viable future under this régime. It is in that context
      460
      that the exemption from PRT, which makes Lords Amendment No. 9 necessary, is deplorable.
      There are two other considerations. The first is the parliamentary control of public spending, which is surely in the forefront of all our minds. This device will over the years remove billions of pounds from effective parliamentary control. It simply means that what would have gone to the Exchequer as PRT and then have to be borrowed under borrowing powers by the BNOC will bypass that procedure and simply slide straight from the BNOC through the national oil account back into the coffers of the BNOC, which will be able to use it to finance capital and current expenditure which will make the £900 million in the borrowing powers in the Bill the mere tip of an iceberg.
      But the second argument is one about which I should have thought backbenchers opposite would have had some sensitivity. The Labour Party is already licking its lips at the thought of the huge profits which the BNOC will generate for the nation—profits which were perfectly capable of being yielded by an effective tax system. Here at last, they say, is a profitable State concern. Here will be the justification for the doctrine of nationalisation. But what value will one be able to place on that? Profitable it will be, but it will be exempt from PRT. It will not have to pay the same taxation as the rest of the industry. What faith can anyone place in a system if the only way of ensuring the profitability of the concern is to give it this colossal built-in fiscal privilege?
      In Committee, I rehearsed some of the hard practical reasons why we are against this—the conflicts that it will inevitably raise between partners, one of whom is subject to the tax and the other not, when deciding on investment programmes offshore; and the difficulties in pricing products moving downstream if one of the partners is free of PRT.
      I remain entirely unconvinced that the Lords amendment goes any way towards remedying the real evils which will flow from this monstrous fiscal privilege that the Government have thought fit to confer on their brainchild. It will go no way at all to avoid the disadvantages. The only thing that it will do—I must make it clear that this at least we welcome—is to make it plain for all to see

      461
      just what the value of this fiscal privilege is year by year, because the Corporation will have to put an estimate in its annual accounts of what it would have paid if it had been subject to the same fiscal régime as the rest of the industry.
      One might say that we should not look a gift horse in the mouth and that even a spavined old nag like this amendment should be welcomed in the context of the monstrosity which the Government are inflicting in the clause. I therefore do not advise my hon. Friends to object to the amendment. It is a help so far as it goes, but it is an amendment which, if they had been upright and honest about it, the Government should never have felt to be necessary, because the BNOC should pay the same taxes as every other oil company operating off our coasts.
      Mr. Grimond: Even if the amendment to the amendment is rejected, I hope that the BNOC will take note of some of the things said in connection with it. The House would welcome some statement in the Corporation's annual report if it gets the type of concession or contract which has been mentioned.
      In Committee, I drew down some fire on my head, not only from the Ministers but even from the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), by suggesting that there might conceivably be circumstances in which hypothecation might be examined. I do not think that I went any further than that. In a sense, of course, the arrangements now made with the national oil account are a species of hypothecation. I suspect that the Government are giving a hostage to the SNP—whose members are not here to take advantage of this interesting suggestion. If a Government once divert revenue from the Treasury of the United Kingdom for special purposes, they weaken the case that the revenues of the United Kingdom must be considered more or less as a whole and paid into one Treasury for the benefit of all the islands of the United Kingdom.
      I wonder whether at some point in our debates we may have some explanation by the Government of a statement made in the other place. As it is a statement by a Minister, I take it that I can quote it as official policy. I do not say that it should necessarily be dealt with on this
      462
      amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh said that it had been pointed out
      "…that there is a loophole in the Oil Taxation Act whereby a company in partnership with BNOC might enjoy a larger oil allowance. I can tell the noble Lord that this matter is under consideration and that we shall have to consider amending legislation."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 29th October 1975; Vol. 356, c. 536.]
      This House should be informed before we finally part with the Bill whether even after—God knows—the 500 amendments moved by the Government to this Bill, in the next Session we shall have amending legislation. That shows the extraordinary muddle in which this matter stands and is another argument against diverting the resources of the nation at this difficult time into an exercise which, by the Government's own criteria, can only make our situation worse.
      Mr. Leadbitter: The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) talked about going on until he was blue in the face and said that the Government were deaf to rational argument. That is an odd and colourful situation for two Front Benches to get themselves into. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten one interesting point while pontificating about PRT. He has not put down an amendment to Clause 9(1), which says that the Corporation shall not pay petroleum revenue tax. Therefore, he was—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no, no. "] Yes, yes, yes.
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member may be on to a bad point. We are discussing Lords amendments. I imagine that their Lordships would have felt that an amendment on a financial, fiscal, matter to reverse a decision in the lower House would have been outwith the spirit of their powers. As no such amendment was on the Paper, therefore, there was nothing that we could do about it.
      Mr. Leadbitter: I am aware that the Lords were inhibited somewhat in dealing with financial matters. That is why they have contrived this particularly mild amendment, which requires a statement to be made in the accounts. What I am saying is that it was not beyond the ingenuity of the Opposition to deal with this. After all, the right hon. Gentleman has produced an amendment to an amendment. They claim that they are

      463
      ingenious; they could surely have produced some words to deal with this matter.
      Mr. John Moore: I hesitate to cross swords with someone who has made so many speeches with which I agree, but may I refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory? It was in response to an amendment that I moved in the House that the Secretary of State committed himself to the amendment which then came from the Lords. It is on the basis of a movement by this side of the House that we are committing ourselves to agreeing to this amendment.
      Mr. Leadbitter: I have no dispute with the Lords amendment. As I said, it requires a statement to be placed in the account. There is no difference of opinion here. But I was dealing with the legitimate and reasoned argument about the need for PRT to be charged on the Corporation. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said that he would go on about it until he was blue in the face. He has been ingenious enough to put down an amendment to an amendment. Surely, with all his experience, he could have done the same here.
      6.30 p.m.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has an oil industry interest. That explains the unreasonable bias adopted by some Conservatives. It is natural that if an hon. Member has an interest he will table amendments to sustain that interest. There is nothing immoral in that, but it is probably careless. The multinational oil companies have influence and privileges such as the BNOC can never have. Is the hon. Member suggesting that legislation should be passed requiring the Corporation to disclose all its discounts, concessions and other benefits so that they may be pronounced upon by the private oil companies?
      The Conservatives say that they want to avoid unfair discrimination and that they want fair competition. They seem to suggest that the oil companies are innocents in the real hard commercial world. One of the Government's functions is to try to persuade the oil companies to work in partnership with the
      464
      interests of the United Kingdom. I shall not, therefore, go beyond what I have already said, but the question arises whether the practices of the oil companies are more efficient than those of the BNOC will be.
      If it is right for the BNOC to declare in its accounts full details of its concessions, discounts and benefits does the hon. Member therefore accept that the multinational oil companies he seeks to represent should do the same? I shall gladly give way to the hon. Member if he wishes to reply.
      Mr. Tim Renton: I shall intervene when the hon. Member has finished.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) was coming to a conclusion, anyway.
      Mr. Leadbitter: I was, indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was doing a spot of fishing, and I was hoping that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex would respond to a reasonable question. If he is not prepared to respond to that invitation, does he agree that in the world of commerce, multinational interests may not be too concerned with safeguarding British interests? Does he think that the Corporation should declare its hand to its competitors—a practice which is not accepted by the oil companies? It is obviously against the interests of BNOC to do so. The Corporation seeks to work in harmony with the oil companies and to utilise our total resources for the benefit of our people.
      Mr. Tim Renton: The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said that he was doing a spot of fishing, but, like so many people, he has unfortunately caught up his fly in the bush behind him. He has failed to read the amendment through. In it we specifically seek to provide that BNOC should declare those discounts and concessions which are available to it by virtue of it being a statutory corporation. We are therefore asking the Secretary of State or his successors to follow up promises made on the Floor of the House today and in Committee that BNOC would act as a commercial company, no more, no less. We want this promise put into effect through BNOC's annual report.

      465
      The Secretary of State said that we were suggesting that BNOC should operate in a transparent bubble. The only transparent thing was the right hon. Gentleman's lack of argument for rejecting the amendment. He fell into the same trap as did the hon. Member for Hartlepool. We are not asking that BNOC should be stripped of all its seven veils; simply that it should act like any other major oil company, and that when, by virtue of its being a statutory corporation, it has a special privilege or concession, that factor and that factor alone should be revealed. Nothing that I have heard from the Secretary of State today leads me to do other than suggest to my hon. Friends that they should support the amendment.
      Amendment to the Lords amendment negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.

    Clause 19

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 18
      Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 15, line 29, at end insert:
      "(3A) Where a licence is revoked on the grounds of any act or omission occurring after the licence was altered by virtue of the preceding section which act or omission would not have provided grounds for revocation of the licence had it occurred before the date of such alteration, and it is shown that the holder of the licence

      (i) has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive by revocation, or

      (ii) has otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to the revocation

      the Secretary of State shall pay to him full and prompt compensation in respect of that expenditure, loss or damage. If any dispute, difference or question shall arise between the Secretary of State and the holder of a licence issued before the coming into force of section 18 of this Act, either as to the entitlement of such holder to compensation under the provisions of this sub-clause or as to the amount of such compensation, the Secretary of State shall, if the holder of such licence so requests, refer such dispute, difference or question to arbitration by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. In such arbitration a licensee who is controlled by a company incorporated outside the United Kingdom shall be treated as a national of the State in which that company was incorporated and subsections (2) and (4)
      466
      to (6) of section 302 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 shall apply, for the purpose of determining whether for the purposes of this section, a licensee is controlled by another company."
      Mr. Benn: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may discuss Lords Amendment No. 12, in page 16, line 1, after "(3)" insert "and (3A)".
      I should inform the House that a question of privilege is involved.
      Mr. Benn: The amendment concerns a provision under which the British taxpayer would be asked to pay compensation arising from changes in the provisions under which licences are to operate. Lords Amendment No. 12 is consequential upon Lords Amendment No. 11, dealing with compensation upon revocation.
      The position is straightforward. We have found it necessary to change the existing licence terms because the terms negotiated by the previous Government were foolishly and irresponsibly given, and did great damage to our national interests. The Conservatives gave away things that should not have been given away.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose—
      Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman must sit and listen. In the course of this debate he has made a great deal about the cost of the Government's proposals. The truth is that there was no firm commitment by the previous Government even to a petroleum revenue tax. I have heard him say often that the last Government had said they would introduce it. They said no such thing. They said that they would consider it. There was no commitment to a PRT—
      Mr. Gray: There was no oil.
      Mr. Benn: Of course there was oil. It was known that oil existed. If the hon. Member wants me to do so, I shall read him the Press release of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 1971, which will show that he had a clear idea of the value of the oil in the North Sea. Licences were given at that time to run for 46 years, with no provision for a whole range of safeguards for our national interest, including depletion control.

      467
      When the reckoning comes—perhaps this is not the time for it—it will turn out that what the previous Government were ready to give away so recklessly this Government are seeking to recover, in part, by proper legislative means.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I shall obviously want to comment on what the right hon. Gentleman said. I ask him to bear in mind at this stage that the terms are exactly the same as those of the Government of which he was a member in 1965 during the second round of licensing and, in 1967, during the third round. If blame is to be attached it must be borne in mind that both he and I attended the Forties inauguration on Monday, and that that field was discovered as a result of a licence granted under the second round and under a Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. I want that point to be firmly on record.
      Mr. Benn: In due course all these issues will be put to the public. However, the right hon. Gentleman must also bear in mind that no oil had been discovered by the end of the Labour Government in 1970. The Forties field was discovered later. It is true that oil was discovered in pursuit of a licence in respect of an area where gas was first thought to be available. Under the gas provisions, the British Gas Corporation is providing the gas to the British consumers, but the circumstances were quite different.
      However, even if it were true—it is not—that, in their granting of licences for oil, the previous Labour Government had failed to take the necessary safeguards, it must be open to this Government to change the licence terms by taking proper statutory powers.
      We have Alberta thrown at us all the time, as if it were the only interesting oil province in the world. By legislation, Alberta has taken the power to change at will the rate of royalty to be paid and to require oil to be sold to the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission. Therefore, the Alberta club cannot be bashed on our heads in respect of this amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will not be able to shield behind Alberta when presenting his arguments.
      We are changing the régime through legislation. Moreover, we are doing so,
      468
      as anyone dealing with any British Government would expect, on the basis of good faith and good working relations with the oil companies. However, the effrontery of the Conservative Party, which failed to safeguard the national interest, but, when a successor Government corrects the position, says that compensation must be paid, is quite shattering.
      There are many occasions on which the whole circumstance in which an industry operates is changed by different Governments and by different Acts of the same Government. Tax legislation can entirely transform the prospects for an industry which is taxed. The administration of exchange controls may be necessary at some time and may make a substantial difference to the prospects for an industry.
      There is no retrospection in this case, in the strict sense in which retrospective law is held to be improper—namely, the making of illegal something which was legal when it was introduced. There is no question that in this case we are changing the forward prospects of an industry as a result of parliamentary legislation. There is nothing whatever, in a legislative form of this kind, that would merit any compensation. I have heard it argued in Committee that this is a breach of an international law. That is completely incorrect.
      Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that when the American Government introduced prohibition, the Scotch whisky manufacturers could have claimed compensation on the grounds that they had established their business on the basis of their outlets for whisky in the United States? If the United States, in its wisdom, altered the position in such a way as to make illegal the importation and consumption of whisky in the United States, would that be contrary to international law?
      Mr. Peter Viggers Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) rose—
      Mr. Benn: Let me develop the argument, because it is a general one. A State may introduce safety regulations for vehicles that may make it impossible for certain vehicles built by foreign companies to be imported. Moreover, this may apply to domestic companies that have developed vehicles in the expectation that those vehicles will be allowed to operate. If the regulations are to restrict the importation or operation of

      469
      those cars, is compensation payable? The answer is, "Certainly not." A Government may decide to ban a certain product, on the ground that it is dangerous. I am just taking general examples of changes that may be needed in the law. Let us take a case which I recall well, because I was involved—namely, the banning of cigarette advertising on television. I represent a Bristol constituency that is well known for its cigarettes and the Imperial Tobacco Company, but was compensation paid in that instance? The answer is, "No, it was not." Every Government must be free to change the régime in which it operates if it believes it to be in the national interest.
      Mr. William Clark Mr. William Clark (Croydon, South) rose—
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Benn: I shall be happy to give way, because this is an important matter. I point out that I am not using any of these arguments as a justification for what we are doing. Whether it is wise or not is a matter of opinion. We have heard all the arguments, and I have alluded to them, but I have not repeated them at any great length. I am arguing that there is no conceivable justification for saying that in a case in which an incoming Government, with the consent of Parliament, remedies the defects of its predecessors in dealing with the régime within which an industry operates, compensation is due. Were such a principle accepted, every time any Government, Minister or Parliament made a change in what might be called the legitimate expectations of firms, the claims for compensation would neutralise the position.
      I shall give way now. I wanted to get my argument on the record first.
      Mr. Viggers: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is known to have an agile and quick mind. Is he telling the House that he does not understand the distinction between regulations which a Government normally lay for carrying out the conduct of business and the vested contractual rights that the Government are proposing?
      Mr. William Clark: I find the right hon. Gentleman's argument fairly specious, because the position of oil is not analogous to the matters about which he has been talking. I should like to
      470
      bring him back to the realm of planning permission. If planning permission is granted and then, for one reason or another, it is cancelled, surely compensation is payable.
      Mr. Benn: I do not know whether I should wait until the end of the debate, if there is one, to deal with these points. However, on the argument that was raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Clark), I point out that I cannot deal with planning permission.
      Mr. William Clark: Why not?
      Mr. Benn: I do not believe that I am qualified to deal with a planning permission parallel. That is my answer. By legislation we are changing the régime within which a particular industry is operated. In my view it is a reductio ad absurdum to deal with the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. Let us suppose that the previous Government had given, in perpetuity, total rights, in a contractual form, to explore for all the oil off our islands. Are the Opposition saying that an incoming Government would be able to do nothing whatever about it, in perpetuity? That is a manifest absurdity. The reason why the argument is being advanced is that the previous Government's failure in handling this precious resource has come to light. We are seeking to remedy the position in our relations with the oil companies. The real safeguard is wholly different in character. We need the oil companies for the development of the resources, and they need good relations with the host Government. Thus, there will be a good faith between us, which is worth having because it is based upon a common interest.
      For the Opposition to elevate into a legal principle a failure of their own that has come to light and been remedied by legislation, and to use it as a compensation argument, does not stand a moment's examination. This is clearly understood by the oil companies. I believe that our relations with the companies are wholly realistic in character. The argument about compensation does not bear examination. Therefore, I invite the House to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Grimond: I do not want to go over the arguments that were deployed in Committee. It is becoming a habit

      471
      with the Secretary of State, when important general principles are disputed, to wave them aside and to say "After all, it is nothing to do with us. It is a mistake made by the Conservative Government." I do not take that view.
      I think that we should have the advice of lawyers on this matter, because the Government are proposing a breach of contract. It is all very well to say that if the United States Government brought in prohibition the Scotch whisky manufacturers would have no right to compensation. I speak subject to correction, but if the American Government, having given a concession to a particular Scottish company to supply Scotch whisky to the American Armed Forces, then broke the contract, I believe that at least there would be a case for compensation. Therefore, we are talking about a more important matter than the errors of the Conservative Government. We are considering whether the British Government have an arrogant right to break a contract when they feel that it is in their interests to do so.
      Is it to be argued that if the British Government enter into a contract which a future Government find unsatisfactory but which turns out well for the other contractual party, they have a right to break it by calling upon the public interest? That appears to be the doctrine.
      I do not wish to go into all the arguments against it, because they are self-evident. They are to do not with retrospective legislation, or with the right of the Government to make or alter the general laws, but with the question whether, the Government having entered into a contract with the Corporation, they are entitled to break it without compensation whenever they feel so inclined. That is the proposition before the House.
      As I pointed out in Committee, the Government enter into leases. They may enter into a lease, as many of us do, at a rent which proves to be less than might have been obtained. Is it to be argued that any Government have the right to break the lease and demand other terms without compensation?
      This doctrine, apart from being shabby, is dangerous. We, above all nations, have an interest in upholding the sanctity of
      472
      contract. Considering our size, we are probably more dependent on trade than is any other nation. We have large concessions in various parts of the world for minerals, oil, and so forth. It will be noted that any Government can say, "Our national interest demands that the concession freely given a year or two ago is at an end, and that there will be no compensation.".
      There is no allegation that the oil companies have behaved badly, or that the Government were conned into this situation. They may have been foolish, but many Governments are foolish. Having entered into these contracts freely, they are now saying that because the contracts do not suit them they can be abrogated without compensation. That is a dangerous doctrine to preach in world conditions today.
      Mr. Benn: I want to be sure that I understand the right hon. Gentleman on this important issue. In 1972, licences were given to the oil companies for 46 years without any power to control the rate of depletion. Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that between 1972 and 2017 a sovereign Parliament is unable to control depletion by legislation, general in character and not limited to particular oil companies, without paying compensation to the oil companies for what they would have gained had they continued to exploit those resources without any limit, up to end of the 46 years? If so, he is saying something of enormous constitutional importance—namely, that the British people have no right to control assets under the North Sea until the licences have expired. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that, will he spell it out clearly, so that we may know the Liberal Party's position?
      Mr. Grimond: Of course, the British Parliament is sovereign and can do anything, short of making a man into a woman, or the other way round. The question is: what are the Government doing? They are proposing to break contracts because it suits them to do so. They have the power to do that. I am saying that it may be necessary to control extraction from the North Sea, but that it is also desirable, to put it at its lowest, to pay compensation if the Government feel that it is necessary to exercise this power.
      Mr. Viggers: I must declare my interest in the oil industry, which is duly recorded.
      The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends are fond of attempting to show, by direct reference or innuendo, that Opposition Members are speaking for the oil industry. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that one point was not of substance because it was not put forward by the oil industry. I believe that all my hon. Friends are speaking for the best interests of all people in this country. If the Government and certain of their back-bench supporters could rid themselves of their pathological dislike and envy of oil companies in general, and of the multinationals in particular, they would cause less suspicion and less of a rundown in offshore exploration and production and of employment in the services and supply sectors of the industry.
      This is a crucially important amendment. The Government by the Bill are changing the terms upon which licences for offshore exploration and production were granted. They are doing so retrospectively so that the new licence terms are imposed on existing licensees in substitution for the contracts originally given.
      The new licence terms include a right for the Government, in certain circumstances, to revoke licences. This is a new right that the Government have given themselves and, as the Bill stands, the revocation will not give rise to any compensation for the licensee.
      The Lords amendment proposes that where a licence is altered, giving rise to the Government's right to revoke, and where the licensee finds this new power of revocation is used against him, he shall be entitled to reasonable compensation for his loss.
      The Government have sought to justify their action in two ways. First, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government need to give themselves wide discretionary powers, which include the revocation of licences. We must remind the Government that the wide discretionary powers which appeal to Ministers and civil servants appear harsh and arbitrary in the eyes of prospective licensees and foreign Governments.
      Secondly, the Government have sought to justify their high-handed approach by quoting the national interest. It is so
      474
      easy and apparently blameless to involve the national interest that it may be thought difficult to argue against it, but the most basic of our national interests is a respect for law and for binding contractual relationships.
      How dare the Government invoke the national interest to break contracts entered into by them and to undermine respect of the word of the British Government? Neither of those excuses withstands examination.
      7.0 p.m.
      Although the principle at stake is a broad one, the circumstances in which the point will arise are, I hope, unusual. Licensees can be trusted to obey their best commercial judgment. I do not think that anyone in Government would dispute that. But under the new terms they will become subject to the Government's direction. A licensee can thus be compelled by the Government to do things which are contrary to his commercial interest simply to preserve his prior investment in a licensed area. If the licensee agrees with the Government's direction, no question arises. I am talking only about situations in which the Government are in dispute with a licensee who feels that his best commercial interests are not served by the Government's direction.
      I am referring to the case in which the Government seek to overrule a licensee—who must, presumably, be the best judge of his commercial interest—the dispute cannot be resolved, and the Government revoke the licence. The licensee may have spent thousands, even millions, of pounds, in the exploration and development of the licensed area, yet the Government are giving themselves powers to revoke the licence.
      This situation is not without historical precedent. A similar situation arose in the Water Resources Act 1963. In that case it was properly decided that compensation should be paid when a licence was revoked or varied. The Lords amendment follows Section 46 of the Water Resources Act 1963 and provides that fair compensation shall be paid in these circumstances. I emphasise that the occasions upon which compensation will arise will be rare, and the grounds for obtaining it narrow. Under the Lords amendment, compensation will arise only if the

      475
      licence terms are varied by the Government—giving a right to revocation—and revocation takes place. Moreover, compensation will be paid only when the licensee has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive by revocation, or where he otherwise sustains loss or damage directly attributable to the revocation. There is provision for arbitration on the amount of compensation.
      The circumstances we are considering, in which revocation may take place, may be unusual, and the grounds narrow, but the principle is a broad and vital one. First, no national interest is more important than the rule of law and the observance of contractual arrangements. Second, countries and companies dealing with the United Kingdom Government have always been able to rely on the integrity of the United Kingdom. Unless we agree to this amendment, this measure will undermine that respect and trust. Indeed, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Bill, as unamended, is in my submission a clear contravention of international law.
      Third, we are a trading nation, and it is crucially important that we should be able to maintain the principles of international justice in our dealings with foreign Governments. The right hon. Gentleman talked about his proposed action in the unamended Bill and said that it was appropriate for him to take proper statutory powers. These are clearly improper statutory powers. I regret having to use an argument of expediency to persuade the Government to uphold a moral principle, yet it is actually contrary to our interests to abrogate our international obligations. I can quote many examples of the United Kingdom's posture in cases where foreign Governments have sought to upset vested rights.
      It is right that I should quote some at length. The first is a Note to Indonesia in 1965, which reads:
      "Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy are therefore instructed to request the Indonesian Government either to restore this property promptly to the British owners, or to acknowledge their obligation in accordance with international law, to provide prompt, adequate and effective compensation."
      Command 5758, of 1938, dealing with the affairs of Mexico says:
      476
      "The British Government cannot but regard the failure of the Mexican Government to discharge their existing obligation as in itself rendering unjustified an expropriation, an essential condition of the validity of which would be the payment of full and adequate compensation amounting in this case to a very large sum."
      The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Alberta. I have to put it to him that on the information I have been given he is misinformed. As I understand it. Alberta and the other Canadian Provinces have changed royalty rates but are not in breach of the licence terms. The Canadian Provinces other than Alberta—I am informed—have no maximum royalty rates specified in the lease terms, and royalties are established by regulations issued from time to time. Alberta leases issued prior to June 1962 had a maximum royalty specified only for crude of and for the initial 21-year term, that is, not for gas or renewal periods. Alberta leases issued after June 1962 had maximum royalties set for both oil and gas during the initial period of 10 years. At the time when Alberta increased royalty rates there were very few leases which were not in renewal periods. Consequently, in all but these few cases there was no question of a breach of the lease term.
      The most important and leading case dealing with international obligations—it happens to concern oil—is the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company case—that of the United Kingdom v. Iran. I quote from the record of the Memorial of the United Kingdom, page 83 of which says that
      "The Government of the United Kingdom does not consider it necessary to elaborate the proposition that rights acquired by foreign nationals by virtue of concessionary contracts are property rights and that as such they are entitled to the same protection as international law grants to the property rights of foreigners. This proposition is generally recognised and to the knowledge of the Government of the United Kingdom has never been seriously challenged."
      This is exactly what the Government are proposing to do.
      I have too much respect for the ability of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to imagine that they can possibly think that this is anything other than a breach of a vested contractual right. I do not accept that the right hon. Gentleman cannot perceive, if he concentrates his mind upon the subject, that there is a complete difference between a vested

      477
      contractual right and statutory regulations dealing with such things as whisky imports—the example he chose to put forward. This is a grave matter. We on the Conservative side of the House must urge the Government to think again before they allow this Bill to be enacted in its present form.
      Some of the cases that I have quoted stretch back over 30 years. This is indicative of the historical importance of this issue. If the Government persist in their proposals they will sin in haste but we shall repent at leisure.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: There is no single act of this Government in the whole of their oil policy which has done more to undermine the confidence of the industry than the unilateral abrogation of the accrued contractual rights without compensation. The Secretary of State sought to justify what he is doing in a combative speech. I do not criticise that. I am sorry to have to tell him that in that speech he gravely misrepresented the true facts.
      The right hon. Gentleman sought to argue that the terms he was dealing with were solely the responsibility of the previous Conservative Government. They were not. The second and third licensing rounds were carried out by the last Labour Government, after there had been substantial finds of gas—although, of course, the companies were looking for oil. The 1969 licensing round occurred when there had been substantial finds of gas and the 1971–72 round was on the same terms.
      The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Conservative Government were to blame. This point was dealt with at length in Committee and I will deal with it only briefly now. The right hon. Gentleman's main argument hinged on the need for depletion control. He referred to the Public Accounts Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nowhere in the report of that Committee, published in February 1973, nor, as far as I can see, in any of the evidence tendered to the Committee, is there any reference to depletion control? Even as late as February 1973 no one was contemplating that by the 1980s we might have a sufficient flow of oil to justify the use of depletion control. That situation came about during 1973 and 1974.
      478
      The sole concern of the Public Accounts Committee was Government take. On that score there are two points to be made. Firstly, we must have regard to the sequence of events. The third round applications were invited on 22nd June 1971 and the closing date for applications was 20th August. The first British oil field was declared commercial in November 1971. The Government were committed by the terms on which they had issued the applications. The tender bids had already opened before BP declared its field commercial. It was the first major commercial field in the North Sea. Subsequently, allocations were made at the beginning of 1972, but on the same terms on which the companies had already bid on the tenders. Therefore, the then Government quite rightly felt that it would have been grossly improper to allow the bids to go ahead and to prevent applications to renegotiate the terms. That argument was put to the PAC and it is somewhat surprising that it did not attach more weight to it.
      Mr. John Smith: Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the PAC was concerned with take rather than depletion. After all, it is the Public Accounts Committee. It was not concerned with issues such as depletion. I quote a small part of one of the Committee's conclusions, which reads:
      "The second and third rounds of licensing had been framed on the initial expectation that offshore petroleum would be in the form of natural gas, but the position was materially altered before the fourth round by the discovery of oil which would be handled and distributed by private companies and not by a nationalised industry."
      The Public Accounts Committee supports the distinction between the previous round and the fourth round.
      Mr. Jenkin Mr. Jenkin rose—
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he accept from me that in Scotland over the past four years considerably more attention has been paid to depletion and the overall control of production of this resource than has been the case in the United Kingdom? Does he accept that the subject of depletion is not strange to us?
      Mr. Jenkin: I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about depletion, but when the SNP started talking about the matter

      479
      it was anticipating a very much lower figure. The SNP talked in terms of 50 million tons a year. It was not until 1973 that anyone began seriously to recognise the need for depletion control. Let us hear no more about that.
      The first commercial find of oil in the British sector of the North Sea came after the Government were committed in 1971 to the terms of the fourth round. I have never disputed that in the new circumstances following the dramatic finds of 1972 and 1973, which went through into 1974, there is a need for the Government to take depletion control. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me credit for acknowledging that. We have said that if the Government interfere with an accrued contractual right in this way, compensation is required to be paid under international law and in the national interest.
      7.15 p.m.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) gave some extremely telling quotations from the views taken by successive Governments. The view has been taken that interference with an accrued contractual right is just as much an interference with a proprietary right requiring compensation as is the taking of property. We are dealing with a most extreme case where an act done by a company under an existing licence in breach of a new obligation imposed by the Bill will lead to the revocation of the licence. That is the only circumstance to which the amendment is directed. A licensee might lose his licence by doing something which was never a breach when the licence was first issued. The licensee may act on the faith on which he spent large sums, but he may lose his licence because he is in breach of a regulation which has since been added to the original terms.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport has stressed the element of legality and the practical effects. I cannot usefully add to his extremely comprehensive and persuasive statement on international law. This is the expropriation of a property right that has been established over and over again. It was established as recently as last year by the Government's amendment that they supported at the Sixth General Assembly in common with their Common Market colleagues. By
      480
      changing the terms and imposing onerous new obligations upon the licensees, the Government are interfering with established property rights.
      The examples that the Secretary of State has given include cigarette advertising. I have never known it to be an accrued proprietary right to be able to advertise cigarettes. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to tax changes. There is no accrued legal right that means that it is not possible to impose additional taxes. There has never been an accrued right to have prohibition. The right hon. Gentleman put forward an absurd argument.
      The key to the matter is the national interest. The practical argument is that the national interest destroys the Government's case for arguing against expropriation without compensation whenever United Kingdom firms are threatened overseas. This Bill is a direct incitement to foreign Governments—there is no shortage of candidates—to imitate us. The Bill will undermine the national interest. It will provide a precedent for those Governments that are ambitious to expropriate United Kingdom concerns. What could be more of a precedent than that which is now before us?
      The changes to the licence terms are necessary, but where they could result in the loss of a licence under terms that were never contemplated when the licences were first issued it seems that compensation should be paid. It is a matter of profound national interest to uphold the rule of law and to ensure that our interests are safeguarded in the rest of the world. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will feel it right that we should support that high principle in the Lobby.
      Mr. Benn: I have heard this case several times before, and each time I hear it it becomes less credible. I must tell the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) that it was a pathetic presentation of an argument that may have political merit but has no legal basis. I understand that in the right hon. Gentleman's view it would be proper for us to tax 100 per cent. any revenue that might accrue to an oil company in a particular field from now to the end of the licence, but that it would not be right to change the general régime under which the licence should operate. That cannot be a credible argument.

      481
      The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) referred to the Mexican and Indonesian Governments in cases where confiscation had taken place. No such question arises in this instance. We are not altering the law, there is no retrospection. We are laying down a general framework that is not discriminatory against any of the licensees from any country or against our own national oil interests.
      We are saying that it is necessary for us to have certain depletion controls. That is not arbitrary action involving confiscation or anything of that kind. I do not believe that the exaggeration contained in the lectures that have been delivered, or the pomposity with which these arguments are always accompanied, constitute justification for the erection of a completely vague legal argument. It would be very much better if the Conservative Party was prepared to argue the case on grounds of merit, and then we should know where we were.
      We then heard the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) laying down some great, immutable principle about the sacredness of contracts—when he voted for legislation that broke contractual obligations to pay increases in salaries due under agreements reached some months before the Government's new incomes policy came into effect. The Liberals have always argued for statutory powers over incomes, regardless of the contractual rights of those who may have made long-term provisions. We heard no high moral arguments then and there are no high moral arguments to be sustained now.
      The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said that that there had been an error of judgment which was not discovered until 1973. He was edging as near as he could to the election date in early 1974. An error occurred. There should have been depletion control. It does not matter whether the error was spotted by the SNP, or whether it first appeared in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, the Petroleum Times, or the New Scientist. It does not
      482
      matter when it was discovered. The fact is that it was discovered, and that we have brought forward a remedy to protect the people of this country and their interests.
      At that point the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford should have seen where the national interest lay. He should have rallied round the legislation and said, "Perhaps we should have done better. We made a mistake, and we must blame the previous Labour Government." When the matter is identified, surely he has a clear duty to support the national interest in correcting the error. But when that error comes to light, he tries to elevate it into a breach of an international obligation comparable to some of the most extreme cases that can be found in the world. The right hon. Gentleman does less than justice to his own credibility. Even on this issue the Conservative Party is more interested in compensation for oil companies than in safeguarding the national interest. There is no basis whatever for the amendment, and I hope that the House will disagree with it.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has not said a word about the fact that a legal principle is involved—a principle that seeks to protect British interests throughout the world. What an example he is setting to Governments who are only too anxious to expropriate British property!
      Mr. Benn: There is no legal argument whatever. The standing of this country rests on the good faith of successive Governments and the way in which they behave in their contacts with other Governments and the companies with which they deal. The ultimate guarantee of our good faith lies in the conduct of our relation with the oil companies, and indeed with everybody else. But the Conservative Party, for purposes of narrow advantage, seeks to elevate the correction of a past defect in legislation into something with which it can beat the Government abroad. The Conservatives have done great damage by what they have attempted to do and there is no basis for their argument.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 227.

      Division No. 385.]

      AYES

      [7.24 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Anderson, Donald

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Archer, Peter

      Flannery, Martin

      Madden, Max

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Magee, Bryan

      Ashley, Jack

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mahon, Simon

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Atkinson, Norman

      Forrester, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marquand, David

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      George, Bruce

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Bates, Alf

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Bean, R. E.

      Ginsburg, David

      Mendelson, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Golding, John

      Mikardo, Ian

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Gould, Bryan

      Millan, Bruce

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Gourlay, Harry

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Graham, Ted

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Boardman, H.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Moonman, Eric

      Booth, Albert

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Hardy, Peter

      Moyle, Roland

      Bradley, Tom

      Harper, Joseph

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Newens, Stanley

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Hatton, Frank

      Noble, Mike

      Buchan, Norman

      Hayman, Mrs. Helene

      Oakes, Gordon

      Buchanan, Richard

      Heffer, Eric S.

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Henderson, Douglas

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hooley, Frank

      Orbach, Maurice

      Campbell, Ian

      Horam, John

      Ovenden, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Padley, Walter

      Cant, R. B.

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Carmichael, Neil

      Huckfield, Les

      Park, George

      Carter, Ray

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Parker, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Parry, Robert

      Cartwright, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Hunter, Adam

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Radice, Giles

      Coleman, Donald

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Janner, Greville

      Reid, George

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Corbett, Robin

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      John, Brynmor

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Crawford, Douglas

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Cryer, Bob

      Judd, Frank

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Roper, John

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Kelley, Richard

      Rose, Paul B.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kerr, Russell

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lambie, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Lamond, James

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Dempsey, James

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Doig, Peter

      Lee, John

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Sillars, James

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dunn, James A.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Small, William

      Dunnett, Jack

      Litterick, Tom

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Eadie, Alex

      Loyden, Eddie

      Spearing, Nigel

      Edge, Geoff

      Luard, Evan

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      English, Michael

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Stoddart, David

      Ennals, David

      McCartney, Hugh

      Stott, Roger

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Strang, Gavin

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      McElhone, Frank

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Evans, John (Newton)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Swain, Thomas

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred(Moray)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Watkins, David

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Thompson, George

      Watkinson, John

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Watt, Hamish

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Weetch, Ken

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Tinn, James

      Weitzman, David

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Tomlinson, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Woodall, Alec

      Tomney, Frank

      Welsh, Andrew

      Woof, Robert

      Torney, Tom

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Tuck, Raphael

      White, James (Pollok)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Whitlock, William

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Mr. Tom Pendry.

      Ward, Michael

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gorst, John

      Mills, Peter

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Alison, Michael

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Moate, Roger

      Arnold, Tom

      Gray, Hamish

      Monro, Hector

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Banks, Robert

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Beith, A. J.

      Grist, Ian

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Grylls, Michael

      Morgan, Geraint

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hall, Sir John

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Biffen, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mudd, David

      Blaker, Peter

      Hannam, John

      Neave, Airey

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Bottomley, Peter

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Neubert, Michael

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Newton, Tony

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hawkins, Paul

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Brittan, Leon

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Osborn, John

      Brotherton, Michael

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hicks, Robert

      Pardoe, John

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Holland, Phillip

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Budgen, Nick

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Percival, Ian

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Burden, F. A.

      Hunt, John

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Raison, Timothy

      Churchill, W. S.

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      James, David

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Cockcroft, John

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Cope, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Cordle, John H.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Corrie, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Costain, A. P.

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Crouch, David

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Crowder, F. P.

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, David

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Lamont, Norman

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Durant, Tony

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lawson, Nigel

      Scott, Nicholas

      Emery, Peter

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lloyd, Ian

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Loveridge, John

      Shepherd, Colin

      Farr, John

      Luce, Richard

      Silvester, Fred

      Fell, Anthony

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Sims, Roger

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      MacGregor, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Speed, Keith

      Fox, Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Spence, John

      Freud, Clement

      Mates, Michael

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Fry, Peter

      Mather, Carol

      Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Maude, Angus

      Sproat, Iain

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Stainton, Keith

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mawby, Ray

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stanley, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Stokes, John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Tapsell, Peter

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Viggers, Peter

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Wakeham, John

      Younger, Hon George

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Wall, Patrick

      Mr. W. Benyon and

      Trotter, Neville

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.

    Clause 21

      AUTHORISATIONS FOR PIPE-LINES
      Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 17, line 1, leave out from "authorisation" to end of line 2 and insert:
      ", the design and capacity of the pipe-line or of part of it and the steps to be taken to avoid or reduce interference by the pipe-line with fishing or with other activities connected with the sea or the sea bed or subsoil;".
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment redeems a pledge given to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in Committee and on Third Reading. It makes manifest our intention that full consideration shall be given to fishing and other relevant interests in the planning and construction of pipelines. We recognise, as I believe the oil industry does, that, important commodity as oil is, its extraction must not be conducted without due regard to those who have traditionally earned their livelihood from, or exercised rights in, the sea, and, particularly in the case of fishing, performing a valuable service for the community.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 22

      COMPULSORY INCREASES IN CAPACITY ETC. OF PIPE-LINES
      Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 18, line 26, after "pipe-line" insert "can and".
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a small drafting change to make explicit that the Secretary of State is to
      488
      consider whether a pipeline "can" be modified as well as "should" be modified before he can exercise his power. It brings the drafting of the subsection (1)(b) into line with that of subsection (1)(a), as amended in Committee.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Without quoting the actual words of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, I can say that when my noble Friends moved the amendment in another place he addressed them as if they had gone out of their minds. I am delighted to see that wiser counsels have prevailed and that the Government have accepted that it was a very sensible drafting amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 23

      ACQUISITION BY PERSONS OF RIGHTS TO USE PIPE-LINES BELONGING TO OTHERS
      Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 20, line 13, leave out from beginning to "payments" in line 17 and insert:
      "so as to secure to the owner recovery of an equitable proportion of the relevant capital and operating costs of the pipeline;

      (d) for securing to the applicant the right to have a pipe and apparatus of his connected to the pipe-line by the applicant or the owner;

      and such a notice may also authorise the owner to recover from the applicant reasonable commercial".
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment provides that a pipeline owner should always be reimbursed an equitable proportion of the capital as well as the operating costs of the line by a third party admitted to the line by the Secretary of State.
      I should like to recapitulate on the present position. A pipeline owner cannot incur extra costs because of the admission of a third party. If he has to re-route or enlarge his pipeline at the

      489
      planning stage he must be reimbursed the costs of these changes by the third party in whose interest they are to be made. If he has to modify an existing line, he must similarly be reimbursed. Both of these provisions are in the Bill.
      In addition we have given the two following undertakings: first, if there are incidental costs, for example, disruption of the owner's supply or accidental damage to his line in the course of admitting a third party, these costs will also be reimbursed in full. Secondly, after entry the third party will be required in every case to pay his fair share of the running costs.
      The owner will therefore be at least as well off as if there were no third party user. I stress "at least" because we have given a third undertaking—that with two exceptions the financial arrangements made by the Secretary of State will take account of the basic capital cost of the line. One of the exceptions is technical, that is where the contribution to basic capital costs is dealt with by some other means such as an adjustment in the price received by the owner for gas. Only the second exception remains—the case of marginal supply.
      Lord Lovell-Davis explained in another place why we may—not necessarily shall—want a different régime to apply in this case. It is in the national interest to develop marginal fields as long as they are viable. Pipelines are very expensive—at least £1 million per mile—and the cost of a line could well mean the difference between exploitation and abandonment. Does it make sense to stand by and see valuable resources left unexploited where a neighbouring pipeline has spare capacity? That is the raison d'être of this clause which I do not think is controversial.
      Can it be contended that it is so unfair to the owner to require him to accept the third party when at worst he will be no worse off than without the third party and better off to the extent that the third party makes a contribution to basic costs? It may not be the solution the owner would choose but I do not think that it can reasonably be held to be unfair.
      For those reasons I hope that the House will accept that we should not agree with the Lords in this amendment.
      490
      I now refer to the question of the owner-installed spare capacity for his own future use. I can reassure the House on this. It is already provided—at the request of the industry—in Clause 23(2) that the Secretary of State may admit a third party—any third party, marginal producer or otherwise—only where he is satisfied that the admission would not prejudice the operation of the line for the quantities which the owner
      "requires or may reasonably be expected to require"
      to be conveyed. There is no question of depriving an owner of the capacity he has prudently provided for his own needs. The provision is directed towards genuine spare capacity.
      This is not a major issue. I hope that the House will accept the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: This question, which is of considerable importance, was fully debated in another place. Despite that it seems that the Government have failed to recognise the significance and importance of this aspect of the Bill.
      The central question is whether a company should be required by the Secretary of State to subsidise the development of a field, marginal or otherwise, which is controlled by another company. That question has not been properly recognised by the Government. The Government spokesman in another place limited his response to the important points raised, by giving assurances on the exercise of new powers. Those assurances on the owner of the pipeline not being out of pocket, and similar comments, are hardly likely to form any basis of confidence among owners of pipelines. In any contractual situation which may be considered, following the future evidence of the attitude of the Secretary of State to contracts which we have witnessed today, it is unlikely that people will feel confident about assurances given by the Government on operations in the North Sea or elsewhere.
      The vague intentions stated by the Government spokesman in another place have not been included in the Bill. Therefore their validity as commercial criteria by which companies may make sharing arrangements in pipelines is questionable, as is their worth in the accounting and financial terms which the noble Lord

      491
      used when giving these assurances in another place.
      It is our view that assurances are required within the Bill for several reasons. The first is the sheer magnitude of the pipeline construction and investment in the North Sea, where for current operations it is unlikely that any figure of less than £100 million is likely to be involved. Secondly, I should have thought that there was a need to encourage companies to lay pipelines and to do so with reasonable commercial confidence for future operations. Thirdly, the Bill should contain the conditions and assurances stated in the debate in another place on 29th October, when the Government spokesman, Lord Lovell-Davis, said:
      "I must also remind the House that we are here talking about only those cases where the Secretary of State is called upon to intervene in the setting of charges—a situation which we hope and expect will be the exception and not the rule."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29th October 1975; Vol. 365, c. 590.]
      It is reasonable to contend that such conditions may be tantamount to the Secretary of State touting for cases to judge. They might encourage companies to disagree or to strike a mean bargain with a pipeline owner in the hope of a soft settlement or soft judgment emanating from the Secretary of State. This amendment puts these fears and dangers into words. The Government should accept the amendment as providing a means of giving confidence to those risking money and reputation in the difficult business of laying pipelines in the North Sea.
      We hope that the Government, even at this late hour, will reconsider their position on this amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The Question is—
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I hope the Minister feels that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) made a reasonable case. Usually on these occasions the Government move the rejection of an amendment and the Opposition state why the amendment should be accepted. I should have thought that the Minister might have given a brief reply, as these are points of substance.
      The point is whether a company should be committed to subsidising a competitor
      492
      by giving up its spare capacity for less than its full market value. The company might think that a more viable operator will appear later who will be able to pay the full cost of sharing the pipe-line. It seems to me that the Government have not wholly addressed their minds to that point.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. John Smith: I hope that the Opposition will acquit me of any discourtesy in not replying to the debate. I should have replied more readily had specific questions been asked or assurances required. Such points were not included in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). I assumed that he was content, in view of my long explanation, to let matters stand, having stated the position of the Opposition. Although I may have misunderstood him, I did not notice a look of surprise on his face when I did not rise to reply.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Minister must not be fooled by my poker face. Such vague assurances as we have received would have more effect and give more confidence if they were included in the Bill. That is the critical point.
      Mr. Smith: The Government reflected on this at some length. We referred to the debate which occurred in another place. We are satisfied that we should not make further changes to the Bill. We made a number of changes on this aspect of the Bill in Committee. There is a national interest involved which we think should be preserved. I have gone over the ground in some detail deliberately so that there should be no question that incomplete consideration had been given to it and no misunderstanding of the reasons which prompted the Government's attitude. To reiterate those reasons at length would be hardly profitable. At the heart of our case is the necessity for the development of the marginal fields. There will be pockets of gas in oilfields throughout the North Sea. The Department of Energy has commissioned a study on a gas-carrying pipeline and this shows the importance we attach to the economic use of pockets of gas which might not be economic to those who find them, particularly if they do not have an extra pipe. That is the underlying basis of our concern.

      493
      I have made clear, without challenge by the Opposition, that the owner of the pipeline can be no worse off by the admission of a third party, and I have given an assurance that it is genuine spare capacity that we wish to see utilised. I must, therefore, adhere to the Government's position and ask the House to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      I do not say that there is not a point of issue which Conservative Members have argued. I recognise that there is an issue, although it is not of fundamental importance, as are some of the great issues we have been discussing. We examined the exchanges in the House of Lords with considerable care before coming to the conclusion that we should disagree with the amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 24

      TERMINATION OF AUTHORISATIONS
      Lords Amendment: No. 16, in page 22, line 16, at end insert:
      "Provided that if the contravention is capable of remedy by or on behalf of the holder the authorisation shall not cease to remain in force unless such contravention has not been remedied within the period specified in the notice or any extension thereof which is reasonable having regard to all the relevant circumstances appertaining to the notice. "
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      That is not quite as bad as it sounds from the Opposition's point of view, because I shall ask the House to accept the Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment, the basis of which is a difference in wording.
      The Lords amendment seeks to import into the Bill a principle to which we have very little objection, but we feel that it insufficiently covers a number of points. It does not define what constitutes a remedy. For example, a major consequence, that is to say, large-scale pollution, could flow from failure to observe proper standards of maintenance. Clearly, in such a case revocation would be the right penalty, but it could be argued that the breach could be remedied by taking steps to improve maintenance. I do not say that it would be a valid
      494
      argument, but it might be used, if for no other reason, as a means of preventing the Secretary of State from taking the action which every reasonable person would agree ought to be taken.
      The amendment precludes the option of immediate revocation where a breach can be remedied, but there could be cases in which an opportunity for remedy might not be appropriate—for example, a flagrant disregard of safety requirements. The Lords amendment does not adequately deal with the possibility of repeated breaches.
      We have tried to meet these points by rewording, and I hope that the House will disagree with the Lords in this amendment.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Under-Secretary of State argued in his most beguiling way that we should accept the Government's wording rather than that which the other place sought to put in the Bill. On the whole, he made out a good case. It is wise to give the holder of the authorisation a locus poenitentiae, so that he can put right what has gone wrong without the Secretary of State's having an automatic right of revocation.
      It is a pity that a similar power has not been written into the schedules, in relation to the revocation of a licence or part of a licence. That was argued in another place, but it was resisted on grounds which are equally applicable to pipelines authorisation. I remind the Government that under the provision in the schedule they have power to amend the model clauses without an elaborate parliamentary procedure, and I ask the Under-Secretary of State to examine this again. It seems right that in a matter which could be even more important than an authorisation for a pipeline, namely, the exercise of rights under a licence, the same opportunity to put matters right should be given. At the moment it is not. The statutory relief which the Government amendment gives for pipelines does not exist for licences.
      Mr. John Smith: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments on the Government amendment. The issue he raises is another matter, and the test I can do is to undertake to consider it further. The Government will re-examine the position in the light of

      495
      the concession that has been made on this branch of the Bill. We shall have to look at it with some care to see whether the case is genuinely on all fours, and this we shall do.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Amendment made to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 22, line 16, at end insert:
      '; but the Secretary of State shall not serve such a notice on the holder in consequence of a contravention if the Secretary of State considers that, having regard to the nature and consequences of the contravention and to any previous contravention, it would be unreasonable to terminate the authorisation in consequence of the contravention and that the holder has taken adequate steps to prevent similar contraventions in future'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

    Clause 26

      SAFETY
      Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 23, line 41, after "44" insert "(1)".
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 23.
      Mr. Smith: These are simple drafting amendments, consequent upon amendments made in another place. As the amendments are self-explanatory, I need say no more.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 40

      THE NATIONAL OIL ACCOUNT
      Lords Amendment: No. 18, in page 39, line 34, leave out
      "Secretary of State considers and the Treasury agree",
      and insert "Treasury considers".
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in this amendment.
      Mr. Rathbone: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, after 'Treasury', insert:
      'having consulted the Secretary of State'.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and I take cognisance of the stated intention of the Government to disagree with the Lords amendment.
      The flow of funds under the control and management of the Secretary of State is enormous. The funds represent about £900 million in borrowing and between £700 million and £750 million in revenue. Those are the funds which flow in and out of the National Oil Account. The Lords amendment has been drawn because of the requirement for special surveillance of these funds. The Secretary of State has decided to disagree with the Lords amendment and in doing so to deny proper surveillance on behalf of the taxpayers. Without disagreeing with the Lords amendment, but noting the disagreement expressed by the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend and I have tried to strike common ground between the position of the noble amenders and the Government.
      8.0 p.m.
      We hope that the amendment will allow the Government better to appreciate that the Treasury has responsibility for the proper management of the total funds of the United Kingdom and must therefore be in a position of direct influence and management of the huge National Oil Account.
      There are and there will be necessary investments by the BNOC as its rôle develops under the Bill. I deplore these developments, but it will inevitably develop after this evening. We have particularly to take cognisance of developments of alternative sources of power, through nuclear fission and from the oceans, against the future day of diminished oil resources. That is why this amendment suggests consultation by the Treasury with the Secretary of State before transferring surplus BNOC funds to the Exchequer. What, I suggest, could be more reasonable? But control must be by and with the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of State, and not by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Treasury.

      497
      The Government almost admitted the need for Treasury control when the Minister himself said in Committee that the oil account
      "will make the BNOC's revenues available to the Government immediate and direct."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26th June, 1975; col. 914.]
      Without Treasury responsibility, I submit that this availability might never happen.
      The importance of proper financial control has never been argued on either side. The Minister drew attention to it in Committee, in terms of the amounts of moneys involved. The amount he cited at that time was between £2 billion and £3 billion in terms of the responsibilities due to the exemption from the petroleum revenue tax, which we have already discussed this afternoon, and in terms of the enormous importance to the national economy.
      In moving the amendment, I sincerely hope that it may humbly make the Lords amendment not only correct in principle but acceptable to the Secretary of State and to his right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope that they will support its reasonableness, its moderation and—dare I say?—its good sense.
      Mr. Tim Renton: I support the amendment which has just been moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone).
      I have always thought it extraordinary that Clause 40 is the first in the Bill to come under the heading "Miscellaneous". There could be nothing less miscellaneous than the National Oil Account and the revenues that will flow from oil.
      The first point to establish is that by no manner of means will all the money from the North Sea, to use a loose term, flow into the National Oil Account. Assuming that by 1980 half the investment write-offs have been taken, and taking oil at $12 a barrel—and assuming, further, that inflation in oil prices is set off against inflation in operating costs, the figure of £3 billion by 1980 does not seem an unreasonable estimate of the annual total that will flow to the Government. Of that sum, approximately £700 million will go across into the National Oil Account through royalties, and the balance of £2·3 billion will flow to the Treasury by virtue of PRT and corporation tax.
      498
      There is no question of money from the North Sea being solely under the determination and discretion of the Secretary of State for Energy. If that were so, there might be some commercial logic in saying that one Minister alone should be responsible for this vast sum of money, but that is not the case.
      The £700 million of gross revenue, that will come into the National Oil Account, will clearly put the Secretary of State for Energy in a very powerful position. He will be, perhaps, the only Minister who will have at his behest a positive cash flow, to use as he wishes in terms of downstream diversification of BNOC, or whatever other ambition he wishes to pursue.
      This prospect, particularly when £700 million is to be in the hands of the present Secretary of State for Energy, is an alarming one. One has only to look back at the track record of the Secretary of State for Energy—the RB211, NVT and other notable failures with which he has been associated—to wonder how he will spend that £700 million. Other than the fact of giving the Secretary of State for Energy a positive cash flow for him to disburse, I have seen no reasonable argument advanced by the Government Ministers to show why this part of revenue from the North Sea should flow into an account that is controlled and administered by the Secretary of State rather than follow the traditional method of control, as my hon. Friend has just set forth, of flowing to the Treasury.
      One other argument has occurred to me, which I have not seen put forward by Ministers. I have wondered whether the reason that the royalty income is to come into the National Oil Account is that the foreign lenders—from whom BNOC may in the years immediately ahead borrow up to £900 million—are themselves insisting that the known revenue from royalties in those years should come into the National Oil Account, so that they can be certain, having made loans to BNOC, that there will be revenue from which they can be repaid. If this is the reason, and this is being done at the suggestion of overseas lenders, Ministers should come clean and tell us so.
      One can well understand that, with such a wildly profligate Government as this one, creditors do not wish to see the

      499
      royalty income disappearing into the general maw of Government money but want to see it in the separate account from which they can know that the loans they make now will be repaid in future years.
      I have no great sympathy with the Treasury but, as my hon. Friend has just said, ours is a very modest amendment. All that we are suggesting is that the Treasury, having consulted the Secretary of State for Energy, should pay over the surplus funds into the Consolidated Fund.
      We heard earlier this afternoon that there are to be two civil servants on the board of BNOC—one from the Treasury and one from the Department of Energy. Is it really impossible to imagine that these two, with their political masters, will consult together to decide what are the surplus funds? Surely it will be by the co-operation of these two civil servants that the decision will be made to return surplus money to the Consolidated Fund.
      Is the Treasury lion never to lie down with the Energy lamb? I suggest that it can, and that in accepting our amendment—I find it very hard to see how the Minister can refuse it—the Minister will be putting the onus where it properly should be, so that the Treasury will first consult the Department of Energy, and will then pay over the National Oil Account surplus to the Consolidated Fund.
      Mr. Leadbitter: I want to attack what I believe is the lack of logic in the argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). He has wasted some time—this is often a temptation to certain hon. Members on the Opposition benches—in talking about the Secretary of State's track record. If we want to enter into confessions on either side of the House, I admit that some track records look pretty dim, but it is not a proper debating point—on a matter of some importance, as the hon. Member has suggested this is—for the National Oil Account to be referred to in personal terms of a sort which I find completely distasteful.
      The Opposition are always attempting to tell the people that they are the only respectable Members of this House. I do not want to be drawn into that argu-
      500
      ment now, but surely in this House we should have less of this nonsense of personal attacks of this kind upon Government supporters—
      Mr. Tim Renton: What pomposity!
      Mr. Leadbitter: We have had some pompous interventions from the Opposition benches about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not paying attention to their arguments. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex will realise that this time I have not got my fishing line caught in a bush. If he knows anything about fishing, he will know that the man who holds his fishing line firmly will catch what he is after. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say.
      Here we have a remarkable situation. We are discussing Clause 40, and Opposition speakers have so far refrained from making it clear that they know that the Secretary of State has powers over a wide range of the oil account. For example, subsection (1) says:
      "There shall be an account, to be called the National Oil Account (and hereafter in this section referred to as 'the Account'), which subject to the following provisions of this section shall be under the control and management of the Secretary of State…".
      That has not been questioned by the Opposition and they have tabled no amendment to deal with it. Their distaste for the Secretary of State has not made them question my right hon. Friend's ability to deal with and to control the oil account.
      Subsection (2) says:
      "There shall be paid into the Account, in addition to any sums required to be paid into it by virtue of any other provision of this Act. "
      —and then there is a reference to
      "All sums received by the Corporation".
      Mr. Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the moment we are discussing the Opposition amendment tabled by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) which is an amendment to the amendment passed in the other place, and that has no bearing on what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) is now discussing.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we had better wait to see how the hon. Member

      501
      for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) develops his argument.
      Mr. Leadbitter: We are dealing with what is virtually the last act concerning the oil account, which is how the surpluses shall be dispensed with and how they shall be transferred into the Consolidated Fund. If the case is put, as it has been, purely on the basis that the Secretary of State should be deprived of the right to consider solely because of the Opposition's dislike of the Secretary of State, they should be honest about it and table an amendment dealing with every kind of responsible action which the Secretary of State is empowered to take in connection with this fund. That is my point.
      The Opposition refrained from pointing out that the Secretary of State has certain other powers to dispense moneys in this account. They appear in subsection (3). Again, the Opposition have not questioned them.
      Mr. Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for intervening yet again. It may be that I have misunderstood the procedures under which we are operating. I thought that we were discussing the Opposition amendment to the Lords amendment and that it was not possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex and myself, assuming that we had wished to do so, to table amendments to those parts of the Bill to which the hon. Member for Hartlepool is referring.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can enlighten the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). We are discussing Lords Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 and the Opposition amendment thereto. They are being discussed together. The argument of the hon. Member for Hartlepool is germane to the point.
      Mr. Leadbitter: Putting aside for the moment the fact that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) obviously cannot read, I have just referred to subsection (3) and to the very line to which his amendment to the Lords amendment relates. He should attend to our business more precisely rather than showing the extent to which his dislike of the strength of my argument illustrates how irresponsibly he is behaving.
      502
      Throughout our debate today we have had a fairly poor response from the Opposition. We expected a better standard from them. They have become more and more embarrassed as we have approached the matter now under discussion.
      I come now to the precise matter that I was about to discuss before the hon. Member for Lewes intervened. It seems wrong, having got in this Bill extreme powers for the Secretary of State—powers rightly agreed to by this House, because there are no amendments tabled to say that this should not be the case—which are essential to the oil account, for the Opposition then to say that when the surpluses in the account have to be transferred to the Consolidated Fund the Secretary of State should have no say in the matter. That is illogical.
      The basis of determining surpluses in the account is written into the Bill. I should have thought that agreement was a matter of technicality. I should have thought that it was a matter about which there would be complete agreement between the Secretary of State and the Treasury. I cannot imagine a situation where the Secretary of State could devise for himself definitions of surpluses which were not in the Bill. For that reason, I suggest that the hon. Member for Lewes and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex have again moved an amendment which will not gain very much support from their colleagues.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. John Smith: When I read the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), I was tempted to think that they were motivated by a sense of genuine compromise and that they were trying to mediate between the Government and another place. What is more, the beguiling speech of the hon. Member for Lewes seemed to confirm that that was his intention. It was a pity that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex took part in the debate because, after he had spoken, he and his hon. Friend seemed like two witnesses who went into court to support a case without first consulting about the story that they would tell. The hon. Member for Lewes was anxious to be moderate and sensible in his proposal,

      503
      but the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex let the cat out of the bag and indulged in a certain amount of personality bashing which was quite unnecessary and added nothing to the argument.
      The truth is that the Opposition amendment makes very little difference to the situation and does not to any substantial extent alter the amendment which came from the other place.
      Perhaps I might remind the House that the National Oil Account is to be under the control and management of the Secretary of State. That is right. Its function is to act as the banker of the BNOC for which the Secretary of State will be the sponsoring Minister, as we were reminded by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) in an earlier debate. It will also account for royalties and other payments connected with licences issued by the Secretary of State.
      Because the Secretary of State is responsible, it is right that he should have the clear duty to oversee and to account for all the operations of the National Oil Account and that he and his Department should be responsible for being accountable to Parliament for them. To introduce the Treasury in this one respect would give rise to confusion and split responsibilities, and even from the point of view of effective accountability to Parliament it is undesirable. Nor do I think that it is right to place a duty on the Treasury and its accounting officer when the day-to-day accounting will be conducted in the Department of Energy, and the Treasury officials would not independently have details of the transactions.
      I wish to deal with the apparent belief in the minds of some hon. Members opposite that the National Oil Account and the Secretary of State's management of it confers a benefit on the Secretary of State or the British National Oil Corporation which this amendment would somehow remove. The expenditure of the BNOC will be determined not by the size of the National Oil Account but as part of the Government's decision on public expenditure as a whole in which the Treasury, to say the least, will play some rôle. The National Oil Account is not hypothecated revenue in the sense of
      504
      revenue earmarked exclusively for the BNOC. The surplus will be transferred to the Consolidated Fund. As soon as money comes into the oil account, it will be available for reducing the Government's day-to-day calls in the market. Without the nationalised industry structure, the money would not be available. In that sense the National Oil Account helps the Treasury rather than hinders it.
      The most important point of all is that in important decisions about public expenditure it is an illusion to think that Ministers in the Department take decisions independently. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, as a former Treasury Minster, knows that the Treasury is involved in all decisions on sizeable public expenditure. The Government are involved, through the Cabinet and Cabinet Committee system, in collective decisions of this kind. To suggest that there is some fiefdom in the Department of Energy, and that there are other completely different sectors of responsibility in other Government Departments, is to fail to understand the nature of government—and not only the nature of government now but the nature of government in this country over many years.
      We have an illusion of a debate here, for it does not affect the reality very much. I hope the House will support the motion that we disagree with the Lords in this amendment, and will agree that the proposed amendment to the Lords amendment does not take us much further forward.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I was fascinated to hear the hon. Gentleman use the word "fiefdom" in connection with what is being set up here. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in one of his earlier speeches, referred to Indonesia. From a recent article in the Guardian, we now know that Pertamina has brought "shame on Suharto" and, according to the article in the Guardian,
      "Under what has been described as a 'personal fiefdom', Pertamina was run by General Ibnu Sutowo, a close associate of General Suharto."
      We are obviously setting up the same sort of thing here.
      Mr. Smith: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman expects to be taken seriously in a remark of that sort. To get

      505
      the matter clear, I was referring to the view of the Opposition, not of the Government. One matter on which the right hon. Gentleman should be congratulated is the fact that during the course of the debate today, until just now, he has not had to use a quotation at all. Those of us who are accustomed to him papering the Standing Committee rooms with endless quotations have observed that lapse with a certain amount of regret.
      Mr. Rost: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the National Oil Account can be, as the noble Lord Balogh said, under the overall control of the Treasury? How can this be, under a structure which is set up with the Secretary of State having discretion as to how its finances are used?
      Mr. Smith: I believe that the answer is that which I have given earlier. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the collective nature of government. Important decisions about what leaves the National Oil Account and goes to the Consolidated Fund will be made collectively, and the precise statutory responsibility for accounting to Parliament is much less important than the hon. Gentleman imagines.
      Mr. Hannam: I find it very disappointing that, despite the magnitude of the financial crisis facing the country, the Government should still conduct these doctrinaire and ideological arguments. In this debate about the National Oil Account we have another symptom of what I call the Socialist disease. We have the National Oil Account or what is known in the industry as the "Oil Slush Fund". We find ourselves committed to a State oil company which, even before it has started, has resulted in a slowing up in North Sea oil developments.
      The Government, having set up the BNOC, begin to take fright at the costs in which they will be involved in obtaining their 51 per cent. participation. Thinking of the number of Finance Bills which would have to be passed through the House to obtain consent for the thousands of millions of pounds which will be required to obtain the 51 per cent. participation, the Government had to think of another dodge to present to Parliament in order to try to avoid the reality of these sums coming home to the people in the country. The dodge is the National Oil Account. The account is designed to grab
      506
      hold of the royalties and the revenue and feed them back on the BNOC for the Government, who are hungry for their 51 per cent. participation. The borrowing requirement of £2½ billion is apparently being reduced by this device to about £900 million, which appears in the Bill. The deception is in the Financial Memorandum, which refers to the £900 million limit on the borrowing. I hope that Ministers will listen to these points, because they are important.
      Mr. John Smith: This is the fourth or fifth time that Ministers have been reminded that they should listen to remarks from Opposition Members. We are indeed paying attention to the debate.
      Mr. Hannam: I am reassured to know that the Minister has been listening intently. It did not appear so. I apologise if I gained the wrong impression.
      The figure of £900 million is a deception. The figure is in reality nearly three times that amount. It is money which would normally have gone to the Exchequer but which will now be going to the National Oil Account. In Committee we fought against this hypothecation of revenue, but we were unsuccessful by a one vote margin. Our concern now is to have necessary control over the "slush fund". To my hon. Friends and myself it is vital that when the oil account has more revenue coming in than has been taken out for BNOC purposes, these surplus funds should immediately go to the Consolidated Fund. In other words, the Treasury, which at times we regard as the guardian of our national coffers, should have the right to call on these funds. But the Bill states otherwise. It is only when the Secretary of State considers that the funds in the oil account exceed the amount required by the BNOC that the excess should be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
      This sensible Lords amendment gives the initiative back to the Treasury and, therefore, back into our hands in this House, rather than into the hands of the Secretary of State who, regardless of the strictures of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) on my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), has not got the best of track records in his past history in relation to expenditure in his own Ministry. There

      507
      is no point in going further than that. There have been attacks from both sides of the House on the performance of Ministers, and that is the only point that I am making. We all have our brushes with the Treasury over various matters. Usually, we are disappointed when we have been unsuccessful in squeezing more money out of the Treasury for particular constituency or other projects.
      Those days are over. In the present economic situation, we must all fervently hope that, in the next few years at least, the Treasury will be able to curb our excessive and out-of-control level of public expenditure. But how can the Treasury do it in a massive area like the National Oil Account if it is deprived of the power to do so? It was interesting that in the debates in another place, support for this Lords amendment came from senior and respected ex-civil servants. One referred to a downgrading of the Treasury and the undesirable innovation of the Government's proposals.
      8.30 p.m.
      The Government seem to base their case for rejection of the amendment on the ground that adequate parliamentary control will rest with the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. But by the time they pinpoint any discrepancies in the use of this fund, a large amount of damage will have been caused. Apart from the possible misuse of the surplus funds by the corporation, there will be delay in payment to the Consolidated Fund. The Ministers argue that the chief purpose of the account is to make funds quickly available. That may be true as far as the Corporation is concerned, but once the surplus begins to build up there will be inevitable delay to the nation, because, first, the Secretary of State has to consider whether the fund really represents a surplus over the BNOC requirements, and the Corporation in addition has to agree with the Treasury before handing over the fund to the Exchequer.
      How can the Treasury achieve a proper budgetary programme if it is unable to estimate accurately how much of this money will be available, and when? The argument for the account seems to be that it is to fund the Corporation in its early stages. I do not like the Corpora-
      508
      tion— I have made that clear. But if we have to have it, let us at least ensure that we have adequate control over the vast amount of taxpayers' money being diverted towards it. The cumbersome procedure of the Public Accounts Committee cannot provide the specific control that we need.
      The Corporation will be rather like the canine companion of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) which we see on television. It is a hungry animal. It will be gobbling up billions of pounds of oil and royalty revenue in its pursuit of an unnecessary 51 per cent. participation. Those revenues could and should be going towards industrial investment and energy research. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) said in Committee, much more expenditure should be directed towards developing alternative energy resources, such as solar, wind and wave power and geothermal power.
      In the South-West, we have the best regional opportunities for the use of such energy resources. When we approached the Department during the summer for assistance in setting up a small research group, combining the efforts of scientists in universities in the South-West, we received a blank and non-committal reply. The Department said that it had no idea where the money could be found and had no resources to offer. Yet the whole South-West region could have energy provision in this way which could be taken off the back of the nation, and that is where the money should be going.
      The National Oil Account is not the best way to deal with the revenues from the North Sea. All this structure is not necessary to ensure national control of oil and oil revenues. The oil revenues would have continued to flow into the Treasury as they have done under four licensing rounds under both Governments. The amount can be controlled easily and determined by the Department of Energy.
      All the other arguments about control over participation revenue, and the separation of offshore oil revenues have not stood up to close examination. As the nation begins to grapple with the problem of bringing our inflated public expenditure under control, surely in this one area, this hypothecation of the oil account, Treasury restraint should be exercised and seen to be exercised. It is all very well for Ministers to put on

      509
      injured expressions of astonishment at the idea that the Corporation could ever possibly misuse the revenues in rash and uncontrolled ways. In a harassed moment earlier today, the Secretary of State admitted that it was envisaged that one of the two civil servants appointed to the Corporation would come from the Treasury. He gave as the reason that Treasury representation would be needed because of the vast amount of public money being handled by the Corporation. Surely that statement is the strongest possible support for the Lords amendment. It made clear to me the necessity for Treasury control of BNOC funds. I hope that the Government will therefore withdraw their opposition to the amendment. It is sensible and safe, and in our precarious financial state it is surely better to be safe than sorry.
      Mr. John Moore: It is sad that when we come, at the end of a lengthy year's study of the Bill, to the key issue, the minority party benches are empty. That shows how only the two major parties contend in the realities of responsible politics.
      The National Oil Account is something that we shall have cause to regret. I can imagine, 20 years from now, people saying, rather as they did 100 years after the foundation of the National Debt, "How can we control this colossus?" We are creating an out-of-control colossus. I am not concerned about individual Ministers but about the mechanisms of government which we are seeking to change, for the worse. Any Secretary of State in charge of a spending Department, whatever his political affiliation, will seek to enlarge his area of responsibility. It is irrelevant which side he sits—he will spend and spend and spend because that is the nature of the modern beast.
      I am therefore interested in having spending Department heads meeting in Cabinet and competing for scarce resources—
      Mr. John Smith: That is what will happen.
      Mr. Moore: Although I respect the Minister's sincerity, that is patent nonsense. There is no way to control the beast in modern society. My criticisms relate to Governments of both parties. It is clear from the comments of Wynne
      510
      Godley two days ago that no party in power, with present mechanisms, seems to be able to control modern spending Departments. So we are doing the last thing we should do—we are creating a Corporation with the right to go downstream and become the greatest petrochemical and petroleum giant in the nation—with hypothecated revenues.
      The Minister of State says that the surplus will be shifted straight into the Exchequer. What surplus? How many hon. Members have heard about surpluses in discussion of expenditure of nationalised organisations? Is this a new weapon? There is no such thing. We know what surplus there will be.
      Where are the Treasury Ministers and other spending Ministers today, when we are creating a situation in which scarce resources, marked down as revenue for the expenditure of the State, which could have been used for housing and health, are being committed to the expenditure patterns of the BNOC? That is the destructive nature of this form of hypothecation and this legislation. I hope that we can defeat this Government attempt to disagree with the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Rost: I wish to raise only two points. By allowing the National Oil Account to siphon off these vast funds from the Treasury the Government will be aggravating their own problems, which will probably lead to their downfall. Cuts are having to be made today in vital areas of Government spending because the money just is not there. The British National Oil Corporation is given a top priority in spite of its irrelevance. It means that there will be more unemployment in the building industry, the social services and amongst teachers, simply in order that money can be saved to finance the extravagance of the BNOC. Additional cuts will have to be made to those already planned, in order to provide the finance which will be sucked up by this irrelevance.
      My second point is related to the first. Because of the allocation of funds to the National Oil Account, other areas of higher priority for spending in the energy industries will be starved of finance. The Government have had time to study the report produced by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, dealing with

      511
      energy resources, and I declare an interest in having been a contributor to it. It is clear from the report that if, over the years ahead, we are to consider the alternative sources of energy when North Sea oil begins to run down, we must begin now with sensible energy conservation programmes. That means that we should not be having parliamentary replies which say that there is no money to finance thermal insulation or to develop wind, wave or tidal power. We cannot be told that the Government cannot afford to promote a more efficient use of our energy which will produce a positive return for the balance of payments and increase the efficiency of the economy.
      Instead of allocating this money through the National Oil Account to the BNOC, for an irrelevant extension of State ownership, the money should be put to producing a positive return to the economy. The money will have to be spent in future years, anyway, and we could begin to make a start now to produce the return to society as a whole.
      Mr. Gray: I was surprised that the Under-Secretary was not a little more gracious in his initial remarks about the amendment which stands in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). The amendment was moved in a very temperate fashion, and I would have thought it headed towards the Government's point of view. It is surprising that the Minister should have taken such exception to it.
      There is the question of control over the National Oil Account. The question of Treasury control was highlighted this afternoon, when the Secretary of State indicated that one of the civil servants to be appointed to the BNOC board would come from the Treasury. This is surely indicative of the Government's feeling that there should be a Treasury involvement in this matter.
      My hon. Friend's amendment and the amendment made in another place both indicate the fear in everyone's mind about the whole question of spending by the BNOC and the fact that the National Oil Account will be under the control of the Secretary of State. There is no intention that when the account reaches a certain level a proportion of it will have to be
      512
      transferred to the Treasury. I believe that most people find that fact worrying. What is highlighted is the danger of the National Oil Account and the income of the BNOC rising without a proper check. Of course, I do not suggest that its activities will not be supervised by the Government, but if there were a need for money to be transferred to the Treasury, to the Consolidated Fund, at any given period, in our view it would be an extra check. What is to prevent an ambitious Secretary of State's indulging some of his wilder ideas in projects for the BNOC which business sense would indicate the BNOC should not embark upon?
      8.45 p.m.
      The Minister and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) were aggravated by criticisms of the Secretary of State. They accused my hon. Friends of being personal. I am sure that my hon. Friends did not mean to be personal. However, we must accept, as must every Minister, that our track records will follow us around. If one's track record indicates association with a number of not too successful ventures, one cannot be too annoyed if those ventures are, from time to time, referred to during debates. The right hon. Gentleman made no complaint. I am quite sure that he would be prepared to defend his actions. The fact remains that in the eyes of many people the right hon. Gentleman has been associated with a number of ventures which, to say the least, did not go too well.
      Mr. Benn: I did not hear the comments, but I have never taken the view that any references are personal. They are attacks on the policy that is pursued. That is what I have always understood. Another reason why I should not be anxious is that the results of the various industrial ventures with which I have been concerned are as nothing compared with the outrageous transfer of our national resources to the oil companies during the 1972 round of licensing, which we are remedying in this legislation. I have nothing to be shy about. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) might be embarrassed if his track record were examined.
      Mr. Gray: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to stand up and defend himself. However, I remind him that it is his track record which is under surveillance, and not mine. I accept what

      513
      he says about his own activities, but I do not accept what he says about the 1972 round of licensing.
      An important Scottish point comes into the whole question of the National Oil Account and the Treasury—namely, that the Scottish Development Agency, which we all hope will play an important part in Scotland, will be funded from the Treasury and not from the National Oil Account. Therefore, it is in the interests of those who have Scotland at heart—those who have Scotland at heart are present tonight—that Scotland should be protected in this way.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has arrived in time to defend himself. It is important that the Treasury should have access to as great an amount of the income as possible, and that it should not be left indefinitely in
      the oil account, which is in the hands of the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will agree with the recommendations of the other place concerning this issue.
      Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and I have allowed right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the new spirit of conviviality which has crept into the debate, to take a sensible and reasonable step, if they support the amendment, without in any way having to eat their own words. I urge them to do so.
      Question put and negatived.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 239.

      Division No. 386.]

      AYES

      [8.52 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hooley, Frank

      Anderson, Donald

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Horam, John

      Archer, Peter

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Deakins, Eric

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Ashley, Jack

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Huckfield, Les

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dempsey, James

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Doig, Peter

      Hunter, Adam

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Bates, Alf

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Bean, R. E.

      Dunn, James A.

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Dunnett, Jack

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Eadie, Alex

      Janner, Greville

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Edge, Geoff

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bishop, E. S.

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Boardman, H.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      John, Brynmor

      Booth, Albert

      English, Michael

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Ennals, David

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Judd, Frank

      Bradley, Tom

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Kelley, Richard

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Kerr, Russell

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Buchan, Norman

      Flannery, Martin

      Kinnock, Neil

      Buchanan, Richard

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Lambie, David

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Foot. Rt Hon Michael

      Lamond, James

      Campbell, Ian

      Forrester, John

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Freeson, Reginald

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cant, R. B.

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Lee, John

      Carmichael, Neil

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Carter, Ray

      George, Bruce

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Lipton, Marcus

      Cartwright, John

      Ginsburg, David

      Litterick, Tom

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Golding, John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Gould, Bryan

      Luard, Evan

      Cohen, Stanley

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Coleman, Donald

      Graham, Ted

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Corbett, Robin

      Grocott, Bruce

      McElhone, Frank

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hardy, Peter

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Harper, Joseph

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Cryer, Bob

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Hatton, Frank

      Madden, Max

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hayman, Mrs. Helene

      Magee, Bryan

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mahon, Simon

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Marks, Kenneth

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Tinn, James

      Marquand, David

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Tomlinson, John

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Tomney, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Torney, Tom

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Tuck, Raphael

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Mendelson, John

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Mikardo. Ian

      Rooker, J. W.

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Millan, Bruce

      Roper, John

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Ward, Michael

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Watkins, David

      Moonman, Eric

      Rowlands, Ted

      Watkinson, John

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Weetch, Ken

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Weitzman, David

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Moyle, Roland

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      White, James (Pollok)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Newens, Stanley

      Sillars, James

      Whitlock, William

      Noble, Mike

      Skinner, Dennis

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Oakes, Gordon

      Small, William

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Spearing, Nigel

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Ovenden, John

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Padley, Walter

      Stoddart, David

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Stott, Roger

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Park, George

      Strang, Gavin

      Woodall, Alec

      Parker, John

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Woof, Robert

      Parry, Robert

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Swain, Thomas

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Mr. Thomas Cox.

      Radice, Giles

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Durant, Tony

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Alison, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Henderson, Douglas

      Arnold, Tom

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Heseltine, Michael

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hicks, Robert

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Emery, Peter

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Banks, Robert

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Holland, Phillip

      Beith, A. J.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Hunt, John

      Benyon, W.

      Farr, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Biffen, John

      Fell, Anthony

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Blaker, Peter

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      James, David

      Bottomley, Peter

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Fox, Marcus

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Freud, Clement

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Brittan, Leon

      Fry. Peter

      Kimball, Marcus

      Brotherton, Michael

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Budgen, Nick

      Goodhart, Philip

      Knox, David

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Goodhew, Victor

      Lamont, Norman

      Burden, F. A.

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Gorst, John

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Churchill, W. S.

      Gray, Hamish

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Lloyd, Ian

      Cockcroft, John

      Grist, Ian

      Loveridge, John

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Grylls, Michael

      Luce, Richard

      Cope, John

      Hall, Sir John

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Cordle, John H.

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      MacCormick, Iain

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Corrie, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      MacGregor, John

      Costain, A. P.

      Hannam, John

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Crouch, David

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Hastings, Stephen

      Madel, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mather, Carol

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Raison, Timothy

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Mawby, Ray

      Rathbone, Tim

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Stokes, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Reid, George

      Tapsell, Peter

      Mills, Peter

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Monro, Hector

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Thompson, George

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Trotter, Neville

      Morgan, Geraint

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Viggers, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Neave, Airey

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wakeham, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Neubert, Michael

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Newton, Tony

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Watt, Hamish

      Normanton, Tom

      Shepherd, Colin

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Onslow, Cranley

      Silvester, Fred

      Wells, John

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Sims, Roger

      Welsh, Andrew

      Osborn, John

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Pardoe, John

      Speed, Keith

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Spence, John

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Percival, Ian

      Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)

      Younger, Hon George

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Sproat, Iain

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Stainton, Keith

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mr. Anthony Berry and

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Stanley, John

      Mr. Michael Roberts.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 44

      EXTENSION OF MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) ACT 1971
      Lords Amendment: No. 19, in page 42, line 17, leave out from "installation" to end of subsection and insert
      "subsection (4) of section 3 of that Act (which includes the concession owner among the persons having the duty to ensure that regulations under that section relating to an installation are complied with) shall have effect as if references to the concession owner were omitted."
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
      Mr. John Smith: I can deal with these amendments briefly because they are technical amendments to a technical clause. The clause is designed to established a boundary for safety purposes between the Bill and the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act, 1971. Broadly, pipelines as such will be dealt with under this Bill, but manned apparatus and installations on pipelines or
      518
      connected with them will be dealt with under the 1971 Act, which contains provisions specially relevant to manned installations. The setting of the boundary and the application of the 1971 Act provisions to manned apparatus on pipelines carrying substances from outside the United Kingdom area has proved complex and these amendments are necessary to round off some rough edges which came to light in the earlier versions.
      I do not think that the amendments raise any matters of controversy. I believe that the House will find them acceptable.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendments: No. 20, in page 42, line 21, leave out "other" and insert "offshore".
      No. 21, in page 42, line 24, leave out from "persons" to "shall)" in line 28 and insert "the said subsection (4)".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put formally to the House Lords Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, but before I do so I wish to draw attention to a typographical error in the first line of Lords Amendment No. 21. I understand that a comma has been struck out after the word "shall". I shall put the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think what has gone wrong is that a bracket has been put in the wrong place. I believe the bracket should appear before the word "shall" rather than after it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must be certain exactly where the bracket and the comma go.
      Mr. Benn: Perhaps I may be allowed to take advice on the matter.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall not suspend the sitting while the Secretary of State takes advice, but I hope the House will be patient because this is a matter of some importance.
      I have now been informed that the bracket should appear before the word "shall".
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 45

      AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS
      Lords Amendment: No. 22, in page 43, line 16, at beginning insert—
      "(1) It is hereby declared that the reference to pipe-lines under the high seas in section 8(1) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 (which among other things relates to the punishment of persons who damage such pipe-lines) includes pipe-lines under the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom."
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      I understand that there is no difficulty in regard to the brackets in this amendment. It is a declaratory provision to make clear the situation in regard to the Submarine Telegraphs Act 1885 for operations within territorial waters. The amendment seeks to clarify the situation, and I imagine that there will be no opposition to it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 48

      INTERPRETATION ETC.—GENERAL
      Lords Amendment: No. 24, in page 45, line 13, at end insert—
      "(d) permits the Secretary of State to exercise or not to exercise any power or authority
      520
      or to withhold any consent, approval or authorisation or to make provisions terms or conditions pursuant to this Act or a licence for the time being in force by virtue of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 with a view to securing participation by the Government of the United Kingdom, or by the Corporation or any other body on behalf of the Government, in activities connected with petroleum beneath controlled waters."
      Mr. Benn: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment relates to a substantial point. I shall keep my remarks brief, and I shall seek the leave of the House to respond at the conclusion of the debate.
      If the amendment is accepted, the situation will be tantamount to the Government's being told that they can have their Bill but must not, when armed by Parliament with any powers, under any circumstances have in mind in the exercise of those powers the implementation of the policy that lies at the heart at the Government's objectives.
      The amendment is not acceptable because it attacks the whole concept of participation, which we regard as absolutely essential. The provision will give us the title to oil, access to information, a complete capability in oil terms and will in future increase the return to the British people when the Corporation acquires licences as sole licensee.
      Because we are seeking to deal in the first instance with licences negotiated in 1972, we are seeking to reach agreement and to have voluntary participation, but the House should be under no misapprehension about the matter. The Government are determined that their policy will be a success and we have engaged in voluntary discussions. Nobody should be misled by Press reports, rumours or speculation to the effect that the Government's intent is other than serious. Our intent is serious, and there will be a continued intent by the Government that such a move should take place with the companies with which we have agreement in principle—namely, BP, Burmah, Deminex, Tricentrol, Blackfriars, London and Scottish, Marine Oil, Scottish Canadian Oil and Transportation. But the Government intend to press forward with participation to cover the majors, including the Shell and Exxon companies, which have important interests.

      521
      The amendment says that in the negotiation, which is voluntary, we shall not be in a position to use the cards that Parliament is putting in our hands by giving us this legislation, if Parliament chooses so to do. It is a genuine negotiation that we have in mind. We do not intend to use our powers improperly. That would be wrong. We do not intend to use them in a way that would be a breach of good faith or of good partnership relations with the companies. But we intend to have participation.
      My understanding of the oil industry is that from its very early days right up to the present it has put up a sturdy and robust defence of its interests, and that by the Governments concerned there has also been a sturdy and robust defence of their interests. We intend to be no less sturdy and no less robust than anyone else in our pursuit of participation. The amendment would entirely disarm us.
      It would be wrong for us to use any powers given by Parliament in such a way as to commit a breach of faith or a breach of proper relations. Perhaps I may give one example of how the powers might be improperly used. We are seeking in the Bill to take power to require that operators be approved. It might be argued that we might use that to drive back on to the principle of participation. We do not intend to do so, because it is technical competence that we seek there. But if there were a suggestion that the licence should be assigned to another company it would be right for the Government to say that, in the light of an assignation, the powers available to us in approval should have regard to the broad objective of participation.
      Similarly, when we come to the fifth round, about which I am not in a position to make any further statement than was made in my speech and in the statement by my noble Friend, Lord Balogh, participation will be a major objective. I do not want there to be any doubt about our determination. In the course of the negotiations the Conservative Party will no doubt make a great deal of the time we are taking to build up a BNOC board, with proper membership. But nobody should mistake that for weakness of intent or second thoughts about the BNOC. We intend to have a BNOC, and we intend it to develop on the 51
      522
      per cent. participation basis. We intend quite properly and responsibly to use the powers that Parliament is now considering giving the Government to secure our policy objectives. Nothing less than that would be responsible.
      I was not the architect of this legislation. I came in when it was already formulated. Therefore, I have no reason to say what I have said other than that I would not take part in any charade or appearance of being serious. We are in deadly earnest about it. I am not saying this in an aggressive or hostile way to the Opposition or any one else. But I regret that the Leader of the Opposition should have chosen to go abroad and make statements which she may have hoped would win her popularity but which were designed to undermine the credibility of our policy. The Leader of the Opposition made speeches in the United States which were designed to undermine the credibility of this policy. That is entirely a matter for her. No one should assume that an attempt to curry popularity in the United States by means of such speeches, or by giving ill-considered pledges which might be greatly regretted, will cause misunderstanding or confusion about the reality of the Government's determination.
      The Bill will enable the Government to secure their objective declared and made clear before two General Elections that we would seek 51 per cent. participation in offshore oil. I say that seriously and quietly. I hope that those who listen to these debates and report on the flow of argument one way and the other, wherever they may be, will realise that the Government are in earnest in the implementation of this Bill. It therefore follows that this amendment is neither sensible nor correct and I ask the House to disagree with the Lords.
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is obvious from the way in which the Secretary of State commended his motion to the House that he has been deeply disturbed by Press speculation to the effect that the Government were wisely having second thoughts. We also gain the impression that he is anxious to stake out his claim against some of his colleagues who are beginning to have the gravest doubts about the wisdom of his policy.

      523
      The Minister may not know this. However, I am sure that some of his colleagues realise that no act of the Government does greater damage to our offshore prospects than the continuing demand for 51 per cent. participation. It has injected a major element of uncertainty at a time when the maximum of certainty is required. With the promise of 51 per cent. participation, but without any idea of what the terms will be, the Government have rendered the financing of new development impossible.
      Mr. Benn: Rubbish.
      Mr. Jenkin: The Minister continues to shout "Rubbish" from a sedentary position. Perhaps he will say why for over a year there has been no single deal to finance the development of platforms. Perhaps he will explain why in answer to a Question in the House today he says that he does not expect any platform orders for the rest of this year.
      This is not the occasion to rehearse in detail all the arguments which the Opposition deployed throughout the discussions on the Bill against the policy of 51 per cent. participation. The Opposition see no point in spending the thousands of millions of pounds that will be needed to buy out the oil companies in the manner proposed by the Government. At this juncture of their economic management the Government cannot afford to buy out the oil companies. The finance required by the Exchequer can be raised by taxation. The controls sought by the Government may be secured by legislation, but the existence of the BNOC and participation add not one whit to what the Government seek.
      The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor told us that the Government had a political commitment and that there must be participation.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: What are we here for?
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman who interrupts is doubtless keeping an eye on his right hon. Friend to see that he does not waiver. As the Economist correctly pointed out on 1st November, one of the Government's difficulties is to avoid the backlash from the left wing of the Labour Party. That is why it is being done.
      524
      The amendment is concerned with the narrow but vital point whether the negotiations are to be voluntary. I will take the House quickly through what has been said by the Government on this issue. In his statement on 11th July 1974 the previous Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), said:
      "Thirdly, we shall be inviting the companies to enter into discussions with us about majority State participation in existing licences for commercial fields."
      I asked:
      "Will he give the House a categorial assurance that this will be a voluntary negotiation with the perfect right for members of these consortia to refuse?"
      The right hon. Gentleman replied:
      "My statement means that we are inviting the companies to discuss the question of participation in existing licences. We are inviting them to have meaningful discussions with us, and we hope that these talks will go ahead as quickly as possible."—[Official Report, 11th July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 1559–61.]
      On the same day the right hon. Gentleman gave a Press conference at which he said:
      "We in Britain do not go in for coercion like some other oil producing countries."
      So notable was that statement that the Observer quoted it in its "Sayings of the Week" column. So negotiations were to be voluntary.
      There was a hint of the mailed fist inside the velvet glove when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was questioned about this by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Cabinet—
      "were unable to satisfy its objectives, which seem to us fair and reasonable and not incompatible with the interests of the oil companies, by voluntary agreement with them, to nationalise—
      Mr. SKEET: Blackmail.
      Mr. LEVER: The hon. Member should permit me to answer the question."
      So there was the threat to nationalise, but for the present—
      Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Chancellor of the Duchy represent the wild Left wing to which all have to bow?
      Mr. Jenkin: No doubt the main point which the Chancellor of the Duchy was

      525
      anxious to get on record was what he said a little later:
      "I made it absolutely plain, however, that if the Government did so—and I could not say whether they would or would not—there would be full and fair compensation as we have always provided on such occasions."—[Official Report, 19th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1341.]
      That was the reassurance. The knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Energy is in the Cabinet is enough to frighten many oil companies. The statement about fair compensation might have reassured some of them. For the present it is to be voluntary negotiation.
      It is clear that the Government are facing grave difficulties. The Chancellor of the Duchy is rarely here to submit himself to parliamentary Questions, so we have to rely on Written Answers. On Monday 3rd November he gave Written Answers to many of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked for the names of the companies with which agreement in principle had been reached. The right hon. Gentleman gave the names of the seven companies which the Secretary of State has just recited to the House: BP, Burmah, Deminex, Tricentrol, Blackfriars Oil, London and Scottish Marine Oil and Scottish Canadian Oil and Transportation. Those are the companies which have agreed in principle.
      One finds that those companies have certain features in common. BP is a company of which the Government are currently a majority shareholder. Therefore, the Government can tell BP what to do and the company is obliged to do it. Burmah resorted to the Bank of England as part of the rescue operation and thereby put itself in the hands of the Government and was unable to resist the duress. Deminex bought in several interests. The first was from the Canadian company United Canso, a partner in the Thistle field. We find that company in the list because it would not have got the consent to the assignment if it had not agreed to the 51 per cent.
      Tricentrol, a small company with a good record, sought guarantees for its investment because, in the prevailing uncertainty, it was unable to raise money
      526
      without them. It, too, was forced to concede participation.
      Blackfriars Oil, London and Scottish Marine Oil, and Scottish Canadian Oil and Transportation have in one way or another sought consents for assignments or other consents necessary from the Secretary of State, and each one of them has had to concede 51 per cent.
      Every single one of those companies—with the exception of BP, in its special position—has had to go to the Department of Energy for the exercise of some power or consent in its favour. Therefore the suspicion has grown up that the Government are using these powers, given by the House for a wholly different purpose—these are powers under existing legislation, not under this Bill—to blackmail the companies into surrendering the 51 per cent. to the BNOC. It is an absolute nonsense to regard these as voluntary negotiations. They turn into a sick joke the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman the previous Secretary of State gave at his Press conference in July last year.
      That was why a number of noble Lords tabled the amendment we are now discussing. What was interesting about the amendment was the Government's first reactions to it. In the words of the old song, they did not say "Yes" and they did not say "No".
      There might have been two possible reactions. One might have been, "Yes, of course, we shall do anything we can to twist the companies' arms. We have it in our power to make their operations impossible and we intend to use that power in order to screw 51 per cent. out of them." They could have reacted in that way. Or they could have said, "These suspicions are quite unfounded. These are truly voluntary negotiations. There is no question of coercion." They might have quoted Lord Kearton's words in his only speech since being appointed:
      "…the first aim of BNOC must be participation in field exploitation—not only voluntarily on the part of existing licensees, but I trust willingly and cheerfully."
      That is what he wants and that is the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, might have given, but it was not the answer that he gave. He used some fairly strong words:
      "We are negotiating with the most powerful economic interests in the country. It would

      527
      be a dereliction of duty on the part of Ministers—to be punished by being put in the Tower, and not in the Jewel Tower, either—if we did not use our strongest cards, if we went into negotiations without the strongest cards we have."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th September, 1975; Vol. 364, c. 359.]
      Quite apart from whether the metaphor of gambling is an appropriate one or not in the circumstances, these were weasel words, because they did not answer the question whether the Government were using their powers in the way in which my right hon. and noble Friends had suggested.
      In the debate on 15th October, the noble Lord said:
      "None of this means the Government are putting undue or illegitimate pressure on the companies. We are now in negotiation with several companies. Some of them would surprise noble Lords opposite, but I am not going to make any further revelations. We expect to use to the full the arguments and bargaining power that we have; but we are not going beyond what is fair and supportable. "—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15th October, 1975; Vol. 364, c. 975.]
      The question is: what is illegitimate pressure? On that we have still to hear an answer from the Government.
      Then on Third Reading—
      Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman is using very colourful language again, but may I remind him that in Committee he made a specific allegation that improper pressure had been brought to bear by a civil servant upon an oil company? Throughout the whole of the Committee stage we asked him to provide evidence. He did not provide evidence. If he is going to revert to charges of illegitimacy and improper pressures, will he kindly place before the House any evidence he has that this has occurred in the past? It was only by reason of the courtesy, good will and good manners of our side that he was not pressed to withdraw specifically what he said in Committee. He is very loose in the language he uses. This is damaging and has never been substantiated.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I wrote to him shortly afterwards telling him that unfortunately the evidence on which I was hoping to rely was not available, and, of course. I immediately withdraw any allegation. However, that intervention was a complete red herring, of course.
      528
      On 31st October the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, again defending what he had said commented,
      "I can only say that our special agreement negotiations are normal commercial negotiations in which all sides obviously, use their full bargaining power. Nothing on earth would lead me to abjure that power because it has to be used in the national interest."
      Then my noble Friend. Lord Strathcona, asked:
      "Is that what the noble Lord calls 'voluntary', though, my Lords?",
      to which the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, replied:
      "Of course, my Lords. Voluntary agreements between big oil companies are also sometimes influenced by bargaining power. They are called voluntary, of course; but, as some people said, some are more voluntary than others."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31st October 1975; Vol. 365, c. 773.]
      Clearly what the noble Lord had in mind here was the words of George Orwell in "Animal Farm", to the effect that all animals are equal but that some are more equal than others.
      The attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is cynical to the point of hypocrisy. While continuing to mouth soothing words about voluntary negotiations, he makes it plain that he is prepared to use whatever duress or blackmail comes to hand to achieve his object. In effect, he is saying, "You want to farm out? Yes, if you give up 51 per cent. You want to assign? Yes, if you give up 51 per cent. You need a guarantee? Yes, if you give up 51 per cent." That is not voluntary negotiation. More important, it is a cynical misuse of the powers granted to the Government by this House. The powers were given to regulate offshore operations and to regulate the oil-winning activities of the operators. The purpose was not to advance the cause of Socialism, which is how they are being used now.
      This is yet another nail in the coffin of the rule of law. It is yet another sight of the unacceptable face of Socialism.
      What is the consequence of adopting this style of so-called voluntary negotiation? It is that no company can ever again trust this Government not to use their new powers to secure even greater concessions outside the scope of the powers being given.

      529
      There are vast new powers in this Bill. I shall not go through them all but they include powers to give directions, to require this, to consent to that, to approve this, to specify that, to authorise the other, to issue an authorisation, to determine sums, to determine a dispute, to revoke licences, and so on. There is an enormous plethora of powers to ensure the proper operation by the licensees of their offshore interests. They are not given to advance the cause of Socialism.
      By choosing to renege on their pledge of "no coercion", to quote the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, the Government have dealt another hammer blow to confidence. It will inflict incalculable harm not merely on the good name of Governments but on prospects for the North Sea.
      Lord Balogh took part in a Panorama programme on 27th October. He was asked by the interviewer:
      "What is the Government doing positively to speed up the development of North Sea oil?"
      The noble Lord replied:
      "At the moment we cannot do anything."
      Nothing could be further from the truth. There is an enormous amount that they could do. They could abandon the purposeless BNOC. They could abandon the damaging 51 per cent. participation. They could pay compensation. At the very least, they could forswear the blackmailing tactics that they are using to secure their nefarious purposes. They could keep faith with the pledges given.
      That is why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in voting to keep this amendment in the Bill.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 228.

      Division No. 387.]

      AYES

      [9.35 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Gould, Bryan

      Anderson, Donald

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Gourlay, Harry

      Archer, Peter

      Cryer, Bob

      Graham, Ted

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Ashley, Jack

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Grocott, Bruce

      Atkinson, Norman

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hardy, Peter

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Deakins, Eric

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Bates, Alf

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hatton, Frank

      Bean, R. E.

      Delargy, Hugh

      Hayman, Mrs. Helene

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Dempsey, James

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Doig, Peter

      Henderson, Douglas

      Bishop, E. S.

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hooley, Frank

      Boardman, H.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Horam, John

      Booth, Albert

      Dunn, James A.

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Eadie, Alex

      Huckfield, Les

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Edge, Geoff

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Bradley, Tom

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      English, Michael

      Hunter, Adam

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Ennals, David

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Buchan, Norman

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Janner, Greville

      Campbell, Ian

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Canavan, Dennis

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Cant, R. B.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      John, Brynmor

      Carmichael, Neil

      Flannery, Martin

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Carter, Ray

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Cartwright, John

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Judd, Frank

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Forrester, John

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Kelley, Richard

      Cohen, Stanley

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Kerr, Russell

      Conlan, Bernard

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      George, Bruce

      Kinnock, Neil

      Corbett, Robin

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Lambie, David

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Ginsburg, David

      Lamborn, Harry

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Golding, John

      Lamond, James

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Orbach, Maurice

      Swain, Thomas

      Lee, John

      Ovenden, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Padley, Walter

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Park, George

      Thompson, George

      Litterick, Tom

      Parker, John

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Parry, Robert

      Tierney, Sydney

      Luard, Evan

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Tinn, James

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Pendry, Tom

      Tomlinson, John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Tomney, Frank

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Torney, Tom

      McCartney, Hugh

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Tuck, Raphael

      MacCormick, Iain

      Radice, Giles

      Urwin, T. W.

      McElhone, Frank

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Reid, George

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Ward, Michael

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Watkins, David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Watkinson, John

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Watt, Hamish

      Madden, Max

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Weetch, Ken

      Magee, Bryan

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Weitzman, David

      Mahon, Simon

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wellbeloved, James

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Roper, John

      Welsh, Andrew

      Marks, Kenneth

      Rose, Paul B.

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Marquand, David

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Marshall Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Whitlock, William

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Mendelson, John

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Millan, Bruce

      Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Sillars, James

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Moonman, Eric

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Small, William

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Woodall, Alec

      Moyle, Roland

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Woof, Robert

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Newens, Stanley

      Stoddart, David

      Noble, Mike

      Stott, Roger

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Oakes, Gordon

      Strang, Gavin

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Cordle, John H.

      Gorst, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Alison, Michael

      Corrie, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Arnold, Tom

      Costain, A. P.

      Gray, Hamish

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Crouch, David

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Banks, Robert

      Crowder, F. P.

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Beith, A. J.

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Grist, Ian

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Grylls, Michael

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Hall, Sir John

      Benyon, W.

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Durant, Tony

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Biffen, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hannam, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Elliott, Sir William

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Emory, Peter

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Bottomley, Peter

      Eyre, Reginald

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Hawkins, Paul

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Farr, John

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Brittan, Leon

      Fell, Anthony

      Heseltine, Michael

      Brotherton, Michael

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Hicks, Robert

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Holland, Phillip

      Budgen, Nick

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Hordern, Peter

      Burden, F. A.

      Fox, Marcus

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Freud, Clement

      Hunt, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Fry, Peter

      Hurd, Douglas

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Churchill, W. S.

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      James, David

      Cockcroft, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Cope, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Mudd, David

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Kimball, Marcus

      Neave, Airey

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Neubert, Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Newton, Tony

      Spence, John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Normanton, Tom

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Knox, David

      Onslow, Cranley

      Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)

      Lamont, Norman

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Sproat, Iain

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Osborn, John

      Stainton, Keith

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Stanley, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Pardoe, John

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Stokes, John

      Lloyd, Ian

      Penhaligon, David

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Loveridge, John

      Percival, Ian

      Tapsell, Peter

      Luce, Richard

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Tebbit, Norman

      MacGregor, John

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Raison, Timothy

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Madel, David

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Trotter, Neville

      Mates, Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Mather, Carol

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Mawby, Ray

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Viggers, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Wakeham, John

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Mills, Peter

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Wells, John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Moate, Roger

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Monro, Hector

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Scott, Nicholas

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Younger, Hon George

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Mr. Michael Roberts and

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Sims, Roger

      Mr. Fred Silvester.

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments disagreed to.

    Schedule 2

      PRODUCTION LICENCES FOR SEAWARD AREAS
      Lords Amendment: No. 31, in page 56, line 29, at end insert:
      "and where it is determined in consequence of any reference to arbitration in pursuance of sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph that the programme in question does not satisfy the relevant requirements the Licensee shall submit to the Minister, as soon as possible after the date of the determination, a further programme which satisfies the relevant requirements."
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 40, 48 and 56.
      Mr. Smith: These are drafting amendments, which provide that where a dispute
      534
      about an additional exploration programme has been submitted to arbitration and the arbitrator decides that the programme does not measure up to what is required, the applicant shall submit a programme which does measure up. It removes any possible doubt.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 34, in page 61, line 10, after "programme" insert
      "and the quantity so specified in such further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;"
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      It may be more convenient for the Opposition to make their comments on the amendment and then for me to reply at the end.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may also discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 43, 51 and 59.
      Mr. John Moore: Though I sense the desire of the House to get into headlights, there are one or two points with which I must detain hon. Members. Basically, in the clause concerned with production control, the Government created a four-fifths' depletion pattern, and we cannot disagree with that. We recognise the need for depletion controls. We note the need for high levels of output in cases of emergency, but we are not quite so sure that the Government and perhaps some Opposition Members have taken full account of the needs of conservation in depletion on the lower side. There were two major flaws in the original clause, but these have basically been taken care of. We have considered the considerable financial uncertainty which would be created for licensees and their bankers, and the technical uncertainties arising from the percentage of possible depletion that the Government might make in a change notice. The changes were made to the Bill in Committee, and the clause was improved considerably. The upper and lower limits were established in the depletion notice procedure.
      In the face of the considerable uncertainty created in the last 18 months it is reasonable for us to ask for a greater degree of certainty for the industry, especially in the light of the assurances given by the previous Secretary of State on 6th December 1974, when he sought to confirm the figure of 20 per cent. for depletion. We are seeking to isolate even more precisely, if possible, the possibilities of a four-fifths' pattern of depletion.
      Mr. John Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) for recognising the way in which the Government have sought to meet realistic points raised by both the Opposition and the industry. In this amendment the hon. Member is seeking to put the policy statement into legislative form. We think that it would be far better if the Government were free to make policy statements as and when required. We stand by the policy statement of 6th December last. There are great limitations to putting this sort of thing into legislation, because it would leave the Government with much less flexibility. In the present circumstances, I hope that the House will agree that the amendment is unsuitable.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 39, in page 66, line 32, at end insert
      "and an agreement in so far as it provides that, after any petroleum has been won and saved from the licensed area, it shall be exchanged for other petroleum."
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 47 to 55 and No. 63.
      Mr. Smith: This amendment is not only fairly formal but meets with general agreement.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 40, in page 79, line 17, at end insert
      "and where it is determined in consequence of any reference to arbitration in pursuance of subparagraph (a) of this paragraph that the programme in question does not satisfy the relevant requirements the Licensee shall submit to the Minister, as soon as possible after the date of the determination, a further programme which satisfies the relevant requirements."
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, which have already been discussed.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I suggest that the rest of the amendments are put formally, because they repeat in substantial part the schedule amendments which we have already taken. It would be convenient for the House to deal with them together.
      Mr. Speaker: I cannot do that, but we can take Nos. 41 and 42 together.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 43, in page 83, line 11, after "programme" insert
      "and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;"
      Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      PRODUCTION LICENCES FOR LANDWARD AREAS
      Lords Amendment: No. 51, in page 110, line 42, after "programme" insert
      "and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;"
      Mr. Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 59, in page 134, line 34, after "programme" insert
      "and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;"
      Mr. Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Committee to draw up Reasons.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Dormand, Mr. Hamish Gray, Mr. Patrick Jenkin and Mr. John Smith; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Mellish.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

ROAD VEHICLES (LIGHTING REGULATIONS)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty' praying that the Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) (No. 2) Regualtions 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1736), dated 24th October 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be annulled.—[Mr. Snape.]
9.59 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Fox: I speak to Early-Day Motion No. 721 which is more explicit than the Prayer which we are also debating. I realise that the vote to annul this statutory instrument will be on that Prayer.
It is encouraging to know that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is supporting me. I hope that this is not the last occasion, when considering transport matters, that we shall be in agreement. We find the Minister's behaviour in all this matter precipitate, to put it mildly, or perhaps, as some of my hon. Friends might suggest, slightly arrogant. Whether one supports driving with headlamps or not, we all agree that the time allowed for consultation has been ludicrous and totally inadequate. We must remember that the decision will affect every driver in the land.
Often we feel that we are, in a sense, ridden over roughshod, but it is incredible that, on an issue such as this, this kind of charge should have been made. Not only Members of Parliament but certain experts in this sphere complain about lack of consultation. I am aware that the Minister will point out that about 150 bodies have been consulted in five weeks, but even those who say they are in support of what he is doing complain that the time given for consultation was far too short. We came back after the Summer Recess to discover that these Regulations would have been law by 31st October, but at least there is a breathing space until 17th November.
I must be careful in this debate, as a number of my hon. Friends may not altogether support me on everything that I say—that is not unusual in matters relating to road safety—to put the case for both the pedestrian and the motorist. It is too easy to be passionately pro or
540
anti if one takes a point of view dominated by one of these two groups. But we must at all times seek the best balance in matters of this kind.
With that in mind, I trust that right hon. and hon. Members have seen the statistics for road casualties issued by the Department of the Environment within the last few days. They show a total 77,600 casualties. Of these, 17,000 were pedestrians and more than three times that number were people injured in vehicles. It would be ridiculous to take any action which would make the motorists' situation worse than it is now. I do not want to talk in terms of one set of accident figures, but of the total, and to seek a reduction in that number.
I turn to the matter of consultation. Did the Minister consult Professor Robert Weale of the Department of Visual Science at the London Institute of Ophthomology? Professor Weale said:
"Dipped headlamps will be an added irritant, especially for the elderly, to pedestrians and drivers alike. The Minister's reasons make sense from no point of view at all."
The Association of Optical Practitioners, which is opposed to this measure, said:
"Pedestrians, particularly the elderly and infirm, would find glaring headlamps very confusing when trying to cross the road."
Concerning drivers, the Association states:
"If eyes are continually subjected to glaring headlamps, the time taken for them to readjust to the dark will be significantly increased. The result will be a slowing down of motorists' reactions to the point where they may possibly only see obstacles when it is too late to avoid an accident. The effect of this will be even greater among elderly drivers."
That could well include the Government Chief Whip.
Not all the police are in favour of this proposal. The Secretary of the Police Superintendents Association complains that the Association has not been consulted. He further expresses reservations about the plan, complaining that it will damage police-public relations regarding enforcement. The police have informed the Richmond on Thames council that they have not the manpower to enforce certain traffic regulations already in force. Therefore, it is incredible that we should seek to introduce further legislation. If hon. Members are not concerned about

541
police reaction to these proposals, I am surprised, to say the least.
The Minister will no doubt make the point that some of the police are with him. We shall wait and see. We wait with bated breath to hear what he may say about the new information which has made him seek to legislate in this area. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the present Secretary of State for Social Services, who is never hesitant to legislate, refused to legislate on this matter when she was Minister of Transport. No doubt we shall hear what additional factors have come to light.
I should like to mention two points made by the Minister in the publicity hand-out of 23rd September as his reasons for taking action. The first is parking without lights on well-lit roads. The hon. Gentleman talks about an appreciable rise in accidents and makes the point that headlights would pick up the reflectors on parked vehicles. I will resist the temptation to inquire what happens about cars facing oncoming traffic. Might not the answer be to look again at the whole practice of parking without lights? If the accident figure is as high as some imagine, perhaps that is a course of action we should take rather than seeking to legislate in this way.
It is interesting to note that the proportion of accidents to which parked vehicles contributed was 8 per cent. in daylight and 5 per cent. at night. These figures are taken from statistics supplied by the Department. I am bound to admit that they related to 1973. We are now told that there is an increase of 75 per cent. Such an increase on minimal figures of this kind is hardly the sort of evidence with which to justify the action the Minister proposes. There is also the problem of vehicles travelling with only one sidelight. Out of 2,000 carefully investigated accidents only four could be attributed to this condition. I suggest that the Minister consults Professor Smeed of University College London on this point. He has had about 20 years' experience as Deputy Director of the Road Research Laboratory.
No doubt the Minister will call in aid the Birmingham experiment. I have looked carefully at the results of that experiment as analysed by the Read Research Laboratory and find that the data are confusing, to put it mildly. Certainly
542
a beneficial effect on the number of pedestrian casualties was noticed. There was a small adverse effect on the more numerous non-pedestrian casualties. Overall a negligible effect on total casualties was noted. The police said:
"It would be wrong to make any comparisons with accident figures now because of the big increase in traffic and the extensive redevelopment that has taken place in Birmingham."
I move on quickly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I appreciate that this is not pleasant music for the Government. If they had looked carefully at this proposal they would never have introduced it. It is not unreasonable to suggest that street lighting has a part in this debate. A dangerous by-product can be observed in these Government proposals. My experience in local government is that street lighting is intended to get rid of the shadows at night. Now we are told that the use of dipped headlamps will help in this respect.
The Association of Street Lighting Engineers says that quite the opposite is true. Experience shows what happens if street lights are switched off, as may be the case if this legislation goes through. The Minister shakes his head, but my information is that a number of authorities have already contacted his Department with a view to doing this. Street lighting was switched off under the Conservative Government prior to the February election during the state of emergency. The increase in accidents was about 260 at a cost of £6 million. The saving in electrical energy was approximately £100,000. This is important because it is in the built-up areas that most accidents occur.
No one seeks to disadvantage the motorist. We can make a case for improving lighting in many areas, but we cannot escape the fact that massive improvements have been made. I am concerned about the effect of dazzle and glare. We already experience this from time to time from inconsiderate motorists. We have heard the view of opticians.
There is another problem to do with the fact that a large number of cars have improperly aligned headlights. It is not encouraging when we hear from the Consumers Association that a recent survey showed that out of 66 new cars, only 22 had headlamps which had beams which could be dipped to meet the necessary

543
standards. The AA conducted an experiment on cars emerging from vehicle testing stations that showed the tests on headlamps to have been widely inaccurate. Should not the Minister attend to that deficiency before seeking to introduce this kind of legislation?
I suggest that the Minister should consider lighting standards on new and used cars. He could do so quite easily through his own Department and MOT tests. Misaligned headlamps could cancel out any benefits that might be gained by these proposals. One solution is a course of action which would meet with universal approval—namely, to improve the present vehicle lighting system so as to give a less intensive beam than dipped headlights for use in well-lit streets but a more effective beam than sidelights. It is disappointing that we have to turn to a foreign car to find a manufacturer who has already acted in that direction. Is it beyond the bounds of the ingenuity of British industry to proceed in that direction? It should have been done a long time ago.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope the hon. Gentleman has not forgotten that the British Leyland Mini has a sidelight arrangement in advance of many other cars. The sidelights of the Mini are contained within the headlamp unit, thus providing a large area of light which may be seen by pedestrians relatively easily. That serves some of the purpose that the Minister is trying to serve by taking this misguided step.
Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The old type of sidelight could be improved considerably. I have given one example and the hon. Gentleman has mentioned another. It might be said "It is all very well for new cars, but what about those already on the road?" Amongst the many letters that I have received—overwhelmingly they have been against this legislation—there is one from a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) who is an associate member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. For some 10 years he has marketed an adaptor at a cost of about £5. That is the sort of matter we should be considering.
It is no wonder, on the evidence, that the Minister has given the impression that
544
he is inflexible. It seems that he is pushing through a pet theory on the basis of his experience in the United States, where there is widespread use of headlamps against a background of just about the poorest system of road lighting in the world. If this is not a pet theory, the Minister must tell us who has advised him to take this course. There are some who complain that he has paid too little attention to his experts. At worst it is suggested that he has acted in disregard of their advice.
I am the first to admit that many measures that improve road safety are controversial because they compel road users to act contrary to their desires. These proposals are controversial for another reason—namely, that many of the people who have studied these matters feel it desirable that headlamps should be used on poorly lit roads but that they should not be used in all circumstances as their use is likely to increase accidents rather than diminish them. It cannot be denied that such doubts exist. They must be removed by clear evidence before legislation is introduced.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be open government, and participation and consultation that is seen to take place on matters of road safety. Further, there should be the fullest possible discussion inside and outside Parliament. I hope that the Minister, on reflection, will agree that these Regulations be annulled. We all accept that more needs to be done to persuade drivers to comply with the provisions contained in the highway code and to use headlamps unless the street lighting is exceptionally good. Tonight we must show the red light to this proposal without denying that one day we might well change to amber or green.
10.15 p.m.
The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): The Regulations which are the subject of the Prayer we are debating tonight have as their genesis one worrying area of traffic casualties—namely, the increase in the number of accidents involving parked vehicles. This type of accident outside London between 1970 and 1974 increased by no less than 75 per cent.
Hon. Members will recall that in 1972 one of my predecessors in office, the then

545
Minister for Transport Industries, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), made Regulations permitting the parking of certain vehicles without parking lights in built-up areas. That proposal was supported by both sides of the House and those Regulations were in draft form before the right hon. Gentleman assumed office.
However, it is hard to argue that there was not a direct link between the right hon. Gentleman's actions and the subsequent rise in the number of accidents of this type. I wish to make clear that I think the right hon. Gentleman's decision, which was neither debated nor voted upon in the House, was correct. I think the right hon. Gentleman took the only possible decision. The previous law had become quite unenforceable. One of the principal purposes of the Regulations, though far from the sole purpose, is to require drivers when using headlights at night to ensure that the beams pick out reflective material on parked vehicles and so stem, and possibly reverse, the serious trend in this type of accident.
It has been suggested by some members of the public that we should revert to the pre-1972 situation and require all vehicles to have parking lights. The reason that led the right hon. Gentleman to his decision in 1972, on strong police advice, is precisely the reason that compelled me to the conclusion that the re introduction of parking lights was not the solution to the problem. Such Regulations would be just as unenforceable in 1975 as they were in 1972.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: The Minister says that Regulations in respect of parking lights would be unenforceable. If he made the penalties high enough, does he not believe that we could enforce this law?
Dr. Gilbert: The answer is—no. I do not.
These Regulations were abandoned in London as long ago as 1955 for the same reason—namely, unenforceability. The reason some people have suggested that we should go back to parking lights is that there has been understandable concern about the increase in dazzle arising from widespread use of headlights. I recognise the strength of this concern, as appears from correspondence I have
546
received, and I am sure that other hon. Members have also had a heavy postbag on this matter. It is part of the MOT test that cars should be tested for dazzle, and I know that there is a feeling that this test should be tightened.
There are three methods by which this part of the MOT test can be carried out. The first is by visual observation; secondly, by placing the vehicle a certain distance from a wall and measuring the distance of the centre of the beam from the ground; thirdly, by the use of a special beam-setting device. These devices cost from £200 to £300. Any of these methods has been acceptable up to the present time, although the beam-setting device is by far the most efficient. All new MOT testing stations are now required to have a beam-setting device. All existing stations will have to acquire them as part of the overall upgrading of MOT testing requirements. I am looking into ways of accelerating this part of the upgrading programme. I do not pretend that this will solve the problem of dazzle completely overnight. The problem will be with us until all vehicles are fitted with automatic self-adjusting mechanisms to deal with differences in loading. Clearly, that will be a long way in the future.
The question I had to decide was whether the known risks of increased dazzle were outweighed by the introduction of increased visibility of parked and empty vehicles. In coming to a decision, I was assisted by the results of a statutory research exercise carried out by my Department. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) asked me a question about that exercise. I am sure that he is aware that it has never been the practice to disclose the results of individual inquiries or to give a list of those consulted, because confidentiality is part of the exercise. Bodies are free, if they wish, to disclose the replies they have given.
The results of that consultation show that 70 per cent. of those who responded positively take the view that the Regulations should be made. That figure of 70 per cent. includes organisations representing every type of road user. Needless to say, the normal procedures have been observed. Although consultation is in no way a referendum, I was bound to be influenced by that powerful expression of opinion.

547
However, there is one myth that has gained some currency, and the hon. Gentleman afforded it further publicity tonight. It is that the Regulations were brought forward without the support of, or even contrary to, the advice of my technical advisers. In that connection, I cannot do better than to quote a statement that has been agreed with the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, which is as follows:
"The TRRL tell me that their main concern is that something should be done about the highly unsatisfactory state of affairs at present obtaining in lit areas where a mix of both headlights and parking lights is permitted for moving vehicles and where the accident hazards have increased since unlit parking was allowed. This does not mean, however, that the TRRL would favour the use solely of parking lights in lit areas. Far from it. Like the majority of the scientific community both here and abroad, the TRRL favour the mandatory use of dipped headlights in less well lit streets, but would prefer a beam of lower intensity—but still brighter than a parking light—called a town light to be used in the very well-lit streets. I am entirely in agreement with this approach and am working towards such a development, although we have to recognise that it will take some time before such a system can be comprehensively introduced in the United Kingdom. In the meantime, the TRRL would support the adoption of mandatory dipped headlights everywhere as the Government's first step towards this ultimate goal."
I emphasise the last sentence.
When we talk of accidents and accident statistics, we are not just talking of dented mudguards and fenders or broken headlights. Every accident statistic involves one of our constituents having been killed, maimed, scarred or possibly blinded. It is a very serious matter.
Proposals for changing traffic law are not made lightly. They are not brought forward without full consultation, and the weight of the evidence must be taken fairly into account before any Minister would dream of making such proposals.
However, having said that, and having made it quite clear that the full consultation procedures were gone through in this case, I recognise that the House would prefer further discussion of the matter. Therefore, I recommend to my hon. Friends that they do not divide on the Question. I shall have further discussions with all interested Members, and I hope after those consultations to bring
548
the Regulations back before the House early in the next Session.
10.23 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: It might satisfy the Minister, having eaten humble pie, that the rest of the House should not say anything. The Patronage Secretary seems rather upset that I rise to speak, as he frequently is on such occasions.
I rise because there are three things that need to be said clearly. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), who moved the motion, was right to say that the Minister should state his reasoning—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now discussing the motion moved by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).
Mr. Finsberg: I was making a passing reference to the speech of my hon. Friend, who helped the House considerably. I hope that there will be many more speeches of that kind. [Interruption.] In putting my views, I am having some difficulty in competing with the odd voices coming from below the Bar.
The first thing that needs to be said is that the statement agreed with the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, which the Minister quoted, will not satisfy many people, because it was full of qualifications: "I am working upon something…. It may take some time…." That is not good enough.
Secondly, the Minister said that he had consulted all sections of road users. Did the Minister consult the taxi drivers on this issue? They are amongst some of the busiest users of the London streets. It is right to give a brief quotation from a letter which I received from the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, which says:
"This Association is responsible for insuring some 3,000 London taxi-cabs for its members. Obviously we have considerable information in respect of the accidents that these vehicles become involved in and there is no evidence to suggest that such a piece of legislation as this would reduce the accident rate, in fact we believe that it would have the opposite effect."
—[Interruption.]
I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can hear me. I have difficulty in hearing myself.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The disturbance may be due to the fact that some hon. Members may believe that there is no need to debate the matter further. That is a matter for the hon. Member.
Mr. Finsberg: This may well be one of the reasons. However it is right when back benchers have representations made to them—when those representations will not have been taken into account by the Minister—that those representations should be made known to the House.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should like your clarification on this point. Although the Minister has acceded to the facts and has said that the Regulations will not be pressed tonight, he indicated his intention to take the matter away, to look at it carefully, and to bring it back to the House. Would it not be right therefore to use this occasion to put forward representations for his further consideration before he comes back to the House? Otherwise there will be no opportunity for the House to make representations in the further consultations which the Minister will hold.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that there are other methods of making representations which may be more successful than a short debate in the House. I am sure that the Minister will willingly receive the hon. Member so that he can put his representations in greater detail than he may be able to do this evening.
Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was discouraged to hear your ruling.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me make it abundantly clear that this debate can go on until 11.30 p.m. The Minister agreed to take the matter back, to receive further representations, to take another look, and to do everything possible to satisfy hon. Members. However, if hon. Members wish to participate in the debate they may do so. I shall not rule them out of order.
Mr. Crouch: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), there is a reason why the House should debate the subject,
550
notwithstanding the fact that the Patronage Secretary is sitting on the edge of the bench, giving the impression that he wishes to intervene and to cut short the debate once more. I am concerned that we have had only half an hour for the consideration of the thoughts of the Minister and representations from the Opposition. I am not sure how much time we may be given by the Government on a future occasion. Will the next debate last for one and a half hours or for six hours? A debate lasting one and a half hours would not be long enough. If the next debate is to last only one and a half hours I shall continue to make representations that we need more than one and a half hours in which to pray. I demand that we debate this subject fully and listen to the learned, skilled and technical evidence that may be forthcoming in the next few weeks.
It is no good the Patronage Secretary looking at me in an angry way. I shall not be put off by him. I shall be put off only by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It appears as though all the available time will be taken up with points of order. I have no objection to that. Earlier this afternoon the House agreed to the following motion:
"That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4, the Motion in the name of Mr. Peter Snape may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and at that hour or at the end of that period Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of those proceedings."
I am concerned only that the debate should finish at 11.30 p.m. If hon. Members wish to continue the debate, it is entirely a matter for them.
Mr. Finsberg: I do not intend to be long, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I intend to put this point. The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association—the largest organisation of taxi drivers in the Metropolis—points out that there is no evidence to suggest that this legislation would reduce the accident rate and that it would have the opposite effect—
"as the continuous contrast of bright light forward and to one's right would put the driver at risk of having an accident with pedestrians or unlit parked vehicles on his near side."

551
The Minister does not seem to be interested. The Patronage Secretary having left, the Deputy Patronage Secretary is distracting him. That is a discourtesy to the House. The LTDA further states:
"The situation would become even worse in wet weather when the road ahead of the driver would be completely distorted by oncoming headlights and their reflections on the road, together with the raindrops from the windscreen."
The Minister said that 70 per cent. of the views expressed to him were in favour of his decision to lay the Regulations. He is not prepared to tell us which organisations were consulted. Just to give us percentages is no help. He does not tell us that the AA is in favour and the RAC against. It is necessary to weigh up the relative importance of the organisations.
I asked the Minister whether he had consulted the licensed taxi trade, but he has not answered my question. I assume, therefore, that he has not consulted the LTDA. His Department received a letter from that organisation, but we do not know whether it has been taken into account.
Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman has no basis for making an assumption one way or the other.
Mr. Finsberg: In that case, I assume that the Minister has not consulted the London taxi drivers.
Back benchers on both sides of the House have come along to debate the Regulations only to be told that the Minister is withdrawing them. It is wrong for him to expect hon. Members not to put forward their views. The Minister and the Patronage Secretary should not expect to get away with that.
The Minister apparently does not carry much weight in the Cabinet, as he was unable to get an Adjournment debate on seat belts. He was unable to get us a day to debate the draft highway code, but he managed to get time to slip through this nasty little piece of legislation.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Will my hon. Friend go outside and count the number of cars going past the Palace of Westminster with their headlights on, and will he tell the House whether the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association has complained about this alleged danger?
Mr. Finsberg: That is not the most helpful of interjections. My hon. Friend is usually much more helpful than that. Any sensible motorist will use his headlights when road conditions demand it. The TRRL does not recommend the use of headlights in brightly lit streets. It is wrong to enforce Regulations requiring bright headlights simply because there is nothing better. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) to consider that. We are all entitled to a view, but what he said in his intervention is wrong. I come back to the last comment I was going to make, which would have been five minutes ago if I had not given way. Accidents are caused through negligence and misjudgment or by drivers taking what they consider to be calculated risks, and not because every vehicle on the road is driving with sidelights. What the Minister has tried to put to us in the Regulations is that because some accidents are caused for the reasons he mentioned, other motorists should be obliged to have headlights at all times, when the road conditions might be made more dangerous by the reflection.
I am glad that the Minister has conceded on this matter. It will be interesting to see what comes back in due course. But at least he has seen that the House of Commons, on both sides, is able to make a Minister who tries to put legislation through without proper consultation think again.
10.36 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Berry: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) because he and I are London Members, and like others, when we leave this place tonight we shall drive through the streets of London, and therefore we all ought to have an opinion on whether we should have compulsory headlights.
We are grateful to the Minister for the view he has taken. I disagree with the way he introduced the Regulations, but he has now shown himself a big man in withdrawing them and agreeing to further consultation. The record of Labour Governments over the last 10 years on transport matters has not been good. Under both the last Labour Government and this one, transport appears to have been something to put aside and discuss late at night, if at all. Inevitably, transport

553
debates seem to take place after 10 o'clock, with a one and a half hour guillotine hanging over us.
I remember in 1968 taking part in a debate to increase the cost of taking driving tests. That was pushed through late at night after a statement to the Press before Parliament even knew about it. In 1969 we discussed the new highway code, when even the Patronage Secretary was not able to keep enough Government supporters present, and when the closure was put at 11.30 p.m., fewer than 50 Members were present and the debate was adjourned. Then, Mr. Richard Marsh, who was a distinguished Minister of Transport, agreed that, in future, whenever a new highway code was to be introduced it should be debated in Parliament before it was published as an official Government paper.
The present Government honoured that pledge, but only to a certain extent. We had the Green Paper on the highway code nearly 12 months ago, and despite the mass of legislation and the long hours of this Session, we still have not debated it. I hope that the Minister will secure time for that debate early in the new Session.
We have not completed our debate on the Bill to make seat belts compulsory. Whatever our views, we all agree that this is something that Parliament should decide and that the Bill should not have been left in limbo for 12 months.
I had hoped that the Minister, having come from the Treasury to his present post, would have been able, even in these days of financial restrictions, to find ways of increasing the money spent on transport, but perhaps I was a little optimistic and was asking too much.
This debate is very important, because this is a House of Commons matter. We all have our views on whether these lights should be compulsory at night, and our constituents feel very strongly about it, too. It is a question we should discuss before the Government make up their mind.
In the case of the highway code, the Government thought they could decide before Parliament gave its views. They were wrong and they accepted that. I hope that the Minister will pay full attention to our views in this short debate and will be ready to receive the comments
554
of our constituents and of the various organisations during the next month or two. I hope that he will then, with the leave of the House, allow a debate before a final decision is made.
There are suggestions that cars should have an extra light, for example, between the headlamp and the side lamp. I am sure that the Minister is considering this kind of suggestion in his Department with his experts. A statement that I received from the Greater London Council this morning refers to accidents to pedestrians in poorly-lit streets. There should be no poorly-lit streets. Either they should be lit or they should not be lit. Any street that is lit should be fully lit and should be adequately lit in all circumstances. We know from going round the country that not all streets are properly lit.
I hope that the Minister, who has the advantage of a big Department, with influence on local authorities all over the country, will bring pressure to bear to ensure that streets are lit adequately. We are all very seriously concerned with the safety of our constituents and I hope that he will bear that in mind.
10.43 p.m.
Mr. Peter Snape: I had not originally intended to intervene, after formally moving the Prayer to annul the Order. It is only because hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to wish to continue the debate that I have intervened.
My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport would agree that there is a deep feeling in the House about this issue. Consultation was lacking in two particularly vital areas—first, the Parliamentary Labour Party, of which he is a member, and, second, the House of Commons, of which he is a Member. Members on both sides were rather concerned about the fact that this fairly Draconian measure was being introduced without any consultation at all.
I hope that my hon. Friend and his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will remember that there are those of us in the House who continually face the task of defending legislation introduced in the House over which we are neither consulted nor have our views considered.

555
As for the attitude of the motoring organisation to this measure, while the Automobile Association has come out already in favour of it, the Royal Automobile Club has come out rather strongly against it. I quote from a letter which I understand the Assistant Secretary of the Road Safety (Vehicles) Division of my hon. Friend's Department received quite recently from the RAC:
"…the RAC is not satisfied that it would be desirable to introduce the proposed regulations. The time allowed for consideration of this matter is very short. In our view, it would be premature to make such a decision without a thorough investigation of all the implications of this measure which would be extremely controversial as revealed by comments received from many RAC members and views expressed in press reports."
The fact that our senior motoring organisation expresses some concern is indicative of the concern felt in the country generally at my hon. Friend's proposed measure.
The subject of vehicle lighting is not one which has only recently been discussed and only recently become a matter of controversy. As long ago as 1967, the Ministry of Transport formed a Lighting Working Party to look into this very issue. It was made up of representatives of some very distinguished organisations, ranging from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, through bodies such as the AA and the RAC, to the road haulage industry and the Transport and General Workers' Union. There were also seven representatives of the Ministry of Transport. Surprisingly enough, there was a great deal of unanimity amongst the members of that committee eight years ago that this proposal was neither essential nor desirable.
Referring briefly to the conclusions of the working party, I see that para. 21 recommends that
"The existing regulations regarding the dipping of headlights and the avoidance of dazzle be looked at as a matter of urgency to see whether they can be modified in such a way as to reduce glare."
As far as I am aware, no action has been taken since 1967.
The final conclusion of the report is probably the most important and most relevant to this matter. It says:
"Further research should be undertaken with a view to evolving a more satisfactory beam or lighting system which might in due course become obligatory for new vehicles."
556
Eight years after that recommendation, as far as I am aware, no such research has been undertaken, and the variety of motor vehicle lighting, even amongst British-made vehicles, is immense.
I accept my hon. Friend's view that parking lights, as he calls them, or sidelights, as they are more usually referred to, are not particularly safe on some vehicles and are extremely dangerous on many roads. But that again is a matter for legislation. It is matter for his Department. Why does not his Department lay down minimum required standards of lighting? Why does not it come up with the suggested prototype town lamp to which my hon. Friend referred? It has not done so.
In the original order, my hon. Friend is saying that all vehicles regardless of type must use dipped headlights regardless of road conditions, which, in my opinion, is inherently dangerous at certain times of the day and under certain road conditions. Only last week, I went to speak, as a loyal back bencher, to the Harrow Constituency Labour Party—
Mr. John Page: There was very little publicity.
Mr. Snape: When Harrow voters read about the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page), they say that they do not particularly like to read anything about politics in their local newspapers.
I drove along the A30 to Harrow during the tail-end of the rush period. All three lanes of the road were very busy, with the usual traffic to be found at that time. I estimate that about 80 per cent. of the cars on that road were driving on sidelights, perfectly safely.
Mr. Timothy Raison: The hon. Gentleman is an ardent supporter of the rail system. There are excellent rail services to Harrow. Why did he not go by train?
Mr. Snape: If that is the best that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) can do, he would be well advised to put up his feet and relax.
As I was saying, about 80 per cent. of cars on the A30 were being driven on sidelights in perfect safety. The road is well lit. If any vehicles had used headlights, in my view there would have been

557
not only a dazzle problem but an inherent safety risk.
If my hon. Friend's Regulations had been laid and had come into force before 17th November, everyone driving along the A30 on sidelights would have been breaking the law. I suppose that it could be argued that the police would use their discretion and natural common sense and that where traffic was very heavy they would not expect every moving vehicle to have its headlights on. But the view is expressed frequently by the police that they are there to enforce the law and not to interpret it. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that a bright young policeman would have felt quite free to fill his note book because of the number of vehicles using that road at that time with only their sidelights on.
Despite my hon. Friend's Regulations, I think that situation would continue because common sense alone would dictate that with heavy traffic, particularly in wet weather, it is not practicable, sensible or desirable to use headlights at all times.
On the question of enforcement, what such a proposal would do to police-public relations I shudder to think.
Mr. Wiggin: Oh, come on!
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman says "Come on!" If he catches the eye of the Chair, he may be able to enlighten us. Apart from the difficulty of enforcement in a large city, I do not see the slightest justification for such a proposal where road lighting is adequate.
The Minister will be aware that the M5 and M6 motorways run through my constituency skirting Birmingham, and that they are very well lit. In the West Midlands where the headlights campaign lingers on from the 1960s, 50 per cent. of the vehicles using those motorways, particularly in heavy traffic periods, have only their sidelights on because the motorway lighting is extremely modern and efficient. I find that on the very rare occasions on which I use my motor car on those motorways, in wet weather, when a vehicle approaches from the rear with dipped headlights, it is impossible, especially with the dazzle from the road, to judge exactly how fast that vehicle is travelling and how far it is behind me. It is particularly difficult because of the
558
optical effects of the heavy rain. Like most hon. Members, despite my railway connections and my preference for travelling by rail, I do not think that I could be classed as an inexperienced driver.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for seeing sense in this matter. I should not like to have an argument with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) about who is supporting whom this evening. I rest my case on the fact that had a Division been called it would have been my Prayer that the Opposition would have been supporting. I trust that this is the first and last time that I shall find the Opposition on my side on any issue.
10.53 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). I do not know whether he was about to join the Bishop of Southwark in some sort of prayer, but I congratulate him on tabling the motion, which has had its effect on the Government. I also congratulate the Minister, who has had the common sense and courage to say that he will look at this matter again.
The Minister referred to his research department at Crowthorne and spoke about the town beam—a light of intermediate intensity between that of sidelights and the normal dipped beam, which enables vehicles to be seen in well-lit streets without causing dazzle. I hope that he will study this system in more depth. I do not think the Minister referred to what is known as the dim-dip system, which employs a dip filament, with only 10 per cent. intensity of the normal dipped beam. It is a cheap system to install. I understand that it costs about £5 to fit on an existing vehicle and about £1 to install on a new vehicle. There are, unfortunately drawbacks, because both systems are manual.
I also understand that the Minister has consulted about 150 organisations. I should like to know whether he is satisfied that the 40 organisations which are said to be in favour of his proposal are all qualified to speak. Has he consulted the Illuminating Engineering Society and the Association of Public Lighting Engineers, which, I believe, have some views on this subject? I agree that the Minister has been in a dilemma.

559
The AA has been in favour of the proposal and the RAC has been against it. We read the other day that eminent policemen were worried about it. When the Minister has considered the proposal more deeply, I hope that we shall have another chance to debate this matter again.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Stanley Newens: I congratulate the Minister on his decision. It is extremely important to reduce accidents, so we must consider carefully his point about the increase in the number of accidents involving parked vehicles and those driven on sidelights only. Research shows an increase in this type of accident, but there is no information relating increased accidents to different qualities of street lighting.
In Britain, street lighting has codes which discriminate between Group A and Group B lighting, the former on main traffic routes and the latter on residential streets. It would be a mistake to compel the use of dipped headlights on main traffic routes if the problem arises primarily—as I believe—on residential roads. It is particularly important not to introduce regulations of this sort if dipped headlights diminish visibility on well-lit roads, as I believe they do.
Street lighting is emitted on to a road surface without the source of the light being beamed into a driver's eyes. However, even dipped headlights project the beam directly into a driver's eyes and thus cause him instinctively to adjust his eyes so that other unlit objects are not so visible. I invite those hon. Members who, like me, are drivers to test this for themselves. That is why it is possible to see the outline of an oncoming car lit only by sidelights whereas it is frequently obscured when the headlights are on.
Dipped headlights produce what we describe as "visibility glare", limiting the powers of vision in conditions in which street lighting is good. That means that a driver's ability to see a pedestrian or any other object before it is picked up by his own headlights is probably less when dipped headlights rather than sidelights are used in well-lit streets.
There have been three significant studies of this question in recent years—
560
by the British Road Research Laboratory, the Netherlands Institute for Road Safety Research and the Australian Road Research Board. All show that the detectability of objects near the centre line of the road, 100 ft–400 ft ahead, is reduced when dipped headlights are used on well-lit roads. This sort of information must be carefully considered before we permit such Regulations as this to be introduced.
What I have said detracts in no way from the need to use dipped headlights where road lighting is of a poor quality, but this should be left to the discretion of the driver. Drivers should be strongly encouraged to drive in a manner that will secure the maximum degree of safety, and that includes using the appropriate amount of lighting.
There are several other points which should be considered, although I suspect that other hon. Members will dismiss them as worthless. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with them. I am informed that the use of dipped headlights requires an increased consumption of petrol. It is only a marginal amount, but with dipped headlights needing the generation of 90 watts, petrol consumption is increased by between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. In the course of a year it is calculated that this would require an additional 2·5 million-5 million gallons of petrol. Hon. Members may think that this is inaccurate, but if it is we should be told so. That calculation was made by people who should know their job.
If there is to be an improvement in lighting it must be in the form of a dimmed and dipped town beam. That has already been commented on this evening. It would have been a mistake to make these Regulations tonight, and I am grateful to the Minister for taking note of the pressure and withdrawing them. I hope that before any further effort is made to introduce this change there will be opportunity for a debate, so that a decision may be made which takes account of all available information on the subject.
11.3 p.m.
Mr. Hall Miller: I very much regret the Prayer that we are debating this evening. I do not believe that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) helped his case very much by the remarks he

561
made. If he had been driving on dipped headlights he might have taken the correct road to Harrow. The A30 leads in the opposite direction. I think that the A40 was the road that he should have taken.
Mr. Snape: The road to Harrow is as obscure as the Member of Parliament for the district in which I was due to speak.
Mr. Miller: I understood the hon. Member to be saying that no Regulations of any kind were enforceable, and that motorists therefore should not be required to drive on any form of lighting. The working party report that he seemed to be referring to appeared to be dated considerably earlier even than the Regulations abolishing the need for lights on parked cars. It is therefore not entirely relevant.
A further matter for regret is that the Minister has had to bow to pressure and withdraw the Regulations. Some of my hon. Friends were considering forcing a vote. The danger was that the Minister might be forced to vote against his own proposal—the unhappy state of affairs that beset his predecessor over the compulsory wearing of seat belts. The Government had supported a similar measure in the other place, and several Opposition Members supported the Bill here in the Division Lobby.
The important question that we are discussing tonight is how to improve road safety and get the necessary legislation through the House. The present state of affairs does the House no credit. Indeed, it is doing nothing to advance road safety. I hope that the Lord President, in conjunction with the Minister, will bend his mind to considering how the Government should get the necessary road legislation through the House with the required measure of support.
I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), to the effect that we should have a debate on the new draft of the Highway Code; and then introduce a comprehensive measure to include seat belts and driving with dipped headlights. A great point has been made about the dazzle of these lights. Other countries, notably France, seem to have solved the problem. I hope that the Minister, as part of his comprehensive legislation for road safety, which is so badly needed,
562
will consider amendments to the Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations regarding the fitting of headlights which would eliminate dazzle.
The police have been called into question. I am pleased to say that my own chief constable is unreservedly in favour of driving with dipped headlights, and that all members of his force do so. Therefore, there is no reason to fear lack of police support in this matter.
I hope that I have the Lord President's attention and that the Government will give serious consideration to introducing the necessary package of measures in the next Session. I hope that the necessary consent will be forthcoming from both sides of the House on this important matter.
11.7 p.m.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I did not intend to participate in this debate, as the Minister had adopted the sensible course of accepting the Prayer, so that debate became somewhat superfluous. However, I shall make a speech in greater detail when, I hope this matter is raised under the Affirmative Resolution procedure. Clearly, a matter of such importance, which affects many millions of people, would be better discussed under that procedure rather than under the annulment procedure.
In future it may be prudent for consultative documents which are circulated to outside bodies—I know that the Minister has engaged in long and diligent consultations—to be available to hon. Members at the Vote Office. Although long and detailed discussions take place, it often happens that Members of Parliament read about the nature only of those documents which are circulated in the Press. As the Labour Party believes firmly in open government, I expect it to seize the opportunity and to provide its Members of Parliament with more information. Many Opposition Members will not bother to take advantage of the information, but I believe that it should be available.
I look forward to consultations, certainly within the Parliamentary Labour Party. Our aim is to improve the safety of motor vehicles. However, it does not necessarily follow that the compulsory use of dipped headlights in well lit areas would increase safety standards.

563
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who signed the Prayer with me, mentioned a Ministry of Transport document, "The Use of Headlamps. A Working Party on the Lighting of Motor Vehicles", which the then Minister of Tranport instituted in 1967. I shall not quote from it extensively, because I am looking forward to a further debate in the House on this matter. However, I should like to quote from one of the conclusions about the objections to the use of dipped beams in well-lighted streets.
The House should bear in mind that this report represents the most comprehensive study of the problem by a representative body. It states:
"Apart from the general objection to the use of dipped headlamps mentioned in the previous paragraph, there is the more sophisticated objection to their use in well lighted streets. This objection is that the use of headlamps in well lighted streets would impair the value of the street lighting. This is because modern street lighting is based upon lighting the carriageway and the background so that vertical objects (e.g. pedestrians) on the road ahead show up in black silhouette against the lighted road surface. A vehicle's headlamp by lighting the object reduces this contrast. This cogent objection can be demonstrated on a stationery object and is confirmed by the experience of police on traffic duty who feel they are in greater danger because motorists will not see them. "
Whatever the view of the police—presumably they have been consulted—certainly at that stage it was very different from an uncritical acceptance of dipped headlamps.
These Regulations involve criminal sanctions. The laying of an Order on 27th October and its being brought into operation on 17th November allows only a short time in which to make the public aware that the law is an obligatory force upon them, and that breach of it will involve them in criminal penalties and sanctions. I suggest that before the Minister reconsiders the introduction of statutory enforcement he should introduce a campaign for motorists to use some element of discretion—which is not a bad thing—in the use of dipped headlamps and ensure that the measures for the accurate measurement of headlamp beams—measures which he said are only partial—are brought into much wider use. The apparatus to which he referred tonight is used for vehicles when loaded. Neither
564
the Regulations nor the Minister's statement tonight referred to the fact that the headlamp beam is considerably altered when the vehicle is loaded at the rear. Neither the Regulations nor any of the apparatus referred to by my hon. Friend, although it can measure deflections of this kind, involves a statutory requirement. Perhaps this point could be considered in conjunction with any future Statutory Instruments that the Minister intends to lay before us.
I look forward to the debate when I can enlarge in greater detail on this matter. Meanwhile, I hope that the Minister will accept the many representations from both sides of the House on this matter. I welcome my hon. Friend's acceptance of the Prayer. He has shown a sensible and reasonable attitude to the legitimate representations of the Members of the Labour Party, who together put down the Prayer and made representations to him. Acceptance of it in a true democratic spirit reflects great credit on the Minister.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have already indicated, I shall put the Question at 11.30 p.m. The hon. Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) and Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) wish to take part in the debate. I think that between them 15 minutes will be sufficient.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. John Page: I shall be very quick, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am extremely grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to reply to the disgraceful smear placed against my name by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) who said that my views were obscure. I pride myself on the fact that my views are always crystal clear. It is usually because of that fact that complaints are made against me.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East paid a visit to Harrow recently, and I am sure that his political education was improved while he was there. We in Harrow have taken a great interest in the education of Parliamentarians. There have been Peel, Palmerston, Winston Churchill, Pandit Nehru—and myself. This debate is an educative moment for the Minister for Transport. If he had

565
come here in a previous incarnation and asked us to increase the Government's borrowing powers by £2,000 million, it would probably have gone through on the nod, or with a poisoned dart from my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Once the Minister starts mucking about with the headlights he will realise that the willing horses have changed into the turning worms in the grass roots.
Before the debate closes, I would like to know the answer to the important question asked by my hon Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), about how long we shall have for a debate. We ought to have a day, or at least half a day.
Will the Minister tell us what manufacturing possibilities there are for "dipped-in" systems? I used to have one, but forgot to take it off my car when I sold it. The system was excellent. I now have the ordinary system again.
Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the question of increased petrol consumption and reduced battery life in Sweden, where, day and night, the Swedes drive around with full headlights on, like Zombies?
The hon. Gentleman is introducing a new protocol, to the effect that he must not tell the House the names of those with whom he has had consultations. I agree that the Minister should not give the views of those he consults if he has not obtained their permission, but if permission has been given there is no reason why he should not disclose the names of those with whom he speaks. I hope that in the later debate the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what those people think.
I am glad that you have given me the opportunity to defend my honour tonight. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
11.18 p.m.
Mr. Peter Fry: I should first declare a tenuous interest. Since that interest was in favour of approving the Regulations tonight and I was opposed to them, I do not think that my judgment will be affected in any way.
We have had a useful debate. Despite the behaviour of the Patronage Secretary at the beginning, there was strong feeling
566
that it was the stifling of comment and debate which caused much of the opposition to these Regulations.
We welcome the Minister's statement. I shall take one or two moments to make plain the official view of the Opposition. We were not totally committed to oppose the Regulations on any grounds. We are ready to consider the situation again, when longer and deeper thought has been given to them.
I want to be assured that the likely results of any further Regulations will be effectively assessed. This will mean that a certain amount of research will have to take place before and after Regulations come into force. Without such research and assessment many of the questions which hon. Members and outside organisations will ask cannot be answered. I also ask that outside organisations which are concerned with this subject should be given the opportunity to put their views. Here I refer specifically to the National Association of Driving Instructors.
We have had a useful debate. Two points made by the Minister deserve comment. He spoke of the increase in the number of accidents involving parked vehicles, particularly after dark. The road accident statistics provided by the Department of the Environment for 1973 show that only 5 per cent. of all accidents at night were partly the result of parked vehicles. Even with a 75 per cent. increase the figure is only about 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. However, in 1973, 8 per cent. of all daytime accidents were caused by parked vehicles. Therefore, too much can be made of such statistics.
The other point relates to dazzle. No one, so far, has mentioned that it is possible to be dazzled by a vehicle travelling behind one. Far too few cars are properly equipped with an interior rear mirror that can be adjusted to deal with this dazzle. A strong campaign should have been mounted—perhaps even Regulations introduced—to require the fitting of such mirrors in all new vehicles.
It would be wrong if we did not make it plain to the Minister that he has aroused opposition mainly because there was a strong feeling, shared by many members of the public as well as hon. Members, that this issue had been rushed. As my hon. Friend the Member for

567
Shipley (Mr. Fox) has said, these Regulations will affect millions of people. Yet without the motion and the Prayer, and despite widespread concern, the Regulations would have become law without an opportunity for adequate public or parliamentary debate. Those hon. Members who tabled the motion and the Prayer, and those who added their names to them, have done the country a constitutional service.
One of the reasons for this reaction to the Regulations is that we read in newspapers comments to the effect that dipped headlights would be compulsory on 17th November. It is such comments that make many of us feel that this is not the way to treat this House or to introduce legislation. Many of us feel that far too much legislation slips through with too little discussion and investigation. We ought to consider why the Minister has put himself in what can only be described as an invidious position. Why, one wonders, with all the enormous problems facing transport, has he chosen to bring forward these Regulations? This is a rather puny matter in comparison with the great difficulties that his Department is facing.
Is it not the case that in many parts of the country, especially in the rural areas, bus services are being slashed? Is it not true that there is a danger of conflict between the unions and management in British Rail over plans for service cuts and possible redundancies? Is not the whole future of public transport in the balance, to a certain extent?
With all these problems, the Minister has chosen to bring these Regulations before us. This is surprising, because we have had a number of Press conferences and ministerial briefings threatening all kinds of action. Yet these Regulations are the first fruit. Undoubtedly, the Minister wishes to save life. It has been reported—whether it is apocryphal I do not know—that he had a narrow escape from a vehicle displaying only sidelights. If that has sharpened his interest in the matter, we can understand it. All politicians must possess a strong sense of self-preservation. We appreciate that his desire to decrease accidents is genuine, and we give him full credit for that.
We have some doubts, however. We wonder whether the flurry of publicity is
568
a cover for something else—for example, a realisation that there will be little money left to solve our future transport problems. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was wondering what his future record as Minister for Transport will look like. Over the next few months it is obvious that he will not always please Opposition Members. Judging from Question Time today, he will not please some of his hon. Friends, either. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman saw himself as an energetic Minister, coming new to his job and anxious to get something on the statute book. We have no quarrel with the hon. Gentleman showing energy, but we are worried whether that energy is misapplied. We feel that there may be an element of wanting to get something done. We wonder whether his eagerness to do something has created the situation in which we find ourselves in difficulty.
We welcome the hon. Gentleman's decision, because it has been shown already that there are many points which make it clear that some degree of caution and delay is wise. It has already been mentioned that there is a likelihood that increased loss of life will ensue from introducing the Regulations, even if some accidents are avoided. There is also the need to see that road users' equipment is up to standard to ensure that the Regulations succeed. There is a need to evaluate more fully all the technical problems, as well as the possibility of a change to a new form of lighting. There is a need to allow the fullest consultation, and to allay the fears that have been aroused by the Minister's rather precipitate action. Above all, there is a need to show a proper deference to the House. That is why, to quote one of the Minister's own staff, he was "shattered"—that was the word used in the daily papers—by the opposition that ensued from his proposal.
The matters that I have mentioned are only some of the many reasons for the Minister's being right to delay the implementation of this measure. I make it clear that we are not against some form of legislation at some stage. Our position is that we do not feel that the necesssary safeguards and the full implications have been fully appreciated. We shall not be dogmatic. We are glad that the Minister has thought again. We take his point about human life. We want to be convinced that more lives will be saved and

569
more injuries prevented by bringing these Regulations into force. Until we have that assurance it would be wrong to agree to the Regulations. It would have been wrong not to have opposed them tonight.
We thank the Minister for what he has had to say, and we look forward to being given a longer period in which to discuss the Regulations when he brings them before the House again in the new Session.
11.28 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: What I want to say has nothing to do with headlights. In the two minutes that remain I want to talk about the House of Commons and its Members. It has been said by Members from both sides of the House that we have not been sufficiently consulted, and that our constituents have not had the opportunity to make their representations to us. We have not had sufficient time to consider the problem. We welcome the fact that the Minister and the Government have had second thoughts and have decided to give us more time.
Notwithstanding all the good will that has been showered upon the hon. Gentleman tonight, will he please remember that when he lays the Regulations again it is not the Regulations we want to hear about, but a debate. We want to hear the detailed arguments. We have had but a glimpse of the arguments tonight, and we want to know more. It is only right that the feelings of our constituents should be represented.
The Regulations represent a matter of life and death for hundreds of people during one year. This is a vital matter. It has been a valuable hour and a half, but I hope that the Minister will not go away complacently. In fact, I am sure he will not do so. However, I hope that he will remember that we want full time to discuss this important measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1736), dated 24th October 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be annulled.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments),
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
  LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND)
  That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

  LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND)
  That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
  Question agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Miss Margaret Jackson.]

WILLIAM TYNDALE JUNIOR SCHOOL, ISLINGTON
11.30 p.m.
Mr. George Cunningham: The subject I am raising tonight relates to the William Tyndale Junion School, Islington. In the form in which this matter appears on the Order Paper, I am asking the Secretary of State to order a special inspection of the school, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science understands that I have taken this course to bring the matter within the rules of order because I want to raise the important general subject and not merely the proposal that there should be a special inspection.
I fully understand that my hon. Friend must feel somewhat circumscribed in what

571
she will be able to say in reply to the debate, because the matter is now in the hands of the Inner London Education Authority and an inquiry is taking place. I hope that some of the general issues to which I draw attention will be noted by the Secretary of State and by the Department, and that some quiet work on these matters can be done while the inquiry is proceeding.
The basic facts of the case are these: the school's roll has been falling fast for some time because parents have been choosing to send their children to other schools; for some time, managers and parents have been disturbed about the standards of teaching at the school; one manager who sought to investigate was denied access to the classes by the headmaster; the head and some teachers claimed that the content and manner of teaching was entirely a matter for them, and was no concern of the managers; eventually the ILEA decided to hold an inquiry.
This affair, which The Guardian's education correspondent has said might become the cause célèbre of educational administration, throws up a number of wide issues which have been disturbing people for some time. There is the question of the rôle of managers and governers of maintained schools. I know that that is the subject of the Taylor Committee, which I hope will regard the William Tyndale School affair as something of a case study.
We must also consider the conflict between traditional and less-structured methods of teaching, but I hasten to add that I do not regard it as accurate to think that that aspect is the substance of the disagreement between teachers in this school and others who criticise them. There is the question of the decline in the frequency and authority of school inspections; there is the means by which disputes of this kind should be resolved; and, finally, there is the part of the Department in the affair.
We have never clearly addressed ourselves in modern times to the question of who should decide matters of curricula and teaching methods in our schools. We pour scorn on stories that in Paris the French know, each day, the exact page over which pupils throughout
572
France are poring, but it can be argued that we go to the opposite extreme of having no curriculum control or influence by the Department of Education. The Department excludes itself from consideration of that subject, and it is generally taken as the accepted wisdom of Parliament that the Department of Education and Science should keep out of these matters. But local education authorities also tend not to interfere in curriculum matters. The result is that, traditionally, that area has been left to the head teacher—but to a great extent it is left not to the head teacher but to individual teachers. It is arguable that many children move from one class to another and from one teacher to another, and are expected to conform to different methods. It is arguable that it is necessary for the Department to take a much more positive rôle in those matters.
I do not think that there is any God-given truth as regards these matters of judgment, but, just as we drive on the left of the road simply because we must drive on one side or the other, and all do the same thing, there is a case for some elements of curricula and teaching method to be accepted as standard. We should not inflict on our children the confusion that results from frequent changes in educational fashion.
One of the most fundamental responsibilities of the Department is to introduce proposals on who should run our schools, not in the easy area of financial control but in the difficult area of teaching method and content. It should put behind it the old bogy that if it interferes in this matter we shall have a sort of Hitler Youth system in Britain. We do not suffer from too much central control in education. I argue that we suffer a great deal from having too little.
Coming to the Tyndale affair, it would be trite to say that the school exists for the benefit of the children and not for the benefit of the Inner London Education Authority or the teachers, but I want to stress the extent to which the interests of the children are being buried under a mountain of formal procedure, which is growing daily, in this case.
This is what the pupils of that school have had to undergo in the last few weeks. On 22nd September, the head and most of the teachers went on strike because ILEA, the authority responsible

573
for the school and the education of the children in it, decided to carry out an inspection and inquiry. The school was closed for two days while that strike was on. Then the inspectors acted as teachers for three days, The following week a temporary team of teachers and a temporary head took over, the permanent team being still on strike and offering their services to pupils in a nearby hall.
The temporary team, for whom I have heard nothing but the highest praise, continued for two and a half weeks, until the striking teachers decided that they would like to return to work on 16th October. The teachers who had been on strike taught for seven days, until they were given paid leave of absence to attend the inquiry, and then another temporary team was installed in the school, and is still there.
Imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the disruption that that series of events means to the children in their class work, quite apart from the unsettlement caused by seeing their teachers picketing outside their school and the school made the subject of massive Press and television coverage. But the uncertainty is not over. The teachers who went on strike have inquired about the question of going back to the school during the prolonged period of the inquiry. They are on leave of absence not until the inquiry reports but until it ceases to require their attendance. So the children may have to have the old team back for at least one other period.
I do not want to be unfair to teachers who are the subject of an inquiry and who may be the subject of disciplinary proceedings—and anyone will appreciate the problem for an education authority in this situation—but I say that the interests of the teachers, even if it turned out that they had been entirely blameless, are as nothing compared to the interests of the children.
In this situation, whoever is at fault it is not the children, but it is they and they alone who are suffering, and they are suffering very greatly. These children are, for the most part, those who need, more than most, good, stable tuition in the basic human skills. If they do not get through the basics at school, that deficiency will not, for most of them, be made up by parental activity in the home.
574
The parents desperately want their children to be taught, and the parents cannot be expected to substitute for the school.
The series of events comes on top of a situation which clearly disturbed the ILEA inspectors who inspected the school while the teachers were on strike. They criticised a number of aspects. I shall not quote the criticisms, because they have had a good deal of Press coverage, but the inspectors concluded their report by saying that the condition of the school as presented to them was such as to warrant a full inspection at the earliest opportunity.
I want to make it quite clear that I am talking about the junior school, and that the report on the infants' school was a very favourable one. The staff of the infants' school, and the ILEA, in respect of its responsibility for the infants' school, are to be congratulated on the good quality of that report.
It is the duty of the ILEA to get the junior school staffed on a permanent basis now, without waiting until the end of the inquiry. If, at the end of the inquiry, the teachers are found to have been blameless, the inquiry can easily make that fact clear by public statement and ensure that their careers do not suffer in the future. The public would then understand—as would the teaching profession—that the children have to be put first.
I come to the manner in which the ILEA has dealt with the situation. There are those who say that the authority should have been active on the alleged deficiencies of the school long ago, but I shall pick up the story only from the time of the decision to hold the inquiry.
On the day that the inspectors arrived at the school to carry out the inspection which was to be the basis of the inquiry, the head and most of the teachers went on strike, picketed the school, set themselves up in a neighbouring hall, and invited and encouraged some of the children to go with them. That action was taken in protest against the holding of the inquiry.
The teachers went on strike because the local education authority, set up by Parliament to run the school, decided to investigate one of its schools. Of course, teachers have a right to strike, just like anyone else, but teachers who did so because the education authority did what it had the right and duty to do should have been suspended. For reasons that I

575
do not comprehend, the ILEA decided not to suspend them, so when the inspectors had done what they could to keep the school going, and when a temporary team had been in charge for two and a half weeks, the striking teachers were free to stop their strike and return to the class rooms, which is what they did. Hence the constant chopping and changing to which I have referred.
Apart from the failure to suspend the teachers there have been several changes of plans for the inquiry. First, the inquiry was to be carried out by the ILEA's Schools Committee. Then it was agreed that there should be an independent chairman along with members of the Schools Committee. Then it was decided that members of the Schools Committee would not be appropriate people to serve on the inquiry because questions of the ILEA's behaviour might have to be raised. Also, what had been thought likely to be a one-week inquiry began to look like taking several weeks, and members of the Schools Committee could not spare that amount of time. Now, the inquiry is in the hands of an independent chairman and a couple of advisers. That decision was announced as late as the morning when the inquiry was due to begin.
Since then there has been confusion over the availability of documents in the inquiry. The inquiry was suspended for a day or two, and later for a whole week. It is now expected that it will not be completed before next year.
Not only has the time taken by the inquiry escalated; the formality of the proceedings has become increasingly intimidating. Legal counsel paid for by the ILEA are representing the main parties—the authority, the managers and the teachers. There has been a claim for legal representation of the parents, which, so far, has been rejected by the authority. In that formal setting the parents will have a problem in putting over their point of view. The inquiry is being held at County Hall, not in the area of the school, which means that parents will have difficulty in attending. Even if they go to County Hall it is possible that they will not get in, because the 50 or so seats are taken up by the Press and television. The whole inquiry operation is taking off into the stratosphere, and I find it hard to see how it will get back on the ground within a reasonable period. It is
576
almost like a fashionable murder trial at the Old Bailey.
Meanwhile, back in Islington, the temporary teachers are valiantly struggling to do their best for the education of the children—who are what the whole thing is about.
I want the Minister to take this point on board. There just has to be some simpler and quicker way of settling disputes of this kind. There needs to be a way of picking up these matters at an earlier stage, when they can be resolved by conciliation and administrative action rather than by a grand public trial.
There can be strong criticism of the old-style school inspectors and the fact that the old teachers were telling the young teachers to stick to the old ways. But what we have done is run down that system and put nothing in its place except the idea that each teacher is his own master, and entitled to do his own thing.
If cases like this are allowed to grow into causes célèbres, the likelihood is that they will end up with the closing down of schools which could have been saved. We saw this, in the same area, with Risinghill, and I fear that the ILEA will find itself resolving the William Tyndale issue by the same device. Yet we need that school in Islington, if only because the infants' school in the building has such a good record and has been reported on so well.
I hope that I have said enough to convince my hon. Friend that, whatever protestations she feels obliged to make about her semi-independence from the matter, and non-involvement in it, there are points which ought to disturb her, and matters which call for action. It is for that reason that I repeat what I have said to her and the Secretary of State before, namely, that a representative of the Department of Education ought to be present as an observer at the inquiry.
I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage for the Department to be involved actively in the inquiry but, to put it at the lowest, the Department will look very foolish if this matter ends up in its lap without its having a direct source of knowledge about the conduct of the inquiry. No verbatim record is being kept, and, therefore, the only alternative source of information will be from

577
the authority itself. For that reason, I ask my hon. Friend to arrange that there should be a Department of Education and Science presence, known to the ILEA, of course, by means of an observer, for the remaining part of the inquiry, and I hope, too, that the Department will set about considering some of the wider issues that are raised by the affair.
11.48 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): As my hon. Friend has said, because an inquiry is taking place on this school it is difficult for me to comment on some of the matters that he has raised. But I am grateful to him for drawing the attention of the House and others concerned to this very difficult situation, which has arisen as a result of the dispute at the William Tyndale Junior School.
My hon. Friend is right to be concerned, and I have listened with great interest to everything he said. The tragedy is, of course, that the children at the school at present are caught up in a dispute not of their making but out of which they are likely to suffer. I am sure that no one would disagree when I say that their future well-being must be the concern of all of us, and I am sure that is my hon. Friend's concern and that that is why he raised the matter. The immediate task is to create conditions in which good relations can prevail between all those concerned with the school in order that the education of these children can be conducted in a relatively calm fashion.
My hon. Friend has already outlined in full the problems which have arisen. I can reassure him that my right hon. Friend and I are by no means unaware of the situation or by no means uninformed of it. Not only have we seen the considerable publicity given in the Press to events at the school, but my Department is keeping abreast of these developments. Nevertheless, it is understandable that my hon. Friend should consider it appropriate and important that a special inspection of the school should be conducted. I shall try to explain to him what are the difficulties in respect of this at the present time.
As my hon. Friend and others are aware, William Tyndale School is a school falling under the terms of the
578
Education Act 1944, which brings it within the responsibility of the local education authority—the ILEA. It is, therefore, for the ILEA to meet all the costs of running the school and to make the instrument providing for the appointment of the managing body—although Section 18 of the Education Act 1944 specifically provides that a proportion of the managers should be appointed by the minor authority for the area.
I understand that in this case the London borough of Islington appoints a proportion of the managers. The effect of these arrangements, as I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, is that the ILEA is responsible for the school and that this responsibility extends to ensuring that the education offered by the school is efficient and is suitable for the age, ability and aptitude of all the pupils in it. This is an important position to establish at this time.
It would be quite wrong for me to comment on the detailed circumstances of the situation at a time when a public inquiry is being conducted into those very circumstances. Not only might any such comments be prejudicial to the course of the inquiry; they might also have the effect of prejudicing any subsequent decision that my right hon. Friend might have to take in accordance with his statutory powers.
An approach has already been made to my right hon. Friend requesting him to use his powers to set up a public inquiry into the general situation, and, once the conclusions of the present inquiry are known, it will obviously be necessary for my right hon. Friend to reach a formal decision on this request.
I am sure, therefore, that my hon. Friend will realise why I cannot make any detailed comment on some of the things he has said in relation to the subject being discussed at this inquiry.
My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that, under the provisions of Section 77 of the Education Act 1944, my right hon. Friend has the power to cause an inspection of the school to take place if he so wishes. No request for such an inspection has been made to my right hon. Friend by the ILEA, the managers or, indeed, the teachers at the school. My right hon. Friend was, however, officially informed by the ILEA, in August, that, in the light of the events at the

579
school, it was the Authority's intention to arrange for an inquiry to be held in public, under an independent chairman, into the teaching, organisation and management of the school. My right hon. Friend was further informed that the inquiry would be preceded by an inspection of both the infants' and junior schools by ILEA inspectors, and that he would, in due course, be informed of the findings of the inquiry and of any consequent actions proposed by the Authority.
In the light of this information, it would have been quite inappropriate for my right hon. Friend to cause a special inspection to be made at that time. My right hon. Friend does, of course, know about the events that took place when ILEA officials commenced their inspection, and the present position, I understand, is that the inquiry is under way and the teachers concerned are not in the school. Consequently, it would not have been appropriate, as I have said, for a further inspection to take place at this time.
Quite apart from these points, however, there is a more general reason why it would have been inappropriate to set up another inquiry. Despite the national publicity that recent events have caused, problems have originated at the local level between the staff, the managers, the parents and the local education authority. It is, therefore, only common sense that in the first instance it is they who must try to find a solution. They recognise this and they are endeavouring to do so. If after the inquiry has reported and the Authority has deliberated its conclusions, no satisfactory outcome seems likely to emerge, it may become necessary for my right hon. Friend to consider what action on his part, if any, could help.
Mr. George Cunningham: The trouble is that this inquiry will go on for weeks and weeks, and it may be impossible to shorten the process without some intervention by the DES. If there were an intervention, formal or informal, it would prove to have been useful for the Department to be informed. Does the Department feel that it can provide a presence at the inquiry, on an observer basis? If my hon. Friend's answer is "Yes", I shall be delighted. If it is "No", will she please not give the answer
580
now, but take the point on board and think about giving me a favourable answer after considering it?
Miss Lestor: I shall take on board my hon. Friend's point. At the moment, it is fair to say that the view of my right hon. Friend and the Department is that we wish to do nothing that is likely in any way to put us in a position of non-neutrality in respect of any action that we may be asked to take on the basis of the report of the inquiry. My hon. Friend asks me not to answer "No". I am always anxious to please him. But he understands the very delicate nature of this matter, bearing in mind that at some stage the Secretary of State may be asked to comment on it.
I was a little concerned to hear my hon. Friend say that no verbatim account of the inquiry is being kept. I am not sure whether he is implying that it will not be a very full account. I should like to know more about this, and I shall look into it.
I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that we would not wish to intervene in any way to influence the course of events at this stage. Most people have formed opinions about what has taken place at the school, based on Press reports and other comments. We are doing our best to make no comment and to form no opinion until the inquiry has ended. Only then shall we be in a position to make a judgment if we are called upon to do so.
We are concerned to see, as soon as possible, the fairest and most satisfactory outcome, both for the school and for all the children in it. I am a little disturbed about the length of time that the inquiry may take.
There are one or two other matters that it is difficult to comment on at this stage. The question of more central control of curriculum content in our schools is often discussed in the House and in various parts of the country, but it is not a matter on which any governmental view has been reached or which we have discussed in great detail. It is a topic that someone may wish to raise in the House as a general point at some time.
The point is well taken, also, that we might seek to find a way of settling disputes of this kind more quickly than the

581
present system permits. However, the interim inquiry report has been published and the full inquiry is under way. I can assure my hon. Friend that, without missing any of the information and discussion that is taking place, the Department must keep a profile of neutrality, in case
582
it is called upon to make a judgment at the end of the day.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  River Banks
  River Banks
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Dairy Produce (Imports)
  Dairy Produce (Imports)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Birds
  Birds
  Scottish Distilleries (Imported Barley)
  Scottish Distilleries (Imported Barley)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  St. Angelo Airport
  St. Angelo Airport
  Electricity Consumer Councils
  Electricity Consumer Councils
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  ATTACK ON INFLATION
  ATTACK ON INFLATION
  NORMAN SHAW NORTH BUILDING
  NORMAN SHAW NORTH BUILDING
CIVIL SERVICE
  Applicants (Mental Illness)
  Applicants (Mental Illness)
  Discrimination Allegations
  Discrimination Allegations
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Local Government Staffs
  Local Government Staffs
EMPLOYMENT
  Full-Time Employment
  Full-Time Employment
  Industrial Disputes (Working Days Lost)
  Industrial Disputes (Working Days Lost)
  Factory Inspectorate Offices (Yorkshire)
  Factory Inspectorate Offices (Yorkshire)
  Health and Safety (Enforcement)
  Health and Safety (Enforcement)
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Health and Safety (Regulations)
  Health and Safety (Regulations)
  Spectacles and Eye Protection
  Spectacles and Eye Protection
  Publications ("Hazards" and "Accidents")
  Publications ("Hazards" and "Accidents")
  Accidents (Heavy Loads)
  Accidents (Heavy Loads)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Patients (Discrimination)
  Patients (Discrimination)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Local Government Staffs
  Local Government Staffs
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
SCOTLAND
  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  Agricultural Research Institutes
  Agricultural Research Institutes
  European Municipalities Council
  European Municipalities Council
  North Sea Oil Rigs
  North Sea Oil Rigs
  Regional Development Fund
  Regional Development Fund
  Lomond (Motorway)
  Lomond (Motorway)
  House Building (Jedburgh)
  House Building (Jedburgh)
  Feeding Stuffs
  Feeding Stuffs
  Nursing Agencies
  Nursing Agencies
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  WORKERS' REVOLUTIONARY PARTY (POLICE RAID)
  WORKERS' REVOLUTIONARY PARTY (POLICE RAID)
  WINSON GREEN PRISON
  WINSON GREEN PRISON
  FOOTBALL VIOLENCE
  FOOTBALL VIOLENCE
DEFENCE
  Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
  Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
  Widows
  Widows
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Chatham Dockyard (Work Force)
  Chatham Dockyard (Work Force)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Local Government Staffs
  Local Government Staffs
  Secondary Education
  Secondary Education
ENERGY
  Oil Reserves
  Oil Reserves
  North Sea Oil (Licences)
  North Sea Oil (Licences)
  Electricity Bills (Payment by Instalments)
  Electricity Bills (Payment by Instalments)
  Gas and Electricity Meters
  Gas and Electricity Meters
  Oilfields (Development)
  Oilfields (Development)
  Conservation
  Conservation
  Oil Production Platforms
  Oil Production Platforms
INDUSTRY
  British Leyland Ltd.
  British Leyland Ltd.
  Aviation
  Aviation
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Nationalisation)
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Nationalisation)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Expenditure Cuts
  Expenditure Cuts
  Transport Costs
  Transport Costs
  Borrowing (Public Sector)
  Borrowing (Public Sector)
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Subcontractors' Certificates
  Subcontractors' Certificates
  Overseas Debt
  Overseas Debt
  Disabled Persons (Vehicle Excise)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicle Excise)
  Lord Kaldor
  Lord Kaldor
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Petrol Retailing
  Petrol Retailing
  PVC Bags
  PVC Bags
  Bread (Wrapping)
  Bread (Wrapping)
  Food Prices (Scotland)
  Food Prices (Scotland)
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  Local Government Staffs
  Local Government Staffs
  Price Controls
  Price Controls
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
TRADE
  Fishing Vessels (Radio Log Books)
  Fishing Vessels (Radio Log Books)
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Steel
  Steel
ENVIRONMENT
  Ringway 3
  Ringway 3
  Bartered Wives
  Bartered Wives
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Land Acquisition and Management Schemes
  Land Acquisition and Management Schemes
  Community Land Bill
  Community Land Bill
  Local Government Employees
  Local Government Employees
  Water Industry
  Water Industry
  Housing
  Housing
  Transport (West Midlands)
  Transport (West Midlands)
  Direct Labour Departments
  Direct Labour Departments
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Planning
  Planning
  Pre-1918 Properties (Building Society Mortgages)
  Pre-1918 Properties (Building Society Mortgages)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Railways (Subsidy)
  Railways (Subsidy)
  Heavy Lorries (Recommended Routes)
  Heavy Lorries (Recommended Routes)
  Transport Policy
  Transport Policy
  Bus Fares (South Yorkshire)
  Bus Fares (South Yorkshire)
  Transport and Docks Police
  Transport and Docks Police
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Pensioners (Free Rail Travel)
  Pensioners (Free Rail Travel)
  Headlights
  Headlights
  M25
  M25
  Rent Allowance
  Rent Allowance
  Central Rhine Commission
  Central Rhine Commission
  M67 (Manchester and Sheffield)
  M67 (Manchester and Sheffield)
  Garages (Planning Regulations)
  Garages (Planning Regulations)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Housing Associations and Co-operatives
  Housing Associations and Co-operatives
  Windscreen Glass
  Windscreen Glass
  M18
  M18
  Braking Systems
  Braking Systems
  Rural Deprivation
  Rural Deprivation
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Royal Parks (Angling)
  Royal Parks (Angling)
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Rates (London)
  Rates (London)
  Bricks
  Bricks
  Rents
  Rents
  Government Offices (Costs)
  Government Offices (Costs)
  House of Commons
  House of Commons
  Development Land
  Development Land
  Housing (Conversions and Improvements)
  Housing (Conversions and Improvements)
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Motor Cycles (Parking)
  Motor Cycles (Parking)
  Housing Yardsticks
  Housing Yardsticks
  Hotels (Conversions)
  Hotels (Conversions)
  Housing (Old People)
  Housing (Old People)
  Allestree Link Road
  Allestree Link Road
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Sport
  Sport
  Atmospheric Pollution
  Atmospheric Pollution
  Liverpool (Housing)
  Liverpool (Housing)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Building and Construction Exhibition
  Building and Construction Exhibition
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Local Government (Pay)
  Local Government (Pay)
  Liverpool Docks
  Liverpool Docks
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Transport Grants
  Transport Grants
  Departmental Circulars
  Departmental Circulars
  Isles of Scilly Steamship Company
  Isles of Scilly Steamship Company
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Government Property
  Government Property
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South Africa (Angola)
  South Africa (Angola)
  Sentencing of Offenders (Protests)
  Sentencing of Offenders (Protests)
  Animal Welfare (European Community)
  Animal Welfare (European Community)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ELIZABETH GARRETT ANDERSON HOSPITAL
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet made a final decision on the future of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has not yet completed her study of the proposals before her.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this matter is very urgent and that it has been going on for approximately a year? Is he further aware that the children's ward is to close on 17th November and that the maternity home is also threatened with closure? Also, does he appreciate that in these circumstances the hospital finds it difficult, if not impossible, to recruit any new staff? So will he urge on his right honourable friend the need for quick action in taking a decision?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am aware in general terms of the urgency of the situation, and so is my right honourable friend who intends to visit the hospital in the near future—and when I say "the near future", I mean the near future. A decision will follow upon the visit.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that now, when beds and hospital buildings are short, it would be far better if this hospital could be maintained and given some hope for the future, rather than be allowed gradually to run down?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my right honourable friend is very well aware of the situation, and as I said, will herself be paying a visit to the hospital in the near future.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, will the Government undertake to keep this matter under continuous review, to explore every avenue and to leave no stone unturned in order to come to this overdue decision?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: We shall do even better than that, my Lords.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware not only that the hospital and all those working in it are very deeply concerned, but that those who work voluntarily for that hospital in particular, and who raise funds to provide amenities for it, do not know what to do for the future, or, indeed, for the present? They have funds which they would like to spend in the hospital, but they are unable to do so as they do not know what will be its future.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I fully appreciate the view expressed by the noble Baroness and I know that my right honourable friend will take note of it.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, while not wishing to go once again into all the reasons why this hospital is a very important one, will Her Majesty's Government keep in mind that it is not only the patients who will be affected, for the hospital gives an excellent opportunity for women doctors to take up a consultant's career?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Government are well aware of this virtue of the hospital.

CYPRUS: U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY
2.34 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they will make at the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly, when the situation in Cyprus is discussed, to implement the resolutions of the United Nations.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, together with our partners in the Nine, Her Majesty's Government are actively working for the resumption of the intercommunal talks in keeping with United Nations Resolutions and in particular with Security Council Resolution 367 of 1975, which requested the Secretary-General to undertake a new mission of good offices. The action which Her Majesty's Government will take at the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly when the Cyprus item is discussed, probably towards the middle of November, will be determined nearer the time, and will depend on developments. It is our earnest hope that progress will be made towards the resumption of the intercommunal negotiations over the next few weeks.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that many of us are distressed that the British Government have not been able to carry out more fully their guarantee to Cyprus? Would he endorse the remarks which were made by MacDonald Gordon, the new High Commissioner in Cyprus, last Monday? Referring to the Government, he said:
"It is their sincere hope that a solution may be found based on independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity".
Will that be the purpose of Her Majesty's Government at the meeting of the United Nations?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I cannot accept that the United Kingdom Government have not made
1138
every effort to assist in the situation which obtains in Cyprus through no fault of their own. Indeed, our commitment was to consult and that we have done extensively. At one time it seemed as if our action would bear fruit. It is clear to us that the solution to the Cyprus crisis rests, in the first place, with the communities on the island and then will be arrived at through an international effort, headed, as it is now, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In that initiative, we are taking a very active part. On the second point raised by my noble friend, I do indeed take note of the views that he has quoted and I see no reason to dissent from what Mr. Gordon has said on the matter.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that our many friends among the Greeks and the Greek Cypriots are anxiously waiting for the Government to take some initiative in this matter, particularly as we, with Greece and Turkey, were the three chairmen who guaranteed the integrity of Cyprus?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, of course, my Lords, and so are other elements in Cyprus anxious to support any initiative that will suit them. We see this as a problem, in the first instance, for our Greek and Turkish friends on the island to come together for inter-communal talks. It is an inter-communal difficulty and at least in the first stage the solution rests there. Thereafter, as the United Nation's Secretary-General has abundantly shown with very strong support from the representative of Her Majesty's Government in the United Nations, a conference to give substantive effect to an agreement on the island seemed to us to be the only avenue leading to a durable solution of this very difficult situation.

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: UK REPRESENTATION
Baroness ELLES: 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 how many women have been appointed as United Kingdom representatives or alternate representatives to the Thirtieth Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the four representatives and their alternates this year are Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers or senior members of the United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations, none of whom happen, this year, to be women.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, while not particularly thanking the noble Lord for that very unsatisfactory reply, may I draw his attention to a recommendation made last year by the Working Group of the Commission on the Status of Women, which demanded of Governments that they should ensure that women should take part in policy formulation at international level, and also to the fact that that recommendation was endorsed by the United Kingdom delegation, and further endorsed in the General Assembly resolution last year and again this year at the World Conference of International Women's Year in Mexico? Could the Minister kindly state what measures he is to take to implement these resolutions?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that very helpful supplementary question, with which we entirely agree—there is, of course, complete bipartisan agreement on this—as she will know, successive Administrations have specially attempted to include women in delegations of this kind. Very often it has proved possible, under the criteria, to do so, but sometimes, as has happened this year for a number of reasons, it has not been possible. I believe that that situation occurred in 1973; but, happily, it was not so in 1972, when the noble Baroness was a distinguished representative of this country in New York, or last year, when my equally distinguished noble friend Lady Gaitskell was a representative and a member of the delegation.
As to the promulgations which the noble Baroness instanced, I can only say that we entirely agree and that we make every effort to live up to these agreements to which we have enthusiastically acceded. The noble Baroness referred in particular to the World Conference of International Women's Year. That was the reference, was it not? There was a very strong delegation under the able leadership of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office,
1140
whose name is perpetuated in this House. It was led jointly by that very able Member of the other place, and of the Government, and the lady Member for Redbridge, North and consisted of 10 members, seven of whom were very formidable women indeed.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, despite the levity with which we have so far treated this Question, is the noble Lord really saying that there is not a single woman in his Party who could represent the Government at the United Nations this year, when countries like Burundi, Nepal and Paraguay all have women within their delegations? Is he really saying this?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not really saying anything more than the noble Baroness's Administration said in 1973 in similar circumstances. As to levity, I hope that my levity might be more effective than the noble Baroness's seriousness.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, does the noble Lord know that there has been grave disappointment in the women's organisations which have been participating in International Women's Year here and all over the world, that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who has been such a distinguished member of the United Nations for so many years, was not allowed to go again this year? I find the noble Lord's reply not only very disappointing but quite feeble, because, in fact, there are on all sides of this House and in the other place, first-class women who could do the job extremely well, and on this occasion it would have been right and proper that there should have been a woman in the delegation representing the United Kingdom in International Women's Year.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, again, I do not dissent from what the noble Baroness has said, except perhaps about my approach to this question. I would hope it was one of robust fortitude, as befits anyone who has to answer Questions in this or in any other place of the type we have had this afternoon. We, like the previous Administrations, are sincerely concerned that there should be the utmost possible opportunity for women, as much as men,

1141
to serve on these high level delegations. In most years it has been found possible to do this. This year, as in 1973—and nobody would blame the Administration of the day in 1973 that they failed to do it, any more than we did this year—it has not been found possible.
As to criteria, if we could get the criteria of appointment right—and we believe we have it—then it becomes a matter of actuarial availability. Unfortunately (and I deeply regret this) at the level to which the noble Baroness refers —Parliamentary and public service of this kind—far too few women have found it possible or have chosen so far to come forward. That is a fact; it is an actuarial fact. But that does not affect our desire, and I am sure that of our predecessors, to see to it that both the opportunity and the appointment of women is equal in every way to that of men.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord very kindly tell us why it was not found possible?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it would take some time to go into that, and I think the noble Baroness is aware that the availability of men candidates, as it were, is greatly in excess to those of women, for reasons I have given. We are endeavouring to improve on this situation all the time, and it would be invidious to go into details as to the difficulties we have encountered.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, should not the noble Lord adopt as his criterion cherchez la femme?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Not too many at the same time, my Lords!
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a rather more serious question? Is it not the fact that we have had an illustration in this House of the extraordinary ability of women on our own Front Bench and women on the Front Bench opposite? Is it not quite clear that there are women who are capable of representing us at the United Nations equally with any men who are there?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is abundantly true and, indeed, a great many women Members of
1142
this House, and of the other place, do represent us in high level places, and they do it with very great ability and effectiveness. However, if the noble Lord would look around and count heads he will see that the availability so far of women is considerably less than the availability of men.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, has the noble Lord approached the Status of Women Commission which I am sure could provide him with the necessary candidate for such a job? Will the noble Lord realise that it is not good enough merely to put women on the Status of Women Commission because all the decisions made there have to go through ECOSOC, which says it never has time to consider the resolutions?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, My Lords, I entirely accept that.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that knowing him as I do I would not suggest for one moment that he discriminates against women, but is he satisfied that his Civil Service advisers are aware of the fact that women feel very strongly about this matter? Do these advisers—generally men—need a little prodding from him, because there is deep-rooted prejudice, and it is quite clear that throughout the centuries the male advisers of the Government are prejudiced against women?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if there is prejudice it is certainly not among Members of Her Majesty's Government, but I should not say that it exists in Civil Service circles. We are committed enthusiastically to legislation and to administration which seeks to promote completely equality of opportunity, of appointment and of training for women as for men, and we are determined to make an effective job of this.
I say once more that so far, unfortunately, it has been the availability of women—not the fund of ability, which is there to be tapped—which has been in question. But we look to the future for an equal availability of men as of women for appointment to this kind of delegation.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the Question, but perhaps at some stage the noble Lord can let us know in writing what organisations

1143
were approached in order to get women candidates, because women do not of themselves come forward for these appointments, as he will know. If the noble Lord could tell us which organisations he asked for candidates, we should be grateful.

ICE CREAM: REGISTRATION OF SUPPLIERS
2.48 p.m.
Lord JANNER: 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 steps can be taken to introduce legislation to oblige all persons manufacturing or selling ice cream, including vendors of ice cream from mobile vans or other vehicles to be registered with the appropriate local authority, so that steps can be taken to inspect the premises where the ice cream is made and to ensure reasonable standards of hygiene in the public interest.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Food and Drugs Act 1955 requires premises, other than catering premises, schools and clubs, where ice cream is manufactured, stored or sold for human consumption to be registered by the appropriate local authority. Such premises and persons working in them are subject to the requirements of the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970. Mobile ice cream vans must comply with the requirements of the Food Hygiene (Markets, Stalls and Delivery Vehicles) Regulations 1966 which relate to the cleanliness of vehicles, persons and equipment.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that there are a large number of convictions in magistrates' courts against street vendors who are not licensed for selling ice cream, and that there is no control over those individuals so far as registration is concerned? Is my noble friend aware that this means that the premises in which the ice cream is manufactured or prepared for such sales have not been examined and, indeed, cannot be examined because no-
1144
body knows where they are? Is it not important, from the point of view of public health, that these people should be compelled to register in the same way as those compelled to do so under local by-laws? Can my noble friend make a general rule for that purpose?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend speaks of compulsion. He has also informed your Lordships that prosecutions are in fact taking place, which I presume is compulsion under law. I really do not see what more we can do than apply the law where we find that it has been broken.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if the proposition put forward by my noble friend Lord Janner were carried into effect, a tremendous number of licences would have to be issued because of the amount of ice cream which is being made in many homes, due to the availability of the necessary ingredients?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his informative interjection.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to reconsider this matter? What I was driving at was that people are charged, not with not being registered but with not having licences to sell in the streets; and consequently they have obviously not been registered. Is he aware that many local authorities have special by-laws to provide for the registration of every establishment used for the manufacture for sale of ice cream, and will he see to it that, in view of the fact that some local authorities do not have such a by-law, there will be consideration given to making it compulsory throughout the land, apart entirely from the by-laws themselves?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord has obviously found a loophole in the legislation, and I shall bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord JANNER: I am much obliged to my noble friend.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, in order to put the matter into perspective, can the noble Lord tell us how many cases of poisoning there have been due

1145
to ice cream which has been made on dirty premises? I have no idea how many of these cases there are, whether it is a large number or a small number.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the situation is that once upon a time, prior to 1959, when legislation in regard to this matter came in, ice cream was a very suspect food. Subsequent upon the Ice Cream (Heat Treatment) Regulations 1959 the situation has improved markedly, and ice cream is regarded as a safe food. No recorded cases of food poisoning have been noted in recent years.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will be good enough not to wait until people are poisoned, but see to it that the law is introduced before that opportunity arises?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that although ice cream may not have killed anybody, a lot of it has not done anyone any good? So will he put no obstacle in the way of the manufacture of ice cream from milk, instead of the curious ingredients which at present go into much of the hygienic stuff which is sold over the counter?
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, on this matter of the inspection of premises, can the noble Lord assure us that on this anniversary of Guy Fawkes' Day his noble friend the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard and the Yeomen of the Guard made a thorough inspection of these premises before we assembled?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I suggest that that is another question; and, what with women and ice cream, I suggest we move to the next business.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fifth Report from the Select Committee be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Fifth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
The Report was as follows:
1. CONTINUITY OF SESSIONAL COMMITTEES
Following a recommendation by the European Communities Committee, the Committee have considered means of overcoming the difficulties inherent in the appointment of Sessional Committees on a sessional basis. These difficulties arise because of the time taken to set up committees in a new session. As a result of this it may be necessary either to delay the consideration of urgent business or to contravene the requirements of the procedure of the House by calling together the members of the Committee unofficially before they have been formally appointed by the House. This consideration applies to Sessional Committees generally not simply to the European Communities Committee.
Formerly, it was the practice of both Houses to appoint their Sessional Committees for the session only. However, the Commons have recently begun to appoint the majority of such Committees for a Parliament. There is, therefore, precedent for departing from what, till recently, has been a well-established rule. The Committee do not think that it is necessary to go as far as the Commons have done. In their opinion it would be sufficient to provide that the orders of appointment of committees should remain in effect notwithstanding the prorogation of Parliament until the House makes fresh orders of appointment in the succeeding session. This would enable committees to conduct their business from the first clay of a new session. However, the Committee attach great importance to the desirability of appointing committees as soon as possible in the new session, thus providing an early opportunity for a review of their membership—a point on which the House has recently placed emphasis by introducing the system of rotation. The Committee are of the opinion that their recommendation should apply to all Sessional Committees with the exception of the Appeal and Appellate Committees and the Committee of Selection.
In order to effect the change a new Standing Order will be necessary. The Committee recommend that it should be in the following terms:
The orders of appointment of the following committees and any of their subcommittees shall remain in force and effect, notwithstanding the prorogation of Parliament, until such time as the House or Committee makes further orders of appointment in the next succeeding session—

Consolidation Bills Committee

European Communities Committee

House of Lords Offices Committee

1147

Hybrid Instruments Committee

Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses Committee

Personal Bills Committee

Privileges, Committee for

Procedure Committee

Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee)

Statutory Instruments Committee

2. PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE: INTERVIEW
The Committee have considered the practice of the House whereby a Private Bill which has been committed to a Select Committee is subsequently considered at what has been known as the "Interview" where the Chairman of Committees, assisted by his Counsel, goes through those parts of the Bill which were not the subject of a decision by the Select Committee. They consider that, though the Interview serves a useful purpose in complementing the work of Select Committees on Opposed Bills, it suffers from the disadvantage that it has, formally speaking, no procedural existence. In addition, although the amendments made to the Bill are deemed to have been made by the Select Committee, the members of the Select Committee have in general no knowledge of what amendments have been made in their name.
The Committee therefore recommend that, where a Bill has been committed to a Select Committee for consideration usually in respect of certain opposed parts, it should in future be recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee on the understanding that no decision made by the Unopposed Bill Committee should vary a decision made by the Select Committee.
They recommend therefore that Private Bill Standing Order 121 be amended to read as follows:—
121.—(1) There shall be committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee—

(a) every Private Bill against which no Petition has been presented, or if presented has been withdrawn, or which has become unopposed by reason of any of the provisions of Standing Order 113, except any Bill as respects which the Chairman of Committees has in pursuance of Standing Order 92 reported to the House that in his opinion it should be proceeded with as an Opposed Bill:

(b) on recommitment, every Opposed Private Bill in respect of which a report has been made from a Select Committee that the Bill should be allowed to proceed, provided that no decision taken by such a Select Committee may be varied by an Unopposed Bill Committee.

(2) Each Unopposed Bill Committee shall consist of the Chairman of Committees and such Lords as think fit to attend.
3. SHORT DEBATES
The Committee have considered the rules for the conduct of Short Debates. They recommend a new rule to ensure that a Lord does not put down a motion in Part II of "No Day Named" on the Order Paper which
1148
is the same, or substantially the same, as a motion which is already in that Part of the Order Paper.
4. RE-ARRANGEMENT OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER IN THE JOURNALS
The Committee have considered the present practice whereby the daily Attendance Register in the Journals of the House is listed in the form prescribed by the order of seating formerly observed in the House under the Act of Henry VIII of 1539. They recollect that in 1971 they recommended that the names of Lords voting in divisions should be listed alphabetically instead of by reference to seniority as had previously been the case. They recommend that in future the daily Attendance Register should be made up on an alphabetical basis. They also recommend that Lords who have titles higher than those by which they sit in Parliament should be listed alphabetically by such titles.
They therefore propose that Standing Order 8 be amended as follows:—
Leave out all the words after ("the Journals of the House") and insert ("the title or dignity by which such a Lord sits in Parliament shall be added in brackets after such higher title or dignity").
5. STANDING ORDER 38(4): ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAYS
The Committee have considered the drafting of Standing Order 38(4) in the light of the fact that the terms of the Standing Order do not allow the variation, on Wednesdays, of orders and notices relating to Public Bills, Measures and Affirmative Instruments. They recommend that the Standing Order be redrafted to allow this, as follows:
(4) On all sitting days except Wednesdays, notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures and Affirmative Instruments shall have precedence over other notices and orders save the foregoing.
(4A) Subject to paragraph (4) the precedence of notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures and Affirmative Instruments may be varied on any day, if the convenience of the House so requires.
6. CONSOLIDATION BILLS
The Committee have reconsidered their recommendation in their Second Report of 1970/71 that the Lord Chancellor, whether or not he is moving the discharge of the Order of Recommitment in relation to a Bill which has been referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, should indicate the category into which the Bill falls and should draw the attention of the House to the Report of the Joint Committee.
The practice of the House now is that the Lord Chancellor only draws the special attention of the House to the Joint Committee's Report when it contains a point of special interest to the House. In view of this the Committee wish to modify their recommendation in their Second Report of 1970/71 so as to reflect the present practice followed by the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MALLAIG HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
2.54 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, that the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 15 [Powers of acquisition and appropriation]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 56:
Leave out Clause 15.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I would refer to a point of which I gave the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor notice yesterday. The note may well have been mislaid overnight, but I hope he has had another one which I sent him just now. At Committee stage we left Clause 15 in the situation where the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had an open mind, as he put it, as to whether he or my noble friend Lord Colville was right on a technical matter to do with single plots. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord's mind is still open, is shut or is changed, or whether he would like to tell us about it. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, this matter was discussed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, yesterday, and he moved an Amendment which was carried. That really has overtaken the point which occupied us at Committee stage. The effect of his Amendments, which were carried, was to take all single dwelling-houses outside the acquisition power in Clause 15; so the matter has been resolved at any rate to the satisfaction of the Opposition, but to the dissatisfaction of the Government, and there the matter must presently rest.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Without having the legal training of either my noble friend or the noble and learned Lord, I was not quite sow whether there was anything more to be said about it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Acquisition and appropriation of land]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 55, line 43, leave out ("2").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I now move Amendment No. 57, but with the leave of the House I will speak to Amendment No. 61 as well. The effect of these Amendments would be to restore, in respect of compulsory purchase orders under the Bill relating to development land, the requirements of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Acts or regulations made under it, that the purpose for which the land is required is to be specified. The first Amendment removes the reference to paragraph 2 from sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 4, and is consequential upon the second Amendment, No. 61, which omits paragraph 2 from the Schedule.
The total result is that for all compulsory purchase orders made under the Bill, whether for development land or land for excepted development, the modification to specify the reasons for which the authority propose to acquire the land, instead of the purposes for which the land is required, will be deleted, and the existing procedures will apply. At Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, moved an Amendment which would have had the effect of nullifying the provision, in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, that a compulsory purchase order under the Bill for development land would not need to specify the purpose of acquisition but would instead have to specify the reasons. In reply I said that the Government were looking again at the provisions of the paragraph, and on this basis Lord Kinnoull withdrew his Amendment. The Government have looked at it again and have accepted the spirit of the Amendment, which is interpreted in the Government Amendments I now put before your

1151
Lordships. I beg to move Amendment No. 57.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Briefly, my Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and to support her Amendments. It is always a great pleasure to hear that an Amendment moved by the Opposition in Committee is ultimately accepted in principle by the Government. It is particularly pleasant on this Bill as so sadly it is all too rare an occasion to have some agreement on the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.0 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 55, line 47, leave out from ("land") to end of line 2 on page 56.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 58. This is a point that we discussed on Committee, and I should like to begin by saying that I am grateful for the letter I received from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, setting out more fully the Government's view on this matter. It is a rather complicated matter, one on which I am not certain that we have the right answer, and therefore I felt it right to raise it again.
As I understand this part of the Schedule, this paragraph enables a local authority to certify that a particular piece of land is or is not development land. As a consequence of the decision it takes on that, whether or not the Schedule applies to it, the local authority then issues a certificate which cannot be challenged by anyone. The certificate must be confirmed by the Secretary of State. I and my noble friends asked on Committee whether it would be possible for an owner who might feel aggrieved by this decision to have any redress under this part of the Schedule.
As I understand the noble Lord's letter, he is saying, first, that the Government do not foresee there being many, if any, borderline cases. I think it is difficult at this stage to make judgments and to say that there would not be any borderline cases; because it is on the borderline case where the individual would want to challenge the issue of the certificate.
Secondly, the noble Lord says that the opinion of the local authority is absolute in the matter of what is or is not development
1152
land. The point at issue is whether it is absolute decision and whether an individual can challenge that decision. Thirdly, the noble Lord says that the individual can make representations to the Secretary of State asking him not to confirm the decision to certify the land as development land. What I do not quite follow is what happens if the Secretary of State does not agree with the representations made to him and does not want to alter his decision about the certificate. Where does that leave the owner who may have made the representation? It seems to me that he remains directly affected by the issue of the certificate without any redress at all to the courts.
I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can say what is the Government view on a borderline case; whether the local authority can say conclusively that in every case land is development land; and, lastly, what happens to the individual if he makes representations which are not accepted by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 59 and 60.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, this is a point that we went over in Committee and also one on which Iwrote to her. She raised first the question of borderline cases. This is the borderline on the definition of relevant development. As I said in Committee and in my letters, I do not see there being many borderline cases but, as I said also in Committee, obviously I am not saying that there will not be any. We have drawn up the categories of development with great care to try to avoid there being left any grey areas over which a lot of disputes could arise. I agree that disputes may be possible, but I do not see any reason to alter the view that I have twice expressed that these are unlikely to be many and may not occur at all.
My Lords, the second point is the question of the local authority certifying that the land is suitable for relevant development and of that being the final say in the matter. I imagine the noble Baroness is suggesting that it should be possible for the decision to be questioned in the courts. As I said in the letter and in Committee, the problem is that this is

1153
a planning issue, and we do not think that it would appropriate for planning issues to be taken to the courts. Thirdly, there is the matter of the significance of the certificate. The certificate is not the end of the matter; it merely allows the Secretary of State, if he so wishes, to exercise a discretion not to hold a public inquiry. It is not absolute in the sense that once the certificate has been issued that is the end of the matter; it is merely something to enable the Secretary of State to exercise a discretion if he so wishes.
My Lords, the noble Baroness asked what happens if the Secretary of State does exercise his discretion not to hold a public inquiry. That is the end of the matter. There is no further redress, as I understand it. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State will be very unwilling (as have been all Secretaries of State) not to hold a public inquiry if any objections are raised to the certificate. On the whole, the certificate will be something produced in a fairly routine way.
The noble Baroness did not speak to the Amendment. I do not know whether she would like me to go on in some detail about the effect of the Amendment; but I can say briefly that it would probably have the opposite effect from what she intends and would not provide a solution to the problem which she sees.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, although I do not invite the noble Lord to give it, it would have been as well to have had the explanation; because one of the explanations already given disturbs me. The whole burden of his argument at the beginning was that there would not be many cases, that there would he only a few—that there may be none; but there may be some. Since when has it been unimportant because only a few cases of hardship may be involved? Even if there is only one involved, it is worthy of some thought. I do not push for any further reply, for I know we want to get on; but I hope that the defence that there would not be many is not the sort of defence to be introduced very often.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I do not regard this as a very satisfactory situation. I accept that the drafting of my Amendment may not be correct, but I put it down to draw attention to what
1154
seems to be an injustice, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has said. There seem to be two cases in which it is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the individual. It is unsatisfactory in the borderline case—on the Government's admission the certificate could be issued on a borderline case—in which the individual might have no right of redress and the owner of the land, obviously, could feel himself to be aggrieved because he had no right to question the issue of the certificate.
Secondly, it could be unsatisfactory because, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, if representations are made to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State does not accept the representations and confirms the certificate, that is the end of the matter. In that case, the individual aggrieved has reached, as it were, the end of the road. His only consolation must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, suggested, that the Secretary of State is unlikely to make a mistake and would listen carefully to what everybody said. I do not think that that would be very satisfactory. I do not intend to press this Amendment, but I have drawn attention to something on which I hope the Government will reflect and see whether anything could be done about it even at this late stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 56, line 1, after ("above") insert ("for the purposes of any proceedings in the Courts").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a narrow point regarding the certificate. Indeed, Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 cover the same point and, knowing the skill of my noble friend Viscount Colville I suspect his wording is better than mine. During the Committee stage it was questioned that under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph I in Schedule 4 the words,
"A certificate under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it"
could imply not only that an individual could not take that to court against the Authority on the grounds that the land was not suitable for development but also

1155
that the Secretary of State could not consider whether the land was suitable for development because it was conclusive evidence under the certificate. I recall that both the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who is a distinguished lawyer, and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who is a distinguished barrister, questioned the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on this point. The noble Lord. Lord Melchett, said that—I am sure rightly—the best evidence he had was that the wording was suitable. I have again put down this Amendment because I wondered, as lawyers tend to disagree, whether by now the advisers of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had had time to reconsider the matter. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it may be convenient if I now speak to my Amendment No. 60 on this point because, as my noble friend has said, it covers the same issue. I have taken a formula which is widely used in the Town and Country Planning Act and which cuts out a reopening of something at a later date for various purposes, validity of various actions taken by the Secretary of State and matters of that kind; so the form of words I have used is one with which everybody in this field is familiar.
We had a considerable debate about this matter in Committee. The point was a narrow one. In order to establish that there should be a public inquiry, there will be cases—I do not think it is necessary to go into what they will be—whether under the definition of what the land may be in Clause 15 as it is now drafted as a result of last night's Amendment, or under the Bill as drafted before (I do not think it matters which), where the Secretary of State, in deciding whether or not to hold a public inquiry, will wish to consider whether the land certified as development land by the local authority comes into that category. This is an administrative action and I do not suppose that the question of evidence is relevant to it; whether or not the certificate is conclusive evidence probably does not matter. What matters is that people who wish to put a point of this kind in their objections with a view to persuading the Secretary of State to hold the public inquiry on these grounds, must know
1156
whether or not they are able to challenge the certificate only for this limited and narrow purpose.
The way I read the paragraph as at present drafted is they would say against me, and for the purposes of writing my objection to the Secretary of State against this compulsory purchase order, and asking him to hold the public inquiry, that I have to accept the certificate. It is a conclusive evidence against me that is what the opinion of the local authority is, and therefore I am not entitled to take the point. Those who are sufficiently assiduous to read all the debates that have occurred in Parliament on this Bill (they will have some work to do that!) may find enwrapped in the small print in the Official Report some indications that this strictness is not truly applicable.
I am anxious we should also provide on the face of the Statute for those who do not have immediate access to all the documents which your Lordships and Members of another place are lucky enough to have. If a solicitor anywhere in the country, or in London, who has not studied this matter in the Parliamentary proceedings, wishes to draft an objection on behalf of his client—or any other person doing it on behalf of a client—against a compulsory purchase order, he ought to be able to see on the face of the Act whether or not he is entitled to take this point. People will want public inquiries; they always want them. People dislike being deprived of them on compulsory acquisitions of their land. Looking carefully at the reason for this paragraph being put in, which is to prevent the matter being reopened ages later and upsetting a compulsory purchase order which has already been approved, it would be all right if we prevented the certificate being challenged in legal proceedings; but that would leave it open for everybody on the face of the Bill to know they could take this point for the narrow purpose we have been discussing.
I do not think it matters very much which of the Amendments is taken, but I hope that the Government will recognise that this is not supposed to be in any way an assault upon them, but an attempt to deal with the problem in the way apparently they want it dealt with, and

1157
make it clear to everybody what exactly their rights are. I hope we shall have some sympathy and possibly acceptance of one of the Amendments from noble Lords opposite.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, the mover of the Amendment seemed to give the impression that his noble friend, who happens to be a barrister, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who happens to be a prominent lawyer, were, because of their professions, able to give answers to the points that he was concerned about regarding these forms of licence. It so happens that lawyers are not always right. They try to interpret the law; but many of us who have come from the other place have had cases passed to us where lawyers have said, "You had better see your Member of Parliament; he will deal with it, and take up the matter elsewhere". From the debate which has taken place, and particularly from what the noble Viscount, who is a barrister, has said on this issue, justice is not being paid to the planning officers of local authorities. The planning officers of local authorities have had to pass important examinations to aspire to that position. I sat on district authorities where planning committees were subject to the guidance of the planning officers.
I think it is carrying this a little too far when we bring the professions into it. We think that because the lawyers state this or that they are right on every issue so far as these matters are concerned. But we must not forget that in the professional field there are many forms of professions in which judgments are formed. One finds, as has been said, that seldom do two economists agree on one issue. This often happens so far as the legal profession is concerned. I am not prepared to accept from the noble Earl who moved this Amendment that the observations made by his noble friend, or the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in Committee, carry with them the conviction that the Government ought to give way and agree to the Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says about lawyers not always being right—indeed, some may go further than that—but on this occasion there is some common ground between noble Lords opposite and ourselves. On Amendment No. 57, the
1158
noble Earl said, in his usual kind and generous way, when my noble friend accepted a proposition put forward at Committee stage, that we did not do that often. I hesitate to prove him wrong by saying that I intend to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment. We still do not think that this is really necessary, but we accept that the Amendment would make the position absolutely clear and we certainly do not object to it. However, I wonder whether the noble Viscount and I could come to an agreement over the printing error which appears in the Marshalled List— "legal proceeding" should be "legal proceedings". If we can accept that as a printing error which can be put right when the Bill is printed, I shall be happy to accept Amendment No. 60.
Lord FOOT: My Lords. may I make one or two observations about the two Amendments which we have been discussing, and say to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, that I fully accept that lawyers very often make mistakes—on average, probably in about 50 per cent. of our cases. But I do not think that he really followed what the noble Viscount was saying, because the effect of either of these Amendments would be to remove the likelihood of solicitors or barristers in future making mistakes when advising their clients. That was the substance of the noble Viscount's argument, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Slater, correctly understood the point that he was making.
As regards the wording of the two Amendments, I was surprised to hear the noble Viscount say that the words he has used are common form in planning legislation. I myself am much more familiar with the words 'for the purpose of any proceeding in the courts", and I should have thought that was the preferable form of wording. But even if Amendment No. 60 is accepted, I suggest that the word "whatsoever" is otiose. It adds nothing and is therefore objectionable. If I had to make a choice, I would prefer the Government to accept Amendment No. 59, but, if they are to accept Amendment No. 60, then I hope we shall strike out the word "whatsoever".
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, by leave of the House, perhaps it would help if I indicated that the reason for our

1159
preference for Amendment No. 60 is that it is in line with the form of words already used in paragraph 7(4) of Schedule 7 to this Bill, and the same wording is found in the Acquisition of Land Act 1946. That is why we prefer Amendment No. 60.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, with the leave of the House, might I add the comment that if that is right, and if these words appear in some earlier enactments, then, if there is substance in my point that "whatsoever" is otiose and we accept this wording because it is found in earlier legislation, all we are doing is perpetuating a mistake.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for indicating his acceptance of one of these Amendments, and I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for his support of my Amendment. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the Government have indicated that they will accept the Amendment of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.23 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 56, line 1, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 2 and insert ("not be questioned in any legal proceeding whatsoever").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not need to delay the noble Lord, except to thank him very much. I have merely followed the drafting of the legislation as it is recorded in the place to which he referred us—paragraph 7(4) of Schedule 7—so whatever has to come out of the wording of my Amendment must come out there as well. I followed what I believed to be a well tried and tested form of words. I do not know whether in moving this Amendment I am allowed to move also a manuscript substitution of the word" proceedings" for "proceeding". I do not know whether the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees might permit that, but we could then put the whole matter right in one go. I beg to move.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment proposed: page 56, line 1, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 2
1160
and insert ("not to be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61 formally. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 57.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, leave out lines 2 to 9.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 56, line 26, after ("unless") insert ("within the five years preceding the making of the order").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 62 and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, which are consequential. I put down these Amendments because I thought it would be helpful to know the Government's intentions regarding this part of the Schedule, whereby there will not be a public inquiry into a compulsory purchase order if there has already been a public local inquiry in to the development plan. So far as I can see, the Bill does not indicate whether this means a recent public inquiry and a recent development plan. My Amendment states that this should apply provided the development plan inquiry has been held within the last five years.
I have not had time to make extensive inquiries as to how many development plans are now between 10 and 15 years old, but my noble friend Lord Colville just told me that most of them are of that age, and certainly such inquiries as I have made have led me to think that that is so. Therefore, the public inquiry will have taken place a very long time ago and a great deal may have happened in the meantime. So I wonder whether the Government would consider this to be a reasonable Amendment, which in no way goes against the principle of what they wish to do in the Schedule, but will at least mean that when there is not to be a further public inquiry the evidence will be as recent as within the last five years. I beg to move.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness has really done justice to the Amendments she has been discussing. I understand we are here dealing with three Amendments. It is right

1161
to say that Amendment No. 62 does a great deal more than just insert the words:
"within the five years preceding the making of the order",
because, if I have correctly understood the subsequent Amendment, No. 63, it strikes out from the subsection the words
"unless the confirming authority is satisfied".
That has very considerable implications, and perhaps it might be helpful if I tried to remind the House of what we are dealing with.
Paragraph 3 introduces the new procedure under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act, and in paragraph 3(3) we have set out those cases in which the Secretary of State need not hold a public inquiry, in spite of the fact that there is an objection which has not been withdrawn. That is what paragraph 3(3) is all about. As the Bill is drawn at the moment, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether any particular case falls within head (a), (b) or (c). The effect of the second Amendment of the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 63, would be to strike out the reference at the very beginning to the confirming authority—that is the Secretary of State—so that it would then read:
"This sub-paragraph applies unless within five years preceding the making of the order—
(a) planning permission …"—
et cetera. Therefore, that eliminates the Secretary of State as the person who decides whether the particular case in issue falls within sub-paragraph (3)(a), (b) or (c). If the Secretary of State is eliminated as the arbiter of that matter, who is going to decide? The only people who could decide it, so far as I can see, would be the courts.
Two very serious consequences would, I suggest, follow from that. The first is that the door would be opened to a flood of litigation. For example, I take head (b) on the question as to whether
"the grant of planning permission for relevant development in respect of the land comprised in the order would he in accordance with the provisions of that plan"—
the local plan. If the Secretary of State is cut out as the arbiter of that matter and it is left to the courts, then there is nothing to stop anybody from going to the courts, and saying: 'I dispute that
1162
this is a case in which planning permission would be in accordance with the provisions of the local plan." I think everybody has agreed hitherto that it is desirable to avoid a flood of litigation upon this matter, and I think it is a matter of general agreement in the House now that on these matters, which are essentially planning matters, the courts are singularly unqualified to make decisions of this kind. Therefore, I should have thought that if we are considering all these three Amendments together we must consider them in that light, and that there are manifest objections to what the noble Baroness is proposing.
May I add that I am afraid that the way in which these Amendments are framed is verbally totally defective. I will not weary the House by trying to read out in extenso how this subparagraph would read with the noble Baroness's Amendments, but if anybody cares to do that exercise in his own mind he will find that it simply is not grammatical and does not make any sense at all. To try to illustrate that by an extraction, it would read:
"This sub-paragraph applies unless within five years preceding the making of the order"—
and now I go on to head (b)—
"where a local plan for the district in which the land is situated has been adopted or approved under Part IT of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971"—
we have to leave out the word "that" to make it grammatical—
"the grant of planning permission for relevant development in respect of the land comprised in the order would be in accordance with the provisions of that plan".
The words, "within five years preceding the making of the order", may possibly make sense in relation to head (a) where one is speaking about a planning permission and saying planning permission must have been given within five years. But it makes no sense at all when one is speaking about a notional grant of planning permission, as one is in head (b) and indeed in head (c). Therefore, apart from the fundamental objections, as I see it, to this proposal, it seems to me that the whole of these Amendments would have to be rewritten, even if the arguments advanced and the idea the noble Baroness has in mind are a valid and good point.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I was not sure whether the noble Lord, while criticising the words and the meaning that could flow from this proposal—which may well be very sound because he has obviously given a lot of study to it and I imagine his argument is well based—found the principle behind these Amendments acceptable. Whatever views he may have on Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, the point behind No. 62 is well based, it is good sense, and if it is good sense words can always be found to make it good law. It is obvious to anybody who works in this field that great changes take place both in the desires and wishes of local authorities and in planning generally over a five-year period. Things are happening, and they are happening quickly. I believe that to make it ultra vires without inserting some period—and five years seems to be a reasonable period—would not be reflecting the problems that face people who have to work in this field at the present time. So I would hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in giving consideration to the arguments on these Amendments, and while she will no doubt take into account the accuracy of the wording, for it is right that that should be done, would be prepared to accept the principle behind Amendment No. 62. It is sound and I believe it would make the Bill much better in its application in future years.
3.36 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, perhaps I may speak first to Amendment No. 62 and then to Nos. 63 and 64. As has already been pointed out, so I will not dwell on it, the drafting of No. 62 is defective, so in any case it could not be accepted as it stands. Nevertheless, what is more important, and what I think the noble Baroness had most in mind, is the intention behind the Amendment. I would immediately agree that the basic intention is an entirely reasonable one; that is, that the Secretary of State should not dispense with an inquiry on the basis of planning information that is so far out of date that it no longer presents a fair picture of the planning background in an area. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, also made that point.
However, unfortunately it is not quite so simple or straightforward as that because trouble starts when there is an
1164
attempt to tie this down to any fixed period; for instance, the period of five years mentioned in the Amendment. Although the noble Lord said he thought this was quite enough and it was fair enough, I am afraid that in practice it would not work out quite so simply as he appeared to think. So far as planning permissions are concerned, the Amendment is in itself unnecessary. That is because the Secretary of State can dispense with a public inquiry only where a planning permission is in force, and the validity of a planning permission is generally limited to five years. So in normal circumstances there could not be a planning permission in force which was granted more than five years before the making of the CPO. This I think we all know and are agreed upon.
In the other two cases, which is where local plans or development plans are involved, the argument is rather more generalised. Any specific time limit attached to the period of usefulness of these plans for the purpose of dispensing with inquiries must run the risk, as I think noble Lords will have to agree, of cutting out good plans as well as bad ones. This risk exists and it is impossible to get round it in this way. The trouble is that the pace of considerably from one area to another. Obviously, a plan for an area where little development is planning, as I think we are all agreed, varies taking place will have a much longer validity than one in an area scheduled for heavy development and where planning approaches may be changing the whole time. Therefore, a generalised time limit cannot encompass these variations, and yet it would be wrong not to allow the Secretary of State to dispense with the public inquiry on the basis of a plan which, though old, was still in those circumstances perfectly valid.
It seems to us that the answer to the genuine point underlying the Amendments is that, in each case, in deciding whether or not to dispense with a public inquiry, the Secretary of State will have to consider the adequacy of the planning background. The age of the plans will be a material factor in his consideration, and where a plan was simply out of date the Secretary of State would certainly not want to rely on it and would therefore not exercise his discretion to dispense with an inquiry. It is for

1165
these, I submit, very strong, practical reasons, that I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment—not because there is any policy disagreement, but because we do not think it would be practical, and also it could be inhibiting and produce results which are not wanted by anybody.
If we may turn to the next two Amendments, Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has answered most, if not all, of the points raised. However, the Amendment has raised an issue which has recurred several times during the debates on this Bill; namely, where the line should be drawn between those decisions which ought to be left to the Secretary of State and those which should rest with the courts. The point which has been generally accepted and was expounded very well by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is that matters which involve an element of planning judgment should be left to the Secretary of State since, as the noble Lord himself said, the courts are not equipped to make such judgments. This is true of the present case where judgment as to whether the grant of planning permission would be in accordance with a local plan will not usually be an absolutely clear-cut issue. Therefore it would be inappropriate to give the courts any role, as the Amendment seeks to do. However, it must be remembered that in reaching his decision the Secretary of State is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and must make a reasoned decision on the merits of the case.
For all the reasons which I have expounded, and also for the reasons which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I hope that after this very useful debate on the principle, the noble Baroness will withdraw her Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: May I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for that answer. I appreciate that the Amendments are not correctly drafted. On many occasions during the course of this Bill one has had to prepare Amendments late at night and in a hurry and, not being a lawyer, I am afraid that they are not always as accurate as they should be. I must accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, although I am glad
1166
to think that he feels I have raised a point of importance.
This debate has shown that what could be construed as a very real misunderstanding about the interpretation of this part of the Schedule has been cleared up, and I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her clear explanation. It will be useful to local authorities and to individuals who read the Schedule to have had this very full and detailed explanation of what are the Government's intentions with regard to the new procedure. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.42 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, Amendment No. 65 could be described as consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 29, leave out from first ("the") to ("is") in line 30 and insert ("purpose specified as that for which the land is required").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Viscount would remove the requirement which was inserted at Committee stage, that where a public inquiry is dispensed with on the basis of the planning permission, the planning permission should be consistent with the reasons given by the authority before the acquisition, and would substitute the requirement that the planning permission should be consistent with the purpose specified as that for which the land is required. Most of us remember that after a long debate in Committee the original Amendment was carried against the Government in a Division. However, in the light of the Government Amendments which were agreed to this afternoon—Amendments Nos. 57 and 61—which remove the requirement for an authority to state the reasons for the acquisition and go back to the existing procedure of stating the purpose, obviously the original Amendment could no longer stand.
By this Amendment the noble Viscount is bringing the change into line with the Government Amendments. However, the Government are still considering the implications of the basic change brought about by the original Amendment that

1167
was carried in Committee. Until this consideration is completed the Government cannot take a view on the present Amendment, except to say that, given what the House has decided up to this moment, it follows from the Government Amendments that this change is necessary. I do not propose to resist the Amendment but I should point out that my failure to divide the House must clearly be without prejudice to the view that the Government will take on the basic issue.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 56, line 35, after ("approved") insert ("after a local inquiry or hearing").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we come now to the circumstances in which a public inquiry can be dispensed with, and again I should like to draw the attention of the House to the case where there is a local plan. Last time I suggested that only those local plans which had been approved by the Secretary of State should qualify as local plans on the basis of which the Secretary of State could dispense with the subsequent public inquiry upon an acquisition under this Bill. The noble Baroness and I did not see entirely eye to eye on how that would work out in practice. However, she has written me a very helpful and useful letter and we are now in agreement about how it would work. I have not gone back to that point but have raised a slightly different one which I hope will be more acceptable to the Government.
The point is that if the Secretary of State dispenses with a public inquiry upon a subsequent compulsory purchase order after there has been a local plan and when the compulsory purchase order for the land which is to be acquired under this Bill is in accordance with the local plan, it seems to me to be right that one should have had a public inquiry in the case of the local plan. I dare say that almost always this will have been so. Nevertheless, I suspect that there will be cases, perhaps relating to very small areas which at the time were uncontroversial and since have raised more controversial issues, when there was not originally a public inquiry into the local plan. In
1168
those cases, the Secretary of State could still dispense with a public inquiry in the case of a compulsory purchase order and there would be no public inquiry. I do not think that is right.
Although I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will tell me that administratively the Secretary of State would probably hold the public inquiry on the compulsory purchase order if there had not been an inquiry on the local plan itself, if that is going to be so administratively why do we not provide for it in the Bill? It seems to me to be the sensible thing to do. Almost always it willbe a situation that will have been fulfilled in fact, so it will not cause any great difficulty. However, I should like to think that we are trying to make plain to people who will be affected by this Bill how the machinery will work and the occasions upon which they can generally, and with some degree of anticipation of success, ask for a public inquiry to be held.
I hope this will not be thought to go nearly so far as my last attempt in this field and that it might prove acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down may I ask him to explain the significance of the words he has used? What is the difference between a public inquiry and a hearing?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I do not have the faintest idea. I have taken the words straight out of the local plans provision of the Town and Country Planning Act. One is formal and the other is less formal.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I support my noble friend on this issue and make two additional points? I hope the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will agree that if the planning framework of the place and the acquisition of land in a particular area are to be the subject of one inquiry, there is a great deal to be said for so arranging matters and so arranging the law—this Bill in particular—that the inquiry should take place in a planning and not in a land acquisition context. That is a point upon which my views are reinforced by the Town and Country Planning Association.
At the earlier stage of the Bill, I was not entirely satisfied with the noble

1169
Lord's description of the attitude of the Town and Country Planning Association, nor that of the Royal Town Planning Institute. At that moment we on this side were chiefly in touch with those bodies which we knew were dissatisfied with the Bill. It was not until after we had grappled with all that, that speaking for myself, I was able to make contact with other bodies concerned, which we had been led to understand were satisfied. On this issue the Town and Country Planning Association are strongly in support of what my noble friend is seeking to introduce by this Amendment, because they, too, agree that if the land acquisition schemes are to be led by the planning process then, wherever possible, the inquiry should be into the planning process and not into the acquisition process, and this will be secured if this Amendment is imported into the Bill. I hope that the Government, who have expressed themselves as wanting to have the land acquisition planning-led, will see that this Amendment helps them to achieve that purpose. I beg to support the Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I accept that this Amendment does not go as far as the Amendment to which the noble Viscount referred and which he moved at the Committee stage. However, I have to tell him that this Amendment is not acceptable to the Government. The intention of the Government is that the ability to dispense with an inquiry should, apart from the reserve procedure in paragraph 4 of the Schedule, be available only where there has already been a public inquiry into the planning issues. If there are no objections to a local plan, there will always have been a public inquiry into that plan. Thus there seems to be no difference of intention between the Government and noble Lords opposite. In the view of the Government, this situation is already achieved by the Bill and the Amendment is therefore not necessary.
I should like to emphasise that Section 13(1) of the 1971 Act requires that the local planning authority shall hold a local inquiry which by virtue of Regulation 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) Regulations 1974 has to be a public inquiry, in the case of any objection made in accordance with the regulations made by the Secretary of State. Under these regulations, by virtue
1170
of Regulation 5 and Form 7, any objection is valid provided that it is made within the specified period, which is to be not less than the six-week period; and states the matter to which the objection relates and the grounds of the objection.
To put all that simply, if there is any valid objection to a local plan there will always have to be a public inquiry into the plan. Therefore, it is our view that the Amendment is not necessary. If there are no objections to local plans—if someone has had the right to object to a local plan and thereby force an inquiry and has not done so—we take the view that the Secretary of State should have the power to dispense with an inquiry. My understanding is that the Council on Tribunals take the same view as we do about this matter. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment.
3.54 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, somehow I thinkit was the wrong script at the beginning of that speech, because of course there will not be a public inquiry or hearing unless there are objections, and something which the noble Lord said at the beginning tended to blur that point, although he put it right at the end. The noble Lord must forgive me for differing about this. I appreciate, as I think I said, that it will probably be fairly rare for a local plan to be approved without a public inquiry. But it may happen, and I am also concerned about the time factor. I personally hope that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be disposed of as quickly as possible upon the change of Administration. But let us suppose that it is not, and that we are going to live with the wretched thing for a long time. We do not yet know how the procedure for the local plans, and the updated local plans, will proceed. It was lovely at the beginning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. Everybody thought that there really were to be quinquennial reviews of the development plans, and look at what has happened. I suppose that most of them have had one review in the course of about 25 years, but some of them have not had even that.
Oxfordshire is still working on a development plan, the preparatory work for which was done in 1948. Nobody has

1171
changed it since. There have been various informal documents, but there has been no proper development plan since the one which was approved in 1954. We do not in the least know what is to happen under local plans. We do not know whether the timetable for revisions will be kept up. We could therefore have a situation where a local plan—and, after all, a local plan can be for quite a small area; it is not the same as the plan for the whole of the county or the whole of the district; we can have a series of local plans for quite small areas—has been put forward and dealt with and been entirely unexceptionable at the time, but has become hopelessly out of date. If in those circumstances, many years later, the local authority having perhaps changed other local plans, or the district having changed, the Secretary of State says, "We still do not need a public inquiry, because it is in accordance with this ancient, out of date local plan", then that is wrong. At any rate, there will be one safeguard in those circumstances if we provide that there had to be a public inquiry in the first place.
I do not know what the House thinks about this, but it seems to me that if the noble Lord is saying that he thinks there ought to have been—and there usually will have been—a public inquiry or hearing in the first instance, then I cannot see what harm there would be in putting it into the Bill which would make clear what everybody desires to happen. I do not feel inclined to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, may I say that this is one of the very rare cases where the logic of the noble Viscount does not carry. As I understand the argument he is using it is this. He is saying: "What worries me is that there may have been a local plan adopted back in the 1950s and that is the local plan to which you will have to look when you are considering a case under sub-paragraph (3)(b)."He goes on to say that it may well be that circumstances have completely changed since then and that therefore it would be wrong not to allow a public inquiry on the compulsory purchase order which is now in mind. But he is really reverting to the point made by the noble Baroness about having a five-year limit—or some limit in time. It is no
1172
protection to insert the words that the noble Lord is suggesting, that there must have been a public inquiry back in 1948, because the plan in 1976, if it was adopted in 1948 after a public inquiry, may be just as deficient when one is considering whether there ought to be a public inquiry under a case coming under sub-paragraph (3)(b); therefore it really is not a safeguard.
Having said that, although I think that is a bad argument, I am nevertheless a supporter of what the noble Viscount is trying to do because I cannot see why the Government should be unwilling to accept this. As I understand it, the case put forward by the Government is this: they say that under some previous legislation wherever there is a valid objection there must have been a public inquiry, and it is only in such cases where a local plan is drawn up and nobody makes any objection that one could do without a public inquiry. But I should have thought it was all too easy for a local plan to go through without objection, simply because the people who may many years later find themselves very much affected by it do not apprehend the way in which they are threatened.
People do not go into local council offices to inspect local plans in detail to see how they might conceivably at some future time affect their property. People get "up in arms" and object when they suddenly find their own property pinpointed by some compulsory purchase order, or something of that kind. Therefore, I cannot really see why the Government should resist this Amendment. It does not do them any harm to let it go in, and the number of cases in which it will be of any consequence, on the Government's own admission, are probably minimal, trifling and trivial. It does not seem to me that the insertion of these words can do any harm, and, indeed, can do anything but good.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I first echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, about the argument advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on whether or not something is out of date? I do not think that was a valid point on this Amendment. It referred back to a short discussion we had a little time ago, and as the noble Lord, Lord

1173
Foot, said, a plan can get equally out of date whether or not there was a public inquiry at the time it was made. The basic disadvantage of this Amendment is that it will interfere with the existing planning system, and that is something we have all along very strongly resisted, and not wanted the Bill to do.
My Lords, one effect of the Amendment, in our view, would be to deter people from objecting to local plans on planning grounds so that if there had to be an inquiry at the acquisition stage they could then raise planning argument. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is making noises about that.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I was saying that that is far-fetched.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, there is no doubt that it would be a sensible thing, if people were going to object to acquisition, not to object at the planning stage but to cause a lot of trouble at the acquisition stage. The other point, which is another limb of that argument, is that it seems to me that if the planning issues have been settled without any objections raised—and that is what we are talking about—then, once someone comes along and wants to purchase some of the land along the lines of those planning decisions
already made without any objection, any reopening of the argument will in practice be based on objections to public acquisition and not on planning grounds. The planning issues will have been settled when the plan was originally drawn up.
My Lords, so far as the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is concerned, this is something which came up in Committee. It may be true that at present not enough attention is paid by the general public to planning issues. I hope that this Bill, by strengthening planning, will increase the amount of public participation in planning issues. That is all to the good. It is not something that we should try to stop by passing an Amendment which I think will decrease the amount of participation at the planning stage so that people are left free to object at some later stage about issues which should already have been decided.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I have already made two speeches; I had better not make another.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 66) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Killearn, L.

Airedale, L.

Eccles, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Effingham, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Alport, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Amherst, E.

Elton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Balerno, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Exeter, M.

Loudoun, C.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Lyell, L.

Banks, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Barnby, L.

Ferrers, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L

Barrington, V.

Foot, L.

Mansfield, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Gage, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Berkeley, B.

Glendevon, L.

Merrivale, L.

Birdwood, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Middleton, L.

Boothby, L.

Goschen, V.

Monck, V.

Bourne, L.

Grantchester, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Byers, L.

Grenfell, L.

Newall, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Northchurch, B.

Carrington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ogmore, L.

Colville of Culross, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cowley, E.

Hampton, L.

Platt, L.

Craigton, L.

Hankey, L.

Porritt, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Daventry, V.

Hawke, L.

Rathcavan, L.

de Freyne, L.

Henley, L.

Roberthall, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochdale, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sackville, L.

Dudley, B.

Kemsley, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

St. Davids, V.

Somers, L.

Vickers, B.

St. Helens, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Vivian, L.

Sandford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wade, L.

Sandys, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Savile, L.

Strathspey, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Selkirk, E.

Tenby, V.

Wigoder, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Thomas, L.

Wise, L.

Sherfield, L.

Tranmire, L.

Yarborough, E.

Simon, V.

Vernon, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Pargiter, L.

Balogh, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Peddie, L.

Birk, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Popplewell, L.

Bruce of Donnington, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hoy, L.

Rhodes, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hughes, L.

Rusholme, L.

Castle, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Snow, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crook, L.

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Stow Hill, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Summerskill, B.

Darwen, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

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

Milford, L.

Winlerbottom, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Fulton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.12 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 56, leave out lines 40 to 44.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment concerns development plans. I do not feel so strongly about this one, but I should like to explore it a little more than we did in Committee in order to get the Government's views. Development plans are not likely to be nearly so often relevant for the purposes of doing away with the subsequent public inquiry as are local plans. For the purposes of this definition, a local plan is a development plan, according to the definition in the Town and Country Planning Acts, so we really have local plans in twice. I shall concentrate more upon the sort of plans which count as development plans under the definition but which are not local plans. I think I am right in saying that they are, first of all, the old-style local plans before structure plans were invented; and, secondly, structure plans now that they have been invented. It would be helpful for those who wish to follow the debates and understand what is the Government's policy if the
1176
noble Baroness would indicate what the Department and the Secretary of State will have in mind when deciding that the second public inquiry may be dispensed with if the development the local authority is seeking is in accordance with the provisions of the development plan.
First of all, would she concede that where we are dealing with the old style development plan it is almost always going to be completely out of date? She may tell me that there are some reviews of county development plans or town maps under the old procedure which have been approved comparatively recently by the Secretary of State. I think I saw one in Hertfordshire the other day which was approved in 1971, but the difficulty about it was that it was submitted for approval in 1964; it had taken all that time. Of course, it was based upon material which was prepared even before it was submitted for approval. So even that sort of development plan is out of date. I should like, therefore, the noble Baroness to give an indication as to whether or not it would be usual for the Secretary of State to rely on the provisions of the old style development plans and to say that as the acquisition is in accordance with that he

1177
will not have a second public inquiry. I should have thought that that would be an unusual step to take; I think he would usually say, "We had better have another look at it".
Then we come to the new style structure plans. It is no doubt my loss, but I am not familiar with the West Midlands one which was referred to in Committee. The ordinary structure plans are not really ordnance survey-based at all (or only very small parts of them are), and it will not be possible accurately to pinpoint what is the proposed use intended for a particular piece of land in accordance with that plan. There may be circumstances, perhaps in regard to town centres, where there is something in the structure plan which is sufficiently precise, but even then I should have expected the structure plans to be a little vague about the actual definition, in terms of geography, about the town centre. Would the noble Baroness confirm that it is going to be very unusual—perhaps she could give us examples as to where it would happen—for the structure plans to be a reliable basis for dispensing with the second public inquiry? Perhaps also she would be so kind as to tell us what it is about this West Midlands case which is different from all the others and which allows it to be used as a basis for dispensing with the public inquiry if there is to be a compulsory acquisition to accord with it. I am seeking further information to enable people to prepare their objections on sensible grounds which accord with the thinking of the Government, and to understand how the Government will decide whether or not to hold a public inquiry. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the noble Viscount pointed out, the effect of his Amendment would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to dispense with a public inquiry on the basis of any development plan other than an approved or adopted local plan. Amendment No. 69 is consequential. This provision was discussed at Committee stage, and the Amendment to remove this power was designed to seek elucidation on how it would be used and was withdrawn on that basis. I feel that we are really going over somewhat the same ground again. I explained then the inten-
1178
tions behind the provision, and frankly there is really nothing further to add.
Where the existing old style development plan is ordnance survey-based and gives detailed proposals for the use of land, there is an expectation, until such time as it may be superseded by a local plan, that the land will be developed according to the allocations in the plan. If relevant development would clearly be consistent with the allocations for the particular land—and these allocations will have been decided after an inquiry—it is inappropriate that the CPO inquiry should be used as an occasion for debate on the planning policies for the area. So it would be quite wrong to remove the provision from the Bill.
As the noble Viscount pointed out, and and as I have argued before, it can be argued that a structure plan is too vague for the purpose of this provision, and that the examination in public does not go into the kind of detail that would enable the owner of the land to know how this land would be affected. We accept that a structure plan would generally be too vague to form the basis for acquisition, and this is in fact stated in the note on the planning framework.
But there would be technical difficulty in attempting to depart from the planning Act definition of what is the development plan before a local plan is in existence. The Secretary of State—I think that probably this is the main point—would certainly take into account the nature of the structure plan in deciding whether to exercise his discretion, and would hold an inquiry if this was necessary. It is often true that old style development plans are out of date and this would be taken into account by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to hold an inquiry at all, but there are some areas—and this is the reference to the West Midlands, which I think I made on Committee stage—where there have been recent amendments to old style development plans which could certainly form an adequate planning basis for acquisition.
To sum it up, the reason for it is that we need this to cover the period until there are new plans everywhere. To put anything else into the Bill would create more difficulties than it would ease. I hope I have assured the noble Viscount

1179
on the point that the Secretary of State would take this into account, and also the point that there have been, and are, continuous recent amendments to old style development plans and that these would form an adequate planning basis during what would be a kind of interim period.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. I had not appreciated that the reference to the West Midlands was not a reference to structure plans but to the old-style development plan. That makes it clearer because I could not think of what was going on in the structure plan for the West Midlands that made it so different from anywhere else. The noble Baroness said that where the proposals of the compulsory purchase order complied with the old-style development plan, then that might be good enough, but she must appreciate that that would not do on its own, first, if the old-style development plan is ancient and out-of-date and, secondly, and perhaps even more important, if that matter, at the time when the development plan was presented to the Secretary of State and was open to objection, was not subject of a public inquiry on this point.
Take something which is very old and out-of-date and where there is still, for some reason, a piece of land allocated for industrial purposes, but which has never been taken up for those purposes. I can think of a piece of land in London with which I have been recently dealing. the allocation on the old-style development plan is not only old and out-of-date but is now totally irrelevant. It was put there to reflect an existing use which happened to exist at the time. Everything is changed, not body wants to use it for those purposes any more but for some totally different purpose, and I do not think that there was ever a public inquiry into it. Would the noble Baroness tell the House that that would be an occasion when the Secretary of State would almost certainly be wrong in dispensing with a public inquiry, supposing that the local authority tried to come along now and buy it for the original purpose which most other people thought was totally inapposite. That is what I want to get at. I do not know whether she will be allowed by leave to deal with that.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, have I the leave of the House to speak again? I thought I covered this. I can only repeat what I said, which seemed to me to meet adequately the point the noble Viscount makes. In the circumstances which he outlines in the development plan, the Secretary of State would certainly take into account the nature of the plan when he is deciding whether to exercise his discretion, and he would hold an inquiry if this was necessary. Whatever were the reasons, and these would be among them, he would still have the discretion to hold an inquiry. I can give the reassurance to the noble Viscount that the points he enumerated, which I will not take up the time of the House by going into again, would be factors which the Secretary of State would have to take into account, and would take into account, when he decides whether an inquiry ought to be held.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I think that that is a much better and clearer assurance, and a very helpful one, and on those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.26 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 67C:
Page 57, line 18, leave out ("or inexpedient") and insert ("to ensure development of the land.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, no one has been very fond of "unnecessary or inexpedient" and certainly this is not an occasion to go back into the New Towns Act, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that if somebody could think of something better which was not open to the sort of criticisms that were presented to the suggestions we made in Committee, he would consider it. I do not know whether I have been any more successful this time than we were before, but it is really to follow up the precise delineation of the point which he himself put forward that I venture to suggest this Amendment might be some good, and would actually describe the circumstances where the inquiry could be dispensed with on this ground. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Viscount says, I did say at Committee stage that we would consider alter-

1181
native wordings, if the alternative wordings reflected the spirit of the Government's intentions in this matter. Our intentions are that it should be possible to disregard an objection where an owner was effectively arguing either against the principle of public acquisition or that public acquisition was unnecessary in that case. I am sure that the noble Viscount has taken that point. Indeed, he has made a valiant attempt to meet it. I am advised that this is the first real attempt that has been made to get to grips with the problem.
Unfortunately, however, it does not go far enough, because it would still leave it open to the owner to argue that although the acquisition is unnecessary to ensure that development takes place, nevertheless if the land were not acquired, he or she would be able to ensure that the land was developed more quickly or in a better manner than if it were publicly acquired. On that narrow ground there may still be some room for doubt. That, of course, would clearly not be within the spirit of the Government's intentions. I fully accept that the noble Viscount has made a genuine attempt to meet the point. On the other hand, I hope he will accept that many expert advisers to Her Majesty's Government have also spent many hours seeing whether any alternative form of words could be devised, and they have not had any success. None of us seems to have been able to improve on the words in the New Towns Act 1965, and I am afraid we would rather rest with those words.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I expect that with a little ingenuity I may be able to put the necessary caveat which the noble Lord has hinted is still required. Every time he describes this it is helpful because it goes a little further in trying to pin down the area of prohibition upon which one must not go, and if one does one loses one's public inquiry. I shall study what he says, and we have time for one more try at this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 67A:
Page 57, leave out from line 34 to end of line 2 on page 58.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 67B and 68A. We debated this matter in Committee and I have explained that, unfortunately, I inserted my Amendment in the wrong part of Schedule 4. These three Amendments are tabled to put that wrong insertion right.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I cannot let this occasion go by without referring to some rather extraordinary points surrounding this group of Amendments, which has made rather tortuous progress up to now. On 24th October, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, moved the original Amendment and, at the end of the discussion—in which I had raised several points and made it clear that the Government did not accept the Opposition's arguments on the matter—I did not receive a satisfactory answer. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked for a further explanation but still no reply was given. There seemed to be an air of confusion and disarray on the Benches opposite over this whole issue. However, the Question was then put and there was a Division.
On Monday. 27th October, the noble Baroness moved a consequential Amendment and explained that she had inserted her Amendment in the wrong place and would move an Amendment to put that right. When it appeared on the Marshalled List, it was again down in the same place. It was taken out of that place and we now see the same Amendment down in a different place. I find the whole process rather extraordinary, particularly as it was a fundamental Amendment from the point of view of the Opposition. It was an attack on the Government's attitude to the owner-occupier which has been the basis of so much propaganda and bogey-raising both inside and outside Parliament. It is extraordinary that noble Lords opposite should have conducted the issue in this way. If it had not been the noble Baroness who was doing it—and she is certainly not ham-handed—I would have said that the matter had been handled in

1183
a ham-handed way. The only conclusion I can draw is that some Freudian influence is at work, and that the noble Baroness would rather not change anything but leave matters as they are. If so, it would be wrong if I did not give her an opportunity to withdraw the whole lot.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I can see that this is not my afternoon from the drafting point of view, but perhaps I can put my side of the case. I tabled the Amendment originally and, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will accept, we have been working to a very tight timetable on this Bill. We went into Committee one week after this Schedule had been debated and altered by Amendment in another place. I had misread the Schedule and therefore inserted the Amendment in the wrong place. I am prepared to accept that I made a mistake; I am never one to try to pretend to be perfect, in this or in any other matter. I recognised my mistake and said so the following day; I said I had inserted my Amendment in the wrong place, I apologised to the Committee and said I would come back to it on Report. I came back on Report and, while I am not criticising anybody else, my Amendment was put down incorrectly yesterday. As soon as I saw that it was incorrect, I amended it and I have done my best to bring it forward today. This illustrates the difficulties under which we are working. Those of us who do not have a large number of advisors behind us, but who have to work as best we can on our own may not always get it right.
I am prepared to speak to my Amendment again. Some difficulties arose, not surprisingly, on the last occasion because it was inserted in the wrong place, and therefore it clearly read somewhat strangely. However, the point at issue is simple. Amendments Nos. 67A and 67B are paving Amendments for No. 68A and the point of No. 68A is to give the owner-occupier the right to object at a public inquiry—the right he has today. It does not improve or alter his position in any way. It simply maintains the status quo, and that is why we inserted it. The arguments were well gone over. The whole proceedings under Schedule 4 mean that in certain circumstances the
1184
owner-occupier does not have a right to object at a public inquiry where there has already been an approved development plan or a local plan. We debated this at great length. My Amendment would maintain that right, and I hope that I have at least now inserted it in the right place and that the difficulties that were apparent on the last occasion will not arise today.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Young and I rise to put a Back-Bench point of view. What has really disturbed me about this Bill is the fact that for the first time we have a measure by which Parliament is delegating considerable powers to local authorities, and I should have thought that it was the duty of Parliament to make absolutely clear the precise powers under which they can act. Under Clause 15, there are powers of acquisition and these are to some extent elaborated in Schedule 4. I cannot see, where an authority has considerable powers under the Bill, why the Government should object to an Amendment which, as my noble friend Lady Young rightly said, is designed to allay fears in the country. These fears have not been aroused by the Opposition. Fears exist on the part of the single householder and we have not been responsible for causing them.
Several Noble Lords: Oh?
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I absolutely refute such a charge and, if it is levelled against us, I should like to know the occasion on which we have been responsible. People throughout the country are concerned about the rights of the individual householder and, as I say, powers are being given in this Bill in no uncertain fashion to local authorities, and we are simply asking for protection to be given to the rights of the individual in respect of property.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, having heard the difficulties under which we are labouring. may I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to withdraw the words "ham-handed" which perhaps fell inadvertently from her lips?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will make a brief comment. I do not propose to resist this Amendment, because we voted on an

1185
Amendment in exactly the same terms the other day, when the Opposition got it through by a very small majority. I therefore do not propose to put the House to the time and trouble of doing it again. I made it clear that in using the term "ham-handed" I was not referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I said specifically that it struck me that the whole procedure had been handled rather ham-handedly.
However, what has not yet been answered—and I do not propose to prolong this discussion further, having made my point—is the initial matter with which I was concerned; that when the matter was put to the House previously no answer was given to the points raised by myself and noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. I certainly would not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, of behaving in the way I described. Nevertheless, there has been a Tory political broadcast and many things have constantly been said about this matter, but I was referring to comments and various remarks that have been said and written by the Opposition.
I was quite rightly making the point that, if this was one of the "big flags" of the Opposition in regard to this Bill, I did not think that it had been handled in the right or most effective way. I was pointing out that we had still had no answers to the quite substantial points which I had made on the merits of the Amendment, and which were quite apart from the principle or policy behind them. However. I do not intend to take this any further, and I shall leave any other action which needs to be taken to be considered in another place.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for saying that she will accept the Amendment, and to add a further word of explanation. I am quite prepared to answer all the points which the noble Baroness has raised and I would do so this afternoon, but I had thought that we wanted to get on now. The reason why I did not make an extensive speech was that all this arose at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, at a time when we had agreed to conclude the business of the day after a very long week. I am in no way afraid to answer the points which have been raised, and I should be very happy
1186
to do so now or on Third Reading if that was called for. However, I felt that we had gone over this fairly thoroughly and I had not intended to pursue it. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she will not oppose the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 67B.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 11, leave out paragraph 13.—(Baroness Young.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords I beg to move Amendment No. 68A.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order consists of a dwelling-house and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall not rely on the foregoing modifications made by this paragraph.
( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order comprises a dwelling-house together with other land and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, then, if the Secretary of State relies on the foregoing modifications made by this paragraph, he shall not confirm the compulsory purchase order without excluding the dwelling-house from that order.
( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order consists of, or comprises with other land, a dwelling-house, the Secretary of State may disregard for the purpose of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1946 any objection made by the occupier of the dwelling-house which in the opinion of the Secretary of State amounts in substance to an objection to the provisions of the development plan defining the proposed use of the dwelling-house or any other land.
( ) In this paragraph "dwelling-house" means any building or part of a building in which a person is residing, and includes any other building or part of a building in which a person normally resides but from which he is temporarily absent.").—(Baroness Young.)
4.43 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 58, line 24, leave out ("development plan in sub-paragraph (3)(c)") and insert ("local plan in sub-paragraph (3)(b).").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady

1187
Birk, thought that this was a consequential Amendment. If so, she has another think coming, because it is a point of substance and I hope she has an answer to it. The noble Baroness is probably already aware that the definition of "development plan" for the purposes of this Schedule is that which is to be found in the Town and Country Planning Act. I said just now that the definition of "development plan" in the Town and Country Planning Act includes local plans. Section 20(1)(c) states that the development plan includes,
"any provisions of a local plan for the time being applicable to the district, together with the copy of the … approval thereof".
In paragraph 4(1) on page 58, we apparently have some other kind of local plan, which is being used instead of the development plan for the purpose of seeing whether the Secretary of State will dispense with a public inquiry. I am not at all sure why it is that the kind of local plan referred to in paragraph 4(1)(a) on page 58 is being substituted for the whole of the development plan, rather than for the local plan referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(b) on page 56. It it not a matter of a consequential Amendment. It would, incidentally, have been consequential to what I moved earlier, but it is also a point of substance and I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain it, because otherwise it seems to me that what we want is a reference to the local plan rather than to the development plan. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I referred to it as being consequential because it seemed to me to be very much on the same point, because Amendment No. 67, as I understood it, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to dispense with a public inquiry on the basis of any development plan other than approved or adopted local plans. I was dealing with them together. I believe that they are all part and parcel of the same thing because, until there is a local plan, the "development plan" for an area means the old-style plan as overlaid by the approved structure plan, if there is one. We then come back to the same argument about the structure plan. I do not believe that it will be of very great consequence whether this is in or out of the Bill and, if the noble Viscount
1188
feels strongly about Amendment No. 69, having disposed of the main Amendment which was Amendment No. 67, I do not feel that at this stage it will make very much difference if this alteration is made to the Bill. I am prepared to accept it.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I believe that the Amendment clarifies the position and on that basis I am very happy that it should go into the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should perhaps explain a point which I overlooked. The Amendment should read, "a local plan" rather than "the local plan". I regret the mistake which occurred because I bracketed the words which the noble Viscount was moving to delete. We should need a manuscript Amendment to make the necessary alteration.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, again, if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the House will allow me to move a manuscript Amendment, I beg to move the following in place of Amendment No. 69:
Page 58, line 24, leave out the words ("the development plan in sub-paragraph (31(c)") and insert ("a local plan in sub-paragraph (3)(b).")
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: moved Aendment No. 69A:
Page 58, line 30, leave out ("confirming authority") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have moved this Amendment so that there may be on the Record the answer which I now know, but which may also have eluded some other people. As I understand it, the "confirming authority" both in line 30 and in line 35 is the confirming authority for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land Act and not for the purposes of the local plan part of the Town and Country Planning Act. In other words, the confirming authority is not the authority which confirms the local plan—that is, the local planning authority—but is, rather, the Secretary of State. If that can be confirmed, I believe it may be useful and dispose of one possible doubt in people's minds. For the purposes of obtaining confirmation, I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I hope I am not shortly to be told that Amendment No. 70 is on a point of substance.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: No, my Lords.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Viscount has said that it was felt that the drafting throughout the subparagraph should be consistent in referring either to the Secretary of State or to the confirming authority. It may be helpful if I read out the explanation for the use of these two phrases in the sub-paragraph so that, as the noble Viscount has said, it is on the Record.
The sub-paragraph does two distinct things. First, it gives a power to bring in a reserve procedure in certain circumstances; this is a power under the present Bill and therefore should be exercised by the Secretary of State (as in the first line of paragraph 4(1)). But, secondly, that reserve procedure has the practical effect of inserting sub-paragraphs 4(1)(a) and (b) into Schedule 1 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1946. The term used throughout that Schedule is" the confirming authority", and that term is defined as,
"the authority having power under the enactment in question to authorise the purchase".
For these complex reasons, the dual terminology is necessary.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 58, line 38, leave out ("the occupier") and insert ("the owner occupier, the occupier or the owner temporarily absent but who comes within the scope of sections 2 and 3 of the Rent Act 1974.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this point was discussed in Committee when it was pointed out that under paragraph 4(2) the occupier of a house would be notified under the special procedure and, if he objected, would have the right to a public inquiry. The point which was made in Committee was that only the occupier was mentioned in this sub-paragraph and that the owner-occupier and, perhaps more important, the person who owned the property but who might be tempor-
1190
arily abroad—perhaps serving abroad—was not mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, explained how this had arisen in the Bill and said that this sub-paragraph had been inserted in another place at the instigation of the Opposition. He subsequently wrote to me, for which I am most grateful, and said that if a house was to be compulsorily purchased the owner would be served with a compulsory purchase order. But the purpose of the Amendment—which I am sure is defective in its character—still comes back to the point where an occupier under subparagraph (2) will have the automatic right of inquiry, it appears that the owner, if not an occupier, may not. I hope that for that reason the noble Lord can give me an explanation. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Earl said, at the Committee stage he asked me whether an owner-occupier of a house serving abroad would receive notice where, while he was away, the property was deemed to be development land. The answer is that he or she would receive notice of the making of the compulsory purchase order, and that was the point on which I corresponded with the noble Earl. However, the present Amendment would go further, and give to certain types of temporarily absent owner-occupier a right to a public inquiry when the reserve procedures were in operation. We accept the spirit behind the Amendment, that where an owner-occupier is bona fide temporarily away from his house (for instance, a Serviceman abroad, which was the example given by the noble Earl at the Committee stage) but fully intends to return to his house, then he should in practice receive the same treatment as if he were still in residence. But there are problems in defining this arrangement in precise legal terms so that it covers all the cases which ought to be covered, on the one hand, but on the other hand does not go too wide and bring in cases where the absence could not really be described as a temporary one. The present Amendment goes too wide; we do not believe that it achieves the right result, and we are not clear that the sensible result, which I think both the noble Earl and the Government want, can be achieved in leglislation.
We therefore propose to achieve the spirit of the Amendment administratively

1191
so that, where an owner-occupier was genuinely temporarily absent, the Secretary of State would exercise his discretion to hold a public inquiry, so that such a person would be put in the same position as if he or she were a residential occupier. I hope that with that clear assurance on this important point which the noble Earl has raised he will not press this Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. It gives me great pleasure to be grateful, as it happens so rarely. But I wish to make the point that I presume that the acquiring authority would serve the CPO notice on the temporarily absent owner, or indeed, on any owner who was away, thus alerting him to the right which, for administrative reasons, would be brought in at a later date. This action would ensure that the owner knows of his right automatically to have an inquiry. If such action were not taken, he may not know that.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him to repeat the early part of what he has just said. I was so astonished at the gratitude with which he greeted my remarks that I confess I did not hear the earlier part of what he said.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am always delighted to repeat what perhaps I did not put too clearly. I was saying that I am very grateful for the spirit of the noble Lord's reply. I understood him to say that the Secretary of State would accept the point—but not put it into legislation—that if there was an absentee owner, who was serving abroad on Her Majesty's service for one reason or another, he would have the right under this sub-paragraph (2), as the occupier. The point I am putting to the noble Lord is how will such an owner know that he has that right? Would information on that right be included in the notice which, I presume, would be served on him in connection with the compulsory purchase order?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if, by leave of the House, I may attempt to answer the noble Earl's question, I should say that this would not be attached to the compulsory purchase order in an addendum or note, but the owner, when he or she received the notice of the
1192
making of the compulsory purchase order would, as I think the noble Viscount said earlier, probably wish to object; this would be the normal course of events. It would be at that stage that the Secretary of State would exercise the discretion which I have indicated he would exercise in these cases.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.56 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 60, line 13, at end insert—
Special Parliamentary Procedure
("7A.—(1) For paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 of the Land Acquisitions Act 1946 there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
"12.—(1) A compulsory purchase order, in so far as it authorises the purchase of land being, or being the site of, an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest, or of any other land of a nature specified by an order of the Secretary of State, shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure unless the Secretary of State certifies that the acquiring authority has entered into an undertaking with the Secretary of State to observe such conditions as to the use of the land as in his opinion are requisite having regard to the nature thereof
(2) Within twelve months of the first appointed day under Clause 7 of this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an order specifying the land to which paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1946 shall apply.
(3) An order made under the last subparagraph shall not be effective until a draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) Before making the above draft order the Secretary of State shall consult with the Statutory advisory bodies concerned, and such other bodies as may seem to him expedient.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 72 and at the same time speak to a manuscript Amendment to sub-paragraph (2) of it to delete the words:
"Within twelve months of the first appointed day under Clause 7 of this Act …"
Speaking now to the suggested Amendment to Amendment No. 72, I invite the House to consider with me the usefulness of special Parliamentary procedure for protecting special categories of

1193
land and the issue of whether the use of special Parliamentary procedure should, because of the appearance of this Bill, in due course be extended. We have had one previous short debate on my Amendment No. 206B to Clause 40, which appears in columns 461 to 465 of the Official Report of the Committee stage. I recognise that in moving that Amendment I gave the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite very little notice of my intentions. But the short debate which we then had has given me useful material to digest and reflect upon, and I now put forward—and I apologise for needing to take a little time over it—a refinement of my earlier proposals, which I hope will be acceptable to the House and to the Government.
Referring to the previous debate, I accept particularly and entirely that we cannot take decisions now, at this stage, on this Bill, about what further categories of land, besides sites of ancient monuments, commons and National Trust land, should be protected by the special Parliamentary procedure. I also accept—this is another point that the noble Baroness made—that Clause 40 is not the best place in the Bill to deal with this matter. Therefore I come at it in Schedule 4, where we are making other modifications to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, which is the original source of special Parliamentary procedure.
The situation we are dealing with is this. Under the 1946 Act—Part III of Schedule 1 in particular—there are four main categories of land which are given extra protection against compulsory purchase. First, there is land owned by the National Trust; that is, inalienable land, which is referred to in paragraph 9. Secondly, there is the land of statutory undertakers, referred to in paragraph 10. Thirdly, there is land forming part of commons or allotment, referred to in paragraph 11, and land which is designated as the site of an ancient monument. Protection of National Trust land, which is mentioned in this Bill, remains unchanged. Protection of commons remains unchanged by the Bill, though mentioned in it, although the special Parliamentary procedure could always be avoided where the Secretary of State certified that he was satisfied that land had been given in exchange for that taken by the compulsory purchase order. The
1194
protection of the special Parliamentary procedure for the land belonging to the statutory undertakers is being removed by this Bill; that was what Clause 10 dealt with. So this leaves the protection of special Parliamentary procedure for designated land; that is in paragraph 12.
My first submission to the House is that this last category of designated land is, in any case, badly overdue for consideration and that while no conclusions about what should be done can possibly be reached here and now it would be wrong, in a Bill which does so much to promote and indeed to require the compulsory acquisition of land, not to take the opportunity to start and to stimulate a consideration of the protection of designated land and to provide now for possible changes in due course to meet the new situation.
May I remind the House of how matters stood in 1946, when this legislation was first put on the Statute Book, and how they stand now? In 1946 the inalienable land of the National Trust, commons land, land of statutory undertakers and ancient monument sites were subject to special Parliamentaray procedure. The only land protected, irrespective of who owned it and how it was used, comprised the ancient monuments, and the reason for that was that in 1946 this was the only kind of nationally designated land that existed. In 1946 there were no National Parks; it was several years before there were any areas of outstanding natural beauty; we had no heritage coasts; and, in the urban areas, there were no conservation areas and we had not begun on the process of listing historic buildings.
Yet, despite those tremendous changes, there has been only one change to paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Land Acquisition Act 1946, in which the application of special Parliamentary procedure to designated land was considered. That was in the case of compulsory purchase orders by water undertakers in the National Parks, and that matter was considered in the Water Resources Act 1971. There, Parliament took the view—and took it quite emphatically—that special Parliamentary procedure should be applied; applied it was, and applied it is. So we now have

1195
a situation which is lone overdue for overhaul and highly anomalous. My Amendment makes possible a start—a very gentle and modest start—to putting it right.
Perhaps your Lordships would be kind enough now to look at the terms of my Amendment. There, in the proposed new paragraph 12, by adding the words,
"of any other land of a nature specified by an order of the Secretary of State",
to the existing paragraph, it provides for other kinds of land to be covered by the protection of special Parliamentary procedure under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Act, and that is all at this stage.
My Amendment then goes on, in sub-paragraph (4), to invite the Secretary of State to consult with other statutory bodies, such as the Countryside Commission and the Historic Buildings Councils, and other non-statutory bodies, such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Civic Trust and the amenity societies, and, in the light of what they say and of what he thinks, to decide what kinds of land to bring into the protection afforded by paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 and to do that by order. My Amendment then goes on, in paragraphs (2) and (3), to invite Parliament to approve those orders whenever they are laid; and your Lordships will notice that by the manuscript Amendment I am not asking the Secretary of State to achieve this by any time, though I think it would be as well for it to be done before the effects of this Bill begin to bite hard. Parliament, I think, should approve the orders, because after all it is their Parliamentary procedure which will be involved.
My Lords, I accept that it will be difficult to decide how to draw the lines among these various categories of designated land; yet it would be impossible to draw them more anomalously than they are drawn now. What will be helpful, however, is the fact that paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the 1946 Act provides as an alternative to special Parliamentary procedure a certificate from the Secretary of State to the effect that special Parliamentary procedure can, in his view, be dispensed with where he is satisfied that a suitable undertaking or agreement about the management of the land in question by the authority that is in the process of acquiring it has been
1196
entered into. This kind of agreement about management—a management agreement—is just the kind of thing which the Countryside Commission, in particular, are always trying to secure to protect the best of our countryside while leaving its ownership undisturbed. My Lords, I commend this Amendment to the House and hope that it finds favour with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved manuscript Amendment 72B to Amendment No. 72:
In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 12 leave out from the beginning to "the" in line 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this Manuscript Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was intrigued by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he reminded us that he had moved a similar Amendment to Clause 40 and when he said that he had found it was the wrong place and that he had now "come at it" in Schedule 4. He has certainly "come at it" as if on a white charger, and has taken us for a conservationist trip around the legislation from 1946 onwards, which I found extremely interesting but which, if he will forgive me for saying so, is completely irrelevant to the Bill which we are discussing today. His Amendment, as he is possibly aware, has a certain number of technical defects, one of which he has certainly righted in his manuscript Amendment No. 72B. Nevertheless, this is not the reason why his Amendment, though it can be considered and discussed, is not acceptable at this time and in this Bill.
The fact that legislation may be badly overdue in many instances—and I think we can ail think of a great many places and areas where this is so—does not necessarily mean that you can just pop it into any Bill that happens to be passing along the way. They are not vehicles for this sort of thing. While I very much appreciate his position and sympathise with him in it—I would probably do the same thing myself, and have done it in the past; that is, grabbed at any bus that happened to be passing and on it tried to get right the particular bee which was in my bonnet—there are very grave difficulties, and I am afraid I shall briefly have to repeat, more or less, the points I made on Committee stage when he moved

1197
a similar Amendment. On that occasion he drew attention, as he has today, to the number of categories of land which have been given special national significance and which, in his opinion, deserved special protection. He also mentioned then, as he has now, the Water Resources Act and the fact that CPOs were made subject to special Parliamentary procedure where the purpose was to develop reservoirs in National Parks. Although then, as now, he was evidently not advocating the application of special Parliamentary procedure to any particular category of area, he thought the opportunity should be taken in the Bill to deal with the extension of that procedure.
I can only say again that the Community Land Bill does not introduce any new policy in relation to, for example, sites of ancient monuments, which he mentioned, or indeed National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Nor is there anything about the community land scheme which suggests that such areas which are already well protected under the planning machinery are more likely to be at risk of compulsory purchase by virtue of this scheme.
I can only assure the noble Lord personally that certainly part of my Departmental duties are concerned with conservation and it will be something that I shall be watching with hawk-like eyes. Therefore, as I have said, the Government are unable to accept that this should be used as a vehicle for imposing on the Secretary of State a duty to bring forward proposals for adding what would be innumerable new categories of land to the special Parliamentary procedure. I have no doubt that there will be opportunities under more specific legislation to consider the point that the noble Lord has raised. Knowing the activities, the vigilance and energy of the noble Lord, I am sure that he will not let one Hass him by. Having been able to get this eloquently off his chest, I hope that he will now withdraw his Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not quite so sure about that. The noble Baroness has been very complimentary and said what I hoped she would say on what would have provoked me into pressing my Amendment if she had not said it. She recognises that this job needs to be done but says that this is not a
1198
good moment to do it. That I rather dispute.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that this was not the right way or place to do it, which is quite different.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am going to ask the noble Baroness whether she can be a little more forthcoming for that might help me. The anomalies to which I alluded, the lack of any progress except for the rather odd one about the water undertakers in the National Parks, are due to the fact that this special Parliamentary procedure is not very popular with the officials who have to face it. No doubt it would have been left for quite along time and could be left in the ordinary course of events but we are dealing here with a Bill which will enormously increase the number and extent of compulsory purchase orders for acquiring land by local authorities. This is the moment, even if the Government may not have thought of it, when we should consider whether the special Parliamentary procedure which was designed specifically to protect certain categories of land should now be looked at again and the protection widened to cover other pieces of land.
My Lords, I am not in the least moved by any minor technical defects there might be in my Amendment, because if we press it the Government could easily correct them. What I should like to have from the noble Baroness is a fairly clear assurance—clearer than she has given already—that if she does not accept this Amendment, she will provide for a reconsideration of the use of special Parliamentary procedure to safeguard the special categories of designated land when they are faced with compulsory purchase orders. In that event, I might consider removing my Amendment. But I want her to take on board and to agree with me that this is the moment to think about it even if this is not the right Bill.
I cannot believe that she is occupying the seat that I occupied in the Department of the Environment, shouldering the same responsibilites, without recognising that the protection of this designated land needs to be reconsidered, particularly in the light of the effect of this Bill. Perhaps she could respond to that,

1199
with the leave of the House, before I decide what to do.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, is not the fact of the matter that if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, were sitting where the noble Baroness is sitting and she had addressed to him the arguments that he addressed to her this afternoon, she would have received from him precisely the answer that she has given to him on this occasion? The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, knows perfectly well that the noble Baroness is quite right in saying that this is not the measure in which to try to achieve this object, however desirable it may be. He also knows perfectly well that if he had been sitting in her place he would have used almost precisely the words that she has used to the House.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I could respond to that. When I was sitting in the seat the noble Baroness now occupies and was faced on the Water Resources Bill with this proposition by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I acceded to his suggestion.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it is time this to-ing and fro-ing of words stopped. Although we may have sat in each other's seats, different Governments have different styles and so have different people and they express themselves in different ways. We have a number of Amendments to get through and limited time tonight. All that I can say is that I cannot give the noble Lord any assurances. I am not prepared to do so. I have made clear my position and the Government's position over this Amendment and there is nothing further to add to it.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Baroness that I shall press this Amendment.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 72B) to Amendment No. 72 shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gainford, L.

Balerno, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Newall, L.

Balfour, E.

Glendevon, L.

Northchurch, B.

Barnby, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Goschen, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Blake, L.

Grenfell, L.

Pike, B.

Brecon, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Camoys, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rhyl, L.

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Cathcart, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Harvington, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandys. L. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Cowley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Sherfield, L.

Craigton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Somers, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stamp, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Daventry, V.

Lonsdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Denham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Tenby, V.

Dundee, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Eccles, V.

Mansfield, E.

Tranmire, L.

Elles, B.

Margadale, L.

Vernon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vickers, B.

Elton, L.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Middleton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Exeter, M.

Monck, V.

Yarborough, E.

Falkland, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Young, B.

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Birk, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Balogh, L.

Blyton, L.

Castle, L.

Banks, L.

Brockway, L.

Champion, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Chorley, L.

Collison, L.

Henley, L.

Popplewell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Raglan, L.

Crook, L.

Hoy, L.

Rhodes, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Hughes, L.

Rusholme, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Davids, V.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Darwen, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Simon, V.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Slater, L.

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

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Snow, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Foot, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Summerskill, B.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Milford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

George-Brown, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hall, V.

Pannell, L.

Wise, L.

Hampton, L.

Peddie, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Platt, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to Amendment agreed to accordingly.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 72, as amended, be agreed to.
5.26 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 72A:
Page 60, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of a compulsory purchase order made, in whole or in part, under section 15(3)(a) of this Act, paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1 (challenge to validity of orders) shall have effect as if after the words "in subsection (1) of section one of this Act" there were inserted the words "or is based upon insufficient evidence that the land was required for the purpose stated by the acquiring authority",".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical point which arises out of a discussion that we had in Committee on the provisions of Clause 15(3)(a), and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was good enough to write to me a letter about it which I found rather surprising. I will pick out the relevant paragraph of his letter:
"You will appreciate that the drafting of the subsection now means that the judgment of whether the land is or is not required"—
that is to say, land required to facilitate the development of other development land—
"is a matter not of opinion but of fact. This means that the decision must rest, in the last resort, not with the authority or even with the Secretary of State, but with the courts. Your suggestion that land could be bought compulsorily under this power without any particular reason being given is therefore wrong. I can-
1202
not imigine that if the matter were ever tested the courts would take the line you are suggesting; they would surely require the authority to demonstrate the need for the land."
That is not the way it works. If you take an ordinary compulsory purchase order, whether under this provision or anything else, to the courts under the powers in paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1946, the courts do not normally look behind, first, the inspector's report, and particularly his conclusions, recommendations and findings; and, secondly, the Secretary of State's decision letter, which usually adopts the conclusions and the recommendations. It is only where the argument can be raised that upon the face of the document there is no evidence at all that could have been used by the Secretary of State to confirm the compulsory purchase order, that there is no evidence at all land was required, that the courts would interfere. There is one other ground; that is, the decision is so unreasonable that no Secretary of State could make it.
I want to make it plain whether the Government thought in this case it would be possible to test in front of the courts, upon an appeal against a compulsory purchase order's confirmation, the merits of whether the land was or was not strictly required as set out in Clause 15(3)(a). Unless one inserts the words such as I have put down in this Amendment, I do not believe the courts would look at the merits of the argument of the local authority. I therefore put down this Amendment in order to find out what would happen, whether the Government thought there would be a departure from what ordinarily happens on an appeal against

1203
a compulsory purchase order, or whether we would be in the same position where we simply have to look at the Secretary of State's decision letter and any reference in it to the inspector's report. I hope that the noble Lord can clarify what he said in his letter, because at the moment I am a little confused. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Viscount said, we had a debate on this matter at Committee stage, and I have written to him about it. We are here concerned with the powers in Clause 15(3)(a) for an authority to acquire land adjoining the main acquisition which is required for the purpose of executing works for facilitating its development or use. It is a limited ancillary power. What the noble Viscount is now concerned with is whether the role of the courts is adequate in relation to the scope of the provision.
It is necessary to distinguish between the vires of the order—in other words whether the enabling Act gives the authority the necessary powers, and the merits of the order—in other words, whether or not it ought to be made. The latter is solely a matter for the Secretary of State, and it has been generally accepted that the courts are not the right kind of body for deciding what are essentially administrative matters. What is absolutely right is that the courts should be able to consider the vires of an order, and it is at this point that they will be able to take a view on whether or not the land in the order was required for the development of the main site. This is essentially a matter of fact rather than judgment: and clearly if the authority could show no good reason why the land was required, the court would have no alternative but to quash the order as ultra vires.
It is true that the courts will not usually look behind the Secretary of State's decision, if there is some evidence that the authority required the land for the purpose stated. But this will have been challenged at the public inquiry. The trouble with the Amendment of the noble Viscount is simply that it is likely to go too far. It could extend the role of the courts beyond their proper role of considering vires and into the consideration of the merits of an order. It is unacceptable to introduce the courts at that stage in that area. If this idea were accepted
1204
for this point there would no doubt be pressure to extend it to cover other cases, and it would soon undermine the whole basis of compulsory purchase procedure. Given that the test of "requirement" is an objective one, so that there is at least the basis for an action in the courts as in other CPO cases, the Government feel that they have gone as far as they can in restricting the scope of what is intended to be a narrow ancillary power.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having most adequately added to the explanation given in his letter. I thought the situation was as he has just outlined and that probably was what the Government intended, and indeed it would be precisely in line with what happens in every other case. I am perfectly satisfied with the explanation which has been given, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 66, line 14, after ("suit") insert ("or in Scotland the instance").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had a note to the effect that this was an Amendment which had been put down in the name of the noble Earl. It may be that that is not the case, but that we have managed to find a point in the Bill which the noble Earl has missed in his series of Amendments relating to this point, in which case I beg to move.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, this is an Amendment consequential on those moved in Committee in another place. As an earlier stage I had asked for the paragraph in question to be left out, and obviously I could not then move the Amendment as well. I asked the Government whether they would be kind enough to put down this Amendment for me at Report stage, which they have duly done. I am very grateful, and that is all I need to say.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 71, line 30, at end insert ("and in particular the assessment of compensation under paragraph 12(4) may be reopened.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee we had from the noble Lord

1205
opposite, after my noble friend Lord Sandford had moved an Amendment for me, a very useful explanation of Part IV of this Schedule and I now understand its purpose very much better than I did earlier. However, I should like express clarification on one point. Let us suppose that land has been bought for housing under the Housing Acts by a housing authority before this Bill comes into operation, and they subsequently decide that they wish to appropriate the land under Part IV, so that it becomes governed by the provisions of this Schedule and they can therefore override any remaining private rights or difficulties. Let us then suppose that they wish to appropriate it for industrial purposes, but they have overridden—and this might well have had to be done in front of the Lands Tribunal—a restrictive covenant on the land that it was to be used only for housing at a density of one house per acre or something like that and they wish to build very much in excess of that, compensation will probably have been payable to a person who has the benefit of the restrictive covenant, or may already have been paid under paragraph 12(4).
When they appropriate it to the second purpose, the industrial purpose, it seems to me probable that extra compensation will be payable in order to reflect the further breach of the restrictive covenant; and, in those circumstances, it would be right, upon the appropriation, to reopen for the benefit of the person who used to have the restrictive covenant the question of compensation under paragraph 12(4), because, after all, he will be worse damaged by the use which is now proposed to be made of it under the appropriation, than he was under the original acquisition and for which—the first one only—he has been compensated. I hope I have explained this rather complicated point clearly. I believe it is correct for us to see that, if this facility is to be offered to local authorities so that they can take advantage of Part III of the Schedule, the private citizen should not be done down as a purely subsidiary and probably unintentional effect. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, what the noble Viscount said was very complicated. There are two separate points here, and perhaps I ought to take them
1206
separately to help clarify the matter. The purpose of sub-paragraph (1)(a) of paragraph 25 is to enable the local authority or planning board to appropriate land for the purposes of Part III of the Bill and thus, in effect, bring it within the ambit of the land scheme so that advantage can be taken of the provisions of Part III of Schedule 4; for example, the power to override easements or other rights on payment of compensation. It may be—I am not entirely clear about this—that the noble Viscount is basing his Amendment on the proposition that compensation may already have been paid under paragraph 12(4), but the appropriation may lead to some new or wider interference with rights or a breach of restrictions upon user justifying additional compensation.
I am advised that this proposition is misconceived, since for compensation to have been paid under paragraph 12(4) the land must have been acquired under Part III of the Bill or already appropriated for the purposes of Part III. There is no case in which rights may have been overridden under paragraph 12(4) unless, before that overriding, the land was acquired or appropriated for the purposes of Part III. The separate point which the noble Viscount may also have been covering would arise in a case in which, after rights have been overridden under paragraph 12(1), the land is appropriated to other purposes. However, the amount of compensation payable for breach of right bears no relationship to the purpose for which the land is held. The compensation is assessable under the enactments mentioned at paragraph 12(1), as for other similar cases. There is no reason why the owner of a right should be entitled to more compensation after land has been appropriated for any purpose, so there would be no point in that case in reopening the assessment. I think that deals with both points which, as I understood him, the noble Viscount was putting forward.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think it does, but it may be that we ought not to spend a great deal of time on this matter on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to afford me a moment to see him about it. Let me just take the second proposition, that the local authority appropriates land which it has acquired under Part III and

1207
for which compensation has been paid under paragraph 12. It will have had to acquire it, now that paragraph 4(2) has come out, for certain specified reasons under the Acquisition of Land Act. Therefore, the compensation payable under paragraph 12 will relate to the purpose for which it has been bought. Let me suppose that they subsequently appropriated it for another purpose for which they did not buy it, and it is a more obnoxious purpose so far as it affects the person who used to have the restrictive covenant, than the purpose for which they originally acquired it. In those circumstances, it seems to me that one ought to make clear whether or not the person who lost the benefit of the restrictive covenant gets a second dose of compensation. In those circumstances, I think he ought to, and that is the point I am making.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, agree with the noble Viscount. I take that point. I am advised that to override for different purposes would be a different breach of the covenant. It would be a new breach of the covenant and further compensation would be payable in that case, without any express provision being put in the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment I may make another point which I think arises here as well as anywhere else on the Bill. This point emerges from rather fuller discussions than was possible earlier on which I have had with the Town and Country Planning Association. I wonder whether the noble Lord can explain whether it is true that local authorities under this Bill cannot buy on behalf of the land account land they have already purchased under other powers. If this is so, it appears there is some difficulty because they might, for instance, own half the property comprising a central development area which they have acquired under one set of powers and they could then acquire another half under the powers of this Bill but would not be able, as it were, to join the two together for the purposes of financing them, disposing of them, developing them and so on. It would be quite unreason-
1208
able for me to expect an answer straight off the cuff from the noble Lord in answer to that question, because I have not given him notice, but perhaps he can drop me a line before the next stage and reassure me. That will probably suffice.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, it would be unreasonable for me to speak more than twice on the Amendment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, all I have to do, if I may have the leave of the House to speak for a third time, is to thank the noble Lord. I very much hope that the Lands Tribunal will take the same view of the law as he does. At any rate, I am reinforced in the knowledge that the Government intend that it should. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 76:
Leave out Schedule 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that we have dealt with all the points that could possibly be dealt with in the course of the debate on Schedule 4. The only one on which an undertaking had been given which has not arisen is to do with commons. That was a matter pressed by my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith, but I think that as she is not here we can move on.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, I should like to raise one question on Schedule 4 of which I have given notice to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It relates to paragraph (2)(b) at line 22 of page 56. Under this paragraph, as the House will by now be well aware, the Secretary of State has a very special power when a compulsory purchase order has been laid and objection to that order has been made. He may call a public inquiry or call a private inquiry—which is covered by this sub-paragraph (2)(b)—or he may call no inquiry at all, save that he will have to do so in the circumstances of sub-paragraph (3). This question of the private inquiry has been a matter of some concern, and I do not think we discussed this point on Committee. It is a matter of concern, particularly to amenity societies.

1209
The purpose of raising this question is to seek elucidation from the noble Baroness. If a compulsory purchase order is laid and the owner objects and agrees to a private hearing under sub-paragraph (2)(b), is there any right at all for amenity societies or some body which represents local opinion to state their case as to whether the land in question is suitable for relevant development? It is a matter of some concern and, as the noble Baroness is perhaps aware, it has been expressed outside on many occasions. I hope the noble Baroness can now reply to that question. The second question, which arises from the first, is, if in fact an amenity society wishes to object will the Secretary of State automatically transfer the private hearing into a public hearing?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, paragraph 4(2)(b) is in identical words to the existing paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule 1 to the 1946 Act. This means that the opportunity to hold either a public inquiry or a hearing applies to CPOs under all existing Acts. In practice, as the noble Earl is aware, hearings are held when only minor matters are in dispute. There is no reason why acquisitions of development land should be treated differently in this respect from acquisitions under all other powers. The Secretary of State has a discretion, but if only a minor matter not worth an inquiry were in dispute and the Secretary of State had no power to have a hearing, as the Amendment proposes, he might simply decide not to have an inquiry. So the objector, who would have got an inquiry under the Bill as it is at the present moment, gets nothing at all.
On the noble Earl's general point about amenity societies, the situation is exactly the same. They are no worse off under this Bill—and I do not propose to go into the other point which does not really arise on Schedule 4. But I hope I have assured him on the point which was the main substantive point on which he wanted an assurance.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, it might be convenient if I just very briefly answered the question which the noble Lord. Lord Sandford, asked me on the last Amendment which he dealt with. I think the short answer to the question he asked is that there is no link between
1210
the powers of acquisition and the land account. The land account deals with land which is used for private development.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Land acquisition and management schemes]:
5.48 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 15, line 6, leave out ("the area of each county authority") and insert ("each county area").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 77 and with it to embark on a major exercise involving Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 82 to 89, 93, 94, 96, 97, 117, 119 and 122. Strange to say, all those 20 Amendments are needed to achieve something to which I spoke at the Committee stage; namely, one land and acquisition management scheme for the area of the Peak Park. It is no doubt a surprise to many of your Lordships to know that we have to do this, as I think, in Parliament, with 20 Amendments, in order to get the arrangements for one single land and acquisition management scheme right.
Although the Government have been correct in hoping and waiting for the local authorities in the area to work out arrangements for themselves, we must face the fact that it is the need for things like this in the area of the Peak Park which arouses the most intense local controversy. Party politics are thrown into it; local loyalties between six proud counties and two proud cities are involved; there is the usual continuing conflict between town and country and there is controversy between conservationists and those who are working in the Park to exploit the minerals there. Therefore, it is not surprising that the issue comes to Parliament to be settled.
In prescribing the proper arrangements for a land acquisition and management scheme for the Peak Park, we have three alternatives. We could have six counties and nine districts, which is the number of separate local authorities with territory in the Peak Park, preparing their own land acquisition and management schemes

1211
with some measure of consistency between them where they bear upon the Park and we could leave the Peak Park Planning Board to co-ordinate them as best they could within their own area. As I said at a previous stage, that would be asking the Peak Park Planning Board to undertake an almost impossible task. Alternatively, the Peak Park Planning Board could make the plan for their area and adjust it to the requirements of the other 15 local authorities with land in the area of the Park. Thirdly, we could continue to do nothing and leave it to the locals to sort it out. That is the policy which has been correctly followed so far by Her Majesty's Government. It is a policy which normally I would commend and one which normally works, but we have to face the fact that it has not worked in this case. If these schemes are to be ready to operate under the Bill I do not think that we can leave it any longer.
The factors that have to be borne in mind in coming to the right decision are that the Peak Park Planning Board are the structure planning authority for the whole of their area. In that respect they have functions to discharge under Statute which otherwise would be exercised by the counties in their area. But they are not being exercised by the counties they are being exercised by the Board. In addition, the Peak Park Planning Board are the local plan and development control authority for the whole of their area. In that respect they have functions otherwise held by the districts but not held by them in respect of territory in the Park. Thirdly, the Peak Park Planning Board already have a further new duty to prepare a National Park plan for their area which, among other things, will be the basis for land acquisition and management in their area.
I am grateful for the support of Her Majesty's Government in so far as they have prepared these Amendments, although at the price of inflicting 20 Amendments upon the House in order to do what I thought I had done reasonably well with two Amendments. I am aware that there is intense local controversy about this and that if we try to please everybody we shall get nothing done. I am entirely convinced that the only practical step is for Parliament to deal with
1212
this matter in the Bill and by these Amendments, the central ones being Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, to give to the Peak Park Planning Board the duty of preparing the land acquisition and management scheme for the entire area of their Park. The way in which they will do this in order to discharge their own functions and at the same time to leave the appropriate functions with the districts and counties is as I described at col. 113 of the Official Report during the Committee stage. I do not wish to repeat that argument now. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandford. Indeed, I should have supported him at Committee stage had I been able to be here. I should declare an interest in that until fairly recently I was a member of the Peak Park Planning Board. The position has been clearly stated by my noble friend and the only point I wish to stress is that although the compromise formula which was put forward initially by Derbyshire County Council and adopted by the other county councils for solving this problem is theoretically acceptable, in that it recognises the principle of uniformity within the different land acquisition and management schemes which are to be prepared by the different county councils, in practice it is very unlikely to work. It is extremely clumsy and bureaucratic and in fact there is no guarantee that uniformity will prevail. The Peak Park Planning Board certainly think that it will not work.
It is interesting to observe that there is no division of opinion on this issue within the Peak Park Planning Board. This applies to the county council representatives as well as to the nominated members, who represent one-third. The Board are virtually unanimous on this issue and the county council members are adopting a view which opposes that of their councils.
By general consent the Peak Park is one of the best administered, if not the best administered Park in the country. As my noble friend has said, they are the planning authority for all of the land within their area. It seems to me to be only logical and sensible that they should also have responsibility for preparing a single land acquisition and management

1213
scheme for the Peak Park instead of the very complicated procedure that has been suggested by the county councils. Indeed, this would be in accordance with the positive planning side of the Bill which the noble Baroness stressed so much in the Second Reading debate.
In conclusion, as the author of the Sandford Report my noble friend Lord Sandford has greater experience of National Parks, how they work, how they should be administered and how they should not be administered than anybody else in your Lordships' House and most other people in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I hope that the Government and the House as a whole will accept this Amendment.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I assume that the Government will accept this series of Amendments. May I therefore commend the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his initiative in this matter and congratulate the Government for helping him to bring it about.
Lord CR AWSHAW: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandford mentioned that there are various views about this problem, and on this occasion I owe it to the House to say a few words expressing the contrary view and not to let the case go by default. As my noble friend Lord Sandford said, his Amendment highlights a considerable local problem; namely, what power should be exercised over a wide field, including housing and industry, either by the Peak Park Planning Board or by the various local authorities. This is not in any way a Party issue.
I should also tell the House that the Members of Parliament for West Derbyshire and the High Peak, who happen to be Conservatives, take the view, together with the six county councils and the district councils which are mentioned in Amendment No. 82, that there should not be a separate land acquisition and management scheme for the Park. However, they agree that it would be quite reasonable for each of the six county areas to include within their own land acquisition and management scheme a Part II in common form, for each county, so that the practical effect would be the operation of a single land acquisi-
1214
tion and management scheme for the area of the National Park.
I detect a feeling locally that the authorities feel that their powers and functions are gradually being eroded and that in several cases they are being handed over to the Peak Park Planning Board. I am aware that the Board are as to two-thirds made up of people from the local councils, but the system of nomination from district council to county council and then to the Board tends to make the Board remote from the people who live and work in the Park and for whom conservation is only a small part of the problems of daily life.
I do not want this afternoon to defend the system of land acquisition management schemes, but I fear that by putting this Amendment into the Bill we may aggravate the already rather strained relations between the local authorities and the Peak Park Planning Board. They are meeting on Friday to try to sort out the situation, and I feel it will be more fruitful if they are not faced with a verdict at this stage from the House of Lords.
6.1 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, rightly stressed the importance of the Amendment to which Amendment No. 77 is a paving Amendment, and he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Vernon. For a long time I had an association with Derbyshire and I came to appreciate—indeed to love—the beautiful area embodied in this Peak District National Park. The creation of that Park was surely a fit and proper recognition of the outstanding nature of this area and of the necessity for preserving it for ourselves as well as for posterity. There is some uniqueness about this National Park for its area impinges on that of six county councils and clearly that would, on the surface, provide some justification for giving this Board exceptional and unique powers in relation to this Bill. But I think we have to recognise that, unlike all the local authorities given powers of acquisition and management under the terms of the Bill, if the Amendment were accepted these powers would be given to a joint body whose members are not directly elected by the people living within the area of the Park. Exceptions sometimes

1215
may be justifiable, but not I think in a case of this sort in which the Dowers of land acquisition and the making of management schemes are such a vital part of the whole concept of the Bill now before us.
As an old local government man I am strongly in favour of major decisions, such as the necessary decisions to be taken under this Bill, resting finally with the people who are directly responsible to their electors. This is something which we like in our democracy; it is something that we ought to do everything possible to preserve. But that does not necessarily mean that each of the local authorities should be in a position to take decisions which would be in conflict with the others covering the area. That would be a form of madness.
The sort of scheme which my noble friend Lord Melchett mentioned in Committee appears to me to have within it all the possibilities of securing uniform arrangements to cover the whole area, while at the same time—and this is the important point—preserving the status and the standing of the six local county councils concerned. Such an arrangement would be in the interests of all concerned for it would preserve—and this too is important—the good will and co-operation of the local authorities in the implementation of these very important provisions of the Bill.
I gather that considerable progress has already been made in agreeing a common form between counties and districts, and indeed there is to be a further meeting to discuss a draft form on the 7th November, following which the counties and districts are to meet the Peak Park Joint Planning Board on the 24th November. It will be seen therefore that they are all greatly involved in serious discussion to attempt to resolve what is admittedly a difficult situation.
The local authorities should be allowed to attempt to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution among themselves. It is only in that way that good will and co-operation in the implementation of the Bill can he achieved in the future. I understand of course that Amendments Nos. 77, 78, 79 and 81 are paving Amendments to Amendment No. 82 and the rest, but as I see it subsection (2) of this clause says:
1216
"The scheme shall be made, and from time to time revised, by all the authorities in the area…acting jointly".
I suppose the noble Lord's paving Amendments are somehow intended to cover the point of settling what authorities will be regarded as being in the area of the county authority—the county authority that he is proposing by the Amendments in the Bill; namely, the Peak District National Park Board. As I understand it, the words in that subsection (2) are intended to apply to the lesser authorities within the county area and not to the sort of situation which would obtain if the Peak Board were to become a county authority under the Bill. To consider the county authorities perhaps lesser authorities would surely not be conducive to harmony within such an area, and harmony surely is important in this connection.
In the consideration of all this there ought to be in our minds the fact that all the county councils and all the district authorities concerned are opposed to the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and I stress that this House ought to uphold the standing and the status of the elected county and district authorities, motivated as they must be by a feeling of serving the interests of the people who live and work within their area and who elect them for that purpose. In my view this Amendment ought to fail on the grounds of the preservation of something that is important to us; namely, local democracy.
6.6 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I rise to support these Amendments. Although I have not had experience of living in the Peak National Park, I have lived in another National Park—the Lake District —where similar circumstances have applied in the past. Where planning or any similar administration was the responsibility of the Lakes Planning Board some sort of uniformity was achieved through the area. This was important, even though some county councillors, whether they were from Cumberland, Westmorland or Lancashire, may have had their noses put out of joint. At least there was uniformity. Where various powers, and not least the highways (if I may give an example), remained the responsibility of the three separate counties there was no

1217
uniformity; there was no good overall plan at the end, and there was considerable friction along those inter-county boundaries. Therefore I hope that whatever is worked out, either by this Amendment or other means, at least uniformity throughout the Peak National Park will carry weight.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred to the fact that he was loth to see powers taken away from the elected local representatives. I agree wish him, and I was very pleased indeed to hear him say that. In my view it is something that we in Parliament must never lose sight of, but, if he will listen for one half-minute, I thought it came rather strangely from a noble Lord opposite during the debates on this Bill, when such an important part of the Bill is setting up authorities like the Land Authority for Wales, which are not elected, which are not answerable to any electors and which will have the most immense powers over the lives of people in the Principality. So I would say to the Minister that that particular principle to which the noble Lord has just attached such importance really does not carry much weight in this Bill, bearing in mind the many other proposals they are making where they are taking powers away from local representatives and putting them in the hands of others.
When they are thinking out this Amendment, I wish that the Government will bear in mind the importance of uniformity of administration, both as affecting the people living in the area for 52 weeks in the year as well as those who come to the area for their holidays, maybe for two weeks or three weeks. But it is the people who live there for 52 weeks in the year who are really the most important consideration.
6.11 p.m.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, I rise to help to dispel the loneliness of our Front Bench who have had little vocal support from this side. I hope they will succeed in resisting a series of Amendments which seem to me to be out of line with the general record of two of the noble Lords who are associated with this Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with whom I should think I should be on the same side of the barricades when it comes to fighting for access to the countryside
1218
and the preservation of amenities there. It looks as if they are using their reputations as crusaders and champions of the rights of access to the amenities of the countryside to give a further pinprick to the Government, and to attempt to bring this Bill into derision.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, re-emphasised what I attempted to emphasise during Committee stage, which was the way in which this Amendment, or the intentions behind it, can be construed as being an attack upon the virtues and capacities of those in local government. I understand that certain noble Lords opposite, from their previous speeches in this House, have not the same regard for local government as some noble Lords on this side of the House. Their training has been in a different area. But some of us come here having become associated with public life through hour local government, and we have a great respect for it. What is more, we learned during that time that the larger the authority—I do not say the better the authority—the more proficient were the officers. We are not dealing here with a series of rural district council officers, where the surveyor is the engineer and the town planner all in one. We are dealing with authorities of large size, with vision, with people used to administering over a large area and using the capacity of their officers to see the future of that area and the best for large populations. These people are not to be classed in the same way as one would class the smaller local authority officials who, no matter what their virtues, are not always the most expert in their sphere.
I suggest that the town planners and the valuers who will be much in evidence during the operation of the land acquisition and management schemes are of the highest quality. It is absurd to suggest that the advice they would be given would be anything but in the interest of the general population of the country, because, after all, these places are not just parochial. These people know that. These areas are holiday resorts which give joy to thousands. I hope the Government will stick to their guns on this matter and that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will follow the precedent he set this afternoon, of seeming at one time to withdraw his Amendment and then taking it to a Division. Although he

1219
seems to be pushing his Amendment, I hope in the end, in the light of what is being said, he will withdraw it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, may I first stress what the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, said, which was that this is not a Party issue; there are obviously feelings on both sides of the House in different respects. It was unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, attempted to make a Party political point to my noble friend Lord Champion. I do not think he was in the Chamber on Committee stage when the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made some very strong remarks to myself and other noble Lords on this side about the way the noble Viscount felt we were treating local authorities when we were discussing joint boards. We were accused of attempting to override the wishes of local authorities in that case where a minority of the local authorities—possibly one out of several —might not wish a joint board to be set up, and where we would override that minority wish.
Here, we are dealing with a situation, as I understand it, where all the local authorities involved do not agree with the Amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and all the local authorities have attempted to come to a compromise. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, slightly overdid his list, because I think he included No. 96. My understanding was that that was an Amendment in the names of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, it is a blank.
Lord MELCHETT: Then Amendment No. 96 will not do either of us any harm! The noble Lord said he had had help in drafting the Amendments. That is certainly the case. It was not right for the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to assume that that meant we were supporting them. We on these Benches are always ready and eager to be as helpful as we can to noble Lords on all sides of the House. It was our view that if these Amendments were to be pressed into the Bill by a Division, then they should be properly drafted, and we did not want to waste time in debating niggling drafting points.
1220
That is the only reason why help was given in the drafting, and this does not imply support.
This is a difficult problem, and the differences of opinion on both sides of the House underline that. We have to decide who to please in a difficult local dispute. It has either to be the local authorities of the area, coupled with the two Conservative Members of Parliament who represent the area on the one hand, or the Peak Park Planning Board on the other. I should have thought, if not for Party political reasons for the sake of consistency, that the noble Lord would not be pressing the Amendment, because he would wish that the views of the local authorities should be respected. The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, mentioned the compromise put forward, which I do not intend to spell out in detail because I did so in Committee. No evidence has been produced that this compromise will not work quite satisfactorily. In practice, I cannot pretend to have very strong views on this, because I hope there will not be much relevant development taking place in the Peak Park Planning Board area, and I am sure that is a view common to all sides of the House. So the land acquisition and management scheme which is drawn up in either of the two ways, either as proposed by the Amendment or as it will be under the Bill as now drafted, will not be a document of devastating significance one way or the other.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, overlooked the fact that the clause operates on the basis that all the authorities in the area make the land acquisition and management scheme jointly, so all the authorities in the area of the Peak Park will have to participate in preparing a land acquisition and management scheme, whatever course is adopted; that is, whether the Bill stays as it is, or whether the Amendments are passed. The choice is between the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, which could mean having a separate land acquisition and management scheme for the area of the Peak Park Planning Board prepared jointly by all the authorities involved in the area, or alternatively having six different bits of the Park dealt with in the land acquisition and management schemes for the six county areas. The compromise put

1221
forward by the local authorities involved is, of course, designed to ensure that those six separate land acquisition and management schemes should all deal with the Peak Park area in a consistent manner. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, and no more bureaucratic or difficult than will necessarily be the case if the Amendments are passed.
I hope the noble Lord will not press these Amendments. I think the fact that consultations and discussions are still continuing locally as the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and my noble friend said—and indeed there is to be another meeting on Friday, and that the counties and districts are shortly to meet the Peak Park Planning Board again, would indicate that it would be wiser for your Lordships to leave this matter to be settled locally. I certainly would not advise the House to let the Amendments go into the Bill without the opinion of your Lordships being tested in the Division Lobby.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think it is a difficult issue and it is unfortunate that we have to face it, but I think we must. Clearly, I did not underestimate the extent of the local controversy that exists about this matter. It is the only issue so far which has secured the participation of two members of the Party opposite in one of our debates; so it is clear that the ripples have reached Westminster from the Peak Park. If the counties wanted to find a good spokesman, they could have found nobody better than the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to make their case.
My Lords, two propositions are being put to us. One is that it would be better to leave this until Friday, or next week, or a little later in the month. But it has been left for several months already. We have the fact that here is the Peak Park Planning Board with clear functions and responsibilities in this field which they feel they can discharge effectively only in the way they have suggested, which gives plenty of scope to the adjacent and surrounding local authorities. Of course, they will be doing it all jointly, but it will be on the basis of their plan rather than on the basis of six separate county plans and nine separate district plans.
1222
The other case that has been put to us, by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, particularly, is that this Board is a remote Board and nobody on it is directly elected by the people living in the Park. I really do not think that is quite right. It has 33 members on it, of which two-thirds, 22, consist entirely of directly-elected councillors: eight from Derbyshire, two from Manchester, two from South Yorkshire, two from West Yorkshire, two from Staffordshire and two from Cheshire; four from the districts, one from West Derbyshire and one from High Peak, all directly elected.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, are we using the phrase "directly elected" in the correct understanding of it? "Directly elected" means that they are elected to that position by their constituents. Here this is not so. In the case of this Board they are elected to the local authorities and appointed by the local authorities to the Board.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, that is correct; they have been elected by the people they are representing on the Board. When these proposals which we are now seeking to put into the Bill were formulated on the 18th July, there were no objections from any of these councillors from the six counties and the four districts including West Derbyshire and High Peak. So this is not a proposition which has been forced on those representatives against their will; there has been no opposition to it from any of those representatives on the Board. I would much rather not have to move these Amendments, still less to press them, if I had any confidence that it was possible by leaving it any longer for practical arrangements to be worked out. Alas!, I know from all my special experience, which it was my opportunity to acquire while I was a Minister, that these arrangements simply do not work, and the only way of getting proper administration and management in the National Parks, if we are to have them, is by providing a unified administration, having single directors and central bodies administering them. We can get representation of the people who live in the Park by making sure that the Boards and committees that administer the Parks consist primarily of elected councillors, and this is the case in this instance. I fully understand why there is much local controversy and why noble Lords speaking in this debate have felt

1223
it necessary to put forward the points they have made, but I feel that this Amendment needs to be imported into the Bill.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen. V.

Amulree, L.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Auckland, L.

Grenfell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balfour, E.

Gridley, L.

Pike, B.

Barrington, V.

Hampton, L.

Platt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Reigate, L.

Brecon, L.

Harvington, L.

Rhyl, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rollo, L. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cathcart, E.

Ironside, L.

St. Davids, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Somers. L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E.

Long, V.

Strang. L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Daventry, V.

Lyell, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tenby, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tranmire, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vernon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Elles, B.

Margadale, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Wade, L.

Elton, L.

Middleton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Exeter, M.

Monck, L.

Wigoder, L.

Falkland, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Foot, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Gainford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Newall, L.

Bernstein, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Birk, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pannell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hall, V.

Peddie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Harrison of Greenwich, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hayter, L.

Raglan, L.

Castle, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rhodes, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Hoy, L.

Rusholme, L.

Collison, L.

Hughes, L.

Segal, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Crawshaw, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Crook, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darwen, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

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

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Walston, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 together.
6.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 77) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 59.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 8, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area").
Page 15, line 11, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area"). —(Lord Sandford.)
6.37 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 15, line 28, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a probing Amendment because we found ourselves during the Committee stage in some trouble as to the precise meaning of Clause 16(7). The House will recall that under this subsection the scheme,
"shall not create any obligation enforceable in law."
Yet the Secretary of State apparently can, or does, have the power to make it enforceable. The question raised at Committee was how he did this, and whether it was by individual letter. At that time the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to come to our rescue, as he has done so often in this Bill, and say that he thought that it would be a remarkable state of affairs if, without statutory backing, a letter or direction from the Secretary of State would have the force of law. Indeed, I think at a later stage the noble and learned Lord gave an official reply in which he expressed himself as not entirely happy. The noble and learned Lord has been kind enough to write to me, and in case I misquote his letter perhaps lie will be kind enough to explain the position.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, a certain amount of confusion arose in the discussion of this matter because my understanding was that the question that was being addressed to me was how it was possible for a Secretary of State to render enforceable that which had no statutory or other hacking. Of course he could not do so, but the answer to the dilemma is that the provisions of subsection (7) expressly enable and empower the Secretary of State to make directions.
The question which then arose, and which arises, is: how is it possible that directions can be made by letter? The direction itself is in fact a direction which is published, and if your Lordships would look at Schedule 5 paragraphs 5 and 6 at page 73,in paragraph 6 it is provided:
"The provisions of paragraph 5"—
calling for the opportunity for public inspection—
1226
"shall apply in relation to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(7) of this Act"—
which is what we are discussing—
"as they apply in relation to a scheme which has been made or revised."
The authority to give the direction is to be found in Clause 16(7). It empowers the Secretary of State to direct that a scheme under the section shall not create any obligation enforceable in law. That direction has to be published in the way indicated in paragraph 5. The letter is merely a communication to the authority concerned of the content and fact of the direction, so that the direction does not depend on the letter; the letter is an event which follows the making of the direction and the publicity which attends to it.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for clearing up this little muddle. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.40 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords I beg to move Amendments Nos. 81 to 89 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 29, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area")
Page 15, line 36, at end insert—
(" " county area" means the area of a county authority or, in the case of Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Staffordshire or Cheshire, such part of that area as does not fall within the area of the Peak Park Planning Board")
Page 15, line 37, leave out ("or the Greater London Council") and insert ("the Greater London Council or the Peak Park Joint Planning Board")
Page 16, line 8, leave out from ("section") to end of line 11, and insert ("an authority shall he regarded as an authority in any county area if any part of their area falls within that county area")
Page 16, line 13, after second ("to") insert ("the area of")
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("the area of that authority") and insert ("that area")
Page 16, line 16, leave out ("their") and insert ("that")
Page 16, line 17, after ("to") insert ("the area of")
page 16, line 19, leave out ("the area of that authority") and insert ("that area").
6.41 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 16, line 22, after ("Wales") insert ("in Orkney, in Shetland, in the Western Isles").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendment No. 91, which is the alternative. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for a letter he wrote to me, but I am not altogether satisfied that the position is quite different in respect of the Isles of Scilly than it is particularly in the case of the Western Islands of Scotland. I do not think I am taking the noble Lord's letter out of context when I quote this part of it:
"As I indicated in Committee, the fact that an authority is a single tier authority is not necessarily the only test. The land acquisition and management scheme will inform the Secretary of State about various administrative arrangements which might go further than operations of a single authority and its own staff see, for example, Schedule 5, paragraph 3(1)(b)."
That provision reads:
"Each scheme shall contain…arrangements, where appropriate, for the use by one authority of officers or servants employed by another authority."
I argue that in Scotland the island authorities are all-purpose authorities and are on exactly the same footing as the Isles of Scilly under the English legislation. I admit that there is need for a land acquisition and management scheme in the case of Orkney and Shetland, purely and simply because of the tremendous development that is taking place in that part of the world in connection with North Sea oil. I was in that area in February of this year and the maximum number of people they have had unemployed in Shetland is about 150—and in Orkney about 175—and approximately 100 of those, without being unfair to the people concernd, are virtually unemployable. On the other hand, the Western Isle have seen very little development for a long time, partly because they are in a much more stormy part of the world and also because there is no industrial development worth speaking of going on there.
However, I argue that the Scilly Isles have a very favour able climate and that it would be a great mistake to make exceptions. I feel that there should be no difference in the provisions of this
1228
Bill in the case of the Scilly Isles or the Western Isles. Indeed, if there was a group of islands to be left out, probably it should be the Western Isles rather than the Scilly Isles. The Scillies have an ideal climate and, in my view, have every right to come within the provisions of this Bill; and I imagine that the local authorities there would be just as in favour of that as the noble Lord has said in respect of other local authorities in the United Kingdom. It would be much more sensible for my Amendment No. 91 to be agreed to, which then would leave no exception, but Wales would be on its own with its special provisions in Part II of the Bill. I should be pleased to hear other comments from noble Lords with equal experience of the subject.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, was referring to me when he sought the comments of those with equal experience of the subject, but I will do my best. These three Scottish authorities are, in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, island authorities and are, for planning purposes, "general planning authorities. "They have, I acknowledge—as I acknowledged in Committee—no local authority either above or below them, but the Bill as drafted makes provision for them to make land acquisition and management schemes acting alone. This is not an inconsistency. LAMS is not merely a question of agreeing the division of functions between authorities, though as I said in Committee, this will obviously figure largely in most schemes. LAMS is also a scheme setting out important arrangements in connection with the acquisition and disposal of land. I went into this in some detail in Committee and the noble Earl referred to a specific example which I gave him in a letter I wrote to him after the Committee stage. I do not intend to go over that ground again. I listened carefully to what the noble Earl said and he did not dispute that LAMS deals with factors which arise, whether or not authorities are above or below the authority drawing up the LAMS.
There is another important factor in requiring LAMS from the islands authorities which I did not mention in Committee. This is the existence of three bodies which are uniquely Scottish—the

1229
Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Special Housing Association—to which the noble Earl has drawn our attention on earlier occasions. Each of these bodies is empowered to carry out development either themselves or in co-operation with local authorities. For example, the Highlands and Islands Development Board is involved with hotel and advance factory development; the Scottish Development Agency has industrial and environmental functions which involve acquisition and development of land; and the Scottish Special Housing Association is involved in housing development. All these authorities will have an important and continuing role in development after the first appointed day under the Bill and it is essential that their rôle is adequately defined in a LAMS. I must repeat, therefore, that the preparation of LAMS by island authorities in Scotland, particularly as they will be involved in oil related development in the future is an essential preliminary to the operation of the Bill. The noble Earl sought, I think, to draw a distinction between the Western Isles and the other island authorities mentioned in his Amendment. My understanding is that it is possible that there will be oil-related development in the Western Isles in the future, and that this authority has already expressed a desire to move towards implementing the land scheme.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, attempted, as a second limb to his argument, to equate the Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles, with the Scilly Isles. I regret that that argument cannot be accepted either. They are comparable neither in population nor in size. The smallest of the Scottish authorities, Orkney, has a population over seven times as large as that of Scilly and a land area 60 times as large. Nor can one compares the current development needs and pressures in the Island authorities associated with oil and related enterprises with the essentially rural Scilly Islands. Moreover, as I have said, Scotland is unique in having three Government-sponsored agency bodies operating in development The Government cannot accept that because the Scilly Isles are excluded from LAMS because theirs is a single-tier authority, the same must automatically apply to the Scottish island
1230
authorities. I hope that this further rather lengthy explanation of the position will satisfy the noble Earl, and that he will feel able to withdraw the Amendments.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I shall be quite happy to withdraw the Amendment, but I feel that we should try to find out a little more about why the Scilly Isles are being left out. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 91.
Page 16, line 22, leave out from ("Wales") to end of line 23.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I believe that the Scilly Isles deserve to come into the provisions of this Bill, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, can clear my mind as to why they should definitely be excluded, if that really is the case. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I have been into this in considerable detail, and I do not think there is anything more that I can add. I have attempted to show the noble Earl why it is not right that the Scottish Isles should be excluded because—and I feel that this may be a point which will carry particular weight with the noble Earl—the Government agencies in Scotland which are carrying out development do not exist in the Scilly Isles. If I may say so, it therefore seems that the arguments used by the noble Earl in an attempt to exclude the Scottish Isles might well answer his own case so far as the Scilly Isles are concerned.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, perhaps we should leave the Scilly Islands on their own, though I believe that the Government are making a mistake. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Land acquisition and management schemes]:
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 93, to which I spoke with Amendment No. 51.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 30, leave out lines 1–6 on the correction slip.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I regret that we shall have to re-examine this case in a little more detail because, unfortunately, there was an inadvertent omission from the Bill as amended in Committee. Your Lordships may have been able to acquire a correction slip which makes a correction to Schedule 5, which reasserts the position as we left it on 28th October. The position then was that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, addressed himself to the Amendment and, in general terms, accepted it, except for the words to which I shall allude in a moment. We feel that there is not a great deal between the two sides of the House on this point and that it should be possible to reach some compromise. The noble Lord said the following:
"I confess that I am in some difficulty about the Amendment. My advice is that without the last two lines it would be quite acceptable to the Government and that I should offer at Report stage to bring forward an Amendment along those lines."—[Official Report, 28/10/75; col. 153.]
As your Lordships will he aware, last night, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in a Government Amendment altered Schedule 6 and is now attempting to remove from the Bill our previous Amendment to Schedule 5, I cannot at this stage sec why it should not be highly beneficial to leave our Amendment in Schedule 5, but to alter it on Third Reading by the removal of the words which give such offence to the Government: that is, "in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture". All the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, lead us to believe that this will be quite acceptable without those words and that if we were to resist the Amendment—and we hope your Lordships will be willing to do this later unless the Government are ready to withdraw it—it should be possible to reach the solution which I have outlined.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, I believe that he may not have had time to study what I said yesterday at column 1121, when I sought to speak to a series of three Amendments—Amendments Nos. 93, 109 and 110—with Amendment No. 51 which I had then moved. I indicated then that I was accepting the spirit in which I understood from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, those Amendments had been put forward.
1232
The noble Earl told me several times that they had been put forward in a helpful spirit. I accepted them in that spirit, and I have attempted to come back with a series of Government Amendments which cover the ground which is common to both sides of the House. Indeed, as I indicated in column 1121, our Amendments go somewhat further in a very important respect.
The Amendments moved at the Committee stage by noble Lords opposite extended only to land acquisition and management schemes, and, as I said yesterday, in our view, authorities ought to be thinking about land management not only when preparing their LAMS, but even more importantly when they are operating a scheme. It is in that respect that we have gone wider than the Amendments which were agreed, but, as the noble Lord indicated, the Government's version leaves out the business of having to consult the Ministry of Agriculture which I believe it is now accepted may well be better left out. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this series of Amendments and have a look at the Schedule when it has been amended by Amendments Nos. 109 and 110. I believe he will see that I have moved them in a genuine attempt to meet the points which have been made, and, indeed, to go further than noble Lords opposite managed to go in their Amendments in an attempt to be helpful. I believe that it would be better if the Amendments were carried so that the noble Lord could have a look at the Bill once that has been done.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 94.
Amendment moved—
Page 72. line 41, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area"). —(Lord Sandford.)
6.59 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 72, line 45, leave out ("direct all the") and insert ("after consulting all the authorities direct those").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment would require the Secretary of State, before directing authorities

1233
to revise a land acquisition and management scheme to consult with those authorities. It arose because, at Committee stage, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, moved an Amendment which provided for consultation before the Secretary of State directed the revision of a LAMS. Unfortunately, the Amendment was not correctly drafted, but the Government accepted the point in principle and undertook to bring forward on Report a properly drafted Amendment; hence the present Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley may I thank the noble Baroness for these Amendments which meet the point we raised?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 97.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 10, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area"). —(Lord Sandford.)
7.0 p.m.
Baroness B1RK Baroness B1RK moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 73, line 16, at end insert—
"(2) As soon as practicable after a scheme has been made or revised, the county authority shall send a copy of the scheme (or the scheme as revised) to every parish council whose area comprises any part of the area of the county authority.
(3) As respects Scotland sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply but, in the case of a scheme made or revised for the area of a general planning authority, that authority shall send as soon as practicable a copy of the scheme (or the scheme as revised) to every district council whose district comprises any part of that area."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I ask the House to agree to a manuscript Amendment to change "area of the county authority as shown in subparagraph (2) to "county area", so that it fits in with the Peak Park Amendments.
The intention is to change the words "area of the county authority" in the last line of sub-paragraph (2) to "county area". This is to fit in with the Peak Park Amendments. I hope that this is clear. The object of Amendment 98,
1234
to which I will now speak, is to require that when a land acquisition and management scheme has been made or revised, the county authority shall send copies of the scheme to parish councils in the area, or in the case of Scotland where a scheme is made or revised by a general planning authority, that authority shall send copies of the scheme to district councils in the area.
Noble Lords may recall that at the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, moved an Amendment which would have given parish councils the right to ask for a copy of any LAMS without payment. This resulted in drawing to our attention the point that as Schedule 8, paragraph 1(1) (b) already provides for declarations of disposal notification areas, it might well be appropriate for parish councils to receive copies of LAMS as of right. The Government agreed to consider this point before Report stage and the present Amendments are the result. The basic point is that although parish councils are not authorities for the purposes of the land scheme, they are local authorities for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972.
Therefore we consider it is right that they should be kept informed of arrangements that will have an impact on their areas. The same argument applies in Scotland where there is a need to cover the position of district councils within the areas of general planning authorities which are also local authorities but which are not authorities for the purposes of the Bill. The sending of copies of LAMS to district councils within these areas will ensure that knowledge of the contents of LAMS is effectively disseminated throughout these areas. As the copies of LAMS will be sent to parish and district councils under a statutory duty they will of course be provided free of charge.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness for moving this Amendment. Those connected with parish councils, like myself, will be more than happy about this.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I join my noble friend in that remark. I ask the noble Baroness one question. Does it

1235
apply to community councils in Wales? We assume that it does.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I gather that it does—
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it cannot, because the schemes do not apply in Wales. There are no schemes in Wales.
Baroness BIRK: I am sorry, my Lords, the noble Viscount is absolutely right. I was trying to think what would be the parallel way of doing this so that at least the local authority areas within Wales were notified That cannot be done under this Amendment, but I am quite sure that there will be a way in which we can see that the local authority areas in Wales are notified.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, a parallel action which the noble Baroness might consider would be giving the parish councils the right to have copies of the agency arrangements sent to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 17 [General duties]:
7.7 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 16, line 28, leave out ("then").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 99 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 100. We start, as I did at the Committee stage, from the Statement made by the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister who is responsible for local government and development that he wants to see this process of land acquisition being planning led. The object of my first Amendment at this point of the Bill at the Committee stage was to make the Bill reflect that intention. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, took his stand on the clause as previously drafted and called in aid the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association. At that time I had not consulted those bodies, but I now have, and in the light both of that consultation and my study of what the noble Lord said in response to my original Amendment, I have refined my Amendment and propose this one which would leave out the word "then" and to re-
1236
draft what now appears in paragraph (b).
This is done with the intention of making my Amendment meet some of the points which the noble Lord said were in the mind of his right honourable friend, and I hope that the Government, while not perhaps entirely happy, will be more happy with this version than they were with the original one. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has explained, these Amendments would alter the general duty in Clause 17(1). At Committee stage the Opposition carried against the Government an Amendment to Clause 17(1) which reversed the order of the paragraphs and then made the duty of bringing development land into public ownership dependent upon the authority's implementation of its plans. As my noble friend Lord Melchett pointed out at that time, the Amendment would have the unacceptable effect of allowing authorities which did not wish to implement the land scheme to argue that public ownership of development land was not necessary to secure the proper planning of their area. This point seems now to be appreciated and this Amendment rights that point. It removes the requirement that public ownership should be consequential upon achieving good planning, and it leaves things in the right perspective.
In view of this I can say that we are prepared to accept the Amendment as we feel it is some improvement on the one moved before. Nevertheless, I must point out that such acceptance is again without prejudice to any conclusions that the Government may reach on the acceptability of the whole of the main issue.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am delighted that all this striving has brought our minds closer together, at any rate on this point.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 100.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—
"(b) of bringing development land into public ownership and of developing that land

1237
themselves or of making it available for development by others in accordance with such planning."—(Lord Sandford.)
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 102 with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 5, leave out ("within whose area the land is situated") and insert ("whose area includes the land").—(Lord Melchett.)
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Amherst of Hackney): My Lords, I should tell the House that if Amendment No. 103 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 104.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment No. 103 on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, leave out lines 6 to 9.—(Lord Melchett.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 17, line 11, at end insert:
(" (5A) In exercising their duties under this Act. and in particular their duty to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry, every authority shall aim to protect productive agricultural and forestry land from encroachment by relevant development, and in this context shall have had prior regard to the use for relevant development of waste or uncultivated land.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is another version of an Amendment which we moved at Committee stage. We have studied with great care the reply given at that stage by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and our drafting follows upon what we believe to be the many points where we agreed with the Government and they agreed with us. If I may draw your Lordships' attention to col. 194 of the Official Report of 28th October, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said:
"As I understand it, the only possible point at which the two sides might diverge is in the proposals of the Government for giving a slightly higher rate of grant to authorities than is at present the case. But I think on the whole there is the concensus approach that the authorities are doing as much as they can,
1238
and the fact is that a great deal of derelict land is simply not suitable for development",
et cetera.
My Lords, this relates to the principle of derelict land, which we have varied in our Amendment because the basis of it now is related to the needs of agriculture and forestry. Our Amendment provides that:
… "every authority shall aim to protect productive agricultural and forestry land from encroachment…".
On this point there is no divergence between the two sides of the House, but your Lordships will be aware that in the final line of the Amendment the words "waste or uncultivated land" are used instead of "derelict land". Waste land, as your Lordships are aware, includes a very large area of the United Kingdom. It includes foreshore, estuarial acres which are partly covered at high tide, areas of land which are uncultivated and areas of land which are in process either of being reclaimed from the sea or of being covered. My Lords, there is no doubt about it; the casting of this Amendment in these varied terms is a new method which we believe may help the Government to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in moving this Amendment, which has been carefully worded in order to meet two of the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, both of which we felt were valid; that is, the matter of consultation and the reference to the economic interests of rural or urban areas. I fear that we do not agree with his other two reasons for opposing our Amendments in Committee: first, that the planning system in itself contains significant safeguards for agriculture—I only wish that were true—and, secondly, the opinion he expressed that the pace of acquisition of agricultural land would not increase once local authorities began to acquire land under this Bill. That, we think, was highly speculative and probably too optimistic; and, in any event, no good reason for not showing a warning light to local authorities to guard against unnecessary land-take and to remember to preserve the country's capacity to produce food. I very much hope that the Government will now find this Amendment satisfactory. It in no way undermines any of

1239
the basic principles behind the Bill. It can do no harm, it may do good, and it ought to be accepted.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I wonder whether I could add a few more words to this point. I did not move Amendment No. 101 because I felt that Amendment No. 105 covered the point to a very much greater extent, but if for some reason the Government are not prepared to accept Amendment No. 105 perhaps they will consider again Amendment No. 101. However, I rise to support Amendment No. 105, standing in the names of my noble friends, for several reasons. Some of the biggest developments that have gone on—for example, if I can again quote Scotland. the enormous oil works at Grangemouth which are now hitting the headlines of almost every paper—were built on reclaimed land. On many occasions the local authority has taken the very best agricultural land for the purposes of, say, housing because it saved them the cost of underbuilding. I particularly ask the Government to revise their procedures where local authority development takes place in order to allow for a greater amount of cost to be borne by them in cases of local authority development where underbuilding is involved. The cost of underbuilding, for those of your Lordships who may not be familiar with this, arises where a house is on a slight slope and is the cost of whatever building is required below ground-level to make the building upright.
My Lords, there are many other cases where, because of the nature of the ground—there may be mine-workings underneath, for example—rafting of a building may be needed. But I must point out—and I think it is an important factor —that probably means that for every quarter of an acre of good agricultural land which is taken we have to spend £50 a year on importing the food which would have been grown on that quarter acre. Two tons to the acre of, say, wheat is not uncommon, and with prices as they are at the moment I should think that the hard wheat price for grain on the London market will be round about £80 a ton. That gives your Lordships some idea of what is involved when it comes to these very large amounts that are being lost because of the development of good agricultural land and the reduction
1240
in our food output. It is for these reasons as much as for any other that I sincerely hope that the Government are prepared to accept this very well-drafted Amendment standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Ferrers, Lord Middleton and Lord Sandys.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, there is often a risk, at this stage in the consideration of a very long Bill, of certain matters not having the priorities given to them that they ought. This is a most important Amendment; and the words have been clearly and carefully considered, there has been no precipitate feeling about it, and I hope that there will be given to it the importance that the need for our food production and the preservation of agricultural land clearly deserve. One hopes that this is a case where we are to have an acceptance by the Government; but without those words which they have put at the end of the other two acceptances—words like "subject to not being reversed when the Government have had second thoughts". This is a decision that ought to be made now and stuck to.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, it would be surprising if I were not to say a few words on this subject. I understand completely the motives behind the Amendment. One sees agricultural land being swallowed up almost weekly by the development of building sites and in order to make new roads. This is saddening to an agriculturalist. It is true that our land is precious to us. We cannot feed half our population and we must import what we do not produce; that is a consideration which everyone ought to bear in mind. However, sadly, one recognises that with the development of our towns the housing needs of our people must be taken into account and I, for one, regretfully must accept that sometimes even good agricultural land must be taken over. I hope that the planning authorities, and certainly any guidance given to them, will underline the strong desirability of land being sought which is not of first agricultural quality. Wherever one can find unproductive land not suitable for agriculture, that should be used.
My Lords, I shall not vote for the Amendment; I think it too tight. As I have said, there are considerations which, again regretfully, must sometimes outweigh the local needs of agriculture. I

1241
am going to listen with interest to what will be said by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and express the hope that he will understand and accept the need for guidance on the lines I have suggested to be given to local authorities and to anyone else connected with the development of land.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think my noble friend has it exactly right when he says that the important thing is for the planning authorities to consider this. That is exactly the point of view that I take, and I will try to indicate to noble Lords why this Amendment will weaken the protection given to agricultural land under the planning system rather than give it extra protection. I do not want again to go over the common ground between us on this. I accept, as do the Government, the need to increase food production in this country. We accept the undesirability of agricultural land being developed unless absolutely necessary. That is common ground and ground that we covered at some length in Committee; as, too, we have considered basic issues concerning the protection of agricultural land.
In replying to the debate at the Committee stage, I entirely accepted the spirit behind the Amendments that noble Lords opposite then moved, but I questioned the necessity and the way in which they tackled the problems. I raised two main issues on the latter point. First, I stressed that any attempt to use the land scheme to set up a duplicate planning system would wreck the planning system and remove the real protection from agricultural land. Secondly, I drew attention to specific defects in the Amendments, particularly in respect of any requirement for consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture.
I am naturally delighted that noble Lords opposite have taken some of these points to heart; and to that extent this Amendment is an improvement. I think there is now the question of whether it adds anything of value to the Bill. After all, paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 requires authorities in exercising their functions generally to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry. Another objection which I raised at Committee was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. This was whether this Bill will affect the rate at which agricultural
1242
and is brought into development. I went so far, the last time we debated this, as to suggest that it might have the opposite effect; but as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, this is a hypothetical point and I would not rest my argument against the Amendment on that.
Even if the Amendment does add anything to the Bill, the root trouble of the setting up of a duplicate planning system remains. The Amendment would require authorities at the acquisition stage to consider the planning issues of whether it is right to use a piece of agricultural land for a particular development, or whether the development could be carried out on some other nonagricultural land. This is certainly something that can and must be considered, but it must be done at the planning stage. The Amendment could have an effect precisely contrary to that which it seeks to achieve. The proper way to protect agriculture is through the operation of the planning system which contains the real safeguards. Anything that weakens the planning system must weaken the protection. The present Bill has been unjustly accused of being contrary to good planning. It is not. It goes hand in hand with planning, as Clause 17(2) makes clear. The Amendment would have precisely the effect of turning the land scheme procedures into a second and independent planning system. That is something which we have sought to resist all along.
My Lords, we have said—and it is flattering to someone as young as me to see that professors at one's old University read what one says on these subjects and that was the case when I ventured to make the remark about this Bill not dealing with planning per se—that the important point is that the Bill does not attempt to interfere with the present planning system; it attempts to build on it by giving local authorities powers to acquire development land. If it becomes general practice that every planning decision relating to agricultural land has to be questioned at the acquisition stage, who will be interested in reaching proper decisions at the planning stage? I venture to suggest that it will detract seriously from the importance of decisions reached at the planning stage, and it is at that stage that the real protection of agricultural land lies.

1243
The inevitable result of this Amendment would be the discrediting of the existing planning system, and that is something that I hope that noble Lords on all sides would strongly resist.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I introduced this Amendment in a frame of mind that I think your Lordships will agree was both conciliatory and helpful. I still believe that there is a large area of agreement between both sides on this; but when I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Collison, I was truly astounded. He gave away the keys of the castle in the first five minutes. Nobody connected with agriculture in a country such as Holland would have dreamed of making that remark; because the very important level at which the Dutch rate their agricultural land would have precluded that altogether. I think it harmful for one so closely connected with the agricultural industry to have said what he said this evening: that it does not really matter so far as agriculture is concerned; housing needs must come first.
We do not dispute that housing needs are exceedingly important, but we believe that Clause 17 as set out, can be improved. We do not disapprove of what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said in regard to proper planning. Here we have it in Clause 17(a) which says:
"In exercising their functions .… every authority shall have regard to the desirability of securing the proper planning".
We believe that by the addition of this Amendment it would have a desirable effect.
We are prepared to bend over backwards in order to achieve satisfaction in this clause which we believe to be as important as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has stated. I was glad to have the support in this matter from my noble friend Lord Middleton. He rates it, as all of us do on this side of the House, as of the first importance. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to a double planning system. He made a lot of that. We do not see this in that light altogether; we believe it may be possible to reach an accommodation with the Government and therefore we are prepared at this stage to withdraw the Amendment on the assumption that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may be pre-
1244
pared to join in discussions prior to a further Amendment being set down at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 17, line 13, at end insert ("functions concerning the acquisition, management or disposal of land").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 106, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 107 and 108. These Amendments limit the functions under other Acts to which the general duty would apply to functions concerning the acquisition, management and disposal of land. These Amendments are designed to meet the valuable point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at Committee stage. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made clear at that time, the new duty placed upon authorities under Clause 17(1) to have regard to the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership must apply to all powers of authorities to acquire, manage and dispose of land for private development, and not only to those under this Bill. It would be nonsense, if it did not extend also to, for instance, the powers of local authorities under Section 112 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, entirely accepted this point, and thus that the provisions of Clause 17(6) were necessary. But his anxiety was that Clause 17(6)(a) could be interpreted as going further, and as meaning that the general duty might effect the way in which local authorities exercise their general planning functions under the 1971 Act (for example, in considering planning applications). This was certainly never the Government's intention. So to make this absolutely clear. the Amendments limit the functions under other Acts to which the general duty applies to those functions concerning the acquisition, management and disposal of land. I think this should now meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and also improve the clarity of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for

1245
having looked at this point and I am also most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having written to me about it. In so far as I understand the Amendments—they are very difficult to understand and are on a particularly difficult clause of the Bill—the implications of the amending words seem to go some way to meet my fears that planing decisions would be distorted by having to take account of considerations of a non-planning kind; that is, land acquisition. The Amendments go a long way to meet the point I made, not the whole way because there is a conflict between planning and land acquisition which is built into the Bill; that is part of the Bill, and I accept that though I do not care for it. The Government have gone as far as they can reasonably go without upsetting the philosophy of their Bill. I am most grateful for it and, if I understand it correctly, it meets the central point I made. I am sure that this will be in the interests of good planning.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 107.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 16, leave out ("functions").— (Baroness Birk.)
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 108.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 18, leave out ("functions").—(Baroness Birk.)
Schedule 6 [General duties of authorities]:
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 en bloc. I spoke to these Amendments with Amendment No. 51.
Amendments moved—
Page 73, line 24, after ("deciding") insert ("(a)")
Page 73, line 26, after ("others") insert ("or
(b) what use should be made of such land until it is so developed or made so available").—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 73, line 33, leave out ("local") and insert ("other authorities, local and new town").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment corrects an oversight. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 already requires authorities, in exercising their functions, to have regard to the needs of local authorities. This was added to the Bill at the Commons Report stage. However, in drafting the Amendment we overlooked the need to cover the interests under the Bill of other authorities which are not local authorities. This Amendment corrects that error. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 73, line 34. at end insert:
("(dd) the needs and obligations of charities").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Amendment provides that in exercising their functions on or after the first appointed day, and in particular in deciding whether development land acquired by them should be developed by them or made available for development by others, authorities shall have regard to the needs and obligations of charities in addition to those of the other interests that appear in paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule. The Amendment has been tabled in consequence of the undertaking given to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, in Committee stage to incorporate the spirit of his Amendment, which sought to include in the Schedule,
"the needs for ecclesiastical buildings and dwelling houses for ministers of religion ".
In debate on the Amendment my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that the Government recognised the anxiety of the Churches that they should be able to obtain without difficulty the new land which they will require for development in order to carry out their own functions, and the Government therefore accepted the intention behind the Amendment. They were concerned however to follow the principle of making any special provision for Churches apply equally to all other charities, and this will accordingly be achieved through the inclution of this new sub-paragraph in Schedule 6. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend Lord Balfour is in his place. Had he been in his place, I am sure he would have wanted to thank the noble Baroness; and, as a minister of religion myself, I should like to thank her, too.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 73, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) Section 192(1) of the Act of 1971 and section 181 of the Scottish Act of 1972 (blight notices) shall have effect as if the land specified therein included land referred to in a programme published under this paragraph.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we return now to the rolling programmes. Whether they end up by appearing in the Bill or merely remain the administrative convenience the Government would prefer, does not make any difference to their practical effect. It is with their practical effect that this Amendment is concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will remember that at Committee stage he told us there were three functions for these rolling programmes: first, to provide orderly plans; secondly, to provide a basis for economic control and borrowing and, lastly, to inform local people and builders of the scope of the authority's planned activity. I have little doubt that this will be so, whether or not they are in the Bill.
One of the results of telling local people and builders about land to be included in the rolling programme is to make it impossible to sell land to anybody but the local authority. If you have land which is identifiable under one of the rolling programmes it will be instantly affected by blight, because nobody will be interested in buying, say, a farm which is within a five-year rolling programme for acquisition by a local authority; and the same would apply to any other property if the owner wished to move away, or, in the case of death of the owner, the executors wished to dispose of the property. These properties will have no market value in any practical terms, except to the local authority.
I appreciate that there may be difficulties in working out how this is to be attached to the scheme of blight notices; more particularly, perhaps, if the provision for rolling programmes does not appear in the Bill. This Amendment is
1248
drafted, of course, on the basis that there is a reference in the Bill to rolling programmes. On the other hand, it may be that the Government wish to try to persuade another place to reverse that. I know not, but I believe that we ought to provide for this.
In suport of not putting rolling programmes into the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, drew analogies from other activities of local government. I do not find education very easy to deal with as I do not have much experience of it, but when it comes to highways, which was the other sort of rolling programme to which he referred to, we have massive provisions in the blight notice procedure in Section 192 of the English Act, whereby people whose land is affected by proposed roads can, if they wish, and if they cannot sell it to anybody else, sell it to the local authority and require the local authority to buy it. I would remind the noble Lord that it is not only a matter of finding the land in a development plan as being a piece of land on which a road is to go. All you need under 192(I)(e) is a plan approved by a resolution of the local highway authority. The moment that happens, the blight notice procedure becomes applicable.
I should like the noble Lord to consider very seriously whether we ought, either through this Amendment or something similar if we are not to have rolling programmes in the Bill, to attract this procedure to the situation of a person whose land is identifiable in the rolling programme. I am not sure what the rolling programme will look like, but it will have to be fairly specific if it is to be of use to local people and builders, and we shall have the situation where land can be easily identifiable and, therefore, blighted.
The Government have been very helpful regarding blight over this Bill. We have one provision already in the Bill for disposal notification areas and there is another one, which was pointed out to me, which is that if part of the land was the subject of a compulsory purchase order and the other part was postponed. Nevertheless, on the postponed part of the land the blight notice procedure would apply. Here is another case where the Government are going to deal fairly with people whose land will be required for Community Land Bill purposes, and I think

1249
they will have to take account of the hardship which will occur when people's land is identifiable under a rolling programme. I am sure that as they have been scrupulously careful in trying to look after such people in other respects, they will wish to do so in this case also. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am afraid we think that the Amendment is unnecessary and is based on a misunderstanding of rolling programmes. I do not think that what I said at Committee stage led to misunderstanding because, as the noble Viscount said, I spoke of the scope of activity and said that the rolling programme would give local people and builders some idea of the likely scope of activity. That would not necessarily— and indeed will not—amount to mentioning particular sites.
The scope of rolling programmes was clearly set out in the Department's paper, the Planning Framework for Land Acquisition, of which copies are available in the Printed Paper Office for those who would wish to see it. Of the rolling programmes this document said:
"Though authorities will be considering the needs of private development up to ten years ahead they will not need to acquire ten years' supply of land. They will have to prepare five-year rolling programmes of their anticipated expenditure on development land and these will be approved annually by the Department of the Environment as a basis for borrowing approval. They will not contain lists of sites to be acquired but will need to be appropriately supported in relation to the planning basis on which the authorities concerned are operating."
So we have made it clear from the outset that rolling programmes will not specify individual sites, and there is nothing in the Amendment that was pressed by noble Lords opposite at Committee stage, as I understand it, which would in any way alter that position.
Since rolling programmes are programmes of expenditure and will make no reference to individual sites, they will not cause blight. Indeed, far from its being unnecessary for rolling programmes to contain details of individual sites, there are strong objections to their doing so. As this Amendment recognises, the end result could only be to create vast areas of unnecessary blight. That would, of course, be bad for landowners in the area and the application of statutory blight
1250
provisions would place a heavy and unnecessary burden on authorities who would be forced to acquire the land far in advance of need. This, I am sure, is something which both sides of your Lordships' House would wish to avoid.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in support of my noble friend. I can see from the notes which were supplied to us that it is not the Government's intention that the rolling programme should refer to individual sites. But, equally, it would be possible to say they were proposing to acquire, say, 300 acres of land in the next two years. But you cannot support that with relevant planning factors, which is one of the intentions of the Government, without specifying to some degree where the land will be. It could be put in terms such as, "To the North-West of the town as far as the River So-and-So". It seems to me that you cannot avoid describing the acquisition programme in terms less precise than that. That is roughly the equivalent of some of the proposals to be shown in the structure plan, and that plan is one of the factors which in appropriate cases would qualify people to serve blight notices. That is mentioned in Section 192.
It may not be possible for all the people who are to be affected by the acquisition programme to show that they are qualified to serve blight notices, but I should have thought there would be certain people who, if terms such as I have employed were used, could say without any doubt at all that their property would be affected by next year's tranche of acquisition in the rolling programme. Somehow or other, we must ensure that those situations are covered. It is really most unconvincing to say that people who happen to be embraced in a disposal notification area—which is a wide area established by the authority in order that they should receive information about transactions in the area—qualify for blight, but as regards an acquisition programme, the land that will be acquired in the very next year does not bring them into the scope of the blight provisions.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may with the leave of the House briefly respond, I should first say something about roads, a point the noble Viscount raised. I did not cover them in my reply.

1251
As I understand it, roads are covered for blight purposes because they are approved, as he said, by resolution of the highway authority and not because they are included in the rolling programme, the TPP. So I do not think that is a strict analogy with the attempt to make something which is included in this rolling programme qualify people for blight. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked me about the planning background and said that surely it will be possible to identify sites.
Lord SANDFORD: No, my Lords. May I interrupt? I said that it will be possible to say that certain sites, and a lot of sites, will undoubtedly be embraced within the general area referred to.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, even if the noble Lord puts it like that I am not sure that I agree with him. As I understand it, the planning background at this stage of the rolling programme will need to be in only broad terms to indicate that the authorities' proposed areas of operation are consistent with the planning background for those areas. Only at the acquisition stage will the question of individual sites and their planning background arise. I accept that there will be fringe cases, just as I suppose there are at the moment when blight provisions occur. And I would expect that, just as at the moment, local authorities will take a sympathetic view if those arose. But I do not think the Amendment is acceptable. I think it is based on a misconception, which may have arisen because of something I said at Committee stage about exactly how detailed these rolling programmes will be.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord in his last remarks perhaps gave me a little courage to press him slightly further even if he cannot deal with the matter in a speech tonight. Let me give him two examples because I think the position is so much more easily understood if one has examples. There are by this time in many towns fairly limited choices as to the direction in which further development can go. I was recently involved in a particular town where the critical factor for the moment is the provision of a bypass. It is perfectly well known that certain sites are available for housing and
1252
would be approved. although they are not in the development plan because it is so hideously out of date. There are certain other sites which would be approved but cannot be approved until the by-pass comes—and the by-pass is now many years away because of the economic situation.
In that town, if the local authority said: "We are going to provide for £X million in our land acquisition programme for the next five years for housing purposes," it is undoubtedly correct that the sites would be identified. There are no other sites. They have been on a non-statutory map for years and years and everybody knows about them. If the local authority says it is going to acquire land, those will be the sites and everybody knows it. If development goes on to any other land it will be in breach of all the things that have been done in resisting. planning applications on that other land, again for years and years. That is one case, and there cannot be any doubt that in a case like that it would be so easy to identify the land.
Let me give the noble Lord another example which also is based on fact. I know a town where there are very firm proposals to expand the central shopping area. For a number of reasons it is a very difficult town. There has recently been consideration of this in the structure plan local hearings, and the structure plan has now been approved. It has been approved so as to identify the area upon which the central area shopping redevelopment will occur, when it does occur. All that has to happen is for the local authority there to say in their rolling programme, and to publish it: "We are going to to go ahead with central area shopping redevelopment." There cannot be any doubt about where it is to be. It is on the structure plan. It is clearly identified. There is no possible doubt on grounds as to the exact boundaries of it, and in those circumstances nobody is going to have one moment of doubt as to where the site will be. Those are two real examples. If the noble Lord would like to hear them, I will tell him the names of the two towns concerned, but I do not think it matters.
The noble Lord says: "In those circumstances it may be only a fringe matter." It will not, because once it is

1253
identified that the local authority will act under the Bill in those two areas—I have only to mention the word, "housing" in one and, "shopping" in the other and the site is identified automatically by the local circumstances—there will be no market for that land and there is nothing anybody can do about it. It will be blighted, whether or not the noble Lord likes it. Will the noble Lord do this? Will he go further than to say that he thinks that local authorities will be sympathetic? Will he issue a circular to them, or will he see whether the Department is prepared to issue a circular to them, giving them very strong directions that, where on account of local circumstances sites are identifiable in this way, they are to buy if there is any question of the land being blighted? Otherwise, people are going to be left in an impossible position under this Bill and one from which they will not be able to escape without substantial hardship. Land will be sterilised, and people will be out of pocket, and there will be a great outcry.
I hope the noble Lord accepts that as being a valid approach with valid examples and representing a valid problem, and I hope that he will think about it. I do not know whether he wants to say anything more this evening. It may well be that he would prefer to go away and think about it. If he will guarantee that he will think about it—and I see that he is nodding his head—and will guarantee to see whether something practical can be done, I will at any rate this evening beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until tomorrow.

CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
7.57 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now further considered. Your Lordships will remember that consideration was adjourned after Amendment No. 103.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be further considered.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
[References are to Bill (140) as first printed for the Commons]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 104 to 114.]
Clause 41, page 25, line 28, at end insert ("enactment or rule of law conferring a—").
Page 26, line 11, after ("cause") insert (",having regard to section 1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925 (the principle on which questions relating to custody, upbringing etc. of children are to be decided)").
Clause 42, page 26, line 35, leave out ("applying for") and insert ("making an application relating to the").
Clause 42, page 26, line 41, leave out ("may be revoked") and insert ("discharged").
Page 27, line 3, leave out ("any application, other than one") and insert ("an application relating to the custody of a child, other than an application").
Page 27, line 5, leave out ("for custody of a child").
Clause 45, page 28, line 5, at end insert—
("(1A) In any case where subsection (1) applies, and

(a) the child was in the care of a local authority before he began to have his home with the applicant, and

(b) the child remains in the care of a local authority,

the authority in whose care the child is shall not remove the child from the applicant's custody except—

(i) with the applicant's consent;

(ii) with the leave of a court; or

(iii) with the authority, in terms of Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, of a justice of the peace or a children's hearing").

Clause 45, page 28, line 6, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1)").
Clause 45, page 28, line 9, leave out ("£100 ") and insert ("£400").
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
Return of child taken away in breach of section 45
.—A court in which an application for custody of a child is pending may—

(a) on the application of a person from whose custody the child has been removed in breach of section 45, order the person who has so removed the child to return the child to the applicant;

(b) on the application of a person who has reasonable grounds for believing that another person is intending to remove the child from the applicant's custody in breach of section

1255
45, by order direct that other person not to remove the child from the applicant's custody in breach of that section.

Clause 46, page 28, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("direct") in line 21 and insert "applicant is a person qualified to apply for custody of the child, and the court is of opinion—

(a) in the case of an applicant who is a relative of the child or a husband or wife of the mother or father of the child (whether applying alone or jointly with his or her spouse)—

(i) that the child's welfare would not be better safeguarded and promoted by the making of an adoption order in favour of the applicant than it would be by the making of a custody order in his favour; and

(ii) that it would be appropriate to make a custody order in favour of the applicant; or

(b) in any other case, that the making of a custody order in favour of the applicant would be more appropriate than the making of an adoption order in his favour, the court shall").

Clause 46, page 28, line 22, leave out ("in such a case") and insert ("where such a direction is made").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as your Lordships will recall, the House has completed its consideration of the Amendments made in another place to the provisions of Part II of the Bill dealing with custodianship in England and Wales. With leave, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 104 to 114 which relate to custody in Scotland. At this point I should perhaps apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kirkhill for his being unable to be with us today. May I also apologise because my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, whose expertise in this matter is well known, is unable to be present due to his duties abroad—which leaves me carrying the baby, which I suppose is the object of this Bill.
Before referring to Amendments Nos. 104 to 114 in more detail, I should explain that all these Amendments are of a relatively minor nature. They serve simply to clarify the existing provisions, to extend certain ancillary powers of the Scottish courts in custody proceedings, and to effect improvements which are in line with what your Lordships have already agreed in relation to Clauses 30 to 40 on custodianship.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 are designed in their separate ways to make clear how the Scottish custody provisions in this Bill relate to the existing law on
1256
custody in Scotland. They make it clear that the new statutory rights of application by relatives, step-parents and foster parents, contained in Clause 41, are entirely without prejudice to existing rights of application under Scots law. They also make it clear that the essential discretions of the Scottish courts, which they exercise on the basis of the welfare of the child, are preserved. Certain doubts have been expressed on these points in another place. The Amendments to which I have referred were designed to clarify the situation. They have been welcomed by those in another place who had previously expressed reservations about the provisions.
Amendments Nos. 106 to 109 extend the ancillary provisions of Clause 42 to apply these provisions not only to the making or determination of initial custody applications but also in relation to any subsequent proceedings involving custody of the child—for example, applications for variation or discharge of the custody order, or for access or maintenance.
Amendments Nos. 110 to 114 are Scottish equivalents to Amendments for England and Wales which have already been agreed by your Lordships. Amendment No. 110 restricts the removal of a child by a local authority from the care of an applicant who has had possession of the child for three years or more. Amendment No. 112A provides that where such a child is removed illegally the person from whose custody the child is removed may apply to the court for an order requiring the return of the child. Amendment No. 112 is a penalty Amendment. Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 require that the court shall not make an adoption order in the case of an application by a relative or step-parent unless it is positively satisfied that adoption is the better course in the particular case. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amend. ments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord, although he speaks so fast that it is very difficult to follow him. There are many Amendments and they have been introduced, as my noble friend said on Thursday

1257
night when unfortunately I was unable to be present, very much at the last moment. Nevertheless, I have studied the matter very carefully and realise that these Amendments are designed to clarify the situation and to bring the Bill into line with Scottish law.
I have very little to say, but I want to be quite sure that when there is any question of a custody order the interests of the child are put first. When a parent, guardian or relation is involved with the child the same safeguards should remain and the child's interests should always come first. Amendment No. 112A deals with the return of the child who is taken away in breach of Section 45. I take it that in this Amendment the interests of the child come first and foremost and that it was something which fitted into the concept of the Bill when it left your Lordships' House to go to another place. So far as Amendment No. 113 is concerned. I take it that it is for the court to decide that the child's welfare would not be better safeguarded and promoted by the making of an adoption order. Is that the duty of the court or of the applicant? I imagine that it is the duty of the court. So far as I can see from my study of these Amendments in relation to the Bill as it affects Scotland, they are simple and straightforward, but I should like to have the assurance of the noble Lord. Lord Winterbottom, that there is nothing in them which alters in any way the purpose of the Bill that the interests of the child should be paramount.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I accept the reproof of the noble Baroness and will try to speak more slowly. The problem is that I am just coming out of my corner and as a result the adrenalin is flowing rather freely! I hone that the noble Baroness will tell me if I continue to speak too fast. Amendment No. 105 was designed to clarify the situation which the noble Baroness has mentioned. In all cases the interests of the child are the first consideration. It is the duty of the court to consider what is best for the welfare of the child. These two points are firmly established and are part of the guiding principles of this Bill. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 115 and 116]
Clause 49, page 29, line 32, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
Clause 49, page 30, line 1, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
8.14 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 115 and 116. With the permission of the House I will take these Amendments with Amendments Nos. 145 and 146. They relate to the notice of intention to remove the child. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for keeping close to my brief since I have come into this Bill rather late in the day. This is an important part of our discussion tonight.
When the Bill left your Lordships' House, this clause contained a provision which would have required the parent of a child who had been in the care of a local authority throughout the preceding 12 months to give not less than 28 days notice of intention to remove the child from care. The local authority would have had power to consent to the removal of the child from care either without notice or at any time during the period of 28 days if they thought fit.
The contentious aspects of the clause are first the period which should elapse after a child has been in care before the requirement to give notice of removal takes effect, and secondly the amount of notice that should be required. During consideration of the Bill in the other place the requirement to give 28 days' notice of removal after the child had been 12 months in care was changed so as to require the same period of notice after only six months in care. In explaining the reasons for this change my honourable friend the Minister of State in the other place said:
"It seems clear that we cannot meet the wishes of all who have expressed a view on this contentious issue and therefore in a spirit of compromise I have tabled this amendment which goes part of the way towards meeting the differing views expressed. The original proposals in the Bill have been changed from 12 to six months."
Noble Lords who have more experience of this Bill will remember that a very large spectrum of differing advice was given to the Minister of State on this

1259
matter. The Amendment in question would enable the Secretary of State by order, subject to approval by each House, to vary the periods of 28 days and six months should these prove in practice not to be the most suitable. If the noble Baroness will allow me, Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 introduce comparable provisions for Scotland. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I should first declare an interest, as I did before. I have two foster children. However, neither of them comes within this clause. Therefore, I do not feel that I am speaking with too much of an interest. I can be impartial. May I make one or two points. First, after the Committee stage in the House of Commons a Consultative Document was circulated. However, it was not circulated to the Foster Care Association and I should like that to go on the record. It is rather sad that this was not done.
The fact that we now have a hurdle of 28 days before a child can be taken back by a natural parent is a great advantage in the period of six months, and I am glad that it has been reduced from 12 to six months. However, children in the period before six months can be taken out and it is most disturbing if they can be taken out with virtually no notice. I think this is a pity because, without sounding trite, we are saying that a child's time span is different from that of an adult. Perhaps it is the same for politicians as for children, because Mr. Wilson once said that a week is a long time in the life of a politician. The same applies to a child, although rather more so.
I do not intend to take up your Lordships' time or in any way to jeopardise the Bill at this point, but I feel that we should ask the Minister, on the record, to examine the working of this. I agree that there are powers within the Bill for this to be changed at a later date, and I hope that at the earliest possible date greater protection can be given to children who have been taken into care for less than six months. They should have
1260
at least 48 hours' notice and not be taken away in the middle of the night, or in some other way.
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I must declare an interest, not being a foster parent but a foster grandparent. I think my involvement is as remote as his own in this case. Like the noble Lord, I am a little worried about the period defined in the Amendment which has come from the other place. I preferred the Amendments that were carried during the Committee stage in that place, but like the noble Lord the last thing I want to do is in any way to impede the passage of this Bill. It is an excellent Bill and I think my noble friend deserves to be congratulated upon it. It is widely welcomed by foster parents and by the National Foster Care Association, but I should be glad if my noble friend could give the assurance that if in the light of experience it seems that the composite Amendment put forward by my noble friend is not the right solution to the problem, the Minister will issue an order as provided for in this clause.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord,Lord Winterbottom, coming nobly from his corner has explained to us the essentials of these Amendments and their origins by saying that they relate to the period after which it is necessary for a natural parent to give notice before he takes the child out of voluntary care; and they are relevant also to the length of notice which must then be given. The noble Lord will be as aware as I am of the very chequered history in another place of these provisions and of the elaborate Amendments which were tabled —and in fact at one stage carried—and withdrawn, and like me he will have been gratified to notice that the boundary division between those on one side and those on the other was not in any way coincidental with Party convictions. That is true of the whole Bill, and I am sure it is something which we all savour greatly in this place and applaud in the other place.
Turning to this particular problem, there are great reservations held by people intimately concerned with this problem about the propriety of allowing a natural

1261
parent after, say, five months, to tap on the door of a house and remove a child without further ado. This is something which unfortunately does happen. It has happened recently in South Wales and it has happened more recently in Nottingham. And the noble Lord will doubtless be familiar with both occasions.
In reviewing this, it occurs to me that we look at the two elements the—six months, which may well be too long, and the 28 days which may also be too long. In the first six months, I well understand the anxiety of the Social Services not to do anything to prevent the hesitant natural parent from removing a natural child from an intolerable or dangerous situation into the security of care. There are arguments which say that if an elaborate process of recovery is required this will be enough to send the parent home with the child, but I suggest that it is necessary to look closely at the possibility of having a 24-hour, or preferably a 48-hour, period of notice, mandatory unless waived by the local authority, upon the natural parent. I think the 48-hour period is more satisfactory than the 24-hour period because of the difficulty of taking any administrative steps on Sunday or a bank holiday.
From the foster parent's point of view, it is not much to expect some protection from the feeling that every step on the front path, every knock on the back door, may be somebody coming to take the child away. It is not much on the part of the child, once it is of an age to understand the circumstances in which it is put, perhaps dimly and perhaps with great apprehension, to expect at least a day and a night of reflection in which to be warned of a change of circumstances about to happen, which to us may seem simply like moving from 48 Cedars Avenue to 53 Railway Terrace but in fact for a child of tender years is the transfer from one galactic constellation to another.
Your Lordships will understand that I am anxious to put firmly and clearly on the Record the concern which is felt, not merely by myself and my noble friends on these Benches but also by associations outside this House, not least the National Foster Care Association, and others whose views on this I think are not nearly so hostile or trenchant as perhaps the noble Lord has been led to suppose in
1262
the light of conversations which I have recently had with him.
I am also under constraint not to impede the passage of an excellent piece of legislation and not to place a further strain upon the machinery which has produced and is perfecting it. In doing that, I am encouraged by seeing that under subsection (3) (b) the Secretary of State, without Amendment, has the power to alter the extent of the six months and the extent of the 28 days' notice. But be it noticed that he can only produce one period of notice at one extent of time in care. He is not able to introduce a step; under the regulations as he is empowered to make them under Clause 49(3)(b)—as at present numbered—he cannot say, "Let there be 48 hours' notice required, though waivable, in the first six months, or perhaps three months, and thereafter 28 days, or perhaps 14 days". This is a power which I think in the light of experience he may wish to be able to take to himself later on.
I am encouraged not to press the noble Lord beyond the confines of the Lobbies by the notable improvement in the Bill in the new clause which allows a report and review after three years of operation. It is my purpose, speaking at inordinate length, as at this stage of the Bill we can speak only once and therefore I must make the most of my opportunity, indelibly to impress upon the noble Lord and his Ministerial and other advisers the necessity for seeing how this provision works in practice and accepting the necessity for taking new powers in three years' time if it should be apparent that it is necessary. This would not be a victory for one Party or a defeat for the other; it would be a recognition of realities and indeed it is possible, although I think unlikely, that the opinion which the noble Lord now holds will prevail, in the light of his experience, over the opinion which I now hold, although I think it unlikely.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I add a word. Having served on the Houghton Committee and having been a sponsor, with the present Minister of State, in his Private Bill, I am satisfied with this because it is really carrying out one of the Houghton recommendations. I would mention that so far as I understand it from the Registrar-General, 25·6

1263
per cent. of the children in the circumstances we are now discussing are there because of illness of parents, because of emergency, lack of housing and not for any other reason. If we change this, we might be penalising the poorer families who are in difficulties and have to take certain action. I am fortified in this by the feelings of one-parent families and others in those categories.
My Lords, I, too, was a little worried when I first saw this. I agree with my noble friend that we have a safeguard in subsection (3B) and also in (3C). Therefore, in view of the fact that this has been discussed—and I have read the whole of the debate in the other place—I hope we shall consider, particularly in regard to the figures I have now been able to give, that this probably is the best solution.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, performed a very important function by stating with such clarity the feeling of what is really a very representative body of people: that to snatch children from their homes at short notice, and particularly at midnight, is unacceptable. It brings to the mind the visits of the Gestapo and the KGB too strongly to be acceptable. We cannot expect that in a very large group of people such as make up our Social Services, and who serve our Social Services mostly with distinction and dedication, that there are not some people who are insensitive or who may make misjudgments. Events like this can occur, but I think the comments of noble Lord will be noted—in fact, I know they will be—and people then will think twice before precipitating steps of this kind.
My Lords, the discussion which has led up to these Amendments has been very interesting. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, it has nothing to do with party politics, but with differing views within a dedicated profession. This particular difference of views was reflected in the passage of the Bill through another place, where I understand it was said that if a child was in care for a short time, say, six months, 48 hours' notice of removal should be given, and then there was a rising scale of notice. As I am informed, most of the professional organisations who were consulted—apart,
1264
I believe from the National Foster Care Association—held the view that something rather less elastic was desirable, and that we should accept the compromise which produced the present Amendment.
I may be wrong, because I have not been able to steep myself in this Bill as has my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, whom I am certain we all miss. But as I understand it, if this particular aspect of the Bill goes wrong, the Secretary of State can lay an Order before three years. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord. As I read the Bill, it says:
"The Secretary of State may by order a draft of which has been approved by each House of Parliament amend subsection (3A) of this section by substituting a different period for the period of 28 days or of 12 months…",
and so on. In my reading of the Bill, I do not see anything that confines the Secretary of State to a fixed period. If, say, in six months or nine months from now, some major mistake was made which he felt needed correcting, then the Secretary of State could do it under this particular subsection. Amendment No. 203 provides for a general periodic review of the Bill. I think it is different from the powers under this clause.
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: My Lords, can my noble friend give us an assurance that if experience shows these periods to be wrong, that the Secretary of State will not hesitate to make an Order of this kind? It would be of great help.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can give that assurance, because my right honourable friend very nearly took the view expressed by the noble Lord opposite. He has had to balance the various pieces of advice given to him and he came down on the compromise I have described, but the powers of review are not circumscribed by time. If I am wrong, I will tell the noble Lord and the House.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 117]
Clause 49, page 30, leave out lines 4 to 10, and insert—
"(2) The following section is inserted after section 33 of the Children Act 1948—
'33A.—(1) Section 3(8) of this Act shall apply in relation to children who are not

1265
in the care of local authorities under section 1 of this Act but who arc in voluntary homes or are boarded out, as it applies by virtue of subsection (3A) of the said section 1 to children in the care of the local authority, except that in the case of a child who is not in the care of a local authority the references in subsection (3A) to a local authority shall be construed as references to the voluntary organisation in whose care the child is.
(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a child is boarded out if he is boarded out, by the voluntary organisation in whose care he is, with foster parents to live in their home as a member of their family;

(b) "voluntary home" includes a controlled community home and an assisted community home.""

8.25 p.m
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 117. With the permission of the House I should like to take with it the corresponding Scottish provision, Amendment No. 171. This Amendment is necessary to correct defects in subsection (3C) carried into the Bill on Report in your Lordships' House, reported in the Official Report for 3rd March, 1975, at columns 1170 to 1176. As now amended, the provision more closely matches subsection (3A) by applying to removal of children in the care of voluntary organisations the same time limit for requiring notice as applies to those children who have been in the care of local authorities, and the same penalty for failure to give 28 days' notice. I am sure your Lordships will be pleased to see these improvements. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottont.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 118 to 124]
Clause 50, page 30, line 45, after ("or") insert ("partly in the care of a local authority and partly").
Clause 50, page 30, line 46, leave out ("or partly the one and partly the other").
Clause 50, page 31, line 2, leave out from ("them") to ("and") in line 4 and insert ("the parental rights and duties with respect to that child").
Clause 50, page 31, line 5, leave out ("that parent") and insert ("the parent on whose account the resolution was passed").
Clause 50, page 32, line 14, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
(" (8) A resolution under this section shall cease to have effect if—

(a) the child is adopted;

(b) an order in respect of the child is made under section 13 or (Adoption of children abroad) of the Children Act 1975; or

(c)If a guardian of the child is appointed under section 5 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971".)

Clause 50, page 32, line 14, leave out lines 34 and 35.
Clause 50, page 32, line 47, at end insert ("or an order under section (Adoption of children abroad) of that Act").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 118 to 124 en bloc. This group of. Amendments are minor Amendments the first four being concerned with improving the wording of subsection 1(d) of Section 2 of the Children Act 1948, so as to make its meaning more clearly understood; and the other three being concerned with defining the circumstances in which a resolution passed by a local authority assuming parental rights and duties in respect of a child in its care would cease to apply. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 125]
Guardians ad litem and reports in care proceedings
Page 33, line 8, at end insert—
("4B.—(1) In any proceedings under section 2(5) or 4(3) or 4A of this Act. a juvenile court or the High Court may, where it considers it necessary in order to safeguard the interests of the child to whom the proceedings relate, by order make the child a party to the proceedings and appoint, subject to rules of court, a guardian ad litem of the child for the purposes of the proceedings.
(2) A guardian ad litem appointed in pursuance of this section shall be under a duty to safeguard the interests of the child in the manner prescribed by rules of court.
3) Section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973 shall apply in relation to complaints under section 2(5) or 4(3) of this Act as it applies in relation to applications under section 3(3) of the said Act of 1973".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment

1267
No. 125. With the permission of the House I would also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 131, 132, 134 to 137.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be prepared to take Amendments Nos. 134 to 137 separately as group 10, this will be helpful.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords, I will do just that.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, might I suggest that we take Amendments Nos. 125, 131 and 132 together? May I explain to your Lordships that the noble Lord is in a difficulty, because he has been extremely helpful to us in regrouping the, Amendments so that we can deal with the Scottish matters separately. Since we have laid this difficulty upon him and he has taken it uncomplainingly, I hope your Lordships will be patient with the difficulties which arise from this.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. The situation is that I am working from two documents, one of which is updated; I was looking at the wrong group of documents. We are now speaking on Nos.125. 131 and 132. These relate to a conflict of interest between the parent and child or young person, and this, I understand, stems from Amendments which were originally introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, at an earlier stage. Your Lordships will be aware that these provisions have attracted a great deal of interest among those concerned with the welfare of children, because they introduce into court proceedings involving children a new power which enables the court, where there is, or appears to be, a conflict of interest between parent and child, to order, first, that the parents may not represent their child in the proceedings: and, secondly, that a guardian ad litem should be appointed to act for the child.
Since the Bill left your Lordships' House these provisions have undergone a considerable change. Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 have restricted their scope to proceedings in a juvenile court under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, related proceedings concerning the discharge or variation of care or supervision orders,
1268
and appeals to the Crown Court from decisions reached in the juvenile courts. On the other hand, Amendment No. 125 extends the principle of separate representation to proceedings in a juvenile court or a High Court which are concerned with orders confirming or terminating resolutions passed by local authorities assuming parental rights and duties in respect of a child. This Amendment enables the court, first, to make the child a party to the proceedings—I understand that under the existing law he is not a party—and then to appoint a guardian ad litem to act for him in order to safeguard his interests. The Amendment also enables the court to call upon a local authority or a probation officer for a report on any matter considered relevant to the proceedings.
The need to restrict the scope of the provisions for separate representation to proceedings of the kinds I have mentioned arises mainly from the fact that resources of manpower would not have been available to implement the clause in the form in which the Bill left your Lordships'House. We had a long discussion of this at an earlier stage. Since thatdate, the local authority associations have estimated that to implement the provisions as they now stand will require the equivalent of an additional 70 social workers. Had only one in ten of the proceedings covered by the clause in the Bill as it left your Lordships' House necessitated the appointment of a guardian ad litem, it would have been necessary to recruit an additional 450 social workers. Your Lordships will agree that at this time there would have been no foreseeable prospect of implementing it. This is the reason for the Amendment as it now stands, and I hope it is acceptable to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. We have attempted, at least, to implement the principles behind her wishes. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
8.35 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord for some further clarification? Could he classify a guardian ad litem, because in a very complicated case, a tug-of-love case

1269
where the two parents are fighting over the child, it might be very difficult for a young, inexperienced social worker to fight against somebody very much more experienced. Can the guardian ad litem be a solicitor? It does not say who it is to be. Must it be a social worker? I should not like to say anything in your Lordships 'House against social workers, but I think some are young and inexperienced. I was speaking on Monday to a probation officer from Hull. He was a guardian ad litem and he really did not seem to know what he was doing. I wonder, also, how much training they get for work with children in the courts.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I recognise the concern expressed by the noble Baroness. I remember the discussion that we had earlier on this point. Perhaps I may write to her on this subject, but if my recollection of our earlier discussions is correct we felt that the problem we were facing was that there might not be enough professional people available for this particular purpose. However, I think the noble Baroness would agree that the important characteristic of a guardian ad litem should be experience; and so one would hope that primarily a guardian ad litem would be an experienced social worker; not, as the noble Baroness said, a young, inexperienced person, but someone with knowledge of the hard facts of life behind them. The position is not, as I understand it, totally confined to social workers with professional qualifications; a solicitor could also act on the child's behalf.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I, like the noble Baroness, am very unhappy about this clause and the way it has been changed since it left this House. I was one who supported the noble Baroness from my own experience in juvenile courts. In juvenile proceedings, when a local authority wishes to take a child into care, or when the police think that a child should be taken into care, the local authority and the child and the parents are three different parties. I have always put back such cases for at least a week so that the child concerned shall be represented, and I always insist that the child shall be legally represented—this is the point the noble Baroness is making —not by a social worker but by somebody who is legally trained. The parents go to (pull with a highly qualified barris-
1270
ter, and it is quite impossible for a social worker, however well-intentioned, to stand up in court against legal arguments put forward by a barrister. I think this point is very important indeed. At some stage in the not-too-distant future I hope that we shall be able to make it absolutely certain that the child shall be represented by a legally qualified person. In my experience of 22 years this is absolutely vital for the child's welfare, I hope the noble Lord will be able to reassure us about this.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Macleod speaks from great experience in courts and in other fields, and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is uniquely qualified to speak on this particular subject, with her constant interest in this particular field. I supported my noble friend on the question of the guardian ad litem, and we appreciate what has been achieved in another place in discussions. Of course we regret the inevitability of the financial aspect, the narrowing of the commitment. Nevertheless, this will not be for all time; it may be that at a future date it will be possible once again to broaden this aspect. I think we should be pleased with what has been achieved in this particular field, and I should like to add my gratitude to that expressed by other noble Lords.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I was under the impression —but I speak without knowing—that in Scotland the guardian ad item is practically always a solicitor or a lawyer, and that it has been the custom to have a separate representative for the child in the cases which have been described as "tug-of-love". I do not know whether it is statutory or simply a custom that the child has a representative in the court, and that in the event of a quarrel between one or other of the so-called parents or guardians of the child, that person is very often a trained lawyer, or someone with legal experience. I know that social workers have been appointed as guardians ad litem,and that, on the whole, it has been successful because nobody appoints an inexperienced young social worker for a job of this kind, but someone who is more mature and has had greater experience. I should like to know, in regard to the Amendments which we have received from another place,

1271
whether it is obligatory for a child to be separately represented. If that has been deleted, then it is a great mistake. The child ought to be separately represented. Whether or not that can be put back, I do not know, and I do not know whether I am misinterpreting the clause.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I first reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot? As part of the operation that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned, we decided to remove the Scottish element from this discussion. I hope to discuss the points raised by the noble Baroness on Amendments Nos. 134 to 137, and 168. That is part of the operation of keeping Scotland separate from England, something which in general I do not particularly want to see, but in this area we have different systems of law.
We are really closer to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod and Lady Masham, than they think, because what we want is a doughty fighter to look after the interests of the child, and this implies experience. I would rather have an experienced social worker in this case than an inexperienced barrister. The situation is that guardians ad litem will be experienced social workers—there could also be solicitors—and they will be appointed from a panel set up by local authorities. No one can say, "I want to be a guardian ad litem". They have to be accepted as a suitable person by the local authority. The child is entitled to a solicitor as well as a guardian ad litem. The child could be represented by an experienced social worker and a solicitor, if the situation were sufficiently grave to justify that. That is the situation in which we find ourselves. I hope that your Lordships will accept this group of Amendments.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I think I am in order in intervening in the debate. The noble Lord, unlike myself, has the privilege of speaking as often as he likes. There are two points to which I should like to revert here. The first is part of a recurrent theme, which is the availability of resources. It must be clear that not every social worker is an experienced social worker, and that even an experi-
1272
enced social worker is not equipped to represent a child in court or, indeed. to detect how the interests of the child may best be represented in court, even if that task is entrusted to somebody other than himself or herself. This, in turn, implies a fairly extensive system of retraining, or in-training, of social workers.
In so far as I can unravel the complexities of Amendment No. 210, which embodies the dates and stages at which different Parts of this Bill shall become effective, this is one of the provisions which rests with the Minister to decide when the time is ripe. I will be asking the noble Lord about other provisions, but I should now like to ask him when he thinks the time will he ripe in relation to this provision, bearing in mind the fact that it is no good declaring a campaign, rather like the King of Morocco, and sending totally unarmed troops into the field.
The other question which it occurred to me to ask in parenthesis—and in the asking of which I may reveal my ignorance—is whether, if you have a worthy and experienced social worker who finds his legal task beyond him, it is within his power and within the means of the service to retain qualified counsel to act for him in court. I apologise for not giving notice of that question. The noble Lord might like to write to me on the second one, but I should like him to say something now about the first one.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is, of course, a key question. We are living in troubled times, resources are limited, and I would be dishonest if I stated a fixed date for various stages of this Bill to operate. But I can at least give a statement of intent. My honourable friend the Minister of State is at this moment discussing with local authority associations the possibility of partial implementation in 1976–77 of the provisions for separate representation now embodied in the Bill. Implementation would probably be restricted to unopposed applications for discharge or variation of a care or supervision order that is, cases such as the Maria Colwell one. My honourable friend has expressed the view that full implementation of these important provisions should be a high priority for 1977–78. Let us hope

1273
that the country's financial position is such that these proposed dates will be possible.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 126–129]
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause—
Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations
.—(1) Where it appears to a local authority as respects a child in the care of a voluntary organisation which is an incorporated body—

(a) that the child is not in the care of any local authority; and

(b) that a condition specified in section 2(1) of the Children Act 1948 is satisfied; and

(c)that it is necessary in the interests of the welfare of the child for the parental rights and duties to be vested in the organisation,

the authority may, subject to subsections (5) and (6), resolve that there shall vest in the organisation the parental rights and duties with respect to that child.
(2) While a resolution under this section is in force the parental rights and duties shall vest in the organisation in whose care the child is when the resolution is passed.
(3) lf, immediately before the resolution is passed, the parental rights and duties are vested in the parent in relation to whom the resolution is passed jointly with any other person, then on the passing of the resolution the parental rights and duties shall vest jointly in that other person and the organisation in whose care the child is.
(4) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, whether the condition specified in section 2(1)(b)(i) of the Children Act 1948 is satisfied, if the whereabouts of any parent of the child have remained unknown for twelve months, that parent shall be deemed to have abandoned the child.
(5) A resolution under subsection (1) may not he passed by a local authority in respect of any child unless—

(a) the child is living in the area of the authority either in a voluntary home or with foster parents with whom he has been boarded by the organisation in whose care he is; and

(b) that organisation has requested the authority to pass the resolution.

(6) The parental rights and duties which may vest in an organisation by virtue of this section do not include the right to consent or refuse to consent to the making of an application under section 13 and the right to agree or refuse to agree to the making of an adoption order or an order under section (Adoption of children abroad): and regulations made under section 33(1) of the Children Act 1948 shall apply to the emigration of a child notwithstanding that the parental rights and duties relating
1274
to the child are vested in the voluntary organisation.
(7) Subsection (8) of section 2 of the Children Act 1948 shall apply in relation to a resolution under subsection (I) as if it were a resolution under the said section 2.'
Insert the following new clause:
Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties
(" .—(1) If it appears to a local authority, having regard to the interests of the welfare of a child living within their area, the parental rights and duties with respect to whom are by virtue of a resolution under section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) vested in a voluntary organisation, that it is necessary that the parental rights and duties should no longer be vested in the organisation, the local authority shall resolve that there shall vest in them the parental rights and duties relating to the child.
(2) The local authority shall within seven days of passing a resolution under subsection (1) by notice in writing inform the organisation and each parent, guardian or custodian of the child whose whereabouts are known to them that the resolution has been passed.")
Insert the following new clause:
Effect of resolutions under sections (Transfer of parental rights and dirties to voluntary organisations) and (Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties.)
(" .—(1) A resolution under subsection (1) of section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) shall cease to have effect on the passing of a resolution under subsection (1) of section (Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties).
(2) Section 6 of the Children Act 1948 shall have effect in relation to a resolution under subsection (I) of section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) as it has effect in relation to a resolution under section 2 of that Act.
(3) A resolution under subsection (1) of section (Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties) shall be deemed to be a resolution under section 2 of the Children Act 1948 except that sections 2(2) to (7) and 4(3) of that Act shall not apply.").
Insert the following new clause:
Appeals by parents, etc.
(" .—(1) Subsections (2) to (5) and (7) of section 2 of the Children Act 1948 shall apply to a resolution under section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) as they apply to a resolution under the said section 2, with the substitution for the reference in subsection (2) to the vesting of parental rights and duties in the local authority of a reference to the vesting of parental rights and duties in the voluntary organisation.
(2) An appeal may be made—

(a) where the complaint relates to a resolution under section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations), by a person deprived of

1275
parental rights and duties by the resolution, or

(b) where the complaint relates to a resolution under section (Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties), by a person who but for that resolution and an earlier resolution under section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) would

have parental rights and duties, to a juvenile court having jurisdiction in the area of the authority which passed there solution, on the ground that—

(i) there was no ground for the making of the resolution, or

(ii) that the resolution should in the interests of the child be determined.

(3) An appeal shall lie to the High Court against the decision of a juvenile court under this section.
(4) Section 4B of the Children Act 1948 shall apply in relation to proceedings under this section.'.")
8.48 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos 126 to 129, and take with them Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 as part of the discussion. These Amendments are being taken together because they are all concerned with new powers which have been added to the Bill to meet the wishes of voluntary child care organisations such as Dr. Barnardo's, the National Children's Home and others, which provide residential care. These organisations have long fell themselves to be handicapped in looking after children in their care by not being able to have powers comparable to these of local authorities under Section 2 of the Children Act 1948 which allow a local authority, on grounds specified in the Act, to assume by resolution parental rights and duties in respect of a child in the local authority's care. The new clauses will enable a local authority to pass a resolution in respect of a child in the care of a voluntary organisation on the same grounds as those in Section 2 of the 1948 Act.
The effect of the resolutions will be to transfer parental rights and duties in respect of the child to the voluntary organisation. The new provisions contain power for the local authority, by further resolution, to revest—that is a new word to me—in itself the parental rights and duties in respect of a child where it considers that the interests of the child require that the voluntary organisation should no longer have those rights and
1276
duties. The interests of the parents are protected by giving them rights of objection to the passing of a resolution and complaint to a juvenile court comparable to those in Sections 2 and 4 of the Children Act 1948. Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 are related Amendments to Schedule 3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we have at earlier stages of the Bill welcomed these provisions. This affords some protection for the bodies referred to; that is, voluntary bodies and bodies with delegated powers by local authorities and local authorities themselves. This is a successful group of Amendments which should be welcomed.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to clear up a point which has confused me in reading this block-buster of a new set of provisions that has come through? I refer to a passage in Amendment No. 127 which states:
"(2) The local authority shall. within seven days of passing a resolution under subsection (1), by notice in writing inform the organisation and each parent, guardian or custodian of the child whose whereabouts are known to them that the resolution has been passed.')"
What confuses me is the fact that if the rights are being taken back in respect of the voluntary body, then the question of the custodian comes up because I believe that the custodian, if he is still a custodian, has parental rights. I find this rather confusing and I would be grateful if the noble Lord would enlighten us on this point.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord will allow me to write to him on this subject. This is a jungle for me and I am lost in it. It is probably a perfectly clear statement if one is an expert, which I am not, and therefore, with his permission, I will write to him about it.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 130]
Leave out Clause 53.
8.52 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. This is an important point for

1277
discussion and it relates to an Amendment which, if I recollect aright, was initiated in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Your Lordships will be aware that the Government opposed this clause on Report in this House, not because of any dispute about its underlying purpose, which was to bring about greater co-ordination between the statutory and voluntary agencies concerned with the welfare of children, but because, in the Government's view, the method proposed was unlikely to achieve this end. The Association of Directors of Social Services commented on Clause 53 in its document Comments on the Children Bill and said that although the intentions were praiseworthy, the mere distribution of copies of orders would not ensure the protection of children. In fact, copies of orders distributed in the way proposed might well take some time to reach the person most closely concerned with the child. That is an important point.
The Government's view is that the aims of Clause 53 are more likely to be achieved by administrative means than by the distributions of copies of orders. Circulars have therefore been issued containing guidance on the diagnosis, care and management of cases of non-accidental injury to children and the need for improvement in co-ordination of the services for children. As a result, the whole of England is now covered by area review committees on which all the services concerned with children are represented. These committees ensure that case conferences are held immediately a child at risk is identified, and all senior and field personnel are kept informed about each case. The Government therefore moved an Amendment, which was accepted in Committee in another place, to remove Clause 53 from the Bill, it being thought that the administrative measures which had been taken had made the measures proposed in Clause 53 unnecessary. We appreciate and understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but I hope we can convince him, at least at this stage, that the area review committees should be allowed a chance to prove their competence.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I wonder whether he can go further. But first let me say that I do not propose to advise anybody to resist this Amendment, the purpose of which may well be achieved by better means and, maybe in part, by the means which the noble Lord has already described. The work of the area review committees will be one of the things to be looked at in the review three years after the measure comes into effect and will, I trust, be looked at closely. I am well aware of the number and force of the circulars which have gone out following the Maria Colwell, Lisa Godfrey and Bravery cases. It has been the subject of some distress to us that the cases have continued since the original circulars were set in motion, but one must accept that changes in practice take time to initiate and even more time for those working them to become familiarised with them.
However, what heartens me even more than the area review committee procedure is that I understand there is a system, now fairly generally in operation in most areas, of voluntary registration of cases of suspected non-accidental injury to children and I feel that this is a necessary corollary to the review committees, because they must have evidence, or at least suspicions, to review. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would give a brief resume of the way the system works and the sources of information which are open to those who maintain the register. I understand that the system is voluntary and is, therefore, piecemeal in the sense that not only are parts of the country not covered by it, but also that each part of the country has a slightly different system. As we agreed at an earlier stage of the Bill, one of the features of the non-accidental injury to children syndrome, if I may call it that, is the frequently very inconvenient and administratively difficult mobility of the families in question. The cases are very often associated with housing difficulty, and that in itself is associated with frequent and rapid removal, with not very easily traced lines of communication.
From that point of view, as well as from the point of view of administrative facility, it would be an extremely good thing if, at an early time, there

1279
was a standardised form of register and a standardised procedure for making entries on that register and for following them up so that, when a child arrives in Bootle from Exeter—and is in no less peril in Bootle than in Exeter—there shall be no time spent in wondering what this odd pro forma that has come from the West Country in fact means. I am aware that the Government may be in difficulty with certain civil rights movements who feel that the recording of any possibly deleterious information centrally is a threat to individual liberty. My own unshakeable conviction is that where the happiness and safety of a small child is at stake, that is more important than any philosophical considerations such as those.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Elton said about the excellent principles and ideas behind this co-operation on a voluntary basis between all the interests concerned. But supposing it does not work, if one still has in the Bill a clause such as Clause 53, one will have statutory powers which one can enforce. If these groups are not functioning properly, what power is there under the Act to interfere and insist that something more effective shall be done? If it is taken out of the Bill there will be no statutory power to back this up.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, to reply first to the noble Baroness, the point at which, if what we are trying to achieve by the Bill proves unsatisfactory, action can be taken may be the three-year review. Amendment No. 203 is the relevant Amendment and perhaps we could have a brief word on this subject when that Amendment is dealt with.
As regards the point of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about an ancillary organisation to the area review committee, this is, I must admit, new to me, but clearly it is of importance, because I believe that it is the sense of individual responsibility and conscience among the members of our society which will improve that society rather than legislation. At the end of the day, it is the general feeling of the average man and woman as to what is right and what is wrong which will decide what sort of society we have.
1280
I feel that the matter is sufficiently interesting for me to make the suggestion to the noble Lord that he might put down an Unstarred Question so that we could have a brief discussion of the subject, because then I could answer him with clarity and on an up-to-date basis which, at present, I am unable to do. I believe that it is worth doing, because, as we all recognise, this is not the last word on this subject and a follow-up along these lines might be of value.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 131 and 131]
Clause 54, page 33, line 38, leave out ("section is") and insert ("sections are").
Clause 54, page 33, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 on page 34, and insert—
"Conflict of interest between parent and child or young person
32A.—(1) If before or in the course of proceedings in respect of a child or young person—

(a) in pursuance of section 1 of this Act, or

(b) on an application under section 15(1) of this Act for the discharge of a relevant supervision order or a supervision order made under section 21(2) of this Act on the discharge of a relevant care order; or

(c) on an application under section 21(2) of this Act for the discharge of a relevant care order or a care order made under section 15(1) of this Act on the discharge of a relevant supervision order; or

(d) on an appeal to the Crown Court under section 2(12) of this Act, or

(e) on an appeal to the Crown Court under section 16(8) of this Act against the dismissal of an application for the discharge of a relevant supervision order or against a care order made under section 15(1) on the discharge of—

(i) a relevant supervision order; or

(ii) a supervision order made under section 21(2) on the discharge of a relevant care order; or

(f) on an appeal to the Crown court under section 21(4) of this Act against the dismissal of an application for the discharge of a relevant care order or against a supervision order made under section 21(2) on the discharge of—

(i) a relevant care order; or

(ii) a care order made under section 15(1) on the discharge of a relevant supervision order,'.

it appears to the court that there is or may be a conflict, on any matter relevant to the proceedings, between the interests of the child or young person and those of his parent or guardian, the court may order that in relation to the proceeding the parent or guardian is not to be treated as representing the child or young

1281
person or as otherwise authorised to act on his behalf.
(2) If an application such as is referred to in subsection (1)(b) or (c) of this section is unopposed, the court, unless satisfied that to do so is not necessary for safeguarding the interests of the child or young person, shall order that in relation to proceedings on the application no parent or guardian of his shall be treated as representing him or as otherwise authorised to act on his behalf; but where the application was made by a parent or guardian on his behalf the order shall not invalidate the application.
(3) Where an order is made under subsection (1) or (2) of this section for the purposes of proceeding on an application within subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of this section, that order shall also have effect for the purposes of any appeal to the Crown court arising out of those proceedings.
(4) The power of the court to make orders for the purposes of an application within subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of this section shall also be exercisable, before the hearing of the application, by a single justice.
(5) In this section—
"relevant care order" means a care order made under section 1 of this Act,
"relevant supervision order" means a supervision order made under section 1 of this Act.
Safeguarding of interests of child or young person where section 32A order is made
32B.—(1) Where the court makes an order under section 32A(2) of this Act the court, unless satisfied that to do so is not necessary for safeguarding the interests of the child or young person, shall in accordance with rules of court appoint a guardian ad litem of the child or young person for the purposes of the proceedings.
In this subsection "court" includes a single justice.
(2) Rules of court shall provide for the appointment of a guardian ad litem of the child or young person for the purposes of any proceedings to which an order under section 32A(1) of this Act relates.
(3) A guardian ad litem appointed in pursuance of this section shall be under a duty to safeguard the interests of the child or young person in the manner prescribed by rules of court.".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 en bloc. These were discussed with Amendment No. 125 and relate to separate representation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 133]
Clause 55, page 34, line 46, at end insert—
("In this subsection "guardian" has the same meaning as in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 133. This is a very simple drafting Amendment to enable a person who has custody of a child—for instance, a custodian—to fall within the definition of "guardian" for the purposes of the Legal Aid Act 1974 so as to be eligible for legal aid within the terms of Clause 55.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 134–137]
Clause 56, page 35, line 18, leave out ("an officer of a local authority or other") and insert ("a")
Clause 56, page 35, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert—
("(ii) without prejudice to any existing power to appoint a person to represent the interests of the child, may, if he thinks fit, appoint a person to act for the purpose specified in paragraph (i) above".)
Clause 56, page 35, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert—
(" (ii) appointment under subsection (1) of this section, the functions of a person so appointed and any right of such a person to information relating to the proceedings in question")
Clause 56, page 35, leave out lines 34 to 40 and insert—
"(3) The expenses of a person appointed under subsection (1) of this section shall—

(a) in so far as reasonably incurred by him in safeguarding the interests of the child in the proceedings, and

(b) except in so far as otherwise defrayed in terms of regulations made under section 71(2) of the Children Act 1975,

be borne by the local authority for whose area the children's panel from which the relevant children's hearing has been constituted is formed.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, "relevant children's hearing" means—

(a) in the case of proceedings referred to in subsection (1)(a) of this section, the children's hearing;

(b) in the case of proceedings referred to in subsection (1)(b) of this section, the children's hearing who have directed the application;

1283

(c) in the case of proceedings referred to in subsection (1)(c) of this section. the children's hearing whose decision is being appealed against.").

Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 134 to 137, and I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 168. At an earlier stage of our discussions, I indicated to the noble Baroness. Lady Elliot of Harwood, that we had decided that it would be convenient to discuss the Scottish interests together. Amendments Nos. 134 to 137, together with Amendment No. 168, make changes to the Scottish provisions in Clause 56 relating to the safeguarding of children's interests in proceedings before a children's hearing or in court proceedings arising from a children's hearing. I can assure your Lordships that these Amendments make only minor alterations to Clause 56 as it was when it was last considered in this House. Amendment No. 134 relates to the person who may be appointed to safeguard the interests of a child. As read with the second part of Amendment No. 202, it would permit the chairman of a hearing or the sheriff, as the case may be, to make an appointment from the panel established under Clause 71.
Amendment No. 135 is a drafting Amendment, which is intended to correct a possible ambiguity in the wording of the existing provision. Amendment No. 136 is a consequential Amendment to Amendment No. 134. It will deal with the question of which persons might be suitable for appointment to safeguard children's interests—this was an interesting point which was raised earlier, and I stress the words "might be suitable"—for example, members of the panel set up under Clause 71, or persons who should not be appointed, possibly because they are officers of the local authority which is already closely involved in the case.
Amendment No. 137 adjusts a less than adequate provision in the existing clause. It provides that, where a person is appointed to safeguard the interests of a child in proceedings before a children's hearing or in any court proceedings arising from a children's hearing, the expenses reasonably incurred are to be met by the local authority, or where that person is appointed from the panel established under Clause 71 in accord-
1284
ance with the regulations made under that clause.
The new subsection differs from the existing subsection in providing that the expenses of persons appointed in connection with cases before the courts will now fall to be met by the local authority, whereas under the existing subsection they were to be regarded as "expenses in the cause"; that is, they would be met by the party awarded expenses possibly with assistance under legal aid. I feel we know what that might mean. The original provision would have presented complications in that the sheriff under the appropriate court rules (Act of Sederunt (Social Work) (Sheriff Court Procedure Rules) 1971) cannot award expenses in court proceedings deriving from children's hearings, and therefore could not allocate the expenses of the appointment either to the child or the parents. That is a real jungle and, for a poor Sassenach, quite beyond understanding.
Amendment No. 168 deals with safeguarding the interests of a child in court proceedings relating to the vesting of parental rights in a local authority or a voluntary organisation. It is the Scottish equivalent of Amendment No. 125 for England and Wales. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for putting forward these Amendments. I do not disagree with any of them. In Scotland, we have always been anxious that the child ought to be represented by its own representative, very often someone with a legal background and training. The question of the expenses, and the difference in the way in which the courts work in Scotland and in England, arises because the children's hearings were a new experiment. They were financed by the county councils, whereas before the children's hearings were inaugurated children appeared before the sheriff and the expenses were met by the sheriff court.
These Amendments all seem to be advantageous. The noble Lord has also moved a new clause to he inserted after Clause 59, and it is clearly stated that the interests of the child shall be paramount, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder,

1285
used to say when we discussed this Bill previously. I have no objections to these Amendments, and I am happy to support them.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, being a full-blooded Scot, I should like to say how proud I am to hear how well organised Scotland is compared with England.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 140 and 141]
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
Recovery of children in care of local authorities
.—(1) This section applies to a child—

(a) who is in the care of a local authority under section 1 of the Children Act 1948; and

(b) with respect to whom there is in force a resolution under section 2 of that Act; and

(c) who—

(i) has run away from accommodation provided for him by the local authority under Part II of the said Act; or

(ii) has been taken away from such accommodation contrary to section 3(8) of the said Act: or

(iii) has not been returned to the local authority as required by a notice served under section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 on a person under whose charge and control the child was, in accordance with section 13(2) of the said Act of 1948, allowed to be.

(2) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person specified in the information can produce the child to whom this section applies, he may issue a summons directed to the person so specified and requiring him to attend and produce the child before a magistrates' court acting for the same petty sessions area as the justice.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers under subsection (2) above, if a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a child to whom this section applies is in premises specified in the information, he may issue a search warrant authorising a person named in the warrant, being an officer of the local authority in whose care the child is. to search the premises for the child; and if the child is found, he shall be placed in such accommodation as the local authority may provide for him under Part II of the Children Act 1948.
(4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a summons under subsection (2) shall, without prejudice to any liability
1286
apart from this subsection, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.")
Insert the following new Clause—
Extension of powers under section 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969
(" .—(1) Section 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (detention of absentees) shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this section.
(2) In subsection (1) of the said section 32, paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect.
(3) After subsection (1) of the said section 32, there is inserted the following subsection:
"(1A) If a child or young person is absent from a place of safety to which he has been taken in pursuance of section 2(5). 16(3) or 28 of this Act without the consent of—

(a) the person who made the arrangements for his detention in the place of safety in pursuance of the said section 2(5) or 16(3), or

(b) the person on whose application an authorisation relating to the child or young person has been issued under the said section 28,

he may be arrested by a constable anywhere in the United Kingdom or the Channel Islands without a warrant, and shall, if so arrested, he conducted to the place of safety at the expense of the person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) (as the case be) of this subsection.
(4) In subsection (2) of the said section 32. after the words "subsection (1)" there are inserted the words "or (IA)", and for the words "twenty pounds" there is substituted the word "£100".
(5) After the said subsection (2), the following subsections are inserted—
"(2A) Without prejudice to its powers under subsection (2) of this section, a magistrates' court (within the meaning of that subsection) may, if it is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person who is absent as mentioned in subsection (I) or (1A) of this section is in premises specified in the information, issue a search warrant authorising a constable to search the premises for that person.
(2B) A court shall not issue a summons or search warrant under subsection (2) or (2A) of this section in any case where the person who is absent is a person to whom subsection (IA) of this section applies, unless the information referred to in the said subsection (2) or (2A) is given by the person referred to in subsection (1A)(a) or (b) (as the case may be) of this section.".
(6) In subsection (3) of the said section 32, for the words "one hundred pounds" there is substituted the word"£400".
(7) In subsection (4) of the said section 32, for the words "subsection (1)" there are substituted the words "subsections (1), (IA) and (2A)", and for the words "that subsection" there are substituted the words " subsection (1)".")
9.10 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 140 and 141.
These Amendments relate to the retrieval of the child. We are again treating Scotland separately. Amendment No. 140 introduces new powers which will enable local authorities to effect the recovery of children in their care and subject to parental rights and duties resolutions, who have either run away or been taken away from the place at which they are required by the local authority to live. The Amendment also covers the recovery of children in the same category who have been allowed by the local authority to live with a parent, guardian, relative or friend, and have not been returned by that person to the care of the local authority on being given written notice to do so in accordance with Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963.
Amendment No. 141 adds to the existing powers of recovery of a child or young person who is absent without authority from the place at which he is required to live. The Amendment also gives the court an additional power, on information given under oath, to issue a search warrant to enable a constable to search premises where the absentee is believed to be, and if he is found the constable will then be able to use his existing powers to return the absentee to the place from which he is absent. The Amendment also extends the scope of Section 32 to cover absences from all places of safety. The section now in the 1969 Act covers absences from places of safety which are community homes, but does not cover absences from other places of safety such as hospitals, surgeries, police stations or any other suitable place.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 142 to 143]
Insert the following new Clause—
Certificates of unruly character
(" . The court shall not certify under section 22(5) or section 23(2) or (3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (committals to remand centres or prison) that a child is of so unruly a character that he cannot safely be committed to the care of a local authority unless the conditions prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State are satisfied in relation to that child.
In this section, "court" includes a justice".)
Insert the following new Clause—
Children of unruly character in Scotland
(".The following provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (which relate to children of unruly character) shall be amended in the manner specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) below—
(a) in sections 23(1)(b), 24(1), 297(1) and 329(1)(b) of the said Act of 1975 the following words are added at the end—
"; but the court shall not so certify a child unless such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order made by Statutory Instrument prescribe are satisfied in relation to the child.";
(b) in sections 23(3) and 329(3) of the said Act of 1975 the following words are added at the end—
";but a commitment shall not be so revoked unless such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order made by Statutory Instrument prescribe are satisfied in relation to the said person.";
(c)in sections 24(2) and 297(2) of the said Act of 1975 the following words are added at the end—
";but a commitment shall not be so revoked unless such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order made by Statutory Instrument prescribe are satisfied in relation to the child.".")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 142 and 143. I am looking forward to dealing with this point because, as I said at an earlier stage in the consideration of this Bill, the world seems to be peopled by villainous parents and angelic children, but those of us who have brought up families know that this is not always the case. This group relates to unruly certificates. Amendment No. 142 gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe by Order the conditions which must be satisfied before courts issue unruly certificates authorising the commitment of

1289
juveniles who are remanded to Prison Department establishments. The Amendment reflects the widespread and growing concern in Parliament and outside at the number of juveniles now being held in prisons and remand centres in pursuance of more than 3,000 unruly certificates now being issued annually. Amendment No. 143 provides corresponding powers in Scotland.
The number of remands to Prison Department establishments of juveniles charged with a criminal offence, and certified to be of so unruly a character that they cannot safely be committed to the care of the local authority, has risen steeply in recent years. The number of receptions to prison of boys aged 14 to 16 rose from under 2,000 in 1971 to more than 3,500 in 1974. The number of certificates issued in respect of girls rose from under 100 in 1971 to nearly 250 in 1974—and I should like to remind noble Baronesses that comparisons are odious. The sending of these young people to Prison Department establishments and in particular in the case of girls and some boys to establishments in which adult prisoners arc held—and I know that this is a matter of concern to the noble Baroness. Lady Masham—has attracted growing and widespread criticism. In evidence to the Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, the Home Office witnesses explained that it was the Government's wish to end such remands as soon as satisfactory alternative provision could be made, and Ministers have announced that they are examining urgently the possibility of making a start by ending the remand of 14-year-old girls to Prison Department establishments.
However, I regret that the continuance of such remands, in particular for the older and more difficult junveniles, will clearly need to continue for some little time at least. The Ministers have therefore decided that some degree of consistency and uniformity in the criteria on which such certificates are issued should be prescribed by regulations. The purpose of the new clauses is to empower the Secretary of State to prescribe by order the conditions which must be satisfied before courts issue unruly certificates authorising the commitment of juveniles who are remanded to Prison Department establishments. I think your Lordships
1290
will agree that it was right to take advantage of the legislative opportunity provided by the Bill, even at this late stage of its passage, to take this regulating power. The Government would, of course, have liked to consult the various interests concerned, including the courts and the social services, before deciding on these clauses, but time has not permitted more than some interim informal consultations. However, I should like to repeat the categoric assurance given by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place, that the Government will consult these bodies fully on the form, content and timing of the bringing into operation of the regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for explaining that so clearly, but also to ask him whether, in building more establishments for children who cannot be held in community homes, the Government are intending to build more secure places, because this is where the problem lies. There just are not the community homes which can hold them. Therefore, girls are going to Holloway Prison and boys are going to, for instance, the borstal where I work. Just lately I have had several boys who, having been with us in borstal and having gone back to school, actually prefer borstal. Their biggest problem with school is truancy. I had one boy who had been to school three times, I think, in one term. This is the great problem. There has been a lot in the Press lately about the need for more establishments where children can continue their education but from which they will not be able to abscond all the time, and where they will be treated by people who understand them. The schools just cannot cope.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I add one word to this debate? I think the general effect of the Amendments is extremely good. but I wonder whether the Department responsible has really examined the position in each individual area. Some areas ale very much better provided for than are others, and it rather worries me that,

1291
taking a general view of the effect of these Amendments, it would not necessarily fit into the particular area concerned. I remember that quite a long time ago, when I was in another place, we had a very difficult situation in Durham. There, a boy who could not be sent to an institution where he would be looked after was, at the request of his parents, sent to Durham gaol. The result was that the boy, who was of course a very difficult and unruly boy, in the end hanged himself there. The magistrates who had sent the boy to Durham gaol came in for a great deal of criticism, which was really quite unfair because the parents had demanded that the boy be sent somewhere where he could be looked after, and there was nowhere else to send him. The parents, therefore, had agreed to him being sent there. But it really was very disturbing that a boy was sent to Durham gaol and, therefore, hanged himself.
All I am saying is that we are putting on the Statute Book excellent provisions, providing all the necessary arrangements exist in the areas. I understood that the noble Lord was to consult with various local authorities and so on. This, I am sure, is excellent; but the point is that if we now put this on the Statute Book and find when the consultations have taken place that in some areas there is very much more provision for the unruly than in others, how are we going to get a proper balance? I am really disturbed about the fact that very good legislation dealing with the matter overall may be produced; yet when the investigations take place one finds tremendous differences in one area compared with another. How will it be possible to balance all the areas so that they all should have the advantages of the general provisions on the Statute Book? I wonder whether the noble Lord could give me some information on this matter.
I should not like to think of people having to face the situation that we faced in my part of the country years ago when this boy hanged himself and the magistrates got the blame. I know that in my part of the country we have not got as full arrangements as have other parts of the country for dealing with these matters. If there is any money to be spent, I should
1292
like to know that our part of the country is properly looked after. The South is better off than we are in this regard and, while I certainly support the idea in every way, I do not want to find the North in a more difficult position than any other part of the country. Can the noble Lord give me some information on that?
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I am very worried about this clause, about the Secretary of State prescribing conditions as a result of which the courts can give an unruly certificate. I wonder whether the noble Lord knows now the regulations that the Secretary of State will apply to the Benches.
The noble Lord was absolutely right, in that I suppose in every case in which I asked the parent what the boy was like at home, I was told, "He is always good at home". But, unfortunately, they are not good when they leave their homes. In my court we sometimes—not often: but the figures have escalated—have to make out certificates for unruly children who will never stay in one place. They will go out burgling every night. We try to keep them in a place of safety, of which there are so few; but they run away from places of safety and go round burgling again. As well as safeguarding the welfare of children and bringing them to order as much as one can under the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, it is also the duty of the court to prevent this kind of thing happening as often as it does.
In this connection, one of the things we do is to grant an unruly certificate for that time. We then receive adequate Ashford Custodial Remand Home for three weeks. We then receive adequate reports from very experienced people and, as a result of the reports that are made under this clause of the unruly certificates, we are then enabled to make our judgment on the child. The child has to be kept somewhere where he cannot flagrantly go against the law the whole time. As the noble Baroness. Lady Masham of Ilton, said, it is of vital importance that the child is taught at some time in his life that he cannot continue breaking the law. I should like to know what conditions the Secretary of State is going to lay down by way of regulations to the magistrates for giving unruly certificates. They will be very important.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think my remarks will be helpful to the noble Lord, and may bear out what my noble friend Lady Ward said. There is a Committee about to report to the Home Secretary—the Pack Committee—regarding unruly and uncontrollable children. This Report may deal with and may cover a number of anxieties expressed by my noble friend Lady Ward; hence it may enlarge on the important factors stressed by my noble friend Lady Macleod. I hope the noble Lord may be able to indicate in his reply when we may expect the Pack Report to be received.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot give a date, but I will write to the noble Lord about that. May I try to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside. She knows as well as I do that we live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and—thank goodness!—the various regions of this country are as different as chalk and cheese. It does not mean to say that because one region is rich it is virtuous, and because another is poor it is not virtuous. Conditions are often exactly the opposite. I agree in many ways that there is a regional element regarding the problem. The requirements of regions differ. Regional planning committees were established in 1969, and one of their early concerns was the need for a substantial increase in secure provision both for assessment purposes—that is, the purposes served by the former remand homes—and for relatively long term treatment in community homes with education on the premises which relate to the former approved schools. Here I may give a small pointer to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. The regional plans currently include proposals for the provision of 480 additional secure places, 203 in observation and assessment centres and 277 in community homes with education and assessment centres and 277 in community homes with education on the premises. The achievement of this will depend upon the way we resolve our economic problems. That is the intention of the regional planning committees. I am reasonably certain that the regional planning committees will tailor their needs to their specific regional requirements.
1294
Regarding the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, I said earlier we are grabbing at a chance in this Bill to give the Secretary of State power to give general guidance on this difficult problem area. We should, in advance of legislation, have liked to consult the various interests concerned, including the courts and social services. I want to repeat the categoric assurance which was given by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place that the Government will consult those bodies fully in the form, content and timing of the bringing into operation of the regulations. This assurance applies particularly to the Magistrates' Association which will be consulted about the contents of the regulations. I should like to give the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, advance warning, so that she can feed into her machine any information which she wants to go to the Secretary of State. May I retract an earlier remark—a very happy state of affairs! The "pigeon post" informs me that the Pack Committee is expected to report towards the end of 1976.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord casts aside his notes, could he confirm that the regional committees are planning for 480 secure places? Am I right on the figure and are those places for 480 people, or is it places which contain more than one person?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I imagine that 480 additional secure places means 480 beds, in which 480 people can sleep—not 480 buildings.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 143A and 143B]
Insert the following clause:
Grants in respect of secure accommodation for children in England and Wales
" . The following section is inserted after section 64 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969—
"64A.—(l) The Secretary of State may make to local authorities out of moneys provided by Parliament grants of such amount and subject to such conditions as he may with the consent of the Teasury determine in respect of expenditure incurred by the authorities in providing secure accommodation in community homes other than assisted community homes.
(2) The Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury require the local authority to repay the grant, in whole or in part, if the secure accommodation in respect of which the grant was made (including such accommodation in a controlled community home) ceases to be used as such.
(3) In this section secure accommodation "means accommodation provided for the purposes of restricting the liberty of children in a community home".")
Insert the following new clause:
Grants in respect of secure accommodation for children in Scotland
" . The following section is inserted after section 59 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968: —
59A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make to a local authority grants of such amount and subject to such conditions as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine in respect of expenditure incurred by the authority in—

(a) providing;

(b) joining with another local authority in providing; or

(c) contributing by way of grant under section 10(3) of this Act to the provision by a voluntary organisation of;

secure accommodation in residential establishments.
(2) The conditions subject to which grants are made under subsection (1) of this section may include conditions for securing the repayment in whole or in part of such grants.
(3) In this section "secure accommodation" means accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting the liberty of children.""
9.30 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 143A and 143B together. The purpose of Amendment No. 143A is to give the Secretary of State power to make grants to local authorities to provide secure accommodation in community homes other than assisted community homes. The Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place on 20th June this year. Amendment No. 143B introduces a corresponding new clause for Scotland. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, this is very germane to what we have been discussing, and indeed to the 480 secure places that were mentioned, which is not a very large figure in comparison with 3,500 or more sentences per annum. Moreover, we realise that this is not a net increase in funds but represents the payment of grants as opposed to loans. There is no immediate tide of cash which will result in the building of these places in the instant future unless circumstances change more rapidly than we at present expect. Moreover, the expense of providing secure places is comprised not only in the provision of bricks, mortar, washbasins and so on. May I instance a residential home for physically handicapped adults in Coventry of which the noble Lord may be aware. This is due to be completed in June 1976 but is unlikely to be occupied until the financial year 1978–79, because one needs staff and they must be found and trained. Here we come back to the continuing theme of when is the money going to be forthcoming and when is the Bill going to be more than good intentions?—because when none of the bricks, mortar and people is available, the presence of an intention on the Statute Book does little to resolve the very pressing problems which beset our society and which are intensified, I believe, by putting children into prison when they ought to be in very strict homes.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, if I may be allowed to speak again on this point, I know perfectly well that near me in the North Pollington borstal is now empty, and there is a property which could well be used as a secure place. This would be far better than putting people in prison. I think that in the Children Bill we should certainly mention this: we would rather have them in secure places than in prisons with adults.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: I am sure the noble Baroness's comment will be noted by my honourable friend. It sounds a very sensible suggestion, and I would also agree with everybody who relates good intentions to hard cash. The intentions of the present Administration to increase the productivity of British industry and its efficiency can in due course, if properly applied, bring benefits directly

1297
through this important and humane legislation we are now discussing. I hope that the resources will soon match the intentions.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 144]
Clause 57, page 36, line 3, leave out paragraph (a).
9.35 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to take together Amendment No. 144 with No. 169 which relate to Scotland. Amendment No. 144 is a paving Amendment to No. 169 which transfers to Section 20 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 the general duty on local authorities in respect of children in their care. This duty requires the local authority in reaching any decision relating to a child in their care to give first consideration to the need to promote the welfare of the child and for this purpose to ascertain his wishes and feelings so far as may be practicable. It is appropriate that this duty should appear in Section 20 of the 1968 Act which deals with all children in care regardless of whether they came into care by voluntary arrangements under Section 15 or otherwise. I know that this is in harmony with the wishes of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I entirely agree with this. This is exactly what I have always wanted and I am delighted to find this provision in the Bill.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 145 and 146]
Clause 57, page 36, line 20, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
Page 36, line 35, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to move Amendment No. 146 together with No. 145. I would move them formally because they were discussed with Amendments Nos. 115 and
1298
116 relating to notice of intention to remove a child. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Champion): My Lords, perhaps I should mention at this stage that there are a number of corrections set out on two lists. Unless anyone in the House objects, I do not propose to read these out but will take it for granted that the House is aware of the fact that they will be included in the Amendments to be considered.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 147 to 164]
Clause 58, page 36, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 on page 37 and insert—
Resolution by local authority in respect of assumption and vesting of parental rights and powers
("16.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a local authority may resolve—

(a) that there shall vest in them the relevant parental rights and powers with respect to any child who is in their care under section 15 of this Act; or

(b) that there shall vest in a voluntary organisation which is an incorporated body, or a trust within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921, the relevant parental rights and powers with respect to any child who is in the care of that organisation,

if it appears to the local authority—

(i) that the parents of the child are dead and that he has no guardian; or

(ii) that there exists in respect of a parent or guardian of the child (the said parent or guardian being hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as the person on whose account the resolution was passed) and of the circumstances specified in subsection (1A) of this section; or

(iii) that a resolution under this subsection is in force in terms of sub-paragraph (ii) above in relation to one parent of the child and that parent is, or is likely to become a member of the household comprising the child and his other parent; or

(iv) that throughout the three years preceding the passing of the resolution the child has been in the care of a local authority under section 15 of this Act, or in the care of a voluntary organisation or partly the one and partly the other.

(1A) The circumstances referred to in subparagraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section

1299
are that the person on whose account the resolution was passed—

(a) has abandoned the child; or

(b) suffers from some permanent disability rendering him incapable of caring for the child; or

(c) while not falling within paragraph (b) of this subsection, suffers from a mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960) which renders him unfit to have the care of the child; or

(d) is of such habits or mode of life as to be unfit to have the care of the child; or

(e) has so persistently failed without reasonable cause to discharge the obligations of a parent or guardian as to be unfit to have the care of the child."").

page 37, line 41, after ("13") insert ("or (Adoption of children abroad)")
page 37, line 44, leave out ("under paragraph (a)") and insert ("by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (i)")
page 38, line 1, leave out ("under paragraph (b)") and insert ("by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (ii)")
page 38, line 5, leave out ("under paragraph (c)") and insert ("by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (iii)"
page 38, line 9, leave out ("under paragraph (d)") and insert ("by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (iv)")
page 38, line 11, at end insert—
("(2A) A local authority shall not pass a resolution under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section unless—

(a) it is satisfied that the child is not in the care of any local authority under any enactment; and

(b) it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the welfare of the child for the parental rights and powers to he vested in the voluntary organisation; and

(c) the child is living in the area of the local authority either in a residential establishment or with foster parents with whom he has been boarded out by the voluntary organisation in whose care he is; and

(d) that organisation has requested the local authority to pass the resolution.")

page 38, line 12, leave out ("paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of")
page 38, line 13, at end insert ("by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) thereof".)
page 38, line 16, after ("authority") insert ("or in the voluntary organisation, as the case may be,")
page 39, line 10, leave out ("(b), (c) or (d)")
page 39, line 10, after ("section") insert ("by virtue of circumstances specified in subparagraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) thereof")
page 39, line 23, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
("(9) A resolution under this section shall cease to have effect if—
1300

(a) the child becomes the subject of an adoption order within the meaning of Schedule (Status conferred in Scotland by adoption) to the Children Act 1975; or

(b) an order in respect of the child is made under section 13 or section (Adoption of children abroad) of the Children Act 1975; or

(c) a person is appointed, under section 4(2A) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925, to be the guardian of the child; or

(d) it is a resolution under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section and a resolution is passed under subsection (1) of section 16A of this Act in respect of the child.")

page 39, line 32, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
("(10) If the whereabouts of any parent or guardian of a child have remained unknown for twelve months, and throughout that period the child has been in the care of a local authority under section 15 of this Act, or in the care of a voluntary organisation, or partly the one and partly the other, then for the purposes of this section that parent or guardian shall be deemed to have abandoned the child.")
page 39, line 41, leave out ("paragraph (d)") and insert ("sub-paragraph (iv)")
page 39, line 43, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph")
page 39, line 46, leave out subsection (12).
After Clause 58, insert the following new Clause—
Duty of local authority in Scotland to assume parental rights and powers vested in a voluntary organisation.
(" . The following section is inserted after section 16 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
"Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and powers vested in a voluntary organisation.
16A.—(1) If it appears to a local authority, having regard to the interests of the welfare of a child living within their area, the parental rights and powers in respect of whom are by virtue of a resolution under section 16(1)(b) of this Act (hereafter in this section referred to as "the earlier resolution") vested in a voluntary organization, that it is necessary that the said parental rights and powers should no longer be vested in the organization, the local authority shall resolve that the said parental rights and powers shall vest in them; and the said parental rights and powers shall vest from the date of the resolution under this subsection.
(2) The local authority shall, within seven days of passing a resolution under subsection (1) of this section, by notice in writing inform—

(a) the organisation who but for that resolution; and

(b) any person, in so far as that person's whereabouts are known to them, who, but for that resolution and the earlier resolution,

1301
would have the parental rights and powers in respect of the child, of the passing thereof.
(3) On a summary application being made for the determining of a resolution under subsection (1) of this section by a person who but for that resolution and the earlier resolution would have the parental rights and powers in respect of the child, the sheriff having jurisdiction where the applicant resides may order that—

(a) the resolution under subsection (1) of this section shall continue to have effect; or

(b) the resolution under subsection (1) of this section shall cease to have effect and that the earlier resolution shall again take effect; or

(c) the resolution under subsection (1) of this section shall cease to have effect and that the parental rights and powers in respect of the child shall again vest in the applicant; or

(d) the resolution under subsection (1) of this section shall continue to have effect, but that either for a fixed period or until the sheriff, or if the order so provides, the local authority, otherwise directs, the local authority shall allow the care of the child to he taken over by, and the child to be under the control of, the applicant.

(4) In hearing an application under subsection (3) of this section the sheriff may consider whether there was any ground for the making of the earlier resolution, and if he is satisfied that there was no ground for the making of that earlier resolution he shall make an order under subsection (3)(c) of this section.
(5) In this section "the parental rights and powers" means all the rights and powers in relation to the child which in accordance with the earlier resolution were vested in the voluntary organisation.
(6) While a resolution under subsection (1) of this section is in force with respect to a child, the child shall be deemed to have been received into and to be in the care of the local authority by virtue of section 15 of this Act, and subsections (2) to (5) of that section shall apply accordingly; except that where the earlier resolution was passed by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) of subsection (1) of section 16 of this Act, that part of subsection (3) of section 15 of this Act from the words "and nothing in this section shall authorize" onwards shall not apply in relation to the person who but for the earlier resolution and the resolution under subsection (1) of this section, would have the parental rights and powers in relation to the child.
(7) Subsection (9)(a), (b) and (c) of section 16, subsection (3) and (4) to (9) of section 17 and subsections (1), (2). (4) and (4A) of section 18 of this Act shall apply to a resolution under this section as they apply to a resolution under section 16(1)(a) of this Act.
(8) A notice served by a local authority under subsection (2) of this section shall not be duly served by post unless it is sent by registered post or recorded delivery service.".")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords. I think your Lordships have in fact had notice of these misprints and so on in reasonable time to enable your Lordships to make certain you have a clear picture of the intentions of the Government in this matter. In addition to Amendment No. 147 I should like to move a very large number of other Amendments which all relate to the same subject, which is the assumption of parental rights in Scotland. I should like to move en bloc Nos. 147 to 164, and speak to Nos. 166, 167 and 286. It may seem a large number but we are reaching a point in the Bill when we have cleared the main matters of principle and arc now just clearing up detail.
Amendments Nos. 147 to 164, 166, 167 and 286 make provisions for Scotland as regards the vesting of parental rights in a voluntary organisation in circumstances where parental rights could be assumed by a local authority in accordance with Section 16(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 at present. The Scottish provisions, although differing in form from those applying to England and Wales—and we discussed these in relation to Amendments Nos. 126, 129, 305 and 306—produce the same result. I do not think—at least I hope I need not think—that I need trouble your Lordships with a detailed explanation of the differences in the Scottish approach, which I can assure the House relate essentially to matters of drafting and presentation.
It may be helpful however if I refer to the Scottish position generally and mention those aspects of the new provisions which are of particular importance for Scotland given the position of voluntary child care bodies there. Although the Scottish voluntary bodies make extensive provision for children in need of residential care in Scotland, those children who are accommodated in homes of this kind are generally, though not invariably, in the statutory care of local authorities. Thus the local authority is responsible financially, and the voluntary body is reimbursed for its expenditure in caring for the child. Decisions of a day-to-day character would be taken

1303
by the staff of the home, but decisions of major consequence for the child would be referred either to the local authority or in certain cases, where this was desirable and practical, to the parents themselves. Even if we include children boarded out under arrangements made by voluntary bodies, it remains true that only in relatively few cases are children completely in the care of the voluntary body in Scotland, with no local authority involved financially or in some other way.
Present practice apart. I am sure that the new provisions will be welcomed in Scotland as adding to the ways in which the voluntary and statutory child care agencies can co-operate in providing a child care service of the greatest practical benefit to children who, for whatever reason, are bereft of the parental care which they require. One need think only of children in long-term care where a voluntary agency might wish to have total responsibility for a child and be willing to accept financial responsibility. The differences in terminology between the present set of provisions and those for England and Wales derive largely from existing variations between the wording of Section 2 of the Children Act 1948 and Section 16 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 under which parental rights are assumed by local authorities in England and Wales and Scotland respectively. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. There are many Amendments, and it is difficult to go into them in detail. I am entirely in agreement with the general principles that the noble Lord has enunciated. The voluntary organisations in Scotland are valuable and useful and of long standing. The social work departments and agencies of local authorities are very well developed and play a great part in the lives of deprived children, children in care and adopted children. It is difficult to compare these Amendments with the Bill that was sent by your Lordships' House to the other place; a great number of changes have been made. I assume that the changes cover the reorganisation of
1304
clauses or drafting matters and that they do not represent any change in principle or in the way of dealing with the subject. No doubt the changes make matters simpler from the point of view of an Act of Parliament and do not change the way in which we handle adoption and child care.
One point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was that adoption societies should be registered with the Secretary of State. The suggestion was very well received and I take it that it is included in the reorganisation. The suggestion was agreed to in this House, and I am quite sure that it has not been altered in the other place. Those matters apart, I approve entirely of these Amendments.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, regarding the last point the noble Baroness has raised, about the role of the Secretary of State, I think that her assumption is correct. If it is not. I will let her know. It seems to me that this is a question of bringing into harmony two different Acts—the Children Act 1948 and the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Indeed, this is confirmed by the pigeon post! The changes deal only with the new situation of vesting rights in voluntary organisations and any changes in existing provisions; they are not fundamental changes.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 165]
After Clause 58 insert the following new clause—
Return of children taken away in breach of section 17(8) or (9) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
(" . In section 17 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (effect of assumption of parental rights) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (9)—
"(10) Where an offence under subsection (8) or (9) of this section has been or is believed to have been committed, a constable, or any person authorised by any court or by any justice of the peace, may take and return the child to the local authority or voluntary organisation in whom are vested the parental rights and powers relating to the child.".")
9.45 p.m.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, although it does not appear on our

1305
"signpost" I should like to speak to Amendment No. 287 together with No. 165. These two Amendments introduce new provisions relating to the recovery of children in care who have either run away or have been taken away from the place in which they are required to live. The Amendments are broadly equivalent to Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 for England and Wales. This is a Scottish matter—it is the retrieval of the child in Scotland. Amendment No. 165 inserts a provision in Section 17 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, empowering any court or justice of the peace to authorise the taking and return of any child whose parental rights have been vested in a local authority or voluntary organisation and who has been illegally removed. That is the objective of this Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, subject to correction, I think Amendment No. 287 goes with Amendment No. 172. It is about reporters to children's hearings in Scotland. I would not wish the noble Lord to feel he had to speak about it again; I only wish to preserve the opportunity for my noble friend to Teak a second time when this matter arises, if that should prove necessary.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I agree with this Amendment and this new clause in Amendment No. 165. I hope it will be successful in what it intends to do.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I say that I have just discovered that in fact Amendment No. 287 splits into two parts. The second part of No. 287, which I suggest we should tackle when we reach it, relates to the retrieval of the child and is relevant to the Amendment we have just been discussing.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 166 and 167]
Clause 59, page 40, line 7, at end insert—
1306
("c) section (Adoption of Children abroad) of the Children Act 1975 for an order vesting the parental rights and duties relating to a child.")
Page 40, line 9, after ("authority") insert ("or a voluntary organization").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 formally en bloc because they were discussed with Amendments 147 to 164, the assumption of parental rights in Scotland. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 168]
After Clause 59 insert the following new clause:
Safeguarding of interests of children in proceedings in Scotland relating to the assumption of parental rights
.—(1) In the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 the following section is inserted after section 18—
"18A.—(1) In any proceedings under section 16(6), 16A(3) or 18(3) of this Act, the sheriff—

(a) shall consider whether it is necessary to appoint a person for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the child in the proceedings; and

(b) without prejudice to any existing power to appoint a person to represent the interests of the child, may, if he thinks fit, appoint a person to act for the purpose specified in paragraph (a) above.

(2) The power to make rules under section 32 of the Sheriff Court (Scotland) Act 1971 shall include power to make rules providing for—

(a) the procedure in relation to the disposal of matters arising under this section;

(b) appointment under subsection (1) of this section, the functions of a person so appointed and any right of such a person to information relating to the proceedings in question."

9.48 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this again is a formal Amendment which was discussed with Amendments Nos. 134 to 137 relating to separate representation for Scotland. I beg to move that this

1307
House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 169]
After Clause 59 insert the following new clause:
Amendment of section 20 of Social Work (.Scotland) Act 1968—
(" . The following subsection is substituted for subsection (1) of section 20 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
"(1) Where a child is in the care of a local authority under any enactment, the local authority shall, in reaching any decision relating to the child, give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout his childhood and shall so far as practicable ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child regarding the decision and give due consideration to them, having regard to his age and understanding.".")
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, once again I wish to move this Amendment formally. We dealt with it earlier with Amendment No. 144. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 170]
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
Review of case of child in care in Scotland
". In the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 the following section is inserted after section 20—
"Review of case of child in care
20A.—(1) Without prejudice to their general duty under section 20(1) of this Act, it shall be the duty of a local authority who have at any time had a child in their care throughout the preceding six months and have not during that period held a review of his case, to review his case as soon as is practicable after the expiration of that period, and if a supervision requirement is in force with respect to him, the local authority shall consider in the course of the review whether to refer his case to their reporter for review of that requirement by a children's hearing.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) amend subsection (1) of this section by—

(i) substituting a different period for the period of six months mentioned in that subsection (or for any period which. by previous regulations under this subsection was substituted for that period);

(ii) specifying different periods in respect of the first review under that subsection occurring after a child has been taken into care, and in respect of subsequent such reviews;

(b) make provision as to the manner in which cases are to be reviewed under this section;

(c) make provision as to the considerations to which the local authority are to have regard in reviewing cases under this section."."

Lord 'WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords. this is a situation in which. for once, Scotland is behind England. I beg to move this Amendment, which places a new statutory duty on local authorities in Scotland. These duties have been in existence in England since 1968. With the leave of the House, I should also like to discuss paragraph 51B in Amendment No. 294, upon which we touched earlier and which extends existing legislation in England and Wales.
Amendment No. 170 places a statutory duty on local authorities in Scotland to carry out reviews of children in their care every six months. There is already a corresponding power for England and Wales in Section 27(4) of the Children and Young Persons Act of 1969. The Amendment also enables the Secretary of State for Scotland to prescribe by regulations the manner in which local authorities should carry out these reviews and the factors that should be taken into account. This power has been taken to meet points made in another place, that where possible parents should be involved in reviews, and that the emotional needs of the child and his personal relationships should be considered, in any decision about his future—for example, whether the local authority should pass a resolution assuming parental rights and duties in respect of the child. Paragraph 51B in Amendment No. 294 enables the Secretary of State for Social Services to make similar regulations in England and Wales. The remaining paragraphs in Amendment No.

1309
294 are amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, consequential to changes made by the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
9.50 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, this appears to put considerably more work on social work committees,and I take it that the social work organisations in Scotland have been consulted about it. This is the first time I have realised what is involved here. I am strongly in favour of reviews, particularly when circumstances change so quickly, as they do in the lives of children. It is a good idea, but I hope it will be capable of being carried out by a sufficient number of social workers engaged in local authority work and voluntary organisation work in Scotland.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I gather that this was brought in at the Report stage in another place. The six-month review is in most care cases a very good thing indeed, and I welcome it. However, it is not so necessary for the long-term foster cases, where a child has settled down. I am not entirely clear about the advantages of this system over the boarding-out regulations. It does not seem to be entirely clear and I should he grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could give a few more details on this.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is discussing a separate issue. I was just bringing to the attention of your Lordships an Amendment which places a new statutory duty on local authorities in Scotland. I was talking about the duties; not whether the duties are good or bad. This is purely a technical point. May I just say that nothing is being imposed on Scotland as a region, because the Secretary of State for Scotland will be the ultimate authority in deciding what happens.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, by leave of the House, I was talking about Amendment No. 294.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it would be fair to comment in this case that,
1310
once more, we have the effects of Amendment No. 210 to consider; that none of this will become operative in the immediate future. We have no date when it will become operative, and I take it that it will not become operative until we have the manpower to make it work satisfactorily. That is a lot better than having it on the Statute Book and its not working because of lack of manpower. We should like an assurance that the manpower will be available as soon as possible.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think this is obvious. We are in a period of stringency and retrenchment. I am certain that, with all the pressures being brought to bear on local authorities, no one will set up a vast and unnecessary organisation if he cannot be assured of the funds for it. However, in a Bill of this importance there is no harm whatever in giving Secretaries of State, be they in England or Scotland, the power to do certain things when the resources are available. I hope we are looking beyond the present slough of despond to the day when the resources will be available for creating the sort of social services we wish to see, particularly in this very important area. So we are creating the framework within which the various local authorities, voluntary associations and Secretaries of State can operate.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 171]
After Clause 59. insert the following new clause:
Restriction on removal of child from care of voluntary organisation
" . The following section is inserted after section 25 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968:
"Restriction on removal of child from care of voluntary organisation
("25A.—(1) Section 17(8) of this Act shall apply in relation to a child who is not in the care of a local authority under section 15 of this Act but who is in the care of a voluntary organisation. as it applies by virtue of subsection (3A) of the said section 15 to a child in the care of a local authority except that, in the case of a child who is not in the care of a local authority. references in subsection (3A) to a local authority shall be construed as references to the voluntary organisation in whose care the child is.
(2) For the purposes of this section. a child is in the care of a voluntary organisation if the voluntary organisation is providing accommodation for the child in a residential establishment or has boarded out the child."."
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 171. We discussed this with No. 117, and it relates to the notice of removal of children in the care of voluntary organisations.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottoom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 172.]
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
Power of reporters to conduct proceedings under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
"The following section is inserted after section 36 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
"Power of reporters to conduct proceedings before a sheriff
36A. The Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate may, by regulations—

(a) empower officers or any officer or class of officers appointed under section 36 of this Act, whether or not they are advocates or solicitors, to conduct before a sheriff—

(i) any proceedings which, under this Act, arc heard by the sheriff in chambers;

(ii) any application under section 37 or 40 of this Act in relation to a warrant;

(b) prescribe such requirements as they think fit as to qualifications, training or experience necessary for any officer to be so empowered."."

Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission ofthe House, I would move Amendment No. 172 and speak to Amendment No. 287. This again is taking us North of the Border. The Amendments give the Secretary of State for Scotland, jointly with the Lord Advocate, powers to deal with a difficulty which has arisen in connection with the Scottish system of children's hearings which were introduced in 1971 as broadly the equivalent to care proceedings in England and Wales. The new provision would allow the making of regulations
1312
to provide that reporters—this, I understand, is a Scottish term, nothing to do with the Press—to children's hearings, whether or not they are advocates or solicitors, should be able to conduct before the sheriff court proceedings arising from children's hearings. 11. would also allow requirements to be prescribed as to the qualifications, training or experience necessary for reporters who are given this power.
Ever since the children's hearings system began in 1971, many courts have allowed reporters who were not advocates or solicitors to appear before the sheriff in applications and appeals. In July of this year, however, the Court of Session decided on appeal that as no clear right of audience on the part of reporters had been conferred by the Social Work (Scotland) Act1968, the normal rules of audience must apply; namely, that only solicitors or advocates may appear before the sheriff. The effect of the Court of Session judgment has been that reporters may now have to take steps to instruct outside solicitors or solicitors from other local government departments to proceed with applications to the sheriff.
The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate propose to make early regulations under the new power allowing reporters with a year's experience to conduct the relevant proceedings before the sheriff. Concurrently with the making of these regulations, the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate propose to enter into discussion with all the interested legal and social work bodies on a range of matters relating to the training. qualifications or experience of reporters.
If we turn to Amendment No. 287, this contains a minor consequential Amendment to Section 49(3) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, to make it clear that, notwithstanding that a reporter maybe presenting a case before the sheriff, he may still he formally examined by him. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I am very glad to read these Amendments. Ever since the hearings started and the reporters have been engaged in their work, there has been a certain amount of criticism that certain

1313
cases should go before the sheriff rather than go before the children's panel. I think this will be very valuable indeed. There may be some difficulty in getting the right kind of training, because the reporters on the whole have been selected by the sheriffs, by virtue of their knowing a certain amount about social work and about children's work, and being J.P.' s and so on, but they have not had the same sort of training as the advocate. On the other hand, I think it is most important that they should be able to take their case before the sheriff if and when it seems to be the right thing to do. I think these Amendments made in the other place, which presumably have the support of the Scottish Office, will be very valuable indeed.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 173 and 174]
After Clause 59, insert the following new Clause—
Amendment to section 37 of Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
(" '. In section 37 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
(a) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (1) —
"(1A) Where a local authority receive information suggesting that a child may be in need of compulsory measures of care, they shall—

(a) cause enquiries to be made into the case unless they are satisfied that such inquiries are unnecessary; and

(b) if it appears to them that the child may be in need of compulsory measures of care, give to the reporter such information about the child as they may have been able to discover."

(b) for subsection (2) there is substituted—
"(2) A constable or any person authorised by any court or by any justice of the peace may take to a place of safety any child—

(a) in respect of whom any of the offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 has been or is believed to have been committed; or

(b) who is a member of the same household as a child in respect of whom such an offence has been or is believed to have been committed; or

(c) who is, or is likely to become, a member of the same household as a person who has committed or is believed to have committed such an offence; or

1314

(d) in respect of whom an offence under section 21(1) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 has been or is believed to have been committed; or

(e) who is likely to be caused unnecessary suffering or serious impairment of health because there is, or is believed to be, in respect of the child, a lack of parental care,

and any child so taken to a place of safety or any child who has taken refuge in a place of safety may be detained there until arrangements can be made for him to be brought before a children's hearing under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, and, where a child is so detained, the constable or the person authorised as aforesaid or the occupier of the place of safety shall forthwith inform the reporter of the case.";
(c) in subsection (5), after "renewed" there is inserted "by a children's hearing";
(d) the following subsections are inserted after subsection (5) —
"(5A) Where a warrant has been renewed under subsection (5) of this section but it appears to the reporter—

(a) that the children's hearing will not he able to dispose of the child's case before the expiry of the period of detention required by the warrant as renewed; and

(b) that further detention of the child is necessary in the child's own interest,

the reporter may apply to the sheriff for a warrant requiring the child to be detained in a place of safety for such a period not exceeding twenty-one days as may be necessary and the sheriff may issue such a warrant if he is satisfied that such detention is necessary in the child's own interest.
(5B) On cause shown a warrant authorising detention under subsection (5A) of this section may be renewed by the sheriff on one occasion only, for the period mentioned in that subsection on the application of the reporter." ' ")
After Clause 59, insert the following new Clause—
Amendment to section 40 of Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
(" '. In section 40 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
(a) for subsection (7) there is substituted—
" (7) Where a children's hearing before whom a child is brought are unable to dispose of his case and—

(a) have reason to believe that the child may not attend at any hearing of his case, or at any proceedings arising from the case, or may fail to comply with a requirement under section 43(4) of this Act; or

(b) are satisfied that detention of the child is necessary in his own interest,

1315
they may issue a warrant requiring the child to be detained in a place of safety for such a period not exceeding twenty-one days as may be necessary.";

(b) for subsection (8) there is substituted—
"(8) On cause shown a warrant authorising detention under subsection (7) of this section may he renewed by a children's hearing on one occasion only, for the period mentioned in that subsection on the application of the reporter.";
(c) the following subsections are inserted after subsection (8)—
"(8A) Where a warrant has been renewed under subsection (8) of this section but it appears to the reporter—

(a) that the children's hearing will not be able to dispose of the child's case before the expiry of the period of detention required by the warrant as renewed; and

(b) that further detention of the child is necessary in the child's own interest,

the reporter may apply to the sheriff for a warrant requiring the child to be detained in a place of safety for such a period not exceeding twenty-one days as may be necessary, and the sheriff may issue such a warrant if he is satisfied that such detention is necessary in the child's own interest.
(8B) On cause shown, a warrant authorising detention under subsection (8A) of this section may be renewed by the sheriff on one occasion only, for the period mentioned in that subsection on the application of the reporter.".'")
10.0 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 together. They are Amendments dealing with Scottish matters which are separate from the care provisions in Part III of the Bill relative to England and Wales. These Amendments have three main purposes. They place on local authorities in Scotland a specific duty under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to make investigation on receipt of any information suggesting that a child may be in need of compulsory measures of care, and to pass on the results of their investigations to the reporter to the children's panel if, in their view, there are grounds for considering formal measures of care for the child.
Secondly, they extend the circumstances in which children may be taken to a place of safety under the emergency procedure provided by Section 37(2) of the Social Work Act to provide additional safeguards for children who are known or believed to be victims of child abuse in
1316
certain specific circumstances or are at risk of such abuse. Thirdly, the Amendments extend the period for which such children may be detained temporarily in a place of safety until their case can be disposed of by a children's hearing. This extension gives the possibility of a child being detained pending final consideration of his case for 84 days, but any extension beyond 42 days would be at the hand of the sheriff on application by the reporter that further detention was necessary in the child's own interests.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. — (Lord Winterhottotn.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord said, and to agree to these Amendments. They are admirable.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 174A–179]
Clause 60, page 40, line 15, leave out ("and any future enactment").
Page 40, line 40, at end insert—
("(5A) Subsections (4) and (5) apply in relation to the dissolution of a body corporate as they apply in relation to the death of an individual.")
Clause 61, page 41, line 1, leave out ("and any future enactment").
Clause 62, page 41, line 16, leave out ("and any future enactment").
After Clause 63—
Amendment of Interpretation Act 1889
(" .—(1) In the Interpretation Act 1889 after section 19 there is inserted the following section—
"Meaning of expressions relating to children
19A. In any Act passed after the Children Act 1975, unless the contrary intention appears—

(a) the expression "the parental rights and duties",

(b) the expression "legal custody" (as respects a child), and

(c) references to the person with whom a child has his home,

shall be construed in accordance with Part IV of the Children Act 1975.
(2) This section does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.".")
Clause 64, leave out Clause 64.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to take en bloc the Amendments to Clauses 60 to 64 of the Bill which were accepted in another place; that is,

1317
Amendments Nos. 174A, 175, 176, 177, 178 and 179. Amendment No. 175 is consequential on the other Amendments already moved to the Bill enabling voluntary organisations which are incorporated bodies to hold parental rights and duties. Amendment No. 179 leaves out Clause 64. When the Bill was introduced, it was thought that it would prove helpful to provide a definition of the term "child" which would apply to legislation generally and to replace the term "minor" where it is used in existing legislation. On further reflection, the Government have concluded that there are more disadvantages than advantages in this approach, the main disadvantage being that a general interpretation provision tucked away in legislation with a limited purpose might lead to confusion.
Much the same reasoning lies behind the Amendments to Clauses 60, 61 and 62, which delete from the Bill references to "any future enactment". These Amendments are consequential to the new clause proposed by Amendment No. 178, which inserts into the Interpretation Act 1889 references to the definitions contained in Clauses 60, 61 and 62. These provisions have the support of the Law Society and the Association of British Adoption Agencies. Their purpose is to make readily accessible the definitions of the commonly used legal concepts which are now embodied in the Bill, while at the same time avoiding the need for their repetition whenever the terms are used in future legislation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 180 and 181]
After Clause 64, insert the following new clause:
Procedure in guardianship proceedings
.—(1) The following subsections are substituted for subsections (2) and (3) of section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973:—
"(2) A report made in pursuance of subsection (1) above to a magistrates' court shall be made to the court at a hearing of the application unless it is in writing in which case—

(a) a copy of the report shall be given to each party to the proceedings or to his counsel or solicitor either before or during a hearing of the application; and

1318

(b) if the court thinks fit, the report, or such part of the report as the court requires, shall be read aloud at a hearing of the application.

(3) A magistrates'court may and, if requested to do so at the hearing by a party to the proceedings or his counsel or solicitor, shall, require the officer by whom the report was made to give evidence of or with respect to the matters referred to in the report and if the officer gives such evidence, any party to the proceedings may give or call evidence with respect to any such matter or any matter referred to in the officer's evidence.
(3A) A magistrates' court may take account of—

(a) any statement contained in a report made at a hearing of the application or of which copies have been given to the parties or their representatives in accordance with subsection (2)(a) above; and

(b) any evidence given by the officer under subsection (3) above,

in so far as the statement or evidence is, in the opinion of the court, relevant to the application notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law to the contrary."
(2) The following subsection is added after subsection (5) of the said section 6—
"(6) A single justice may request a report under subsection (1) of this section before the hearing of the application, but in such a case the report shall be made to the court which hears the application, and the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply accordingly."."
After Clause 64, insert the following new clause:
Procedure in matrimonial proceedings
".—(1) The following subsections are substituted for subsections (3) and (4) of section 4 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960:—
'(3) A report made in pursuance of subsection (2) of this section shall be made to the court at a hearing of the complaint unless it is in writing in which case—

(a) a copy of the report shall be given to each party to the proceedings or to his counsel or solicitor either before or during a hearing of the complaint; and

(b) if the court thinks fit, the report, or such parts of the report as the court requires, shall be read aloud at a hearing of the complaint.

(4) The court may and, if requested to do so at the hearing by a party to the proceedings or his counsel or solicitor, shall, require the officer by whom the report was made to give evidence on or with respect to the matters referred to in the report and if the officer gives such evidence, any party to the proceedings may give or call evidence on or with respect to any such matter or any matter referred to in the officer's evidence.
(4A) Subject to the next following subsection, the court may take account of—

1319

(a) any statement contained in a report made at a hearing of the complaint or of which copies have been given to the parties or their representatives in accordance with subsection (3)(a) of this section; and

(b) any evidence given by the officer under subsection (4) of this section; in so far as the statement of evidence relates to the matters specified by the court under subsection (2) of this section, notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law to the country.'

(2) In subsection (5) of the said section 4, for 'subsection (4)' there is substituted' subsections (4) and (4A).'."
10.5 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 which relate to the procedure in matrimonial and guardianship proceedings. I do not think I need say much about these two new clauses. One replaces part of Section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973, and the other replaces part of Section 4 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act 1960. This will improve and simplify the procedure in magistrates' courts for dealing with welfare reports made to courts in relation to children, where the court is considering to whom, in the best interests of the child, custody should be given. The procedural changes which are embodied in these new clauses have the support of the President of the Family Division of the High Court and of the Justices' Clerks' Society. A further welcome change in the procedure was introduced on Report in another place when a subsection was added to the first of the two clauses enabling a single justice of the peace to call for a report before the hearing of an application. This provision will help to avoid unnecessary delays in the reaching of a decision on the main issue as to custody. The conferring of the power on a single justice will enable the power to be exercised also by a justices' clerk, provided that rules to that effect are later made under Section 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1968. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, can the noble Lord clarify a point? Is this to be done in open court
1320
or in the normal closed court? As the reports are, in certain circumstances, to be read out, I suggest that it would be preferable if this were clone in closed court.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is something about which I am totally ignorant and perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to send her the answer. I am told, however, that the normal domestic court procedure will be followed.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 182–184]
Clause 66, page 43, line 12, leave out from ("person") to ("or") in line 14.
Line 35, at end insert—
(" (2) On the re-registration of a birth under this section—

(a) the registrar and the mother shall sign the register;

(b) in the case of a request under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, the other person making the request shall also sign the register; and

(c) if the re-registration takes place more than three months after the birth, the superintendent registrar shall also sign the register.")

Page 44, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) the person or persons who sign the statement shall be deemed to have signed the register as required by subsection (2) of that section." ".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 182 to 184, all of which are drafting Amendments to improve the wording of Clause 66. Amendment No. 183 adds a subsection to the new Section 10A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 introduced by Clause 66, to make explicit by whom the birth register shall be signed on the re-registration of a birth under any one of the three methods of re-registration set out in the new section; this allows for the simplification of the wording of paragraph (a) of Section 10A, effected by Amendment No. 182. Amendment No. 184 is simply consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 185–187]
After Clause 67, insert the following new Clause—
Visiting of foster children
(".—(1) In section I of the Children Act 1958 (visiting of foster children), the words "so far as appears to the authority to be appropriate" shall cease to have effect, and for the words "from time to time" there are substituted the words "in accordance with regulations made under section 2A of this Act".
(1A) In section 1A of the Children Act 1958 (visiting of foster children in Scotland) the words "where the local authority consider such a course to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this section," shall cease to have effect, and for the words "from time to time" there are substituted the words "in accordance with regulations made under section 2A of this Act.
(2) The following section is inserted in the said Act after section 2—
"Visits to foster children
2A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring foster children in a local authority's area to he visited by an officer of the local authority on specified occasions or within specified periods of time.
(2) Every person who is maintaining a foster child within the area of a local authority on the date on which regulations made under subsection (1) of this section come into operation, and who before that date has not given notice in respect of the child to the local authority under section 3(1) of this Act, shall within eight weeks of that date given written notice that he is maintaining the child to the local authority.
(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
(3) In section 3 of the said Act as it applies to England and Wales (duty of persons maintaining foster children to notify local authority) —

(a) in subsection (5A). for the words "one or more foster children" there are substituted the words "a foster child", and for the words "foster children" and "any foster children" there are substituted the words "that foster child";

(b) in subsection (5B) for the words "foster children"there are substituted the words "a foster child", and for the words "any of them as a" there is substituted the word "that"; and

(c)'

the following subsection is added at the end—
"(8) Subsection (2A) of this section shall cease to have effect on the date regulations made under section 2A of this Act come into operation.".")
After Clause 67, insert the following new Clause—
Notification by parents
(" .—(1) The following section is inserted in the Children Act 1958 after section 3—
"Notification by parents
3A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for requiring parents whose children are or are going to be maintained as foster children to give to the local authority for the area where the children are, or are going to be, living as foster children, such information about the fostering as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Regulations under this section—

(a) may include such incidental and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks lit;

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

(2) In section 14 of the said Act (offences), in subsection (1)(a), after the words "this Part of this Act" there are inserted the words " or under regulations made under section 3A of this Act".")
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
Advertisements relating to foster children
(" . —(1) In section 37 of the Children Act 1958 the following subsections are inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit the parent or guardian of any child from publishing or causing to be published an advertisement indicating that foster parents are sought for the child.
(1B) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit—

(a) a member of a class of persons specified in the regulations, or

(b) a person other than a person, or other than a member of a class of persons, specified in the regulations,

from publishing or causing to be published any advertisement indicating that he is willing to undertake, or to arrange for, the care and maintenance of a child.
(1C) Regulations made under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different cases or classes of cases, and

(b) may exclude certain cases or classes of cases, and shall be made by statutory instrument,

subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
(2) In subsection (2) of the said section 37, after the words "this section" there are inserted the words "or of regulations made under this section".")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. These Amendments enable the

1323
Government to make regulations to prohibit advertising in the private fostering field and to strengthen local authority control and supervision of private fostering. The regulations may lay down visiting standards for local authorities and require parents, as well as foster parents, to give information about the children to the local authority. These provisions reflect concern expressed in this House, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and elsewhere, about the situation of some privately fostered children.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: I should like briefly to draw your Lordships'attention to two correlated aspects of the Amendments, although they cover a great deal of ground. I have had expressions of concern voiced to me about the intention to suppress advertising in relation to private fostering. These were on two grounds. The first is that if there is no public advertising the system will be driven even further underground and that by making it more furtive it will become less desirable. I recognise that the part of Amendment No. 185 which constitutes subsection (2)(2) of the new clause is designed to overcome this to some extent and if that subsection, which begins
"Every person who is maintaining a foster child within the area of a local authority on the date on which regulations made under subsection (1) of this section come into operation…shall…give written notice that he is maintaining the child to the local authority",
is complied with in every case, of course there will be much less concern. But there appears to be absolutely no means of seeing that every case is registered or, indeed, of knowing whether or not every case is registered. It has been represented to me that there are in some districts informal arrangements between the local Press and the social services whereby a galley proof of such advertisements is submitted in advance to the social services so that they have immediate information as to where fostering is or is about to take place. That enables them to supervise it as they cannot do if they do not know where it is taking place.
Clearly, we are not going to make a great fuss about this at the moment. We
1324
recognise that it is important that the Minister should be able to use his power to make different regulations for different areas in this respect, if only because, for instance, Kent, with one-fortieth of the population, has one-tenth of the coloured foster children in that population. The problems differ in scale from one part of the country to another. However, I ask that, during the first three-year period, the Minister should take such steps as are possible to examine the efficiency with which regulations which he makes are working. There has been a great deal of concern in this House and in another place about the perils of private fostering. Those perils would be reduced under proper supervision and we have some reservations as to whether banning advertisements, which, though they promote private fostering, also reveal it, is the right way to tackle the problem.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord if he could clarify this. I cannot see the word "private" in Amendment No. 187 and I come from an area where there is a great difficulty in finding foster parents. I hear continually on Radio Leeds of fostering being asked for, and the other day when I was driving along I heard children themselves asking to be fostered and saying that they did not enjoy living in local authority homes. I wonder whether this Amendment covers children in local authority homes who are wanting foster homes.
Also, it might be that the arranging of private fostering can be done better by persons of a certain race and creed and who eat different foods than it can be done by members of local authorities. I should like to ask the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was asking, but I should also like to know whether Amendment No. 187 relates not only 10 private fostering but also to local authority fostering.
I want to re-emphasise the great difficulty that local authorities are having in finding foster parents and a point which I nearly forgot is the great difficulty of finding foster homes for handicapped children. We all know that children do very much better in a home of their own than they do in a local authority home where the staff is always changing and where the social workers who are dealing

1325
with them also change so that there is no continuity. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look very carefully at this because I should hate to see children having to remain in institutional homes when they might be able to get a foster home. Again, advertising, if it is underground, may go on all the same, as do other things underground.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in agreeing to this Amendment we are merely giving the power to the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit advertising in the private fostering field. Amendment No. 187 refers to the Children Act 1958, which apparently relates to private fostering. Again, this is merely giving the Secretary of State power. At this stage we cannot forecast when it will be possible to introduce regulations under these provisions. The timetable will be a matter for discussion between the Secretary of State and representatives of local authority associations in the light of the availability of financial and human resources. If noble Lords and noble Baronesses and other individuals and organisations have strong views on this, there is still time to bring them to the notice of the local authority and hence to the Secretary of State. This is not a desire to act but simply to give the power to act.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, bearing in mind that we are speaking to three or four Amendments, I should like to intervene again to say that we recognise that this is an Order-making power and that there are various facets of it. But it is important that consideration be given to the human resources available for detecting children in this position, when it is being decided when advertising should be banned. It would be a great pity to destroy all former traces of the exchanges before any detective agency, as it were, could be put into the field to find them by some other means.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 188 and 189]
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
Inquiries in England and Wales
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may cause an inquiry to be held into any matter relating to—
1326

(a) the functions of the social services committee of a local authority, in so far as those functions relate to children;

(b) the functions of an adoption agency;

(c) the functions of a voluntary organisation in so far as those functions relate to voluntary homes;

(d) a home maintained by the Secretary of State for the accommodation of children who are in the care of local authorities and are in need of the particular facilities and services provided in the home;

(e) the detention of a child under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

(2) The Secretary of State may, before an inquiry is commenced, direct that it shall be held in private, but where no such direction has been given, the person holding the inquiry may if he thinks fit hold it or any part of it in private.
(3) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (powers in relation to local inquiries) shall apply in relation to an inquiry under this section as they apply in relation to a local inquiry under that section.
(4) In this section—
"functions" includes powers and duties which a person has otherwise than by virtue of any enactment;
"voluntary home" means a home or other institution for the boarding, care and maintenance of poor children which is supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions, but does not include a mental nursing home or residential home for mentally disordered persons within the meaning of Part III of the Mental Health Act 1959.
(5) This section does not apply to Scotland.")
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
Inquiries in Scotland
(" .—(1) In Scotland the Secretary of State may cause an enquiry to be held into any matter relating to—

(a) the functions of a local authority under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1963 in so far as the matter relates to children;

(b) the functions of a local authority under the enactments specified in paragraph (a) of section 1(4) and paragraphs (b) to (e) and (h) of section 2(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;

(c) the functions of an adoption society

(d) the functions of a voluntary organisation in so far as those functions relate to establishments to which sections 61 to 68 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 apply and in so far as the matter relates to children; or

(e) the detention of a child under—

(i) section 57 or 58A of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937; or

(ii) section 206 or 413 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.

(2) The Secretary of State may, before an inquiry is commenced, direct that it shall be held in private, but where no such direction has been given, the person holding the inquiry may if he thinks fit hold it or any part of it in private.
(3) Subsections (2) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (powers in relation to local inquiries) shall apply in relation to an inquiry under this section as they apply in relation to a local inquiry under that section.
(4) In this section "functions" includes powers and duties exercisable otherwise than by virtue of any enactment".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 188 and 189. Amendment No. 189 relates to Scotland. One of the issues to which the Maria Colwell tragedy drew attention was the absence of any statutory power under children's legislation for the Secretary of State for Social Services to cause an inquiry to be held. The absence of statutory powers could have caused difficulties had there been a reluctance on the part of those who witnessed the tragic events with which the inquiry was concerned to come forward, or a refusal to co-operate. It seems right therefore that we should take the opportunity afforded by the Children Bill to till this gap in children's legislation with a view to placing future inquiries of this kind on a more satisfactory footing. But the Government would expect to use this new power very sparingly. I beg to move.
Moved. That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, we welcome the appearance of these powers in the Bill. We hope that the occasion for their use will be rare, and when they are used we shall look with interest to see how well they work.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 190–201]
Clause 68, page 44, line 29, leave out from ("court") to ("rules") in line 31 and insert ("prescribed by".)
Clause 68, page 44, line 33, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a".)
Clause 68, page 44, line 35, leave out ("any") and insert ("a")
Clause 68, page 44, line 29 leave out line 40 and insert—
("(b) the Sheriff court of the Sheriffdom within which the child is").
Page 45, line 8, at beginning insert ("(b)".)
Page 45, line 9, at end insert—
(" (5A) In the case of an order under section (Adoption of Children abroad), paragraph (d) of subsection (2) does not apply".)
Page 45, line 10, leave out ("does not apply") and insert ("applies".)
Page 45, line 12, leave out ("but") and insert ("whether or not the child is in England or Wales and".)
Page 45, line 13, after ("are") insert ("also".)
Page 45, line 14, at end insert ("and where that court is a magistrates' court, any other magistrates' court acting for the same petty session area;".)
Page 45, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) the county court within whose district the applicant is;
(bb) a magistrates' court within whose area the applicant is;".)
Page 45, line 22, at end add—
("(6A) Subsection (2) does not apply in the case of an application under section (Return of child taken away in breach of sections 34 or 34 A of 1958 Act) or (Return of child taken away in breach of section 37) but for the purposes of such an application the following are authorised courts—

(a) if there is pending in respect of the child an application for an adoption order or an order under section 13 or a custodianship order, the court in which that application is pending;

(b) in any other case, the High Court, the county court within whose district the applicant lives and the magistrates' court within whose area the applicant lives.

(6B) Subsections (3) and (6A) do not apply in the case of an application under section (Return of child taken in breach of sections 34 or 34 A of 1958 Act); in Scotland but for the purposes of such an application the following are authorised courts—

(a) if there is pending in respect of the child an application for—

(i) an adoption order; or

(ii) an order under section 13,

the court in which that application is pending;

(b) in any other case—

(i) the Court of Session;

(ii) the sheriff court of the sheriffdom within which the applicant resides".)

Lord WINTERBOTTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 190 to 201, which I should like to

1329
take en bloc. While doing so, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 205. This is a massive "ad hocery" to which I hope the House will agree. Despite the enormous length, I need say little more about these Amendments. They are all designed to make things easier for the persons who bring proceedings under the new legislation. Thus, the Amendments to subsection (6) of the clause considerably extend the courts to which application can be made for an Order under Clauses 31, 32 or 34 of the Bill.
I might perhaps mention in this connection Amendment No. 205, to Clause 74 of the Bill, which inserts into it a definition of the term "area". This Amendment was carried into the Bill on Report. Its purpose is quite simply to remove ambiguity as to the meaning of the term "area" where it occurs in Clause 68 of the Bill, but I think I should point out to your Lordships that it also meets the objective of Recommendation 65 of the Houghton Committee Report and a point which was made recently by the ABAA. The Committee noted in paragraph 264 of their Report the reluctance of some adopters to apply in the local magistrates' court because they feared that private information about them would be made known locally, albeit in confidence. By defining "area" as the commission area—which, outside Greater London, is the County—an authorised court under the provisions of Clause 68(2)(d) may be any magistrates' court within the commission area and need not be the local magistrates' court. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 202]
Clause 71, page 46, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert-—
"(a) guardians ad litem and reporting officers may in accordance with rules or rules of court be appointed for the purposes of—

(i) section 19 of this Act;

(ii) section 32B of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969;

(iii) section 4B of the Children Act 1948;

1330
(b) persons may be appointed for the purposes of section 18A or 34A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 125 and 132, which provide that the appointment of an independent representative is not mandatory in all court proceedings involving children. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. — (Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 203]
After Clause 72, insert the following Clause—
Procedure for periodic review of operation of Act
(" . The Secretary of State shall, within three years of the first of the dates appointed by order by the Secretary of State under section (Amendments, repeals, commencement and transitory provisions) (2) and, thereafter, every five years lay before Parliament a report on the operation of those ssctions of the Act which are in force at that time; and the Secretary of State shall institute such research as is necessary to provide the information for these reports".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is an important Amendment which we have touched on from time to time during the passage of this Bill. None of us believes that we are the repositories of all wisdom, that we get the right decisions at all points of drafting of a new Bill. Therefore, the powers of periodic review are introduced under this new clause. It requires the Secretary of State, within three years of the first appointed day made under subsection (2) of the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 210, and thereafter every five years, to lay before Parliament a report on the operation of those sections of the Act in force at that time. The Secretary of State will have a duty to institute such research as is necessary to provide the necessary information.
This will provide Parliament with an opportunity to consider the rate of progress of implementation of the Bill, particularly the development of a comprehensive adoption service, and, in due course, the effectiveness or otherwise of the new concepts of "time limits", "freeing for adoption" and "custodianship orders". The Bill already provides for

1331
reports on schemes for payments to adopters. An important advantage of the requirement to make progress reports is that it will encourage local authorities to improve the standard of their adoption services. My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell discussed last Friday the timing of the implementation of the Bill, and in view of the lateness of the hour I hope your Lordships will agree that we need not go over the same ground again. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, may I ask one question? These reviews, I hope, apply to Scotland as well as to England?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, without exact knowledge, I cannot believe it would be otherwise.
Lord ELTON: My Lords. I should like to give a hearty welcome to this Amendment to the Bill, which originated with our friends in another place and which is an extremely useful, built-in safety system—and a rather unusual one. In view of the importance of the legislation, its complexity and the sensitivity of the area in which it is to have effect, to be certain that there will be pressure for Parliamentary time for considering, at regular intervals in the future its success or failure is, I think we must accept, a very considerable advance.
There will be a number of matters we shall wish to review and had this been an earlier hour I should have been tempted to enumerate them. We have already touched on them seriatim and I will not weary your Lordships by saying now what they can, but probably will not, refresh their memories about by reading Hansard tomorrow.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 204]
Clause 73, page 46, line 38, leave out from "case" to end of line 40.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amend-
1332
ment No. 204. With the agreement of your Lordships I shall move this Amendment on its own, although it is consequential on Amendment No. 210. Amendment No. 204 removes from Clause 73 the provision that regulations or orders made under the Bill may contain such transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit. This is now covered by Amendment No. 210 which we shall be discussing shortly.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 205]
Clause 74, page 47, line 9, at end insert—
(" " area", in relation to a magistrates' court, means the commission area (within the meaning of section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973) for which the court is appointed;
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House does agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 205. It was discussed with Amendments Nos. 190 to 201.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 206 to 209]
Clause 74, page 47, line 14, leave out ("any British territory outside Great Britain") and insert ("Northern Ireland or any British territory outside the United Kingdom;".)
Clause 74, page 47, line 14, leave out lines 16 to 19.
Clause 74, page 47, line 14, line 26, at end insert—
(" " child", except where used to express a relationship, means a person who has not attained the age of 18;".)
Page 4S, leave out lines 28 and 29.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 206 to 209. With the leave of the House I should like to move these en bloc as they all relate to the interpretation of the Bill. They are purely interpretation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 210–211]
After Clause 74, insert the following new clause—
Amendments, repeals, commencement and transitory provisions
(" .—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section—

(a) the enactments specified in Schedule 3 shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in that Schedule (being minor amendments or amendments consequential on the preceding provisions of this Act), and

(b) the enactments specified in Schedule 4 are repealed to the extent shown in column 3 of that Schedule.

(2) This Act, except the provisions specified in subsections (3) and (4), shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may my order appoint and different dates may be appointed for, or for different purposes of, different provisions.
(3) Sections (Grants in respect of secure accommodation) (Grants in respect of secure accommodation for children), this section, section 76, (Power of reporters to conduct proceedings under Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968) and paragraph 42A of Schedule 3, shall conic into force on the passing of this Act.
(4) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on 1st January 1976—

(a) sections 2, 7(9) and (10), 12, 52, (Amendment of section 37 of Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968) to (Procedure in matrimonial proceedings), 67, 68, (Inquiries), (Inquiries in Scotland) and 71 to 74;

(b) Schedules I and (Status conferred in Scotland by adoption);

(c) In Schedule 3, paragraphs Al, A2, 1, 2, 3A, 5, 6, 8(6), 9A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 10E, 11(1), (2) and (4), 12 to 16, 20(b), 22, 24B, 25(aa), 25A, 26(b), 27, 28(c), (d), and (e), 29, 33, 38, 39, 40(a), 41(f)(ii), and (g)(ii), 41B, 42, 42B, 42D, 44, 46, 47, 49 to 51A, 54(3), 54B, 55, 58 and 61.

(d) Parts I, II and III of Schedule 4.

(5) Until the date appointed under subsection (I) for sections 3 to 6, in this Act and in the 1958 Act "adoption agency" means a local authority or a registered adoption society within the meaning of the 1958 Act.
(6) Until the date so appointed for section II, section 5(1) of the 1958 Act shall, in relation to an application made after 31st December 1975 for an adoption order, have effect with the addition at the end of paragraph (b) of the following words" or
(c) has seriously ill-treated the child and that (whether because of the ill-treatment or for other reasons) the rehabilitation of the child within the household of that person is unlikely."
(7) Until the date so appointed for section 17, section 21A of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 shall have effect as if for references to section (Adoption of children
1334
abroad) there were substituted references to section 53 of the 1958 Act.
(8) An order under subsection (1) may make such transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions thereby brought into force, including such adaptations of those provisions or any provision of this Act then in force or any provision of the 1958 Act as appears to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the partial operation of this Act."
Clause 75, leave out Clause 75.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 which, with the permission of the House, I will move together. Amendment No. 210 was introduced into the Bill in another place at Committee stage to group all powers connected with the commencement of the Bill and transitional matters in one clause. I do not propose to discuss the timing of implementation now. My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell discussed this with your Lordships last Friday and, as he explained, it is a matter for continuing discussion with the local authority associations. The new clause gives the Secretary of State the most flexible power possible to bring into operation by order individual sections or parts of the Act either by themselves or in combination with other sections as and when resources become available. As I say, these timetables are contained in Amendment No. 210. It is long; but it deals with a simple issue.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.-(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the issue may be simple, but the method of dealing with it is not. I share the noble Lord's anxiety to conclude this evening's proceedings. But I cannot do so without a final comment on the general character of the Bill as it is encapsulated in this Amendment. Although your Lordships will not have had the opportunity of going through it line by line, you will be aware that almost the only provision which will immediately come into force is that which enables grants to be made in place of loans for the building of secure places which we have discussed and which does not involve any new money. In subsection (4) there is a further group of provisions which, at slightly more than cursory examination,

1335
would appear to be largely a restatement of existing legislation. The rest of the Bill is simply an expression of an aspiration; it is a declaration of intent and will remain as such until the moment when, clause by clause, provision by provision, the Secretary of State sets the machine in motion. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbotom, rightly said he could not say when this will be, and the noble Lord rightly said, this depends on when resources are available to make it effective.
We on this side of the House wish it to be borne in mind that here is something which has been thought so much of a priority that great pressure has been put on this House to put this measure on the Statute Book before it should lapse and have to be brought in again. If it has such priority in terms of legislation, it should also have priority in terms of efficacy. I am certain that the character of the noble Lord's honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State, is such that he will share the intentions we all have that the most important and effective parts of this Bill shall be put into action as soon as may be. We on this side should like to express our enthusiasm for what has been achieved, and the interest with which we shall watch it coming into action. Our anxiety is that it should not be lost sight of among the more political pressures and demands upon the funds which are admittedly short, but which must eventually be secured.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend has said in regard to Scotland, about which I have been speaking tonight. There will be certain things which will be expensive and they, no doubt, will be postponed. There is much in this Bill which does not require money but only requires reorganisation. It requires the will to do the job; it requires a certain change in some of the administration. All of this could be put into effect quickly. Since we all agree that this is not a Party political Bill in any sense, but a social work Bill which we are all anxious to help and put into effect, those parts of the Bill which are not involved in any great expense but only in reorganisation, replanning, changes of function of some people, and so on, should be put into effect as quickly as possible. I shall
1336
be deeply disappointed if, in a year or 18 months' time, half this Bill as it affects Scotland is not already in effect.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, having been on the fringe of this Bill at its beginning and in the heart of it now. I know from the measure of commitment among noble Lords and honourable Members of another place that the Government of the day, of whichever complexion, will not be allowed to let the intentions behind this Bill pass without due attention. There will be too many concerned people prodding them to allow them to sleep comfortably or cower behind the excuse that resources of manpower or money are not available. I agree with the noble Baroness, if we were efficient there are many resources we could use which we do not at the moment use.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 212 and 213]
Clause 76, page 49, line 22. after "Act", insert "except 'section (Extension of powers under section 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969)' paragraphs 6A, 6B and 47 of Schedule 3 and Schedule 4 in so far as it repeals the words 'or adoption ' in section 9(5) of the Adoption Act 1968 and the references in that Act to section 19 of the Adoption Act 1958,".
Clause 76, page 49, line 27, at end insert—
"(3) Subsection (1) of section (Extension of powers under section 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969) extends to the Channel Islands.
10.32 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 en bloc. These Amendments involve minor changes to the extent provisions of the Bill contained in Clause 76. I stress they are minor and, for this reason, I hope your Lordships will accept them. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbouom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 214 to 247]
Schedule 1, page 50, line 10, after ("an") insert ("adoption").
Schedule 1, page 50, line 14, leave out ("or").
Schedule 1, page 50, line 16, at end insert (" or
(e) which is an adoption recognised by the law of England and Wales, and effected under the law of any other country.")
Schedule 1, page 50, leave out lines 30 and 31.
Schedule 1, page 50, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("before") in line 33 and insert (" 'Existing', in relation to any enactment or other instrument, means one passed or made.")
Schedule 1, page 50, line 36, leave out ("executed") and insert ("made").
Schedule 1, page 50, line 36, at end insert—
("Dispositions of property
1A.—(1) In this Schedule—
"disposition" includes the conferring of a power of appointment and any other disposition of an interest in or right over property;
"power of appointment" includes any discretionary power to transfer a beneficial interest in property without the furnishing of valuable consideration.
(2) This Schedule applies to an oral disposition of property as if contained in an instrument made when the disposition was made.")
page 51, line 21, leave out ("executed") and insert ("passed or made").
page 51, line 22, leave out from ("indication") to end of line 24.
page 51, line 43, leave out ("operation on ") and insert ("application to").
page 52, line 2, after ("of") insert (" provisions containing").
page 52, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
(" '(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, and of paragraph 6, provisions of the law of inestate succession applicable to the estate of a deceased person shall be treated as if contained in an instrument executed by him (while of full capacity) immediately before his death".)
page 52, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
page 52, line 22, at end insert—
(" (3A) Examples of phrases in wills on which sub-paragraph (3) can operate are—

1. Children of A "living at my death or born afterwards".

2. Children of A "living at my death or born afterwards before any one of such children for the time being in existence attains a vested interest, and who attain the age of 21 years".

3. As in example 1 to 2, butreferring to grandchildren of A, instead of children of A.

4. A for life "until he has a child", and then to his child or children.

Note: Sub-paragraph (3) will not affect the reference to the age of 21 years in example 2.")
page 52, line 23, leave out from ("not") to end of line 24 and insert ("prejudice any interest vested in possession in the adopted child before the adoption, or any interest expectant (whether immediately or not) upon an interest so vested.")
page 52, line 23 leave out lines 35 to 40.
page 52, line 44, at end insert—
("(1A) Paragraph 2 does not apply for the purposes of any provision of

(a) the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965,

(b) the Immigration Act 1971,

(c) any instrument having effect under an enactment within paragraph (a) or (b), or

(d) any other provision of the law for the time being in force which determines citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

(1AA) Paragraph 2 shall not prevent a person being treated as a near relative of a deceased person for the purposes of section 32 of the Social Security Act 1975 (payment of death grant), if apart from paragraph 2 he would be so treated.

(1B) Paragraph 2 does not apply for the purposes of section 70(3)(b) or section 73(2) of the Social Security Act 1975 (payment of industrial death benefit to or in respect of an illegitimate child of the deceased and the child's mother).

(1C) Subject to regulations made under section 72 of the Social Security Act 1975 (entitlement of certain relatives of deceased to industrial death benefit), paragraph 2 shall not affect the entitlement to an industrial death benefit of a person who would, apart from paragraph 2, be treated as a relative of a deceased person for the purposes of the said section 72.")

Page 53, leave out lines 1 to 6.
Page 53, line 6, at end insert—
("Pensions
7A. Paragraph 2(2) does not affect entitlement to a pension which is payable to or for the benefit of a child and is in payment at the time of his adoption.".)
Page 53, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
Page 53, line 10. leave out ("an illegitimate") and insert ("a")
Page 53, line 16, at end insert—
("Insurance
9A. Where a child is adopted whose natural parent has effected an insurance with a friendly society or a collecting society or an industrial insurance company for the payment on the death of the child of money for funeral expenses, the rights and liabilities under the policy shall by virtue of the adoption be transferred to the adoptive parents who shall for the purposes of the enactments relating to such societies and companies be treated as the person who took out the policy.")
Page 53, line 20, leave out paragraph 10.
Page 53, line 42, at end iinsert—
(" (4A) Examples of phrases in wills on which sub-paragraph (4) can operate are set out in paragraph 5(3A)")
Page 54, line 15, at end insert—
(" (8) Part II of that Schedule, which repeals enactments superseded by this paragraph, has effect as respects any instrument, other than an existing instrument")
Page 54, leave out lines 19 to 28 and insert ("if either natural parent is the sole adoptive parent.
(2) Where an adopted child (with a sole adoptive parent) is legitimated—

(a) paragraph 2(2) shall not apply after the legitimation to the natural relationship with the other natural parent, and

(b) revocation of the adoption order in consequence of the legitimation shall not affect Part II as it applies to any instrument made before the date of legitimation.")

Page 54, leave out lines 29 and 30.
Page 54, line 36, leave out from first ("by") to ("as") and insert ("one of the natural parents".)
Page 54, line 38, at end insert ("(or, if deceased, is treated as legitimated)")
Page 55, line 2, after ("legitimated",) insert ("(or, if deceased, is treated as legitimated)".)
Page 55, line 11, leave out ("or by both natural parents")
Page 55, line 33, leave out from beginning to ("affect") and insert ("This Schedule shall not")
Page 55, line 42, leave out ("including") and insert ("includes")
Page 55, leave out lines 44 and 45 and insert—

PART V EXTENT
18. This Schedule does not apply to Scotland")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments No. 214 to 247 en bloc. I do not think there are any Amendments which your Lordships will wish to pick out for discussion. Some are consequential on the introduction of the Schedule relating solely to Scotland; others relate to minor points of private international law, citizenship or property law. The rest are purely drafting points. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 248 and 249]
After Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE STATUS CONFERRED IN SCOTLAND BY ADOPTION
General
1.—(1) In Scotland, a child who is the subject of an adoption order shall, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, be treated in law—

(a) where the adopters are a married couple, as if lie had been born as a legitimate child of the marriage (whether or not he was in fact born after the marriage was constituted);

(b) in any other case, as if he had been born as a legitimate child of the adopter (but not as a child of any actual marriage of the adopter),

and as if he were not the child of any person other than the adopters or adopter.
(2) Where an illegitimate child has been adopted by one of his natural parents as sole adoptive parent and the adopter thereafter marries the other natural parent, sub-paragraph (1) shall not affect any enactment or rule of law whereby, by virtue of the marriage, the child is rendered the legitimate child of both natural parents.
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in determining the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity in respect of the law relating to marriage or in respect of the crime of incest, except that, on the making of an adoption order, the adopter and the child shall be deemed, for all time coming, to be within the said prohibited degrees in respect of the law relating to marriage.
(4) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply for the purposes of any provision of—

(a) the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965,

(b) the Immigration Act 1971.

(c) any instrument having effect under an enactment within paragraph (a) or (b), or

(d) any other law for the time being in force which determines citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

(5) This paragraph has effect—

(a) in the case of an adoption before 1st January 1976, from that date, and

(b) in the case of any other adoption, from the date of the adoption.

(6) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, this paragraph applies for the construction of any enactments or instruments passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act so far as the context admits.
(7) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, this paragraph does not affect things done or events occurring before the adoption or, where the adoption took place before 1st January 1976, before that date.
Pensions
2. The provision in paragraph 1(1) whereby a child who is the subject of an adoption order is to be treated in law as if he were not the child of any person other than the adopters or adopter shall not affect entitlement toa pension which is payable to, or for the benefit of, the child and is in payment at the time of his adoption.
Insurance
3. Where a child is adopted whose natural parent has effected an insurance with a friendly society or a collecting society or an industrial insurance company for the payment on the death of the child of money for funeral expenses, the rights and liabilities under the policy shall by virtue of the adoption be transferred to the adoptive parents who shall for the purposes of the enactments relating to such societies and companies be treated as the person who took out the policy.
Social Security
4.—(1) Paragraph 1 shall not prevent a person being treated as a near relative of a deceased person for the purposes of section 32 of the Social Security Act 1975 (payment of death grant), if apart from paragraph 1 he would be so treated.
(2) Paragraph 1 does not apply for the purposes of section 70(3)(b) or section 73(2) of the Social Security Act 1975 (payment of industrial death benefit to or in respect of an illegitimate child of the deceased and the child's mother).
(3) Subject to regulations made under section 72 of the Social Security Act 1975 (entitlement of certain relative of deceased to industrial death benefit), paragraph 1 shall not affect the entitlement to an industrial death benefit of a person who would, apart from paragraph I, be treated as a relative of a deceased person for the purposes of the said section 72.
Succession and Property
5.—(1) Paragraph 1 does not affect the existing law relating to adopted persons in respect of—

(a) the succession to a deceased person (whether testate or intestate), and

(b) the disposal of property by virtue of any inter vivos deed.

(2) In section 23 of the Succession (Scotland) Act1964 (adopted person to be treated for purposes of succession, etc., as child of adopter)

(a) in subsection (3), (property devolving along with a title or honour, etc.), after "this section" there is inserted "or in the Children Act 1975";

(b) in subsection (5) (meaning of "adoption order"), for the words from "an order" to "Northern Ireland" there are substituted the words—"

"(a) an adoption order under the Children Act 1975;

(b) an adoption order under the Adoption Act 1958 or the Adoption Act 1950
1342
or any enactment repealed by the Adoption Act 1950;

(c) an order effecting an adoption made in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands;

(d) an "overseas adoption" as defined in section 4(3) of the Adoption Act 1968; or

(e) any other adoption recognised by the law of Scotland;

(whether the order took effect before or after the commencement of this Act)'".

(3) In section 24 of the said Act of 1964 (provisions supplementary to section 23), after subsection (1) there is inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Where, in relation to any purpose specified in section 23(1) of this Act, any right is conferred or any obligation is imposed, whether by operation of law or under any deed coming into operation after the commencement of the Children Act 1975, by reference to the relative seniority of the members of a class of persons, then, without prejudice to any entitlement under Part I of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 of an illegitimate child who is adopted by one of his parents,

(a) any member of that class who is an adopted person shall rank as if lie had been born on the date of his adoption, and

(b) if two or more members of the class are adopted persons whose dates of adoption are the same, they shall rank as between themselves in accordance with their respective times of birth.".

(4) In section 37(1) of the said Act of 1964 (exclusion from Act of matters relating to titles etc.), after "nothing in this Act" there is inserted "or (as respects paragraph (a) of this subsection) in the Children Act 1975".
Adoption and Legitimation
6.—(1) In section 26 of the Adoption Act 1958, after subsection (1) there is inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to Scotland, and where the natural parents of an illegitimate child, one of whom has adopted him in Scotland, have subsequently married each other, the court by which the adoption order was made may, on the application of any of the parties concerned, revoke that order.".
(2) Section 1 of the Legitimation (Scotland) Act 1968 (requirements and effects of legitimation) is renumbered subsection (1) and at the end there is added the following subsection—
"(2) Subsection (1) above shall apply in relation to an illegitimate person who has been adopted by one of his natural parents as sole adoptive parent, where the adopter thereafter marries the other natural parent, as it applies in relation to any illegitimate person, to the effect of rendering that person the legitimate child of both natural parents; and in this Act "illegitimate", "legitimated"

1343
and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.".
(3) In section 6(2) of the said Act of 1968, for the words from "of an adoption order" to "1958" there are substituted the words "(under this section or otherwise) of any adoption order within the meaning of Schedule (Status conferred in Scotland by adoption) to the Children Act 1975, in consequence of the marriage of the parents of the adopted person to each other".
Interpretation
7. In this Schedule, "adoption orders" means—

(a) an adoption order as defined in section 74;

(b) an adoption order under the 1958 Act or the Adoption Act 1950 or any enactment repealed by the Adoption Act 1950;

(c) an order effecting an adoption made in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands;

(d) an "overseas adoption" as defined in section 4(3) of the Adoption Act 1968; or

(e) any other adoption recognised by the law of Scotland;)

(whether the order took effect before or after the commencement of this Act); and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.")
Schedule 2: Leave out Schedule 2.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Amendment No. 248 relates to Scotland and is linked with No. 249. This new Schedule is a further Scottish addition to the Bill and deals with the status of an adopted child in Scotland. Its primary purpose is to provide a clear statement for Scotland that as from 1st January 1976 an adopted child shall be considered for all purposes in law as the legitimate child of his adopters or adopter and not the child of any other person. The Schedule, which has already been widely welcomed by Scottish interests, covers the same general ground as does Part II of Schedule 1 in relation to England and Wales, but the Scottish provisions are couched in terms which reflect differences in law in Scotland, notably in relation to the law of succession. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 248 and 249.
Moved. That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, subject to the correction of my noble friends, we have now reached the point in the Bill at which we shall have to repose our confidence in the hands of the draftsmen
1344
because we have had so little time to digest these Amendments. Indeed, this is probably the part of the Bill which properly is primarily the responsibility of the draftsmen and the Lord Chancellor's Office. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will feel free to make any remarks which are necessary on the record as an explanation but that he will not feel it necessary to make any remarks which he may feel are necessary to persuade us on this side of the House.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 250 to 285]
Schedule 3, page 56, line 26, at end insert—
("Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (23 and 24 Geo. 5 c. 12)
Al.—In section 1(1)(b), for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400".'
Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (c. 37)
A2.—In section 12(1)(b) for the words " twenty-five pounds " there is substituted "£400".").
Schedule 3, page 56, line 35, leave out ("£100 ") and insert ("£400")
Schedule 3, page 56, leave out line 37 and insert—
("3. In section 4—

(a) in subsection (3)(a) after the words "parent or guardian" there are inserted the words "or custodian";

(b) for subsection (3)(b) there is substituted")

Schedule 3, page 56, line 41, at end insert—
("3A. In section 43(1), for the words "and the Adoption Act 1968 "there are substituted the words "the Adoption Act 1968 and the Children Act 1975".")
Schedule 3, page 56, page 57, line 18, at end insert—
("Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (c. 37)
6A In section 15. after the words "Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 " there are inserted the words "or sections 30 to 40 of the Children Act 1975".
6B In section 16(2)(a), after sub-paragraph (v) there are insert the following sub-paragraphs—

"(vi) section 4 of the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957 on an application made under section 40 of the Children Act 1975;

(vii) section 31(1)(b) of the Children Act 1975;".")

Schedule 3, page 56, line 23, at end insert—
("and there are added at the end the following words "or proceedings on an information".")
Schedule 3, page 56, line 38, leave out("34(3)") and insert—
("34.—(a) in subsection (2) after paragraph (c) there is added the following paragraph—
"(d) in relation to the re-registration of a birth under section 9(5) of this Act"; (b) in subsection (3)")
Schedule 3, page 56, line 39, at end insert—
("(6) In section 41—

(a) after the definition of "disposal" there is inserted the following definition—

" "father", in relation to an adopted child, means the child's natural father;"

(b) after the definition of "the Minister" there is inserted the following definition—

" " mother", in relation to an adopted child, means the child's natural mother;" ")

Schedule 3, page 56, line 46, at end insert—
("Housing Act 1957 (c. 56)
9A. In Schedule 2, in paragraph 4(7) for the words "any illegitimate son or daughter, and any adopted son or daughter" there are substituted the words " and any illegitimate son or daughter".".)
Page 58, leave out lines 1 to 3.
Page 58, line 3, at end insert—
(" Children Act 1958 (6 & ' 7 Eliz. 2 c. 65)
10A. In section 2, as it applies in England and Wales—

(a) in subsection (1), after the word guardian " there is inserted the word custodian";

(b) in subsection (4A),—

(i) for the words "registered adoption society as is referred to in Part II of the Adoption Act 1958 " there are substituted the words "adoption society approved under Part I of the Children Act 1975", and

(ii) for the words "that Act" there are substituted the words "the Adoption Act 1958".

10B. In section 2 as it applies to Scotland, after subsection (4) there is inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) A child is not a foster child for the purposes of this Part of this Act while he is placed in the care and possession of a person who proposes to adopt him under arrangements made by such an adoption agency as is referred to in Part I of the Children Act 1975 or while he is a protected child within the meaning of Part IV of the Adoption Act 1958."
10C. In section 6 for the words "obtained their consent" there are substituted the words "obtained their written consent".
10D. In section 14(2), for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the the words "£400".
10E. In section 37(2), for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400".")
Page 58, line 10, at end insert—
(4) For "care and possession" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "actual custody".".
Page 58, line 23, leave out paragraph 14.
Page 58, leave out paragraphs 18 and 19.
Page 58, line 40 leave out from ("section") to end of line 42 and insert—
("32—(a) the following subsections are substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit unincorporated bodies from applying for approval under section 3 of the Children Act 1975 (Approval of adoption societies); and he shall not approve any unincorporated body whose application is contrary to regulations made under this subsection.
(1A) The Secretary of State may make regulations for any purpose relating to the exercise of its functions by an approved adoption society.";")
Page 58, line 42, at end insert—
(" (b) in subsection (2) for "(1)" there is substituted "(2)" and for the words from "twenty-five pounds to the end of the subsection there are substituted the words "£400".
"(c) the following subsection is added after subsection (3)—
"(4) Regulations under this section may make different provisions in relation to different cases or classes of cases and may exclude certain cases or classes of cases." ")
page 59, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—
("22. In section 35(6) for the word "six" there is substituted the word three" and for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400.")
page 59, line 13, after ("36") insert ("—(a) in subsection (1)")
page 59, line 15, leave out from first ("and") to end of line 17 and insert—
("(b) for subsection (3), there is substituted the following—
(3) A local authority which receives such notice as aforesaid in respect of achild whom the authority know to be in the care of another local authority shall, not more than seven days after the receipt of the notice, inform that other authority in writing that they have received the notice." ")
page 59, line 18, leave out ("37(1)") and insert ("37—
(a) in subsection (1)")
page 59, line 20, at end insert—
"(b) the following subsections are substituted for subsection (4) —
"(4) A protected child ceases to be protected child—

(a) on the appointment of a guardian for him under the Guardianship Act 1971;

(b) on the notification to the local authority for the area where the child has his home that the application for an adoption order has been withdrawn;

1347

(c) on the making of any of the following orders in respect of the child—

(i) an adoption order;

(ii) an order under section 16 of the Children Act 1975;

(iii) a custodianship order;

(iv) an order under section 42, 43 or 44 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; or

(d) on his attaining the age of 18, whichever first occurs.

(4A) In relation to Scotland—

(a) subsection (4) does not apply; and

(b) a protected child ceases to be a protected child when—

(i) the application for an adoption order lapses or is withdrawn;

(ii) the application for an adoption order is granted or otherwise determined;

(iii) an order is made awarding custody of the child;

(iv) an order is made appointing a guardian of the child; or

(v) the child attains the age of 18".")

page 59, line 20, at end insert—
24A. In section 40(6) for the words from the beginning to "that is to say" there are substituted the following words "the particulars referred to in subsection (4) of this section are".")
("24B. In section 44(2), for the word "six" there is substituted the word "three" and for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400")
page 59, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
("(aa) in subsection (2), for the word "six" there is substituted the word "three" and for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400".")
page 59, line 28, at end insert—
("25A. In section 51(2), for the words "fifty pounds" there is substituted the word "£400")
page 59, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—
("26. In section 52(1)—

(a) for the words "fifty-three of this Act" there are substituted the words "(Adoption of children abroad) of the Children Act 1975", and

(b) for the word "six" there is substituted the word "three" and for the words "one hundred pounds "there are substituted the words "£400".".

26A. In section 55, after the words "this Act" there are inserted the words "or Part I of the Children Act 1975" ")
page 59, line 39, after ("section") insert ("20 or")
page 60, line 8, leave out ("compulsory school age") and insert ("body of persons")
page 60, line 9, leave out ("words") and insert—
("the following definitions—
"child", except where used to express a relationship, means a person who has not attained the age of 18;" ")
page 60, line 31, leave out ("; and "legal custody" means "custody" ")
page 60, line 37, at end insert—
("Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (c. 37)
30A. In section 49(1), for the words "twenty pounds" there are substituted the words "£100" ")
page 60, leave out lines 38 to 43.
page 61, leave out lines 1 to 17.
line 26, leave out paragraph 34 and insert—
("34. In section 1, the following subsection is substituted for subsection (5) —

"(5) Section 7(3) and (6) of, and paragraph 9A of Schedule 1 and paragraph 3 of Schedule (Status Conferred in Scotland by Adoption) to, the Children Act 1975 apply in relation to a child who is the subject of an order which is similar to an order under section (Adoption of children abroad) of that Act and is made (whether before or after this subsection has effect) in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands, as they apply in relation to a child who is the subject of an adoption order."

34A. In section 3(3) —

(a) for the words "section 5.3 of the said Act of 1958 there are substituted the words" "section (Adoption of children abroad) of the Children Act 1975";

(b) for the words from "the word Provisionally" to the end of the subsection there are substituted the words "the words Proposed Foreign Adoption" or, as the case may require, "Proposed Foreign Re-adoption" followed by the name, in brackets, of the country in which the order was made.")

leave out lines 30 to 32.
Page 62, line 14, leave out ("voluntary") and insert ("community")
Page 63, line 16, at end insert—
("39A. In section 6(1) (b), after subparagraph (ii) there is inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(iii) a child who has been placed for adoption by an adoption agency (within the meaning of section 1 of the Children Act 1975);" ")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his very constructive attitude, which I can assure him is correct in practice and spirit, I should like to move a very large block of Amendments together. They are Amendments Nos. 250 to 285 in Schedule 3. They are mainly consequential, technical or drafting Amendments and I should like to move them en bloc. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 250 to 285 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 286 and 287]
Schedule 3, page 63, line 32, leave out paragraph 41 and insert—
("41. In section 17—

(a) in subsection (3), for "section 16" there is substituted "section 16(1)(a)" and after "local authority" there is inserted ", in whom are vested in accordance with the resolution the parental rights and powers in respect of a child,";

(b) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (3) —

"(3A) A resolution under section 16(1)(b) of this Act shall not prevent the voluntary organisation, in whom are vested in accordance with the resolution the parental rights and powers in respect of a child, from allowing, either for a fixed period or until the voluntary organisation otherwise determine, the care of the child to be taken over by, and the child to be under the control of, a parent, guardian, relative or friend in any case where it appears to the voluntary organisation to be for the benefit of the child.";

(c) in subsection (4), for "section 16" there is substituted "section 16(1)(a)"

(d) in subsection (6), for the words "the said section 16" there is substituted "section 16 of this Act";

(e) in subsection (7), after the words "or authority" there are inserted the words "or a voluntary organisation"

(f) in subsection (8) —

(i) for the words "to whom this section applies" there is substituted ", in respect of whom a resolution under section 16 of this Act is in effect,"; and

(ii) for the words "fifty pounds" there is substituted "£400";

(g) in subsection (9) —

(i) for the words "where a local authority have, in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, allowed" there is substituted—

"Where—

(a) a local authority have, in accordance with subsection (3) of this section; or

(b) a voluntary organisation have, in accordance with subsection (3A) of this section,

allowed";

(ii) for the words "fifty pounds" there is substituted "£400".

41A. In section 18—

(a) in subsection (2), for " section 16" there is substituted "section 16(1)(a);

(b) in subsection (3)—

1350

(i) in paragraph (a), for "paragraph (a)" there is substituted "sub-paragraph (i)";

(ii) for paragraph (b) there is substituted "(b) in the case of a resolution passed by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (ii), (iii), or (iv) of subsection (1) of the said section 16, by the person who, but for the resolution, would have the parental rights and powers in relation to the child,";

(iii) after the words "otherwise direct, the local authority" there are inserted the words ".and any voluntary organisation having parental rights and powers with respect to the child,";

(c) in subsection (4), after the words "local authority" there are inserted the words "or voluntary organization".

41 B. In section 32(2)—

(a) for paragraphs (b) and (c) there is substituted—

"(b) he is falling into bad associations or is exposed to moral danger; or

(c) lack of parental care is likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or seriously to impair his health or development; or";

(b) in paragraph (d), for the words Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937"there is substituted "Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 ";

(c) after paragraph (d) there is inserted—

"(dd) the child is, or is likely to become, a member of the same household as a person who has committed any of the offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1975; or".")

page 61, line 38, at end insert—
("42A. In section 49(3) for the words "The sheriff may examine the reporter and" there is substituted—
"The reporter, whether or not he is conducting the proceedings before the sheriff, may be examined by the sheriff; and the sheriff may examine".
42B. In section 69—

(a) in subsection (1), at the end there are added the following words—

"; and a court, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the child is within any premises, may grant a search warrant authorising a constable to search those premises for the child."

(b) for subsection (5) there is substituted—

"(5) In this and the next following section any reference—

(a) to a child absconding includes a reference to his being unlawfully taken away;

(b) to a child absconding from a place or from the control of a person includes a reference to his absconding while being taken to, or awaiting to be taken to, that place or that person as the case may be."

1351
42C In section 70, at the end there are added the following words—

"; and a court, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the child is within any premises may grant a search warrant authorising a constable to search those premises for the child".

42D In section 71 for the words "one hundred pounds" there is substituted "£400".
42E In section 44(5) after "20", there is inserted "20A.".")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 286 and 287 together. We have already discussed Amendment No. 286 with Amendments Nos. 126 and 129 concerning parental rights; Amendment No. 287 was discussed with Amendment No. 172, retrieval of the child. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 286 and 287.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 288 to 293]
Schedule 3, page 63, line 40, leave out paragraph 43.
Page 64, leave out paragraph 45.
Page 64, line 13, leave out ("reference") and insert ("references")
leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—
(""(c) in subsection (4), for the reference to section 14 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 there shall be substituted a reference to section 20(1) of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (which provides for re-registration of births in certain cases)." ")
Page 64, line 37, at end insert—
(" Housing Act 1969 (c.33)
49A. In section 86(2) for the words "any illegitimate son or daughter and any adopted son or daughter "there are substituted the words " and any illegitimate son or daughter".")
Page 64, line 38, at end insert—
("49B. In section 1(2) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph (b):—
"(bb) it is probable that the condition set out in paragraph (a) of this subsection will be satisfied in his case, having regard to the fact that a person who has been convicted of an offence mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1933 is, or may become, a member of the same household as the child;" ").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House. I should like to move another major block of Amendments together, comprising Nos.
1352
288 to 293, all relating to Schedule 3. I think that these are part of this whole question of drafting and similar Amendments. I beg to move them en bloc in the spirit stated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the commons in their Amendments Nos. 288 to 293 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 294.]
Schedule 3, page 65, line 11, at end insert—
("51A. The following section is inserted after section 21—
"Termination of care order on adoption, etc.
21A. A care order relating to a child shall cease to have effect—

(a) on the adoption of the child;

(b) if an order under section 13 or Section (Adoption of children abroad) of the Children Act 1975 is made in relation to the child;

(c) if an order similar to an order under section (Adoption of children abroad) of the Children Act 1975 is made in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands in relation to the child."

51B. In section 27—

(a) in subsection (3), for the words "their general duty aforesaid" there are substituted the words their general duty under section 12(1) of the Children Act 1948";

(b) the following subsections are substituted for subsection (4)—

"(4) Without prejudice to their general duty under the said section 12, it shall be the duty of a local authority to review the case of each child in their care in accordance with regulations made under the following subsection.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—

(a) the manner in which cases are to be reviewed under this section;

(b) the considerations to which the local authority are to have regard in reviewing cases under this section; and

(c) the time when a child's case is first to be reviewed and the frequency of subsequent reviews under this section.".

51C. In section 58(1) the following passage is inserted after paragraph (b)—
"(bb) premises in which a child is living with a person other than his parent, guardian, or relative or custodian, with whom he has been placed by an adoption agency (within the meaning of section 1 of the Children Act 1975);" ")
10.40 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 294 formally. It was discussed with No. 170. It relates to the six-monthly review. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 295 to 304]
Schedule 3, page 65, line 20, at end insert—
("(2) In Schedule 8—

(a) in paragraph 5, after the words "Social Security Act 1966"there are inserted the words "or section 40 of the Children Act 1975";

(b) after paragraph 11, there is inserted the following paragraph—

"12. An order under section 31(1)(b) of the Children Act 1975 (payments of maintenance in respect of a child to his custodian).".")

Schedule 3, page 65, line 22, after ("1") insert ("(a) at the end of the entry relating to the Adoption Act 1958 there are added the following words "counselling services for adopted persons"; (b)")
Schedule 3, page 65, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
Page 66, line 6, leave out ("child is free for adoption") and insert ("minor is free for adoption (within the meaning of section 11(6) of the Children Act 1975).
(2A) In section 13(2), after the words "order for the payment of money" there are inserted the words " made by a magistrates' court" ").
Page 66, line 12, at end insert—
(" (c) in subsection (5), for the words from "section 9" to "so given" there are substituted the words "section 3(3) or 4(3A) of the Guardianship Act 1973 for the discharge or variation of a supervision order or, as the case may be, an order giving the care of a minor to a local authority or an order requiring payments to be made to an authority to whom care of a minor is so given".")
Page 66, line 13, leave out subparagraph (4).
Page 66, line 14, at end insert—
("Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c. 32)
54A. In Schedule 1—

(a) in paragraph 6, after the words "Social Security Act 1966" there are inserted the words" or section 40 of the Children Act 1975";

(b) after paragraph 11, there is inserted the following paragraph—

"12. An order under section 31(1)(b) of the Children Act 1975 (payments of maintenance in respect of a child to his custodian).".

"Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972 (c. 48)
54B. In section 15(6) for the words "a stepchild or adopted child" there are substituted the words "or a stepchild".")
Page 66, line 25, leave out paragraph 57.
Page 66, line 27, at end insert—
(" 57A.—(1) In section 4(3) for the words from "the following provisions" to the end there are substituted the following words "sections 12(2) and 13 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 shall apply as if the order made under section 2 of this Act were an order under section 9 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971.
(2) After section 4(3) there is inserted the following subsection—

"(3A) An order under section 2(2)(b) or (3) above relating to a minor maybe varied or discharged by a subsequent order made on the application of either parent or after the death of either parent on the application of any guardian under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 or on the application of the local authority to whose care the minor was committed by the order under section 2(2)(b)." "

Page 66, line 31, leave out paragraph 59.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this matter again relates to a large block of Amendments in Schedule 3. With the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 295 to 304 en bloc. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 305 and 306]
Schedule 3, page 66, line 40, leave out ("paragraph is") and insert ("paragraphs are").
Schedule 3, page 66, line 42, at end insert—
(" (g) proceedings under section (Appeals by parents etc.) (2) of the Children Act 1975".".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 formally. They were discussed with Nos. 126 and 129. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 307 and 308]
Schedule 3, page 66, line 42, at end insert&—
("Housing Act 1974 (c. 44)
61. In section 129(4) for the words "any illegitimate son or daughter and any adopted

("PART I

STATUS OF ADOPTED CHILD

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

16 & 17 Geo. 5. c. 29.

Adoption of Children Act 1926.

The whole Act so far as unrepealed.

3 & 4 Geo. 6. c. 42.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous (Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940

Section 2(1) and (3).

11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 43.

Children Act 1948.

In section 59(1), in the definition of "parent", paragraph (a).

11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 53.

Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948.

In section 13(2), in the definition of "relative" (as inserted by section 13 of the Adoption of Children Act 1949), paragraph (a).

12 & 13 Geo. 6. c. 76.

Marriage Act 1949.

In section 68(3), the words from "includes" to "but".

12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 98.

Adoption of Children Act 1949.

Section 13(l)(a).

14 & 15 Geo. 6. c.11.

Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act 1950.

Section 26(2).

1 & 2 Eliz. 2. c. 20.

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.

In section 41, in the definition of "relative" the words from "and in relation to" to the end.

3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c. 18.

Army Act 1955.

In section 150(5), in the paragraph relating to a child of a person, the words "or adopted" and the words from "and in this paragraph" to the end of the paragraph.

3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c. 19.

Air Force Act 1955.

In section 15(5), in the paragraph relating to a child of a person, the words "or adopted" and the words from "and in this paragraph" to the end of the paragraph.

4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 69.

Sexual Offences Act 1956.

In section 28(4), in paragraph (a) the words from "has been adopted" to "a girl who" and the words "(and has not been so adopted)".

4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c.70.

Marriage (Scotland) Act 1956.

In section 1(5), paragraph (a) and the words "or adoptive parent" in paragraph (b).

6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 65.

Children Act 1958.

In section 17, the definition of "parent".

6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 40.

Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958.

In section 7(1)(b), the words "or an adopted".

Section 7(3).

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

Sections 13 and 14.

Sections 15(1), (2) and (3).

Sections 16 and 17.

Section 18(1).

Section 25.

In section 52(1) the words "(whether in law or in fact)".

In section 57(1), in the definition of "relative" paragraph (a.)

Section 58(2) and (3).

In Schedule 5 paragraphs 1 to 4.

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 65.

Fatal Accidents Act 1959.

In section 1, subsection (2)(a) and sub-section (3).

7 &8 Eliz. 2. c. 72.

Mental Health Act 1959.

In section 49, in subsection (2) the words from "an adopted person" to "as aforesaid", and subsection (5).

8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 48.

Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act 1960.

In section 16(1), the words "or adopted" and "but does not include a child adopted by some other person or persons", and the words from "and adopted" to the end.

son or daughter" there are substituted the words "and any illegitimate son or daughter".")
Schedule 4, page 67, leave out from beginning of line 3 to end of Schedule and insert&—

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

8 & amp; 9 Eliz. 2. c. 59.

Adoption Act 1960.

Section 1(2).

8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 61.

Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960.

In section 45, in subsection (2) the words from "adopted person" to "person; and"; and subsection (5).

1964 c. 57.

Adoption Act 1964.

Section 1(1), (2) and (4).

1965 c. 49.

Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Scotland Act 1965.

In section 56(1), in the definition of "relative" the words from "and in relation to" to the end.

1965 c. 53.

Family Allowances Act 1965.

Section 17(4).

1967 c. 29.

Housing Subsidies Act 1967.

In section 24(3)(c), the word "adopted".

1967 c. 81.

Companies Act 1967.

In section 30(2), the words "and adopted son" and "and adopted daughter".

In section 31(5), the words "and adopted son" and "and adopted daughter".

1967 c. 88.

Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

In section 7(7), the words "and any adopted son or daughter".

In section 18(3), the words "and any adopted son or daughter".

1968 c. 49.

Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

In section 94(1), in the definition of "parent", paragraph (a).

1968 c. 53.

Adoption Act 1968.

Section 4(1) and (2)

Section 10(2) and (3).

1968 c. 71.

Race Relations Act 1968.

In section 7(4) the words "and any adopted son or daughter".

1971 c. 56.

Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.

In section 3(7), the words from "and includes" to the end.

1973 c. 16.

Education Act 1973.

In section 3(5), the words from "and a Child" to the end.

1973 c. 18.

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

In section 52(1), the definition of "adopted" and, in the definition of "child", the words or "adopted".

1973 c. 45.

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.

In section 4(5), the words from "and in its Application" to the end.

1975 c. 14.

Social Security Act 1975.

In section 32(3)(c), the words "the same relationship by adoption and to include also"

In section 71(6), the words "and a parent by adoption".

In section 161(2), the words "a son or daughter by adoption and".

In Schedule 20, in the definition of "relative" the words "or adoption".

1975 c. 61.

Child Benefit Act 1975.

Section 24(3)(c.)

The repeals of sections 16 and 17 of the 1958 Act, and of provisions containing references to those sections, have effect subject to paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1, and the other repeals in this Part have effect as respect things done, or events occurring after 31st December 1975.

PARE II

LEGITIMATION

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

16&amp;17Geo. 5.c. 60.

Legitimacy Act 1926.

Section 1(3).

Sections 3 to 5.

In section 8(2), the words from "and to the taking" to "of a legitimated person".

In section 11, the definitions of "disposition", "intestate" and "entailed interest".

1969 c. 46.

Family Law Reform Act 1969.

Section 14(8).

Section 15(4) and (6).

These repeals have effect subject to paragraph 11(8) of Schedule 1.

PART III

MISCELLANEOUS

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

23 & 25 Geo. 5.c. 12.

Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

In section 1, in subsection (l)(a), the words "not exceeding one hundred pounds", and in subsection (5), the words from "the maximum" to "pounds, and".

1937 c 37.

Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

In section 12, in subsection (l)(a), the words "not exceeding one hundred pound", and in subsection (5)(o) the words from "the maximum" to "pounds, and".

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

In section 4(2), the words from "(either" to "brought up)".

Section 7(1)(b) and (2).

In section 20(4), the words from "pursuant to" to "in force".

Section 21(3).

Section 49.

In section 57(1) the definition of "infant".

Schedules 1 and 2.

1963 c. 37.

Children and Young Persons Act 1963.

Sections 49 and 54.

1965 c. 49.

Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965

Section 54(l)(d).

1968 c. 22.

Legitimation (Scotland) Act 1968.

In section 6(3), the words "or to subsection (1) of that section".

1968 c. 53.

Adoption Act 1968.

Sections 1 to 3.

In section 9(5), the words "or adoption".

In section 11(1), the definitions of "qualified Infant", "qualified person" and "qualified spouses".

In section 12(1), the words "or under Part I of the Act of 1958 in its application to adoption orders and proposed adoption orders", the words "or the said Part I" in both places where they occur and the words from "and the rules" to the end.

In section 14(3), the words from "except the" to "1958 and".

1969 c. 54.

Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

Section 27(2).

1973 c. 29.

Guardianship Act 1973.

Section 3(5).

These repeals take effect on 1st January 1976.

PART IV

ADOPTION ORDERS

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

Sections 1 and 2.

Sections 4 and 5.

Section 7(l)(a) and (c) and (3).

Section 9(l) and (5).

Section 10.

Section 11(1) and (3).

Section 12.

Section 21(2).

1966 c. 19.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1966.

Section 4.

1971 c. 3.

Guardianship of Minors Act 1971.

Section 16(2).

These repeals take effect on the date section 7(1) comes into force.

PART V

CHILDREN IN CARE OF LOCAL AUTHORITES

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

10 & 11 Geo. 6. c.43.

Children Act 1948.

Section 3(1) and (2).

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

Section 15(4) and (5).

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 72.

Mental Health Act 1959.

In Schedule 7, the entry relating to the Children Act 1948.

1963 c. 37.

Children and Young Persons Act 1963.

Section 48.

1968 c. 49.

Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

Section 17(1) and (2).

In section 18(4) the words " but where on such an application the court appoints a guardian the resolution shall cease to have effect".

1971 c.3.

Guardianship of Minors Act 1971.

In section 5(2) the words from "but where "to the end.

These repeals take effect on the date sections 50 and 58 come into force.

PART VI

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

1953 c. 20.

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.

In section 3, the words "and of any person in whose charge the child may be placed" and the proviso.

In section 6, the words "or finding" and in that section and in section 7 the words "or from the date when any living new-born child is found exposed".

In section 8, the words "or, in the case of a living new-born child found exposed, from the date of the finding".

In section 36(a), the words "or any living new-born child".

1969 c. 46.

Family Law Reform Act 1969.

Section 27(2), (3), (4) and (5).

These repeals take effect on the date section 65 comes into force.

PART VII

ADOPTION AGENCIES

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

Section 28(2).

Sections 30 and 31.

In section 32(3) the words from "children" to the end.

In selection 57(1) the definitions of "charitable association" and "registered adoption society".

Schedule 3.

1970 c. 42

Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.

In column 2 of Schedule 1, the words "Making etc. arrangements for the adoption of children; regulation of adoption societies.".

These repeals take effect on the date section 3 comes into force.

PART VIII

GUARDIANS AD LITEM ETC. IN ADOPTION CASES

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c.5.

Adoption Act 1958.

Section 6.

Section 9(7) and (8).

Section 11(4) and (5).

These repeals take effect on the date section 19 comes into force.

PART IX

INQUIRIES ETC. BY ADOPTION AGENCIES

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

Section 3.

Section 8.

Section 53.

In section 57 (1), the defintion of "Compulsory School age."

These repeals take effect on the date section 17 comes into force.

PART X

GRANTS ETC. FOR VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

10 & 11 Geo. 6.C.43.

Children Act 1948

Section 45(2).

Section 65(2).)

1969 c. 54

Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

Section 65(2).

These repeals take effect on the date paragraphs 36 and 37 of Schedule 3 come into force

PART XI

PROTECTED CHILDREN

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

In section 37(1), paragraph (a), the words "of the person first mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection or, as the case may be," and the words "but is foster child within the meaning of Part I of the Children Act 1958".

Section 37(2) and (5).

Section 40(1), (2) and (3).

Sections 41 and 42.

In section 43(1), the words from "or in contravention" to "of this Act".

These repeals take effect on the date paragraph 24(A) of Schedule 3 comes into force.

PART XII

CUSTODIANSHIP

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

1973 c. 29.

Guardianship Act 1973.

In section 2, in subsection (2)(b), the words "or to any other individual" and in subsection (4)(b) the words "or to any person given the custody of the minor".

In section 3(3), the words from "or (before" to "section 9(1) of that Act" and the words from "and section 16(5)" to the end.

These repeals take effect on the date section 30 comes into force.")

Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we have now reached the last two Amendments. They relate to Schedules 3 and 4. Amendment No. 308 lists various repeals which are made by the Bill which we have been discussing, and I beg to move them formally as the last act of our deliberations today. May I thank noble Lords, and particularly noble Baronesses, for being so understanding in bearing with me as I have clung to my brief as a drowning man to his lifebelt. But I hope that between us we have been able to have a useful discussion on this very valuable Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.&—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, notwithstanding the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to move the Adjournment, I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of my noble friends to record our thanks. We all admired the tremendous contribution which my noble friend Lady Young made to this Bill until a very late stage, with a mixture of intellectual grasp and human compassion, which is ideal for the job in hand, from which she was unfortunately taken to take part in the proceedings on another Bill. Other noble and learned Lords have been of great assistance. Your Lordships should take note that the only noble Lord on either Front Bench who has been here continuously from start to finish of this exercise has been my noble friend Lord Sandys, whose persistent and lucid contributions have had a great effect upon the Bill. The Bill is indeed a noble edifice and reflects credit on this House, and on the other place, if I may say it without being deemed to be in any way
1368
patronising, where there were many instances of inter-Party co-operation and compromise which were edifying to all of us. I think I might add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and his team of advisers who have been extremely helpful to us on this side; and our congratulations to the noble Lord. Lord Winterbottom, who has come through a very testing time unshaken and without having created any animosity against himself as a result. My Lords, I beg to support the two Amendments.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for explaining so well tonight the difficult clauses. I would also add that I hope this legislation will help many children. Whatever legislation is passed, I still do not think it will be any good without the help of the community in safeguarding children at risk.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I did not wish to movethe adjournment of the House a moment sooner than was absolutely necessary for your Lordships to complete this very important Bill and that I have listened to your Lordships' deliberations with the greatest of interest.

BROOKWOOD CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
  SHARD BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  CONCORDE: TAKE-OFF AND LANDING NOISE
  CONCORDE: TAKE-OFF AND LANDING NOISE