Sitting of 14 October 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Educational Expenditure
    Dr. Hampsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in view of the economic situation, he will make a statement on the priorities which he has established for educational expenditure.
    Mr. Les Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement on the effects of public expenditure cuts on his Department.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Fred Mulley): I outlined my priorities for educational expenditure to the CLEA conference in July and since then advice has been given to local education authorities in the joint circular on local authority expenditure in 1976–77. At a time of severe public expenditure restraint, I attach greatest priority to the protection of the school system for those of statutory school age, and provision for those young people in the 16–19 age group who are making the transition from learning to earning. Priority must also be given to the completion of comprehensive reorganisation of the secondary school system and to ensuring that adequate special consideration is given to the needs of the educationally disadvantaged.
    Dr. Hampson: There has never been such a squeeze on national and local resources as there is under this Government. Why is the Minister making a special allocation of these precious resources to the comprehensive reorganisation of secondary education when many
    1108
    of its products—the 16–19-year-olds—cannot find jobs? Does the right hon. Gentleman not envisage a special rôle for further education in this field? What machinery will he set up or co-ordinate between the Department of Employment and his own Department to deal with unemployed school leavers?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman should take a little more care about his facts. There are few young people in the 16–19 age group who have completed the whole of their secondary education in comprehensive schools. It is a matter for argument that they might be better placed to obtain employment if they had.
    In conjunction with the Department of Employment we are concerned about the problem of jobs for school leavers. The problem is not caused by the educational system; it is a result of the general economic situation of the country which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not as good as we would wish it to be.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend remind local education authorities that when they draw up their local priorities they have a duty to provide free school meals? Further, will he agree that the situation highlighted at a school in Leicester in a recent report by the Child Poverty Action Group cannot be tolerated now or in the future, irrespective of the national and local constraints placed upon educational expenditure?
    Mr. Mulley: It is perfectly true that there is no justification for the deprivation of school meals. My hon. Friend the Minister visited Leicester last week, and a working party has also gone there to discuss the matter with the local authority. I am hopeful that a solution can be found to the problem in Leicestershire. I am in the difficulty that I have no powers whatever to ensure that the moneys for education voted by Parliament through the rate support grant system are actually spent by the local education authorities on education. Even if I suggested that I should have more powers of direction in respect of local education authorities, the whole of the Conservative Party would be up in arms.
    Mr. Steen: Is the youth service still viewed by the Government as being on the bottom rung of the education priority

    1109
    ladder? If it is not on the bottom rung, what is?
    Mr. Mulley: We do not regard the provision of funds as being on a snakes-and-ladders basis. The hon. Gentleman has tabled a later Question on that subject. It is obvious that if priority is given to one sector other services will suffer. It would be quite wrong to give priority to everything. This is a matter of language and administration. I do not place the youth service as high, for example, as I do the provision of school meals.

    School Milk
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet decided what he will do to restore free school milk for children from 8 to 11 years old.
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if it is now the Government's intention to reintroduce free school milk for children aged 7 to 11 years.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be able to announce the reintroduction of free school milk for 8–11-year-olds.
    Mr. Mulley: In the present economic situation it is not possible to reimpose the obligation to supply free school milk to all children of junior school age. Subject to this, I am consulting the local authority associations about the possibility of modifying the existing arrangements.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: What, exactly, does that answer mean? The Secretary of State for the Environment has been advising local authorities on ways in which they can sharply reduce their expenditures. Is not the inference of the Minister's answer that he is considering increased expenditure by local authorities? Is there not an incipient conflict here?
    Mr. Mulley: There is no incipient conflict. I am concerned to take from the statute book the proposition of 1971 that, in the context of school food, milk should be treated differently from every other kind of beverage and food, and cannot be supplied by local education authorities
    1110
    below not merely the cost but the cost plus the overheads. That proposition cannot be allowed to rest on the statute book. The consultations that I have mentioned have arisen on the question of the amount of additional funds that could be employed for the supply of school milk.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will cause a great deal of disappointment to many hon. Members, the more so as the Government have found themselves unable to reverse one of the nastiest and most despicable acts of the Leader of the Opposition? We appreciate the difficult economic circumstances, but there is nevertheless a strong feeling that the Government ought to reintroduce free school milk, particularly at a time of a high level of unemployment and when school meals are being drastically reduced in value content. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the position sympathetically?
    Mr. Mulley: I met my hon. Friend's first point by saying that we needed to change the 1971 Act, to which he understandably takes great objection. I do not think that in the present situation it is possible to have a general reimposition of free school milk, but because I am anxious to improve the present situation I am having discussions with the local authorities, which will in part have to finance such an extension. That is the only reason for these discussions, and I hope that we can work out something which will improve the present position and make it possible, in the longer term, to return to the pre-1971 situation.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that some milk is available this winter to distribute?
    Mr. Mulley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will pay to that observation the great attention he usually pays to what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.

    School Transport
    Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now announce his proposals for amending the law in respect of school transport.
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he can now make a statement on his intentions with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Working Party report on School Buses.
    Mr. Mulley: Proposals for new transport arrangements have been sent to the local authority associations and other interested organisations. There is, however, no easy answer to the many problems involved, and I do not expect full replies to be available for some considerable time.
    Dr. Marshall: Considering that it is two years since the working party on school transport submitted its report, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that parents throughout the country are growing impatient with the long delay in introducing new legislation on this matter, and that they look to the Government to make up their mind even if the local authorities cannot make up theirs?
    Mr. Mulley: It would be wrong to enter into a completely different system of supplying school transport without full consultation with the local authorities. They have set up working parties to study my proposals and it is only reasonable to give them sufficient time.
    Mr. Kershaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this question has become more urgent than ever in view of the remarkable rise in bus fares recently? Is he aware that numerous families are paying £6 and even £8 a week—which is a heavy impost—for their children to get to school?
    Mr. Mulley: I accept the serious nature of the problem, which is why I am trying to find a solution which does not add to public expenditure. It would probably mean that some who now get free public transport would make a contribution while others who now pay the full economic cost would get it below the full economic cost.
    Mrs. Bain: Bearing in mind the recent rise in transport costs and the Government's commitment to free education for all, will not the right hon. Gentleman recommend an interim measure whereby, until the local authority working parties have reported, the age level for the half fare would be raised from 14 to 16?
    Mr. Mulley: This is strictly a matter not for the education authorities but for the transport undertakings. It would, of course, involve the transport undertakings requiring a further subsidy in place of the fares that they would forgo. But this is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. Conlan: Does not my right hon. Friend understand that unless haste is made in making changes in the present unsatisfactory arrangements we shall have many repetitions of the recent case of a 14½-year-old girl being turned off a bus because she could not pay the adult fare? Apparently, youngsters are being treated as children by local education authorities but as adults by the local transport authorities.
    Mr. Mulley: I am not sure whether the girl was making a journey to school or elsewhere, but if my hon. Friend will let me have details of the case, I shall see what I can do—subject, of course, to the restrictions on my power.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is it not sad that a former Minister of Transport should be so indifferent and complacent about the virtual breakdown of the school transport service, particularly in rural areas? Is it not time that we had some indication of his attitude, first, on the whole principle of giving parents a right to public transport and, secondly, on getting rid of the anomalies of the present law relating to distances and fares?
    Mr. Mulley: It is to deal with the present anomalies that I have made my proposals to the local authority associations. To get rid of those anomalies will mean that some who now get free transport will have to pay. That is the essence of the difficulties. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's strictures, I must remind him that he was a Minister in the Department of Education and Science for a longer time after the report was received than I have been. Within six weeks of taking office, I put my proposals to the local authority associations.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Bus Company operating in Ribble, in the Lancashire area, has increased charges for children from one-half to two-thirds of the adult fare, which in many cases is

    1113
    costing local parents one-fifth or one-sixth of the total family income on getting their children to school? This will have an impact on the charges of the county, which is paying above the three-mile limit for children to get to school, which means a subsequent charge on the rates.
    Mr. Mulley: I appreciate the problem, but my hon. Friend has put his finger on the difficulty. What we would like to do—greatly extend the provision of school transport—would greatly increase the rate burden, an anxiety which has been expressed to me by the local authority associations.

    Public Lending Right
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement of Government policy on public lending right.
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on Government policy towards public lending rights.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Hugh Jenkins): As I assured the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on 15th July—[Vol. 895, c. 444–5.]—progress is being well maintained, and the Government intend to bring forward detailed legislative proposals as soon as possible.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since the hon. Gentleman has already promised the House solemnly, three times, that legislation would be introduced this Session, what reliance can be placed on his promise today? When these proposals do see the light of day, may we have a guarantee that it will be principally a loan-based scheme, financed from the Exchequer and not by the local authorities, and that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to get the measure on the statute book before the rumour in The Guardian that he is to be replaced by a noble Lady is fulfilled?
    Mr. Jenkins: On the serious part of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I point out to him that I have made clear to the House on several occasions precisely why we decided to change our plans in this matter. We could easily have
    1114
    introduced legislation in the present Session, but it would have been totally unsatisfactory. We could have introduced the legislation which he himself was proposing to introduce, but that would have been totally unacceptable to the authors. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has changed his tune and wants a different type of legislation. The legislation which we shall introduce will be acceptable to the authors, and we hope to have the plans before very long. I am awaiting the final report of the technical investigation group. When that report is received, we shall proceed further.
    Mr. Moate: Any system of public lending right will involve several million pounds of expenditure by ratepayers and taxpayers. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that when he brings forward his legislative proposals they will not be wholly welcomed, particularly by the many people who dislike the idea of there being a massive State subsidy for unsuccessful authors?
    Mr. Jenkins: As the hon. Gentleman will have observed by the reaction to that supplementary question, many hon. Members on both sides of the House do not agree with him and will welcome the legislation when it comes forward, which I hope will be before very long.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the Minister come clean and tell us how much money will be involved in producing meaningful awards for the authors whom we all want to help? How much per year will the Minister provide for the scheme?
    Mr. Jenkins: The Bill, when it is introduced, will provide the answers which the hon. Gentleman seeks.

    Student Accommodation
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up a working party, in collaboration with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors, to make a special study of student accommodation other than purpose-built halls of residence.
    Mr. Mulley: I have no plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospect for building large halls of residence is not very bright, and

    1115
    that considerable strains are likely to be placed on housing accommodation in the big industrial university cities? Is there not a case for an examination of the general problem of student accommodation, particularly in respect of the point that has been raised that householders who offer this accommodation could become liable to capital transfer tax?
    Mr. Mulley: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the problem, but I do not know that the proposal contained in his Question, for the setting up of a working party, would necessarily get us much further. The purpose-built halls of residence are not universally popular with students, and very few are demanded now. Equally, neither students nor those concerned with homelessness are anxious that students shoud be given preferential arrangements under the Rent Act, so it is a case of trying to deal with the problem in each locality. As we both have the privilege of serving the same city, my hon. Friend knows that in Sheffield the university has combined with the polytechnic, the City Council and other interested bodies to form a housing society, with a view to seeing how best to resolve these problems, and that pattern could well be followed elsewhere.
    Mr. Lane: Is the Secretary of State aware that in constituencies like Cambridge potential student landlords and landladies are being frightened off both by capital transfer tax and the Rent Act 1974? [Interruption.] This is a serious matter. Labour Members must realise that. Will the Minister support the efforts to improve the situation which some of us have been making with the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, because the Government are not taking this problem seriously enough?
    Mr. Mulley: I should be very happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman. We need to pool all possible ideas, but the difficulty, basically, stems from the chronic shortage of housing accommodation in many places.

    Governing of Schools
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made by the inquiry into the governing of schools announced by his predecessor.
    Mr. George Gardinerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress made by the inquiry into the governing of schools announced by his predecessor.
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made by the inquiry announced by his predecessor into the governing of schools.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): The committee has held a number of meetings, has invited evidence from interested organisations and individuals and from the general public, and has started a series of visits to selected areas in England and Wales.
    Mr. Silvester: Is the Minister prepared to declare now that in judging the report which the committee of inquiry will produce she will look particularly at suggestions for improving the participation of parents in the control of the kind and style of education in the schools to which they send their children?
    Miss Lestor: I am sure that the committee will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. We do not try to prejudge what a committee is doing. The committee's terms of reference are very wide, and I am sure that his point will be considered by it.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what priority is to be given to nursery education in the future allocation of resources.
    Mr. Mulley: I have already made it clear that in the period of severe restraint which lies ahead the first priority must be to protect the education of children of compulsory school age. I was pleased, however, to be able to announce recently a nursery education building programme of £8½ million to start in 1976–77.
    Mr. Gould: Have precise allocations for nursery education yet been made to individual local authorities? If so, what allocation has been made to Hampshire, what has been its reaction, and what action does my right hon. Friend propose if, as happened last year, Hampshire declines to take up its allocation?
    Mr. Mulley: Allocations have been made to local authorities. They were announced just before the House rose for the recess. I think that Hampshire has renounced some of its building allocation for the current year. It is entirely a matter for local education authorities to decide whether or not to avail themselves of the allocation, which carries with it loan sanction but has to be serviced in the normal way of local authority debt. If some authorities were to apply to us for higher allocations we would consider those applications sympathetically, if other authorities did not take up their full allocation.
    Mr. Fry: Is the Secretary of State aware of the problems experienced by one-parent families and the need for nursery education, which is very pressing in many parts of the country? Will he investigate ways of helping these families, for example, by allowing one classroom to remain open until 5 o'clock to allow mothers and fathers to go out to work and not have to rely on State agencies? Would that not be good for their health and probably for the children as well?
    Mr. Mulley: I agree that this development should be encouraged. We have had full discussions with the Department of Health and Social Security with a view to working out joint arrangements for day nurseries and nursery classes. Day nurseries come under the DHSS and nursery classes under the Department of Education and Science. Those discussions were undertaken with a view to sending out guidance to local authorities along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to say that already some nursery classes are available outside normal school hours to meet the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Should not the Secretary of State tell the House that the allocation of £9 million of which he is so proud represents a reduction of 133 per cent. on the allocation made by the previous Conservative Government? Is it not a crazy sense of social priorities to be able to find £200 million for indiscriminate food and housing subsidies but not to be able to find a few million pounds for this vital programme?
    Mr. Mulley: I can go better than the hon. Gentleman. I cannot say offhand
    1118
    whether his figures are right but I should be surprised, and it would make history, if they were. As to the exact percentage, the difference between the £9 million for 1976–77 and the £17 million for 1975–76 is accounted for by the fact that we have been told, mainly by Conservative local authorities, that if they were given allocations for this purpose they would not use them. One of my hon. Friends has already made that point.

    Direct-Grant Schools
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many recent representations he has received asking him to review the Government's decision to phase out direct-grant schools.
    Miss Joan Lestor: Since I replied to the similar Question on 10th July 1975—[Vol. 889, c. 243.]—about 2,500 letters have been received.
    Mr. Morrison: Does the Minister agree that, however much the Labour Party's left wing may be pushing for the immediate abolition of direct-grant schools, it would make more sense to delay such a costly procedure, at least until the country can afford it?
    Miss Lestor: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that all wings of my party are pressing for the abolition of direct grants to schools. One would expect a reaction from people whose privileges or pockets are threatened, but they are in a minority.
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what study he has made of the proposals for extending nursery education included in the report of National Labour Women's Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement.
    Miss Joan Lestor: The report, which dealt with the whole range of provision for the under-fives, is still being studied by my Department and the Department of Health and Social Security. My right hon. Friend will be writing to the National Labour Women's Advisory Committee about those proposals which concern nursery education.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister give the House some figures of the proportion of children, in appropriate age groups,

    1119
    who are receiving nursery education and any data which may be available on the social mix of those children? Will she agree that the first step to equal opportunity is the spread of universal nursery education? Does she not deplore some of the recent Government cuts in public expenditure, particularly those affecting teacher training, which will have a dangerous effect on nursery education?
    Miss Lestor: In regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I do not have the latest figures available for pre-school children, but I shall see that he receives them. On the more general point, I and everybody else would deplore any difficulties in provision for the pre-school child following the present restraint on Government expenditure, but I hope that local authorities will look carefully at areas of social disadvantage, since the whole point of the Government's anti-inflationary policy is not to hit those who are already disadvantaged.

    English Language (Remedial Teaching)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will seek powers to provide finance for the remedial teaching of English in cities with large immigrant populations.
    Miss Joan Lestor: Under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 authorities with immigrant populations can already claim Government grant at the rate of 75 per cent. on the salaries of staff specially employed to deal with the language and other special needs of Commonwealth immigrants.
    Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that her brief visit to Leicester last week was much appreciated? Is she also aware that, in spite of any help that may be available, remedial teachers in Leicester are encountering great difficulties? Can she give some positive hope of financial help to them in their efforts?
    Miss Lestor: I much enjoyed my visit to Leicester, and I was interested to see the efforts that are being made there to deal with some of the difficulties. At the moment I cannot hold out any hope of further allowances, but the matter is constantly under review. My hon. and learned Friend may like to write to me about this if he feels so inclined.

    Colleges of Education (Closure)
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many of the colleges of education whose closure has so far been announced have plans for alternative educational use which have been drawn to his attention.
    Mr. Mulley: My Department is aware that such plans are being considered in respect of five colleges which are to give up initial teacher training.
    Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it would be a severe loss if all the axed colleges had their buildings taken over for use as training centres for nationalised industries or commercial concerns without any use of the existing teaching staff? Will he encourage those colleges, such as Alnwick, which are ambitiously seeking new rôles, and ensure that his Department does not jeopardise their recognised status or the salary protection of their staffs if they find new opportunities for educational use?
    Mr. Mulley: It would be my wish that all the colleges should be retained within the further education sector or for other educational purposes if at all possible, but it is for the local education authority in each case to consider the situation and to put forward proposals.
    Dr. Hampson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the country needs more mediocre liberal arts courses and qualifications as much as more unemployment? Why is his Department allowing the reorganisation of the colleges to produce so many mediocre courses in the liberal arts and the humanities, with the consequent waste of public resources?
    Mr. Mulley: I am not exactly sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "mediocre courses." I think it desirable that we extend facilities and courses for young people in the 16–19 age group particularly. We have to do that if we are only to stand still in terms of percentages in the context of further education. What the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends must understand is that these matters are within the discretion of the local authorities. That means that I cannot answer for the authorities in this respect. If the

    1121
    hon. Gentleman likes to propose that I should be given such powers I shall be interested to consider his proposals.

    Teachers (Employment)
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the latest unemployment statistics for the teaching profession; and if he will make a statement on projected levels of teacher employment in the next 12 months.
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many newly-qualified teachers are unemployed at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Mulley: In September 1975,3,237 unemployed school teachers in a profession of about 500,000 were recorded at employment offices in England and Wales. The Department of Employment records do not distinguish between newly qualified and other teachers. The number of teachers likely to be employed next year will depend partly on the rate support grant for 1976–77 still to be negotiated with the local authority associations.
    Mr. Freud: I appreciate the Secretary of State's reply, but does he realise the serious damage to morale in the teaching profession that is caused by any unemployment? Is he aware that teacher resources are currently being wasted? In view of the announcement that Strathclyde needs hundreds of teachers and that many vacancies cannot be filled, what steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to permit unemployed teachers in England to apply for teaching posts in Scotland?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that the hon. Gentleman's Scottish point is mainly a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think it is the case that whereas Scottish-trained teachers are able to obtain jobs in England and Wales, the reverse is not so. If the hon. Gentleman has a word with his Scottish National friends, it might assist the change that he has in mind. I accept completely what he says. We hate the waste of resources involved in unemployment in any sector but, equally, it is no help to the morale of the teaching profession when grossly exaggerated claims are made. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not make them, but they are made
    1122
    from time to time. Although an increase of a quarter of 1 per cent. of teachers unemployed as between this September and last September is a matter that we do not like, it is not anything like the massive unemployment that we sometimes hear spoken about.
    Miss Fookes: As good teachers are more important than any educational system, is it not a curious sense of priorities that enables £25 million to spent on comprehensive reorganisation rather than on paying salaries to teachers of children?
    Mr. Mulley: If that were factually the case I would have some sympathy with the hon. Lady, whom we welcome to the Opposition Front Bench. In the rate support grant for the current year there were sufficient resources to employ all the teachers available. Many local authorities, including, I think, the hon. Lady's, have decided that for their own reasons they will not employ their full quota of teachers. That is the nature of the problem.
    Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principle of comprehensive education is to ensure that ultimately we have efficient equality at the starting point so that the real priority becomes the children of our nation rather than buildings or teachers?
    Mr. Mulley: As long as I hold my present office my principal priority in education will be the children. Buildings and teachers are important in providing education for the children, but it is the welfare of children with which we have to be concerned.

    Universities
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received since taking office on the problems facing the universities; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Mulley: The main representations received have been about university finance, the position of universities within higher education, university teachers' salaries and students' grants. In my replies I have done my best to give information requested and explain the policies.
    Mr. Lane: Apart from that, has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to what was said recently by the Secretary-General of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors about the decline in confidence and the loss of morale of those working in the universities? What do the Government intend to do to improve this deplorable situation?
    Mr. Mulley: Yes, Sir. Words such as "loss of morale" are used quite easily, but sometimes it is difficult to understand what is fully involved. Obviously the university teachers are concerned, as is everyone, at having to abandon or defer plans for expansion because of economic stringency. It is also the case that the number of students has not measured up to the expectations of some years ago. That means that a number of posts are not being filled. It also happened, through a mischance concerning dates, that the university teachers did not get as large an increase as they hoped to receive, measured, for example, against the increase awarded to teachers in polytechnics. They had their arbitration award and they have been offered the £6 a week under the new policy, but unhappily their dates fell outside previous arrangements whereby a higher cost-of-living increase might have been obtained. There is a combination of factors, but in any area at present there is great concern because we have to take into account the current economic situation.
    Mr. Cronin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is now widespread anger among university teachers about the way in which they have been treated over the past few months in respect of their pay claims? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the present arbitration award is expedited as much as possible, and that Part II claims receive just recognition from the Government?
    Mr. Mulley: The arbitration award will be paid. That was provided for in the White Paper. Obviously I cannot suggest that university teachers should be exempt from the Government's policy—which is widely recognised—of a £6 maximum in the current year. Although I was not involved at the time last October, after the statutory limit on pay increases had ended, the university teachers
    1124
    accepted a settlement on the expired statutory basis.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the universities have put before him any statement of what they think their resources should be, how they think the pay of university teachers should be assessed, and which areas of research are being starved by present Government policy?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not think that any areas are being starved. It may well be that the rate of expansion in some areas is not as high as those involved would like to see. Of course, this matter covers quite a wide spectrum. At a time of economic stringency we have to restrain every kind of expansion. We have not had proposals concerning academic salaries because, unhappily, university salaries were not part of the Houghton review. I think that when there is a different pay situation facing the nation, this is a matter to which we shall have to return.

    Overcrowded Schools
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make special provision for areas with pre-1900 school buildings which are overcrowded.
    Miss Joan Lestor: The allocation of capital resources to local education authorities for additional places to meet basic needs for roofs over heads takes account, among other things, of overcrowding in existing schools whether they are old or new. In present economic circumstances the scope for financing projects to improve or replace old and unsatisfactory buildings is limited, although I am glad to say my right hon. Friend was able to include £20 million for the purpose in the 1976–77 allocations announced in August.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister accept that in areas such as West Yorkshire the problem is so great that special facilities and help are required to give decent educational facilities to children and young persons? Although the sum of £20 million is welcome in meeting this task, will she give an assurance that she and her departmental colleagues will approach the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss defence expenditure,

    1125
    so that money spent on death-dealing weapons purchases from abroad can be better spent on our children and on educational facilities in this country? Is not that the sort of priority which a Labour Government should be putting into practice in Socialist programmes?
    Miss Lestor: I know that in my hon. Friend's constituency there is a real problem. I believe that three-fifths of the schools in his area are pre-1900, which means that his area has a very special need for resources to meet the replacement of some of those schools. I have every sympathy with his point about cutting defence expenditure and will see that his remarks are noted in the right quarter.
    Mr. Mayhew: If the Secretary of State's only priority is that of children, why will he not help today's deprived children by replacing overcrowded primary schools built in Victorian times before proceeding with compulsory universal comprehensive reorganisation?
    Miss Lestor: Of course we are concerned with all children. We are at the moment concentrating on a large number of secondary school children to give them equal opportunities with others against whom they have been segregated for so long.

    School Replacement Programme
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effects the proposed levels of education expenditure will have on the school replacement programme in North Warwickshire.
    Miss Joan Lestor: The Warwickshire Education Authority has just submitted its list of major school building starts intended for 1976–77; no replacement projects are included in the list for any part of the county.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time the Department was far stricter in controlling certain counties, particularly when one bears in mind that in Warwickshire the capital allocation in this year's programme discriminates between areas in the north of the county, where there is the greatest need, and southern areas in the county, such as those around Leamington and
    1126
    Warwick, where there is little basic need but to which the great mass of capital resources is being diverted?
    Miss Lestor: We have always left it to the local authorities to decide how they deal with their programmes, but I hope that the authority in question will take note of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson). We do not want to see in education an unfair distribution of resources, particularly to those areas which are already at an advantage.

    Secondary School Placings (Bromley)
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the subject of this year's secondary school placings in the London Borough of Bromley; and what replies he has sent.
    Miss Joan Lestor: Nineteen parents have complained to the Department that they are dissatisfied with the places offered to their children; the Department is still investigating 12 of the complaints but has found no grounds for intervening in the other seven cases and has replied accordingly.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread anger and resentment among many parents in Bromley, particularly in the Hayes and West Wickham areas, regarding this year's placings? Even if the Department cannot intervene directly with the Bromley Education Authority, where parents are given a choice of secondary education for their children should not that choice be meaningful and realistic rather than that we should be faced with a farcical situation in a substantial number of cases in Bromley this year?
    Miss Lestor: As I am still discussing some matters with the Bromley Education Authority, I do not think I should say too much about specific points. Because some complaints are still being investigated, all I can say at present is that certain schools in the borough have become more popular than others. This has resulted in disappointment on the part of some parents about the schools to which their children have been allocated, but I repeat that some of these complaints are being investigated.

    PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14th October.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I shall be holding a number of meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen this evening.
    Mr. Latham: Is there not still time today for the Prime Minister to impress on all his Ministers the need for them to bring forward as a matter of urgency their proposals for immediate and substantial cuts in public expenditure?
    The Prime Minister: The Question relates to the engagements I am having, not the engagements I am not having.

    PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister whether he has yet submitted his evidence to the Royal Commission on the Press; and, if so, if he will publish it.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister whether he has yet presented his evidence to the Royal Commission on the Press, and if he will publish it.
    The Prime Minister: My evidence is in an advanced state of preparation and I hope to submit it to the Royal Commission shortly. Subject to the agreement of the Commission, it is my intention to publish the evidence as soon as issues which are currently the subject of legal proceedings are settled.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Prime Minister aware that in one of his more excitable—some might say more paranoid—moments during the last Election campaign he said that whole cohorts of distinguished journalists were combing the country to find matters, true or false, with which to smear the Labour Party? Is he also aware that a year has now elapsed since he announced that he would give to the Royal Commission evidence, if such evidence exists, to support this allegation? Why has he taken so long?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will have the fullest opportunity when, as I hope, this is published to find an answer to the question which he puts and also justification for the statement that I made on that occasion.
    Mr. Blaker: Is it not extraordinary that after 13 months the House still has no idea about the subject in the Prime Minister's mind when he made those accusations? He said that the reason for the fact that his submission has not yet been made to the Royal Commission is connected with police inquiries. Will he say whether those inquiries are inquiries into the one matter to which we know the Prime Minister has referred the police, namely, the alleged loss of private papers from his London home in Lord North Street? If that is so, how could that matter be detrimental to the Labour Party?
    The Prime Minister: It is not one burglary but eight into which the police are inquiring. In reply to the other point, the hon. Gentleman will obtain full satisfaction shortly, when, as I hope, he sees the evidence, but there are certain legal proceedings to be completed first.

    TUC, CBI AND NEDC
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Prime Minister when he will next be meeting the TUC.
    Beithasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
    Mr. Cyril Smithasked the Prime Minister what recent consultations he has had with representations of the TUC and the CBI.
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister how many times he met the TUC and the CBI during the recess; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister if he has met the TUC during the recess.
    The Prime Minister: I am frequently in touch with leaders of both the TUC and the CBI at NEDC and on other occasions, and meetings are arranged as necessary. I shall be meeting the TUC

    1129
    at the Liaison Committee on 27th October and, as the House knows, I shall be taking the chair at the next meeting of NEDC at Chequers on 5th November.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will the Prime Minister confirm on 27th October the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently that the Government have not the faintest idea what their borrowing requirements will be for the forthcoming year, and explain what implications that will have for the Government's future anti-inflation strategy?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know what will be on the agenda on that occasion. My right hon. Friend has followed the practice of every Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make forecasts of these matters at the appropriate times in the House, but under successive Governments there have always been changes which have falsified some of the estimates.
    Mr. Ashley: In view of the fact that words used by Conservative spokesmen, and by journalists who support them, have been devoted to the wishful thesis that the concordat on the £6 pay policy between the Government and the trade union movement is a bogus public relations exercise, will my right hon. Friend say whether that claim is true or whether it is itself a bogus public relations exercise?
    The Prime Minister: I am very happy to feel that in the bracing air of Blackpool, over two weeks, not only have some hon. Friends of mine, who voted against the procedures, now accepted the Government's policy, but that Her Majesty's Opposition, who abstained on the vote and on the legislation, have now, I understand, at least from the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at Blackpool—[Interruption.] This is a very serious matter. I am referring to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw.) He, at any rate, stated at Blackpool that his party—or whatever section of it he represents—supports the policy of the Government on which the Opposition sat on their hands when Parliament had to decide.
    Mr. Beith: Will the meetings which the Prime Minister is to have with both sides of industry include discussion of the continuation of some form of incomes restraint beyond the £6-a-week period, especially now that he has gone so far
    1130
    as to accept the view we pressed on him that incomes restraint was necessary? Will he take note that in the pursuit of this policy, and any further policy beyond the end of the period of the £6 limit, if last night's voting figures are anything to go by, he need not fear even the most purposeful and determined opposition from the Conservative benches?
    The Prime Minister: I missed the last few words. I hope I got the drift of it. I do not fear anything from that lot, anyway. On the whole, it seems that their absenteeism is more purposive than their abstention.
    Concerning the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it has been said by my right hon. Friends and myself—and by leading trade union leaders—that clearly during the next 12 months starting with the acceptance by Parliament of the legislation, or well before the end of that period, we shall have to consider the legislation for the next year and for succeeding years. It is premature to start to speculate about that at this time.
    I might tell the hon. Member, on a wider economic issue than those raised—this does arise out of the Question—that I have invited both the TUC and the CBI to meet me before the meeting of Heads of States and Governments on the international economic situation takes place in Paris on 15th November. The TUC and the CBI have both accepted that invitation and will be meeting separately with me in order to give me their views.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the Government have now accepted totally the bankers' advice, knowing full well the effects that that advice will have in raising the level of unemployment? Does he agree that the Government's intention over the next two years is to cut the public sector borrowing requirement by £3,500 million, and that by raising the bank rate by 1 per cent. they are also cutting the private sector borrowing requirement? Will he now appoint advisers who can put before him some of the alternative solutions, making it possible to bring down the rate of price inflation, while at the same time taking measures to reflate the economy immediately, and so start to do something about the unemployment in this country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite wrong in saying that this is a question of accepting any sectional advice of any kind. What we have done in these matters, both on the anti-inflation policy and on unemployment, is to act responsibly and announce our policy to the country. It has not been universally accepted, but I think that my hon. Friend, or the group of which he is a member, has now accepted—
    Mr. Atkinson: No.
    Mr. Skinner: No.
    The Prime Minister: I am very sorry to hear it. It looks as though my hon. Friend's public relations is not as good as it used to be. At any rate, there is now a wide acceptance of our policy by a very large proportion of the country, unanimously at the Labour Party conference and now, we understand, by the Conservative Party conference—and it very large numbers of people. The policy against which my hon. Frends voted in August is now acceptable to the Labour Party conference and, indeed, to the Conservative Party conference—and it is not against the manifesto either.
    Mr. Tebbit: When he next sees the TUC, will the Prime Minister establish just what this agreed policy is, and will he tell the House whether the £6 is a limit, up to which negotiations may take place, or whether it is, as the TUC and many of his hon. Friends maintain, a universal flat-rate entitlement for all wage earners?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, like a number of others—not only in his own party—is becoming utterly pathetic in trying to pretend that there are disagreements where there are not. [Interruption.] I can contain my side as long as the Conservative Front Bench can contain theirs. Concerning the question, the answer was given in the White Paper, approved by Parliament. The Conservative Party did not vote on that approval and abstained on the legislation. The answer is to be found there. The answer is that the £6 is a pay limit.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, now that the decision of this House has received the overwhelming endorsement of both the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party
    1132
    conference, he really ought to be spending his time in trying to drag out of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition exactly what her priorities for public expenditure cuts would be?
    The Prime Minister: There will be plenty of time for that in the weeks that lie ahead. We know that the Conservative Party is committed to heavy cuts in public expenditure. Apart from cuts in food and housing subsidies, which would increase the cost of living, it has been totally unspecific. Now that we have all benefited from the bracing air of Blackpool, I hope that the House of Commons will be told of the cuts in expenditure to which the Conservatives are committed in order to realise the target set by the right hon. Member the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer at Blackpool.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Are we to understand from what the Prime Minister said that he has absolutely no plans for further cuts in public expenditure? Bearing in mind that the interest rate rose on the day that the Labour Party conference ended, how much further must it rise before the Government moderate their spending?
    The Prime Minister: Before I answer the Question, I hope that the right hon. Lady, will allow me for one moment to express our congratulations—[Interruption.] There used to be courtesy before the Conservative Party became so split. I am sure that the whole House would wish me to express, with retrospective effect, our congratulations on her birthday, yesterday. I hope it was a very happy birthday.
    As for the paint problem, the answer is to try turps—
    Mr. Rost: Cheap!
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is very cheap! I could not understand why she did not buy any.
    Concerning the very serious question about public expenditure, before the recess I told the House, in answer to a Question—I think by the right hon. Lady—that, in relation to the normal consideration of a five-year rolling programme of expenditure, we are now hard at work on the expenditure estimates. Those for the coming year have been announced, and even the right hon. Lady would not

    1133
    want to cut public expenditure at a time of world-wide trade depression and cause more unemployment. We are looking at this matter for the later years, and the figures will be announced to the House in the proper manner at the proper time.
    I am not quite clear what point the right hon. Lady was trying to make concerning interest rates. She will know that these matters are determined by the financial authorities, and she will know the particular circumstances which led to that decision.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister knows full well that the Government are having difficulty in borrowing money, because of their spending programmes. What I think the right hon. Gentleman has just said is that he would rather print money or let interest rates rise than reduce his expenditure programme.
    The Prime Minister: That rendering of what I said was about as perverse as the right hon. Lady's reference at Blackpool to what I had said about Labour being the natural party of government, when she attributed all kinds of arguments which had never been considered by any of us. [Interruption.] There are one or two who might be a little unhappy about that, I agree. But I said what I did because we were in office in 11½ years out of 15 years, and that is a pretty good argument to support what I said. The right hon. Lady is quite wrong to say that I said that we would print money instead of dealing in a responsible manner with public expenditure. She knows from her own experience when in government—she cannot go on running away from responsibility for it—that these matters must be planned two or three years ahead and that if there are cuts in a given year they are usually totally uneconomic. In this case, if that is all that the right hon. Lady is pressing for, it would lead to vastly increased unemployment.

    MEMBERS (INTERVIEW ACCOMMODATION)
    Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning, I asked for accommodation in which to interview some of my constituents, students of Stirling University wishing to protest to me about savage cuts in education
    1134
    expenditure. I was informed that no accommodation was available, for security reasons. I am willing to vouch personally for the integrity of my student constituents. They have more brains than to be mixed up with extremist organisations like, for example, the more violent fringes of Scottish nationalism. They are young men and women who wanted to come to speak to me—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting some way from the point of order. The point of order deals with accommodation.
    Mr. Skinner: He is doing a great job.
    Mr. Canavan: They are responsible young men and women who wanted to speak to me in a responsible manner. Recently we have had the example of a character who went off to Australia only to come back and reclaim his accommodation. Can we not get accommodation for our own constituents?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an abuse of a point of order. I understand that the point of order deals with the alleged refusal of the hon. Gentleman's request for a room in which to interview his constituents. That is a matter which I have no doubt the Chairman of the Services Committee will consider. I shall help in any way that I can. It is a matter which should first have been brought to me privately, but I will try to help.

    QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
    Mr. Speaker: I shall now rule on the matter of privilege raised yesterday.
    I have considered the matter of the complaint made yesterday by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) of an article in The Economist of 11th October. I am satisfied that the matter of the complaint is such that I should permit a motion on it to be given precedence over the Orders of the Day.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
    That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
    It would be in the interests of the House as a whole now if we decided that no

    1135
    further debate should take place at this stage.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In accordance with precedent, I hope that the House will agree that the proposal of the Leader of the House is right in the circumstances and that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that the proper course is for the matter to go to the Committee of Privileges now without further debate.
    Question put and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  COMMUNITY LAND BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
Schedule 5

  LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SCHEMES
  3.35 p.m.
  The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): I beg to move Amendment No. 301, in page 70, line 10, leave out 'community land accounts' and insert 'authorities'.
  It is envisaged that two kinds of payments from one authority to another may need to be provided for in LAMS—land acquisition and management schemes. First, one authority—for example, a district—may be carrying out the total operation of the land scheme in the area of another authority, the county. It may therefore be right, when the first authority's land account comes into surplus, for it to pay some of its retained 30 per cent. share to the second authority to reflect, for instance, services provided by that authority in the area.
  Second, where one authority is using the staff of another authority, it will need to make payments to that authority to reflect this. The present drafting of the Bill covers the first instance, but not the second. The amendment is therefore needed to cover both possibilities.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 122, in page 70, line 43, at end insert—
  '6. The provisions of paragraph 5 above shall apply in relation to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 19(7) of this Act as they apply in relation to a scheme which has been made or revised. '.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Clause 20

  COMPREHENSIVE ACQUISITION OF DEVELOPMENT LAND
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I beg to move Amendment No. 123, in page 18, line 30, after '(a)', insert
  'land which is not needed for designated relevant development within ten years from the time at which they are acting, or (b)'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we are to consider the Opposition's proposed amendment to the Government amendment, Amendment (a), in line 2, leave out 'ten' and insert 'five'.
  Mr. Ewing: These are drafting amendments which simply reverse the order of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 20(3).
  Subsection (3) spells out four categories of land which authorities will not have the absolute duty to acquire. Categories (a) and (c) were added by Government amendment in Committee, the original (a) and (b) being re-lettered (b) and (d) respectively. On consideration, it would seem more logical to have kept the old (a)—the 10-year restriction—as the first category. The amendment effects this by reversing the order of the first two paragraphs of the subsection.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: I wish to speak briefly to Amendment (a), which seeks to remove from line 35 on page 18 of the Bill the term of 10 years and to substitute a term of five years. The reason for this has been debated already, both in Committee and on Report.
  The Government have accepted the concept that local authorities will proceed with their land acquisitions on a rolling five-year programme, yet Clause 20 speaks of a 10-year period within which they must operate. We feel that it would be much more consistent with the scheme that has now been elaborated and explained in Committee by the Government to keep to the five-year period in the context of the Bill as well as in the declarations of policy that have been made in trying to explain what the Government are seeking to do by their scheme. It is a question of their intention and the words in the statute matching rather than being in conflict as they apparently are at the moment.
  The object of the amendment would be to remove from local authorities the obligation to consider the acquisition of land as for 10 years ahead and limit their obligation to one of considering the acquisition of land within a five-year scale. That is entirely consistent with the Government's proposals that local authorities shall have to submit to them five-year rolling programmes of land acquisition and key sector borrowing requirements, all of which are to be geared, we understand,
  1138
  to a five-year and not a 10-year programme. We feel that the Government should accept this amendment, which is in accordance with their declared thinking.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: If by leave of the House I may speak again, it is fair to say, as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has said, that we debated this subject at length in Committee. We regard the amendment as unacceptable. A similar amendment, No. 495, was tabled by the Opposition in Committee. As we explained then, 10 years is regarded as the maximum period needed to ensure orderly development and to create the required degree of certainty in the development industry and in agriculture and forestry.
  This 10-year period is a limitation on the scope of the duty and does not mean that an authority must immediately set out to buy all the land needed for designated relevant development within that period. Authorities will, however, in putting forward their acquisition proposals, work on the basis of a five-year rolling programme and the Secretary of State will not normally give consent to acquisitions of land needed beyond this five-year period. To restrict authorities to a period of five years ahead at any time would preclude them from dealing with many major schemes where the assembly of the land and its disposal for development might well take more than five years to accomplish. The amendment ought to be rejected on that basis.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Perhaps I could seek absolute clarification on this point. As I under-Stood the Minister for Planning and Local Government yesterday, there will be a circular or regulation or some form of communication to local authorities to tell them that they should in all normal circumstances buy for only five years ahead and that only in exceptional circumstances, when there is a particular development requiring some parcelling of land, should they go beyond the five-year period.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The position is as I have said, that we expect land authorities to purchase only five years ahead but feel that it would be wrong to restrict authorities to this five-year period because in circumstances of a major development it might be necessary to look at least 10

  1139
  years ahead to assemble the land for the development plan and to plan the development properly. It is for this reason that we use the 10-year period rather than the five-year period. The hon. Member is right to say that we would expect authorities to buy only five years ahead despite the fact that we are leaving this 10-year provision for the major schemes which we envisage arising from time to time.
  Amendment agreed to.
  3.45 p.m.
  Amendments made: No. 124, in page 18, leave out lines 34 to 36.
  No. 302, in page 18, leave out lines 43 and 44.
  No. 127, in page 19, line 6, leave out 'designated' and insert 'any'.
  No. 128, in line 8, after 'section', insert 'designating that development'.
  No. 129, in page 19, leave out lines 9 to 15.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 303, in page 19, line 24, leave out 'Paragraph' and insert '(8A) Subsection (8)'.
  The effect of the amendment is to insert a subsection to exempt Wales and the Isles of Stilly from the provision in Clause 20(8)(a) rather than leave the exemption as part of subsection (8). The amendment merely corrects a drafting error.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

  PERMISSION BEFORE COMMENCEMENT DATE: APPLICATIONS BEFORE FIRST APPOINTED DAY
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 131, in page 19, line 29, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.
  Mr. Speaker: With that amendment, we shall take the following Government Amendments: Nos. 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 and 153.
  We may also take Amendment No. 396, in page 20, line 22, at end insert:
  '(7) In this section and in Schedule 6 "the election" means an election to apply to the relevant land the provisions of this section, and "the relevant land" means the land referred to in subsection (2) of this section.'.
  Mr. Silkin: These amendments result from long discussions which we had in Committee. They relate to a point the Opposition made and which we wanted to consider, which was that where, as is understandable, a number of authorities were interested in the possible development of land, the notice required of the owner of the land should be such that the notice served on one authority would be sufficient instead of his having to notify all the authorities. It is quite arguable that he would know by consulting the LAMS in which the authority was likely to be interested, but we agree that the Opposition has made a fair point here. These amendments are designed to create that situation.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: I thank the Minister for his concession on this point. In Committee, the Opposition were concerned about the possibility of an individual landowner being caught out by this technicality. We hope that these amendments will help the small landowner to wend his way through this maze of legislation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 132, in page 19, line 31, leave out
  'commencement date (as defined in section 9 of this Act)' and insert 'relevant date'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 133, in page 19, line 39, leave out from 'permission' to 'is' in line 41 and insert:
  'or
  (b) has entered into a binding contract for the acquisition of such an interest and'.
  The Opposition put forward some strong arguments in Committee to the effect that a person owning a material interest in the land should not also have to take possession before he could serve a notice of election under Clause 21(2). The argument was that a landlord whose tenant's lease had nearly expired and who had obtained planning permission with a view to carrying out development at the end of the lease might well wish to take advantage of the clause to ascertain the intention of the authority concerned towards his land. As he may not be "entitled to possession", the clause as drafted might have precluded him from doing this. The Government accept the force of this argument and have put forward this amendment to meet that point.

  1141
  In the case of a person under a binding contract to purchase, I do not think that the situation in which the Opposition have expressed considerable interest arises. Where a person has no material interest in the land it is reasonable that he should have to show that he is entitled to possession to be able to serve a notice under the clause. Unless he is so entitled it would not seem necessary to give him the protection which the clause is intended to provide.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 134, in page 20, line 1, leave out 'the election' and insert:
  'an election under this subsection'.
  No. 135, in line 2, leave out 'all or'.
  No. 137, at end insert:
  'and the authority on whom the notice is served shall as soon as practicable send a copy of the notice to each of the other authorities.'.
  No. 138, in line 10, leave out 'bound by the election'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 139, in page 20, line 15 leave out "paragraph 1 of Schedule 6" and insert "that paragraph".
  Mr. Speaker: With that amendment, we may take the Government Amendment No. 169.
  Mr. Silkin: These amendments are purely drafting. They tidy up the drafting of the Bill in Clause 21(4) and Clause 22(2) where references are made to authorities abandoning their power to purchase the land in the sense given by Schedule 6(1).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made:
  No. 140, in page 20, line 17, leave out "(or the earliest date)".
  No. 141, in line 18, leave out "notice of the" and insert "the notice of".
  No. 142, in page 20, leave out lines 20 to 22.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Schedule 6

  PLANNING PERMISSION FOR RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I beg to move Amendment No. 143, in page 71, line 9 leave out "five" and insert "ten".
  Mr. Speaker: With the amendment we may take Amendment No. 144, in line 9 at end insert:
  "and in the case of agricultural land 10 years"
  Mr. Sainsbury: The two amendments, which are closely related, are not to be confused with the point we have just been discussing concerning the period ahead for which authorities might acquire land and whether it should be five or 10 years. We are concerned with the length of time during which an authority loses its right to acquire land under the Act, subsequent to it deciding not to acquire under the procedures set out in the schedule. When this matter was debated in Committee the Minister with characteristic frankness said:
  "I was unprepared for a specialised agricultural point".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 26th June 1975; c. 1911.]
  He undertook to have another look at the matter.
  I should like to deal first with the agricultural point because this concerns the lesser area. There is, of course, the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) dealing with the relationship of 10 years to the period required by a farmer if he is to receive a Ministry of Agriculture grant in connection with improvements to his land. One is identifying here the special case of the normal land owner's or property owner's approach to good estate managements.
  In agriculture one is concerned with good husbandry. I am sure the Minister will agree that this requires, especially in agriculture, and also I suspect in horticulture, that one looks a long way ahead. Five years is not long enough in the context of agriculture, especially concerning grants. Nor, in my submission, is it anything like long enough when it comes to good estate management of developed property, apart from the obvious point that very few items that

  1143
  can be installed in industrial or commercial properties depreciate over a shorter period than five years. If one is concerned with improving a heating system, putting in better insulation and other aspects of estate management, which are almost routine but which can involve heavy expenditure, they would normally be written-off over a period of 10 years and sometimes longer. A considerable amount of the type of maintenance with which property owners are concerned is intended to last for a longer period than five years.
  I submit that we should look to the first amendment which would give a 10-year exemption for all classes of property. I only add that I do not believe that the Bill, or the authorities, would lose very much if this were to be accepted. After all, the substantial powers of acquisition already invested in local authorities, going back to the 1947 Act and repeated in all the subsequent Acts, would still exist. If it could be shown to be necessary and subject to the Secretary of State's approval, an authority could come back to acquire within that period.
  I hope that the Government will see fit to accept preferably Amendment No. 143 and at least Amendment No. 144.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: As the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) has rightly said, these are alternative amendments. The effect of Amendment No. 143 would be that when an authority abandons its power to purchase land in accordance with paragraph (1) of Schedule 6, it should lose its powers of compulsory purchase under the Bill in respect of that land for a period of 10 years, instead of for five years as the Bill, at present, provides. Amendment No. 144 would also extend the loss of powers for 10 years, but in this instance in respect of only agricultural land.
  I should explain that there are three circumstances in which an authority loses its powers of compulsory purchase under the Bill. The first is when it states under paragraphs (4) or (5) of the schedule that it does not intend to acquire the land, or fails to serve a notice within the time laid down or subsequently with-
  1144
  draws an earlier notice of intention to acquire.
  The second is when, having stated an intention to acquire, it fails to acquire the land or to make a compulsory purchase order within 12 months.
  The third is where, a compulsory purchase order having been made and confirmed, the authority fails to serve a notice to treat in the time permitted.
  The Bill provides that the loss of compulsory purchase powers in these circumstances should last for five years and it is this period which the amendments seek to extend to 10 years.
  The reason for providing for the loss of powers is to enable owners and developers to have certainty that once the authority has decided not to acquire the land they will be able to implement the planning permission and get on with their development without fear of acquisition.
  The period of five years is thought to be ample even in the case of a major project to enable development to get under way. Indeed, if it were not started by the end of that period the planning permission would generally lapse in any case by virtue of Section 41 of the 1971 Act.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into account phased developments, which are very common, in which the first phase would normally take two or three years, the second phase longer and then the third phase? The difficulty is knowing whether one can undertake phases, which would be another aspect of the period.
  Mr. Ewing: Yes, we have taken account of phased developments. Even in the case of phased developments there can be no argument that the development is at least thought out to its ultimate conclusion. The doubt, as the hon. Member for Hove has pointed out, is whether each phase can be developed in the time envisaged. Therefore, even with a phased development there is no question but that the phasing is part of a comprehensive development plan, and that has been taken into consideration in the provisions of the Bill.
  As I said earlier, the Opposition put down a similar amendment to Amendment No. 143 in Committee, and in moving it the hon. Member for Buckingham

  1145
  (Mr. Benyon) explained that his concern was in respect of agricultural land. I believe that the hon. Gentleman would agree that he argued that in these cases a period of five years was too short as, first, it would exclude a farmer from receiving agricultural grants and, secondly, it would deter a landlord from reinvesting in the farm concerned. We promised to look at this point, and that promise is recorded in the proceedings.
  However, the argument of the hon. Member for Buckingham overlooks the point that the schedule is concerned with cases on which planning permission for relevant development has been granted. There is, therefore, a presumption that development is to take place anyway, and take place within five years, for at the end of that period the planning permission will lapse. Where the machinery in Schedule 6 is operating the question of a farmer's investment plans would simply not arise. But there would, of course, be nothing to stop a farmer from carrying out his short-term plans to keep the farm in production if, having got an unsuspended permission, he did not wish to sell the land or develop it immediately. In that case, he would be secure in the knowledge that the authority could not step in for at least five years.
  I believe that I have said sufficient to convince the House that these amendments should be resisted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 304, in page 72, column 2, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'unless' in line 7 and insert
  'The expiration of a period of twelve months beginning with the date on which the compulsory purchase order becomes operative'.
  Paragraph 1(3) of the schedule at present provides that where an authority has made a compulsory purchase order it will be regarded as abandoning its power to purchase the land—that is, it will lose its powers of compulsory acquisition under the Bill for a period of five years—if it has not served notice to treat within three years of the compulsory purchase order becoming operative.
  4.0 p.m.
  In Committee the Opposition moved certain amendments directed towards reducing the time, in particular from three
  1146
  years to 12 months. My hon. Friend rightly explained that there was a great deal to be done between the making of a CPO and the completion of acquisition and that 12 months was an extremely limited period. We gave no undertaking to the Opposition, as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) knows, but we have re-examined the matter in the light of the arguments that he put forward at that time. We believe that it can be done. This amendment therefore reduces the period from three years to 12 months.
  Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for looking at the matter again. I recall the debate that we had on this matter in Committee when we gave examples of experiences which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and I had when we were in Government. We found to our dismay and horror that many local authorities served compulsory purchase orders and then delayed a great deal before proceeding with notices to treat. When we occupied ministerial chairs we felt that that was inequitable and wrong, and we did our best to correct the situation.
  We thought it only right when we saw the opportunity in legislation, as we see here, to put upon local authorities an obligation to proceed rapidly after having made compulsory purchase orders. Although arguments in Committee were resisted, we are glad that there have been second thoughts, that our arguments have now been accepted, and that the amendment is to be made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 340, in page 72, column 2, line 9, at end insert 'outstanding'.
  This is a purely drafting amendment which is consequential on a series of amendments made in Committee which introduced the concept of outstanding interest.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 147, in page 72, line 23, at end insert—
  '(6) Where in respect of any land notice is served by an authority of its intention to purchase that land under the provisions of this Schedule and the first step towards the acquisition of the land has not been taken the provision of Part IX of the Act of 1971

  1147
  shall apply to such land as if the land were included within one of the classes of land specified in section 192(1) of that Act'.
  Mr. Speaker: I gather that with this amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 311, 331, 332, 335 and 336.
  Mr. Rossi: Schedule 6 is concerned with the procedures relating to the making of compulsory purchase orders and, as we have already seen, the timetables under which local authorities should act. If they do not act within the timetables specified, they will lose their right for a period of years to proceed with the public acquisition of the land in question.
  Amendment No. 147 seeks to add a further sub-paragraph to Schedule 6, the effect of which will be to enable an owner of land to serve a blight notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 where the local authority has served a notice under the provisions of the Community Land Act of its intention to purchase the owner's land.
  Part IX of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which is referred to in the amendment, enables the owner of property to serve a notice upon the local authority when he feels that he is unable to have beneficial use of his land, to sell it, or to do what is usual with land because of the acts of the local authority.
  The acts of the local authority are specified in Section 192 of the 1971 Act. That sets out a list of circumstances in which it is right for the owner of land to serve a notice on a local authority. The kind of consideration which arises is where the land has been indicated in a structure plan as possibly being required by a public authority for the purposes of that public authority—for example, where it is adjacent to the line of a highway to be constructed. Acts by a local authority which have the effect of blighting an owner's land entitle the owner under the 1971 Act to serve a notice on the local authority, the effect of which would be to oblige that local authority to buy the blighted land from the owner in question.
  The amendment seeks to add to the list of circumstances in which a blight notice can be served under the 1971 Act activities by local authorities under the Community Land Act. Therefore, where
  1148
  a local authority serves a notice of intention to purchase and possibly delays—this is the consideration that we have in mind—the owner should not be prejudiced, but should be able to insist upon an early acquisition of his interest. In the terms of the amendment, we wish to add to the list in the 1971 Act service of a notice by a local authority.
  I see that the Government have tabled a number of amendments of a similar kind scattered through a number of different clauses and schedules. I have not had the opportunity of studying those in depth and comparing them with the 1971 Act. Therefore, I await with eager attention the words of wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman to see whether, through his amendments, he is seeking to achieve the objective of our amendment. If so, and if he gives us the assurance that that is so, I should not wish to insist that my right hon. and hon. Friends press our amendment.
  Mr. John Silkin: I gladly give that assurance. In fact, I give slightly more than that. I hope that the Opposition will agree to withdraw their amendment in view of the Government's amendments which are upon exactly the same point. The Opposition's amendment is defective because it would not apply in cases where planning permission was suspended under Clause 23 as suspension there does not depend on the service of a notice of intention to purchase. Therefore, it would provide less protection to the owner-occupier than the Opposition would wish. By contrast, the Government's amendments have been drafted to cover all suspended permissions.
  I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Walter Clegg: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said. Blight is one of the greatest evils of planning permission and one of the most difficult things to put right. Any step towards rectifying that situation is to be welcomed.
  Mr. Rossi: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 148, in page 72, line 25, at end insert 'or section 22'.
  No. 149, in page 72, leave out lines 27 to 33.
  No. 150, in page 73, line 4, leave out 'and (2)(b).'.
  No. 151, in page 73, line 15, leave out
  'bound by an election (as defined in section 21 of this Act)'.
  No. 152, in page 73, line 17, leave out 'the election' and insert
  'an election under section 21 of this Act'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 305, in page 73, line 20, after 'paragraph' insert
  shall be in the prescribed form and'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 306, 307, 312 and 315.
  Mr. Silkin: I do not think that it will have escaped the attention of the House that Amendments Nos. 306, 307, 312 and 315 are in exactly the same wording as Amendment No. 305.
  It has always been the intention that there should be uniformity for virtually all forms and notices which are designed to meet the Bill's procedures. If, however, the standard form were simply prescribed, which was what happened under Clause 55(1), there would be no obligation on the part of those giving notice to use the prescribed form. This could result in a wide variety of forms being used for the same purpose, which would hinder efficient handling by authorities and the public alike. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure not only that the form is prescribed, but that there is an obligation to use it in all cases for which it is necessary. I hope the House will welcome this clear, logical and simple addition to the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 153, in page 73, line 21, leave out 'on the authority'.
  No. 306, in page 73, line 38, after 'paragraph' insert
  'shall be in the prescribed form and'.
  No. 307, in page 74, line 28, after 'paragraph' insert
  'shall be in the prescribed form and'.
  No. 154, in page 74, line 29, leave out 'may be' and insert 'practicable'.——[Mr. John Silkin.]
  Mr. Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 155, in page 74, line 29, at end insert—
  '(3) Where an authority after serving under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule notice of intention to acquire the land decides not to acquire the land, the owner of a material interest in the land shall be entitled to compensation from that authority in respect of any actual financial loss suffered by him by reason of any proposed private development of the land being delayed through the actions of the authority'.
  Schedule 6 allows an authority which has served a notice saying that it intended to acquire land to change its mind and decide not to acquire. It allows local authorities to be fickle and thereby inconvenience the person whose land they intend to acquire. He may have all his plans rather expensively set at nothing by the vacillations of a local authority. The amendment provides that where an authority serves a notice saying that it no longer wants the land, the owner of a material interest in the land should be entitled to compensation from the authority in respect of any actual financial loss suffered by him by reason of any proposed private development of the land being delayed through the actions of the authority.
  The amendment speaks for itself. It is not difficult to envisage the sort of circumstances in which it might be needed—where, for example, an offer has been made for the land or where its development has been frustrated. This is a simple amendment, and the Government Front Bench have been so forthcoming this afternoon that I hope they will not choose this amendment as the one on which to take a firm line.
  Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Member puts me in a grave difficulty because I have to choose this moment not to be as forthcoming as I have been this afternoon, despite my great affection for him and the fact that all of us are anxious that there should be as little hardship as possible for owner-occupiers.
  The amendment, in slightly different form, was discussed in Committee, and we told the hon. Member that we would look at it again, without commitment. We have looked at it again. On the question of delay, an owner-occupier can find himself in difficulties, especially if he needs to move before the authority is ready to

  1151
  acquire the land. This was the main reason for the Government putting down Amendment No. 311, which provides that, where planning permission has been suspended, the blight provisions of the 1971 Act should apply, if a blight notice succeeds, an authority will have to acquire in advance, and, to this extent, we have met the point made by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) and the Opposition. However, the amendment goes very much further by importing an unprecedented right of compensation where land is not acquired by the authority.
  Under the existing compensation code, there may be compensation for various types of loss, under the heading of disturbance. This includes such items as professional fees and the cost of removal. But there is no provision for compensation when acquisition does not proceed.
  The amendment also puts us in difficulties because there is no clue about how the proposed compensation will be assessed or determined. I was a little surprised at this because the hon. Member comes from the same magnificent profession as myself. As he knows, development can be delayed for a number of reasons—it might be bad weather, a shortage of supplies or labour problems. It would be no easy task to separate one factor from another in determining compensation. In addition, the hon. Member has used the term "actual financial loss", but has not defined it. It could be interpreted as including a whole range of losses for which there is no provision in the existing compensation code.
  I have tried to be forthcoming this afternoon and we have met a good deal of the point of this amendment in our own Amendment No. 311. I beg the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 156, in page 75, line 36, after second 'a', insert 'substantial'.
  We are still dealing with Schedule 6 and the conditions on which a local authority may wish to proceed. Thinking again on this matter, the Opposition's
  1152
  view is that there would be some merit from the safeguard point of view in adding the word "substantial" in terms of the failure to comply. It makes the position a little more definitive.
  Mr. John Silkin: I shall have to deal with this amendment at a little more length than did the hon. Member, but I am afraid I see no alternative. In considering the amendment, it is important to bear in mind that the breach of a condition imposed on a notice of intention not to acquire leads to a revival of the powers of the authority which it abandoned when serving the notice, but it does not mean that the authority necessarily has to exercise those powers.
  The planning permission remains unsuspended, so the position is merely the same as it is now where a wide range of compulsory powers are available. It is likely that where there has been a substantial failure to comply with the conditions—for example a deliberate attempt to evade an important condition—the authority would seek to exercise its revised powers of compulsory purchase, but where the breach was relatively trivial it would no doubt be content to take no such action. The flexibility sought by the Opposition in putting forward this amendment already exists.
  However, breach of a condition is an important matter, and it is reasonable to expect a developer who has received a conditional notice to see that he complies with the conditions. If he can see that it is likely that he will not be able to comply with the condition—for example, because a time limit is running out—he ought to go to the authority in good time with a request for a relaxation of the condition.
  Otherwise, a developer could deliberately start development which was not in accordance with the original planning permission and then seek a relaxation of the condition, substituting a different planning permission. This might provide a means of getting "legitimised" development in accordance with a non-authorised permission while avoiding the danger that the land would be acquired following the revival of powers.
  While I fully understand the spirit in which the hon. Member believes local

  1153
  authorities should act—and the Secretary of State would also take that view—we feel that the amendment ought to be resisted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 157, in page 76, line 6, after 'land', insert:
  'covered by the planning permission or to which the planning application relates'.
  We are dealing here with paragraph (9) of Schedule 6, which relates to the service of notices relating only to parts of land. The paragraph envisages the situation where a local authority may not wish to acquire the whole of a piece of land to which the provisions of this Act apply.
  The Bill as it stands enables the authority to serve a notice stating that it does not intend to acquire part of the land, and shall accompany that notice, or have it accompanied, with a plan showing the area of land to which the notice relates. In Committee we felt that the wording of the paragraph was far too wide, because it might enable the authority to act in respect of land which was not strictly within the terms of reference of the land scheme because it might not have been the subject matter of a planning permission or a planning application.
  Therefore, the amendment seeks to add to that part of the paragraph that deals with the services of notices on parts of land that the authority does not intend to acquire qualifying words to make sure that the notice relates to land in respect of which there has been a planning application or in respect of which a planning permission has been granted, so that the owner knows exactly when he is at risk, and that acquisition should not apply in respect of a whole area of land for only part of which he may have applied for planning permission which has become suspended under the Bill.
  Mr. John Silkin: One is bound to have a deal of sympathy with an amendment such as this. It is basically a drafting amendment to make matters, as the hon. Gentleman will hope, somewhat clearer. It is in no spirit of deliberate opposition that I say this, but I do ask why the Opposition want to insert these words just in this one place, when there are many other examples in the Bill. Para-
  1154
  graph 9 makes it clear that such notices may refer to parts of the land only. It does not, however, qualify what "the land" is—and neither is the expression qualified in a number of other places where it appears in Part II of the schedule—because this is made clear at the beginning of Part II, where reference is specifically made to the land to which the planning permission relates in paragraphs 4 and 5. It is not, therefore, necessary to repeat these words in paragraph 9 or anywhere else.
  As I have said previously, it is not a good idea, even when one feels that the words will make no great difference to the Bill, to introduce words which are legally unnecessary. All that happens is that the court says "There must be some other meaning", and begins to interpret the words. So, with the greatest respect, and because I believe that we have covered this point adequately, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Rossi: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 158, in page 76, line 14, leave out 'may be' and insert 'practicable'.—[Mr John Silkin.]
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 159, in page 76, line 17, leave out 'a' and insert:
  'where such a notice has been served, a subsequent'.
  This is a drafting amendment to make it clear that the notice referred to in Schedule 6, paragraph 10(1)(b), is a "withdrawal" notice—that is, one which authorities are required to serve if, after having served a notice of intention to acquire land, they change their minds and decide not to seek to acquire.
  Paragraph 10(1)(b) as drafted is slightly ambiguous. It might be interpreted as referring to an original notice of intention to acquire the land, where it is intended to refer only to a notice cancelling an early notice of intention to acquire. The amendment puts the situation beyond doubt by making it clear that it is the subsequent notice, stating the change of intention, to which reference is made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 160, in page 76, line 22, leave out 'may be' and insert 'practicable'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 161, in page 76, line 28, at end insert:
  '10A. As respects Scotland, paragraph 10 above shall not apply but any notice referred to in paragraph 10(1) shall be registered by the authority as soon as practicable in the register kept by them by virtue of section 31(2) of the Scottish Act of 1972 in accordance with the provisions of that section, but where the authority are not an authority responsible for keeping such a register they shall as soon as practicable send a copy of the notice to the local authority responsible for keeping the register for the area concerned, and that local authority shall register the notice accordingly.'.
  This new paragraph disapplies paragraph 10 of Schedule 6 for Scotland but stipulates that notices under paragraphs 4 or 5, stating that the authority intends to acquire the land, or under paragraph 6, stating that it has decided not to acquire the land, as mentioned in paragraph 10(1) shall be registered by the authority serving the notice in the planning register if it is the authority responsible for keeping that register, or, if it is not, that the authority shall as soon as practicable send a copy of the notice to the local authority responsible for keeping the register for the area concerned, and that local authority must register the notice accordingly.
  This amendment makes provision for Scotland with effect as near as can be equivalent to the effect of the provision for England and Wales made in paragraph 10 of Schedule 6. The difference arises from the fact that in Scotland there is no statutory authority for the keeping of land charges registers. It is, therefore, not possible to provide for registration which will achieve a like degree of publication of notices in Scotland as is provided for in England and Wales. In order to secure the widest possible degree of formal publication of such notices in Scotland provision is made for them to be registered in the planning register.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Having listened with care to the Minister, I am confident that he did not understand a word he read out and that he did not understand any reason for reading it out. I am equally
  1156
  confident that nobody who heard it—whether in the Public Gallery or on the benches of the House or, with the greatest respect, in your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—understood it either. I doubt whether any on the benches of those whom we are not allowed to mention understood it either. Had they done so, the amendment would never have been necessary in the first place. I should like to know from the Minister what he thinks it means.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that it means nothing. He did not understand it; he just read out a document from some anonymous source, about a subject he does not understand on a policy he does not represent from a Government who do not represent anybody anyway in a Bill which is idiotic, absurd, obscene, mad and wrong. [Interruption.] I do not believe that the Minister understands what the amendment means. I certainly do not understand, and I am a mere Scotsman, a mere lawyer, a mere Queen's Counsel in Scotland, so I am an idiot. I do not have the benefit of being a Queen's Counsel in England or representing an English seat or being a Socialist. If I had, all things would be known to me.
  This amendment is typical of the Bill. The Minister does not understand it and it would not be necessary if his advisers did. The law of the land is the adjustment of freedoms, not the imposition of rules, and it is scandalous that Parliament passes things it does not understand to control citizens it has never seen in matters it has never experienced.
  4.30 p.m.
  That is what the Bill is about, and I ask the Minister, for whom I have the greatest personal respect—
  Mr. Brace Grocott: The hon. and learned Gentleman could have fooled me.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I do not care whom I fool. Even fools I am willing to fool.
  It is individuals who matter, and nothing else, and the law of the land is based on the presumption that individuals can comprehend it. I ask the Minister, or his English colleague, if I may do so without incurring the Socialist wrath, and presuming that lawyers actually do understand what laws are about—if I may make

  1157
  that terrible error for a moment—to explain just what this idiotic, long-winded, mythological amendment means in terms of the law of Scotland.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: No Scottish Minister could fail to respond to such an eloquent invitation, and I am sure that that speech will read much better in the Perthshire Advertiser than it sounded in the House of Commons. I am sure, too, that from that contribution, which has added nothing to our debates, one can conclude that the hon. and learned Gentleman has wandered into the Chamber by mistake, as though he had lost his way. It is obvious that had he taken the trouble to study the Bill he would have known what the amendment means, and it is a bit presumptuous of him to come into the Chamber and suggest that all the hon. Members who have followed this legislation through its Second Reading, through Committee upstairs and all the debates on it, and not forgetting your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, cannot possibly understand it, merely because he does not understand something.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I have only to look as though I understand the legislation.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I am willing to accept from the wisest of men, who the Minister is, that he is a genius and I am an idiot, but as an idiot I want a simple answer: what does it mean?
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Having got the record straight and established that the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is an idiot and I am a genius, I shall go on to explain the amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure, without looking at "Erskine May", that "idiot" is not a parliamentary expression. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) may have denigrated himself too much, but the Minister must not repeat it.
  Mr. Ewing: I shall withdraw the remark about the hon. and learned Gentleman on his own behalf so that he does not incriminate himself.
  Basically, what the amendment seeks to do—and I am sure that the hon. and
  1158
  learned Gentleman will be most interested in this—is to ensure that when someone buys land in Scotland, or wants to buy it, he knows the purpose for which that land has been designated, and the only way in which that can be known is if the land is registered in the planning registers. We have put down the amendment to ensure that in Scotland the land will be registered in the planning registers so that when ordinary members of the public—people whom the hon. and learned Gentleman and I happen to represent—search the planning registers, as they normally do, they will see for themselves the inforfation that will be vitally important to what they seek to do. All that we are doing is ensuring that the information is available to members of the public in Scotland, just as it will be available in England and Wales.
  There is a provision in England and Wales for this information to be made available at regional offices, and we are seeking to ensure that similar information is available in Scotland not only at regional offices but possibly at district offices, too, where these planning registers are held. To ensure that that happens it is necessary to have this amendment and that, basically, is the explanation for it.
  Mr. Michael Latham: I should like to congratulate the Minister on a much more lucid explanation of the first amendment that he moved. I understood that one much better than I did this amendment. May I give the hon. Gentleman one piece of advice in one sentence? It was once said by a former Cabinet Minister, a distinguished Member whom I had better not name but he served in the former Conservative Government for 10 years, that the worst question of all to be asked by a back bencher was "What does the departmental brief that you have just read mean?" He said that there was only one thing to do by way of reply, and that was to read the brief again.
  Mr. Fairbairn rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire would need the permission of the House to speak again.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 162, in page 76, line 37 [Schedule 6], leave out 'may be' and insert 'practicable'.
  No. 341, in page 77, leave out lines 14 to 28.
  No. 167, in page 77, line 33, leave out 'may be' and insert 'practicable'.—(Mr. Harry Ewing.)
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I beg to move Amendment No. 166, in page 77, line 34, at end insert:
  '(2) This paragraph shall not apply if and so far as the Land Authority for Wales otherwise direct.'
  The amendment introduces a provision whereby the Land Authority for Wales, the body entitled to receive certain information, may limit the flow of that information to those cases in which it is likely to have the greatest interest and in which it might have to take action.
  Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall that a rather frightening picture was painted of the Land Authority for Wales being submerged in a sea of paper. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) warned me of the perils that arose when father papered the parlour, and the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) asked an embarrassing question when he inquired how many planning permissions were granted in Wales in a particular year. When I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 16th July indicating that the number was 35,227 I began to take seriously the fear about the Land Authority for Wales being submerged in a sea of paper. As a result, we have introduced this amendment because we believe that reason suggests there should be some mechanism to enable the Land Authority to stem the flow of notifications. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
  Mr. Michael Morris: As I understood the debate in Committee, there was a requirement that a developer, or any person, should be able to go to a central place and discover what had been granted and what had not been granted. I understand the position about the Land Authority being enveloped in a sea of paper, but we have gone a bit further with modern technological developments and information can now be stored by the use of microfilm and other techniques. Is the Minister saying that there has been no central pool of information for Wales?
  Mr. Michael Latham: To be fair to the Minister, I think that the amendment is more flexible than the original provision. The Minister says that something can be done if the Land Authority so directs, so presumably it can ask for some details and not for others. I thank the Minister for this commonsense amendment. I was appalled when he sent me the letter to which he referred and I thought of the prospect of 35,000 planning application notices going to the Land Authority for Wales. I am glad that common sense has prevailed.
  Mr. Alec Jones: I merely wish to indicate that there will be a central registry for Wales. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham).
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

  PERMISSION BEFORE COMMENCEMENT DATE: APPLICATIONS ON OR AFTER FIRST APPOINTED DAY
  Amendments made: No. 168, in page 20, line 24, leave out 'commencement date (as defined in section 9 of this Act)' and insert 'relevant date'.
  No. 169, in page 20, line 35, leave out 'paragraph 1 of Schedule 6' and insert 'that paragraph'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 170, in page 20, line 38, leave out 'when granted'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 171, in page 20, line 39, at end insert:
  'unless all the authorities concerned have abandoned their power to purchase the land (in the sense mentioned in subsection (2) above)'.
  Mr. Silkin: Government Amendment No. 170 seeks to do what Opposition Amendment No. 171 sets out to do. This is something that was raised in Committee. The Opposition amendments then put forward were defective, as, I regret to say, is their Amendment No. 171.
  Amendment No. 170, which fulfils the undertaking that we gave in Committee, is not defective and covers the point, which is that Clause 22 and Schedule 6 are based on the principle that where a planning permission is granted for relevant

  1161
  development the authority should have the opportunity to consider acquisition of the land before the development covered by the permission is started. Normally we would expect the decisions on acquisition and the planning application to be made at the same time.
  It could happen that a decision not to acquire is made before the permission is granted. If this happens there is no need for the suspension ever to take effect. It is just arguable that the Bill as drafted would bring about suspension in these circumstances. The amendment cures this flaw, and I hope that the Opposition will support it.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

  PERMISSION GRANTED ON OR AFTER COMMENCEMENT DATE
  Amendment made: No. 172 in page 20, line 41, leave out:
  'commencement date (as denned in section 9 of this Act)'
  and insert 'relevant date'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
  Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 173 in page 21, line 2, after 'except', insert:'
  '(a) where there are no outstanding material interests in the land and the development covered by the permission is carried out by or on behalf of an authority, or
  (b)'.
  This amendment provides that planning permissions for relevant development granted on or after the relevant date shall not be suspended where the development is carried out:
  "by or on behalf of an authority …"
  on land in which there are no material interests outstanding; that is, which is all in public ownership.
  Clause 23(2) was amended in Committee, as hon. Members will recall, as part of a series of Government amendments which introduced the concept of outstanding material interests.
  When the consequential amendments were made one situation was overlooked and this now needs to be covered. It is the case where planning permission is granted in respect of land at a time when there are outstanding interests not in public ownership. Such a planning permission then becomes suspended.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: The hon. Gentleman refers to material interests. Will he explain the position if a covenant on the land is still applied? Would it be considered a material interest under this amendment?
  Mr. Jones: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman is not relevant to this amendment. However, I understand that the answer is that it would not be covered.
  This matter is a little complicated but not quite as serious as it sounds. Such a planning permission would then be suspended. I take the position of an authority which then acquires those interests. As the Bill is at present drafted, such an authority has no means of implementing a suspended planning permission in order to carry out a development. The permission can be activated by virtue of Clause 23 if the authority disposes of the land to someone else, or it can go through the procedure and grant itself another planning permission for the same development. This is a cumbersome way of overcoming the difficulty. The amendment cures this defect or oversight by inserting a provision in Clause 23 that a planning permission shall not be suspended where the development to which it relates is carried out on land in respect of which there are no material interests outstanding by or on behalf of any authority.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Costain: Although the Minister brushed my question aside by saying that it does not apply to these amendments, I must press him further on the matter. There are many cases where land has covenants on it which are owned by other outside interests. It is not necessarily the case that because the council or local authority has applied a compulsory purchase order the covenant is automatically extinguished.
  This clause applies to land where there is no other outstanding material interest. Will the Minister take advice from his experts on this and reconsider the answer he gave me, because the point is germane?
  Mr. Jones: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If I have made a mistake I am sure that we shall take steps to correct it in another place. I was merely referring to a situation in which the authority has acquired all the material interests. It is

  1163
  not a question of there being any further outstanding material interests. The Bill applies only when the authority has acquired all those material interests. I am in the fortunate position of being able to assure the hon. Gentleman that covenants on land are not, as such, material interests.
  Mr. Rossi: The answer to the question is simply that material interests are given a specific meaning in Clause 6. "Material interest" means either the freehold or a leasehold interest with seven years or more still to run. Therefore, it is a term of art and would not cover covenants.
  One of the schedules which we considered yesterday deals specifically with the extinction of covenants on land once acquired by a local authority. That is one of the matters which we tried to deal with by amendment but, unfortunately, we were unable to persuade the Government to agree with us on that yesterday. We considered in one of the schedules the fact that the acquisition of land by local authorities automatically extinguished private rights, interests and covenants—for example, rights of way, easements and matters of that kind. The point my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) made was dealt with yesterday. We tried to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter in another fashion but once again we could not soften his heart.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 342, in page 21, line 10, leave out from 'issued' to end of line 11 and insert 'a certificate in the prescribed form'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to take Amendment No. 343 in page 21, line 13, leave out from 'apply' to end of line 15.
  Mr. Silkin: These amendments are designed to simplify the Bill, and to that extent should be welcomed by—
  Mr. Graham Page: That is impossible.
  Mr. Silkin: I thought that some of the Opposition amendments were also designed to simplify the Bill. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman. We have missed him.
  Mr. Page: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that was serving on another Committee of the House.
  Mr. Silkin: I was aware of that and I was about to say that it is good to have the right hon. Gentleman back.
  The trouble with a simplification is that it starts from the premise that the original parts were somewhat complicated. Without detaining the House too long I shall try to explain the complications.
  Clause 23(3) sets out the circumstances in which a planning permission granted after the relevant date becomes suspended and, therefore, capable of being implemented. There are four basic situations in which this could occur. Clause 23(3)(c) states that the authority has issued to the person to whom it has disposed of the land a certificate stating that it is satisfied that (a) and (b) apply.
  However, by virtue of Schedule 9, paragraph 6(2), the certificate mentioned in (c) must be registered in the planning register and will thus be common knowledge, or at any rate public knowledge. It is not, therefore, necessary for it to be specifically issued to the owner at the time of the disposal.
  Moreover, because the certificate, and its underlying implications, would apply to any person who is, for the time being, the owner of the land there is no need to specify that the development must be carried out by that owner or any successor in title of him. Subsection (3)(d)—
  "the development is carried out by that person or any successor in title of his".—
  can therefore be omitted. The new requirement in subsection (3)(c), that the certificate must be in the prescribed form, merely brings the document into line with other forms of notice which are also to be prescribed. This is a highly technical but, I hope, simplifying amendment.
  Mr. Rossi: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I press him a little on the meaning of the amendment. As he rightly says, we are dealing with a very technical and complicated part of the Bill, with the circumstances in which planning permissions go into suspended animation whilst the local authority considers whether it will take over the land.
  We have been bedevilled by the circumstances surrounding the wording of the Bill. The form of wording used in

  1165
  Clause 23 in the Bill as drafted was substantially and radically amended in Committee. Now we are having further substantial amendments to it on Report. The numbering of these two amendments indicates that they were part of that group of amendments brought before us at the eleventh hour. I say all that as a way of apology to the right hon. Gentleman for having to weary him, perhaps, with a further explanation of the amendment.
  As we left the matter in Committee, this provision meant that the local authority would issue its certificate to the owner of the land or to a successor of title to the owner of the land. The impression left was that this was bound up in some way with the prior rights procedure, something which we were jealous to guard. At one stage, particularly when this was read in conjunction with the provisions of Schedule 3, it would have been possible for any person to apply for planning permission of someone else's land, and whilst that permission was in suspension the local authority and that third party could come to an arrangement between them for the development of the owner's land on terms satisfactory to the local authority and the third party, leaving the owner with current use value as the barest form of compensation for the expropriation or confiscation of his land, which are the terms in which we see this exercise.
  We succeeded in amending Schedule 3, and as a result the third party would have to obtain the owner's consent before the local authority could entertain an application for the right of the third party to have the land sold to him or to carry out the development over the head of the owner. Of course, this was an important concession and established the owner of the land as having prior rights over people whom we were pleased to call at one stage "bounty hunters".
  We thought that part and parcel of that concept was subsection (3) of Clause 23, dealing with the suspension of planning permissions which could be unsuspended in certain circumstances. The circumstances of the Bill as left by us in Committee meant that an unsuspension of the planning permission—I apologise for the language one is having to use—could take place on the issue of a certificate to the owner of the land or his
  1166
  successor in title, someone to whom he has sold the land.
  It seems to me, however, that now this clause is being widened so that the certificate can be used for the benefit of anybody, and, therefore, we feel a little nervous. I am seeking an assurance that these fears are unfounded. They arise perhaps because of the short time we have been given to study and understand very technical amendments to very technical clauses.
  Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) must know, because they have both served in my Department, that even though we are often ourselves skilled in technicalities it sometimes takes us a little while to unravel them. I wanted to make my explanation as simple as possible, and perhaps in simplifying the simplification I oversimplified.
  We are talking about not the prior rights procedure but the fact that the certificate is granted at a much later time, after the prior rights applications have been considered. Subsection (3)(a) says
  "… the land has been disposed of by …"
  the local authority. In that case, the prior rights situation will not apply. I hope that with that assurance, coupled with the fact that the amendment is intended to simplify and not to alter, the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied.
  Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has not satisfied me, although he may have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). I want to know what happens to the certificate when it is issued. Under the Bill as drafted, at least the authority issued the certificate to someone. In an earlier debate, the Under-Secretary of State asked whether I thought we papered the parlour with the certificate. Nevertheless, the certificate does not seem to be given or issued to anyone. It seems to be left in the air. As the Bill originally stood, the certificate at least landed in someone's lap.
  I suppose that that is a suspended certificate in the circumstances and not an unsuspended certificate. We really ought to find some other term for "unsuspended". Surely we could have something like "dropped planning permission", for example. The term reminds me of the

  1167
  song "A Very Happy Un-birthday to You". We have talked about "unsuspended" so much that it has almost got into the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has already removed from the Bill some of these "undesignated relevant developments" or something or other that we talked about in Committee. Cannot we also get rid of "unsuspension" as well?
  Mr. John Silkin: I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is on to an "un-point". The certificate does not go into the air—it goes into the Planning Register, which is a useful and admirable institution open to anyone who wishes to use it.
  Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Standing Committee on the Land Charges Bill this morning. There, we criticised the Planning Register to such an extent that I suggested that it would be better to abolish it.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten me about the Planning Register? We have had the registration of all land in Scotland since time immemorial. The tenure of property has been the basis of our law. How is the concept of the Land Register—which it is alleged the public regularly consult as if they were looking up a train timetable—correlated in Scotland with the registration of land?
  Mr. John Silkin: When I became a Member of the House I made several resolutions, some of which have not followed me through. One was that I would never speak for longer than 13 minutes. Others I have kept. The second resolution I made was never to talk about things I knew nothing about, under which heading comes the whole of Scots law. The hon. and learned Gentleman was busy at the Chair when I wanted to refer to him and say that I hoped that the simplification would appeal to him.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 343, in page 21, line 13, leave out from 'apply' to end of line 15.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Clause 24

  SUSPENSION OF PLANNING PERMISSION: SUPPLEMENTAL
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 308, in page 22, line 7, leave out from 'out' to 'granted' in line 22 and insert:
  'any value attributable to the development so carried out shall be ignored.
  (3) Where any development is carried out without planning permission and planning permission covering that development is subsequently'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this we are taking Government Amendments Nos. 309 and 310 and Amendment No. 174, in line 17, at end insert:
  'unless the acquiring authority elects to permit the relevant development to remain undisturbed'.
  Mr. Silkin: When Clause 24 was debated in Committee, the Opposition sought to amend it so as to provide that where the authority wished to acquire the land and retain the development wrongfully carried out it should pay the full value for the land and for the development upon it. I did not accept that, but I indicated that perhaps the original sanctions in the Bill as then drafted might be a shade too Draconian.
  It presents us with the problem that the existing sanction of compensating at current use value, as the Opposition pointed out, could bite on an innocent owner whose land might form part of that which was the subject of the planning permission. That is overcome by removing the current use value sanction, which we do, leaving only the penalty of the value of the development actually carried out. That approach I believe is an advantage in that the amount of the penalty is strictly related to the extent of the contravention and applies only to the person who has contravened.
  I agree that that approach does not meet the specific point made by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), but the problems of operating on the valuation of land are much greater, and disregarding the value of any development carried out is the only way of providing a realistic penalty which does not run the risk of penalising innocent parties. I hope that I am not misinterpreting the

  1169
  hon. Gentleman. He never misinterprets me an dit is fair that I should get this absolutely right. I think that he felt that there should be a penalty where there was a deliberate contravention, and that is what we have tried to do.
  Mr. Rossi: I welcome the Minister's statement. I understand that he seeks to meet an argument put forward in Committee by my right hon. and hon. Friends concerning the innocent breaker of the regulations or conditions laid down by the statute in connection with the carrying out of development where planning permission has been suspended. I am sure he will forgive me if I ask him to relate the general principle he has enunciated to the way in which the change is being carried out by this group of amendments before us. Again, it is a group of amendments that arrived at the eleventh hour.
  We have the advantage of the notes on the amendments with which the right hon. Gentleman kindly supplied us. My interpretation of the explanatory note is that the whole of Clause 24 is substantially rejigged, mostly as to wording, to make it tidier, but in the course of that rejigging the concept of current use value is dropped. Although I have looked at it, I did so rather rapidly and I have not quite followed how this is done and where the dropping of the reference to the current use value occurs. I have tried to follow the complicated exercise of taking out 10 or 15 lines and bringing them back in in different places by a series of amendments. I have tried to follow where wording has remained and where it has been taken out, but I have not followed the exercise to the "n"th degree and am therefore still a little bewildered as to how the amendments operate. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to help us in that respect.
  The other matter I wish to raise with the right hon. Gentleman relates to the question of principle. When we are dealing with compensation that is to be paid to a person who has carried out a development although he is not entitled to do so because the planning permission has been suspended, we are dealing with three possible values of land. We are dealing with the value of the land as it was before planning permission and before any development is carried out. That, I assume, we should call the current use value.
  1170
  Secondly, there is what used to be called under planning law hope value, which is the value that is added to the current use value on the assumption that the land will be developed. That is a notional value attached to the land and added to the current use value to achieve the market price of the land being sold for development purposes. Thirdly, there is the value when the development has been carried out. At the end of that exercise the land could be, and invariably is, even more valuable than it was at market price with the hope of development being carried out.
  I understand the Minister to be saying that where a development takes place in these circumstances the owner will not be paid the current use value. That concept has gone completely. He will not be paid the market price value, which is the current use value plus the hope value of what the land would be worth with planning permission. What I am unsure of is where we add in the value added to the land by the actual development operation, the building and construction. Will the owner be denied that, or will he be paid it as part of his compensation? Possibly I have oversimplified my questions, but I hope that we shall have the benefit of the Minister's explanation.
  Mr. Michael Latham: I greatly welcome the amendments and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the important concession that he has made. The original proposal—I followed carefully what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said—would have involved the confiscation of the planning permission—namely, a planning permission which had been suspended and which, as we all agreed in Committee, had been wrongly implemented, thereby going against the suspension. In those circumstances it would be taken to be assumed that there was no planning permission whereas in fact there was.
  One matter which concerned me and which formed the substance of Amendment No. 174, which will not now be necessary, was that the land would be acquired at current use value and then the local authority might proceed to implement the suspended planning permission. It would then get the full value that it had previously confiscated from the original owner. That seemed to be

  1171
  unfair and Draconian. The right hon. Gentleman has reasonably accepted that argument.
  Having said those nice things about the amendments, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for being slightly churlish as regards drafting points and presentation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey, I find the amendments difficult to understand. It might have been better, if only for the Development Land Tax Bill, with which I suspect the right hon. Gentleman will be concerned, although he may not be responsible for it, if when redrafting the whole clause to table an amendment to delete the clause and to substitute a new clause. In that way we should be able to see the whole thing together.
  A further point, which I hope is not unreasonably churlish, is that I did not find the Minister's briefing note particularly helpful. I greatly appreciate that he has circulated notes to those who took part in the Committee proceedings, but the second paragraph of the briefing note merely states that the amendments seek to remove the provision that only current use value is to be paid. It then says that the opportunity has been taken to tidy up the general drafting. There then follow administrative and detailed points which do not go to the substance.
  Perhaps when yesterday's difficulties have disappeared and when we come to reconsider this procedure, as I hope we shall, we shall receive a fuller and better briefing note than has been supplied on this occasion. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to burden hon. Members unnecessarily with notes. I have made what may seem to be churlish points as regards drafting, but they are important to hon. Members who are trying to discharge their duty.
  Mr. John Silkin: I do not think that the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) was being churlish. The Government amendments were designed to steer the ship between Scylla and Charybdis. That involved a good deal of rejigging and a chain of amendments. I am sorry to awaken the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) from his reverie. I shall take this matter away following Report so that we can produce more
  1172
  comprehensible drafting in another place, but that may not be possible.
  That brings me back to what was asked so reasonably by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). The hon. Gentleman said that he could not find where we dropped current use value. I do not blame him for that because I could not find it either. I understand that the answer lies in the removal of the references to assumptions as to planning permissions. That would meet the point.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the valuation of the land concerned. The owner will get the value of the land with the value of the planning permission less development land tax before the second appointed day, and less the value of the works he has actually carried out. That will give us the market value less DLT and less works carried out.
  Mr. Clegg: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I was dreaming that the right hon. Gentleman was addressing the House and trying to explain that the Bill was incomprehensible. I then woke up and found it was a nightmare.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Rossi: I must press the right hon. Gentleman because now that I have understood his explanation I extend less of a warm welcome to this matter than I did before. As I understand it, the price that will be paid will be the market price of the land less the cost or the value of the works carried out on it, less the value added to it by the planning permission.
  Mr. John Silkin: No, less development land tax.
  Mr. Rossi: This brings me to inadvertent breaches. The situation can be accepted in which the owner possibly forfeits the right to have the value added to his land by the granting of planning permission, but where he has inadvertently carried out works on that land and spent a great deal of money in building operations it seems hard that he should lose the value of the bricks and mortar and other development work and that such works should go as a free gift to someone else. Surely the loss of the land altogether is a sufficient penalty for anyone. To say that the owner should lose the capital

  1173
  that he has expended in improving the land in circumstances in which he has acted inadvertently seems over-harsh.
  Mr. John Silkin: Where the contravention is inadvertent the procedure is not designed to punish the owner because there is nothing to punish him for.
  Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman's last phrase brought me to my feet. I know that he has said it before. As the amendments stand we find that at line 29 the clause reads:
  "the person granting the permission may, if satisfied that it is reasonable in the circumstances, direct that subsection (2)"—
  that is the subsection which deprives the developer of the value of his wrong development, his development under suspended planning permission. That person decides whether in the circumstances it is reasonable to wash out subsection (2) altogether. Having done that, we go back to square one. Should the developer then receive the full value of the property, the simple value of it?
  At this stage it is perhaps worth while to read the amendments into the Bill. If the amendments are accepted, subsection (2) will provide that if relevant development covered by planning permission is carried out at a time when the planning permission is suspended under the previous clauses, then, in determining for the purpose of compensation the value of the land as at any time after any of the development was carried out, any value attributable to the development so carried out shall be ignored. That is the basis from which we start, but then we come to subsection (3). On taking in Amendment No. 308 the subsection reads:
  "Where any development is carried out without planning permission and planning permission covering that development is subsequently granted …"—
  I now come to Amendment No. 309—
  "the development shall be treated for purposes of subsection (2) above as carried out after the grant, and while the planning permission is suspended. "
  Subsection (4) in Amendment No. 309 reads:
  "Where planning permission is granted under Section 32 or 88 of the Act of 1971 or Section 29 or 85 of the Scottish Act of 1972".
  1174
  We then carry on with the clause as it stands, but it seems that provided the person granting the permission is satisfied that the development was in advertent—although this is not said in the Bill—and provided he is satisfied that it is reasonable under the circumstances—and now we return to square one—the market value of the property should be received, that is the property as developed. That is taken as being lawfully developed.
  Is there any appeal in respect of the grant of permission when a person decides that the circumstances are reasonable or unreasonable? It seems a somewhat dictatorial power to put in the hands of a local authority or of the Secretary of State in these circumstances merely to decide whether it is reasonable—in short, whether there has been inadvertence or a deliberate act. Apparently, there is no appeal. If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of improving on these amendments, perhaps he would give that matter some thought.
  Mr. John Silkin: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, I shall be happy to write to him further on this point, but I think that he has misinterpreted it. He rightly quoted subsection (2), but I would remind him of the passage on page 22, in lines 29 to 31:
  "the person granting the permission may, it satisfied that it is reasonable in the circumstances, direct that subsection (2) above shall not apply to the development covered by the permission."
  The effect of that is that the innocent contravener is not penalised and will get full value.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 309, in page 22, line 28, at end insert:
  'the development shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (2) above as carried out after the grant, and while the planning permission is suspended.
  (4) Where planning permission is granted under section 32 or 88 of the Act of 1971 or section 29 or 85 of the Scottish Act of 1972'.
  No. 310, in page 22, leave out lines 32 to 36.
  No. 311, in page 22, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 23 and insert:
  (7) Section 192(1) of the Act of 1971 and section 181 of the Scottish Act of 1972 (blight

  1175
  notices) shall have effect as if the land specified therein included land in respect of which planning permission for relevant development is suspended under the previous sections.'.
  No. 175, in page 23, line 14, leave out 'the operational land of statutory undertakers' and insert:
  'land which is operational land of statutory undertakers, or would be such land if it were used or held by statutory undertakers for the purposes covered by the permission.'.

Clause 25

  DISPOSAL NOTIFICATION AREAS
  Amendment made: No. 312, in Clause 25, page 24, line 18, after 'counter-notice' insert 'in the prescribed form'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 360, page 24, line 25, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert:
  'is in a disposal notification area'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With that amendment, we shall take Amendment No. 178, in page 24, line 28, at end insert:
  '(9A) The provisions of section 192(4) of the Act of 1971 shall not apply to land which is included within section 192(1) of that Act by virtue of the provisions of subsection (9) above'.
  Mr. Page: This is a simple amendment which I am sure the Minister will accept since it will simplify the Bill.
  We are now dealing for the first time on Report with disposal notification areas. This provision has struck terror into the hearts of many people when they realise that, if they happen to be part of such an area, they will have to inform the local authority of the fact that, when in the bath one morning, they decided to dispose of their property. There is no point set out in the clause at which, if they happen to be in such an area, they should give that notification.
  Unlike most of these areas which we have experienced in town and country planning and development matters, a disposal notification area may have nothing whatever to do with the redevelopment of an area. It is not a clearance area or a slum area. It may exist anywhere. It may be in the centre of a town, or in the country, or involve residential small houses or residential large houses. We are dealing with something which is to be
  1176
  a new factor in the ownership of property and in the conveyancing of property. The local authority can declare an area a disposal notification area and then follow all the matters set out in Clause 25. This obviously will affect the value of property.
  We can assume from the fact that a disposal notification area has been created that the local authority has an eye on that area for some sort of development. It will be difficult to find a willing purchaser of property within an area so designated. That fact has been partially recognised in subsection (9) where we find reference to the blight procedure under the 1971 Act and the similar Scottish Act. The blight procedure applies when an owner, following some action by the local authority, is unable to find a purchaser at the price which he might reasonably have expected to obtain. In the circumstances set out in Section 192 of the 1972 Act, he may serve a notice on the local authority requiring it to purchase the property from him.
  Section 192 sets out a fairly extensive list of occasions when the blight procedure takes effect—that is to say, occasions on which, by some incumbrance having been placed on property by the local authority or other public authority, the opportunities for selling that property have been substantially reduced.
  When the blight procedure was first introduced it was fairly tightly limited, but over the years it has been extended. It has been recognised that it is a fair and reasonable procedure where the owner of property has been put in a difficult position by the action of the local authority. In terms of Clause 25(9), the blight procedure will come into effect only if the land in question is specified in a counter-notice as
  "land which an authority intend to purchase…".
  The counter-notice is the notice given by a local authority in reply to a notice stating that the owner wishes to dispose of his land, and that counter-notice must be given within a certain period; or the blight procedure is brought into effect if it is land
  "as respects which an authority have failed to serve a counter-notice."
  There is a time set out in the clause within which the local authority must

  1177
  serve the counter-notice if it intends to purchase. Only on those specific occasions will the blight procedure take effect, but by the very existence of the disposal notification area the property will have been blighted.
  We have to distinguish in several other cases between actual blight and blight in law because Section 192 of the 1971 Act sets out the occasions on which the blight procedure in law will commence. There are many other occasions on which the value of property has been reduced by the action of local authorities—occasions not covered by Section 192. But it has been recognised in drafting the Bill that at a certain point the disposal notification area situation will blight property at the point where the owner has served notice that he wishes to dispose of the property and the local authority has served a counter-notice that it intends to purchase, but we must appreciate that, if this comes too late in the proceedings, the property will already have been blighted by the existence of the disposal notification area.
  I know nothing in the Bill which has struck the layman with such force as has the device of the disposal notification area. Many parts of the Bill have struck the professions as being quite abominable, there are parts of the Bill which have struck those who know the financial side of matters as being unbearable, but the ordinary layman must realise that a local authority under the Bill will be given powers to say to him, "You shall not sell your house without telling us first. We shall then have the right to take it from you." Once he is within an area of that sort, the value of the house is bound to drop. It should be recognised that the house will be blighted at the point when it comes within a disposal notification area.
  5.30 p.m.
  The purpose of my amendment is to remove the limits on the blight procedure now included in subsection (9), and to widen it to the extent that it can take place immediately the disposal notification area is declared in relation to any property.
  Amendment No. 178 again refers to Section 192 of the 1971 Act and to the corresponding section of the Scottish Act. In that section, and in another subsection,
  1178
  there are limits on the property which can in law be blighted—or, to put it in another way, the property in respect of which the owner can serve a purchase notice if his property is blighted. It is limited to owner-occupier property and other property of a certain value, and with certain limits on agricultural property.
  There should be no limit in the case of a disposal notification area. If this is to apply so as to blight a whole area, all those within that area should be entitled to take the blight procedure and serve a purchase notice. By giving notice of the disposal notification area, the local authority is giving notice that at some time or other it will develop this area and, if so, take over the property. The benefit of the blight procedure should apply to all property in that area and not be limited merely to certain Owner-occupied residential property, to certain property not exceeding a certain rateable value, and to agricultural property. It should apply to all the property within that area.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Because of the enormous complexity of this measure, and in particular the very complicated drafting of many of the provisions of it, the difficulties of the public in understanding the problems which will arise can readily be appreciated.
  I confessed with some reluctance in the Committee that, because of the jobs I have had in the past, I have had the very doubtful distinction of being involved in every single Committee stage in this House on housing since 1965. The boredom involved is indeed mind-boggling. But in all that time I do not think I have ever found a clause which gave me more concern than Clause 25. In saying that, I remember also the many sections of the Land Commission Act with which I was very unhappy at the same time.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is one of the leading experts on the subject of blight and compensation. The public of this country owe him a great deal for his efforts in regard to the 1971 Act, which brought about great improvements in regard to rights of compensation when the State acquires people's homes. The amendment, which he described so ably, would go some way, but only some way, towards dealing with

  1179
  the really horrific problems which will arise for householders if disposal notification areas come into effect.
  The purpose of Clause 25 is that, when a local authority declares a certain area to be a disposal notification area, it will then be in a position to require that anybody—not just householders but business people and industrialists as well—wanting to take part in any transactions affecting his property, selling, leasing, or whatever it may be, will have first to give prior notice to the local authority, which will then decide whether it wishes to acquire the property compulsorily.
  That is a very Draconian power. Justice, the all-party body, described Clause 25 in its memorandum as
  "one of the most oppressive provisions in the Bill."
  I am far from heartened by the guidance in one of the consultation papers issued by the Government when they first described this particular provision. It stated that:
  "The Secretary of State may veto a disposal notification area and will give general guidance against which he will expect authorities to establish them. The purpose of a DNA is two-fold: to enable authorities to find out about impending private transactions in areas where they are considering acquisition; and to protect the interests of owners and prospective purchasers where acquisition by an authority is imminent."
  I do not know how my hon. Friends feel, but I do not regard it as a great protection of the interests of owners that they should have their property compulsorily purchased from them.
  Mr. Rossi: Will my hon. Friend also confirm whether my recollection is correct that also in the notes on clauses which we received it was stated that one of the objectives was to depress the base values of property within disposal notification areas—in other words, deliberately to force down the value of people's houses, gardens and property in those areas in order to facilitate the public acquisition of those properties?
  Mr. Latham: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I do not share with the Prime Minister his omnivorous memory of everything said at any stage, but even if my hon. Friend is not right and it is not in the documents, nevertheless that will be the practical
  1180
  effect, as he has said. Under the provisions of this clause the likelihood of blight is very grave indeed.
  I should like to refer now to the Justice memorandum, which states that
  "If the authority's counter-notice states that they do not intend to acquire the land, or if they fail to serve a counter-notice at all, the blight notice provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act (1971) apply—i.e. the authority may be required to purchase the interests of resident owner-occupier of dwellings, owner-occupied agricultural units and small business premises with net annual value not exceeding £2,250. The owner of land outside these provisions is without a remedy."
  It is a very serious matter indeed that there should be any citizens in this country, irrespective of the value of their property, who are left without a remedy in the circumstances described in Clause 25.
  This was discussed at great length in Committee, so I will simply say that I entirely agree with Justice, not only when they describe this as one of the most depressing provisions in the Bill, but also when they question whether Clause 25 is necessary at all. I do not think it is necessary. The people of this country will not be pleased when they wake up to the very dangerous Draconian powers contained in this Clause. I support my right hon. Friend's amendment.
  Mr. Tony Durant: I support my two hon. Friends. I also feel that this is perhaps the most Draconian, if not the most sinister, part of the Bill. I have sat on a planning committee, and it will be much easier for planning committees, which are not in a hurry to make decisions, just to declare an area under this provision. It is easier to deal with it in that way and wait for a decision later. I know that in the notes it says that the Secretary of State can put down guidelines and over-rule, but if his purpose, which has been clearly stated throughout the Bill, is land nationalisation, he is not likely to resist any scheme which moves in that direction. Therefore I do not think that this is a very happy safeguard for the ordinary citizen.
  I support the amendment, especially because it involves local authorities in having to pay compensation, and this might be a deterrent. Local authorities might think twice with the knowledge at the back of their minds that they would have to do this—and that is always a

  1181
  good deterrent. This whole matter is one of which the public should be made well aware in terms of the insidious danger of this measure. It is a matter which goes far wider than most of the rest of the Bill. It gives tremendous power to local authorities over the ordinary private citizen's home. It is a matter which we must expose again and again. For that reason, I support strongly what my colleagues have said.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I support the amendment, which is extremely desirable, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on the clear way in which he introduced it.
  Having myself served on a local authority, I know the delays which can occur when someone inquires whether the authority intends to purchase his property. Very often the local authority is short of money. It wishes to purchase, but it goes to all sorts of lengths to put it off. This is one of the greatest difficulties which will arise if we do not make an amendment of this kind. People will be subjected to innumerable delays and will not know whether they are to be paid for their properties. They will be subjected to financial instability and doubts about the future tenure of their properties, where they are to move, and so on.
  I appreciate that the Government accepted an amendment of mine in Committee dealing with the searches situation when someone was buying property to ensure that matters of this kind would be revealed. But that does not cover the subject under discussion now. Anything which can be done to improve the situation must be supported.
  Mr. W. Benyon: I wish to add one small point to the remarks of my right hon. and hon. Friends. When the Minister dealt with this matter in Committee, he was at pains to point out that he was being fairer to the owner-occupier by introducing the disposal notification area provision rather than that the local authority should acquire property in an area surreptitiously.
  Since then, bodies outside this House have been able to give far greater consideration to this matter than was possible when we discussed it in Committee. My right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned
  1182
  already the powerful paper issued by Justice. The provision has also been criticised strongly in other quarters.
  I believe it is right that the Minister should look again at his proposal for disposal notification areas. It has aroused tremendous opposition outside this House. In our view, it is the most objectionable part of the Bill.
  Mr. Michael Morris: I wish to add one small but very important dimension to the debate.
  This takes us back to the pre-1971 position. Those of us who served on local authorities prior to the 1971 Act know that in many local authorities, especially in urban areas the planning officer had a large map of the area. The parts coloured red were developed. An outer red line indicated areas which were to be taken in at some time. Possibly there were other areas which were not ringed but which the chairman of the housing committee had his eye on. The experience was unhappy for both parties. It did not just happen in Labour-controlled areas, although more often that was the case. But the person who suffered was the average citizen.
  The 1971 Act went a little way to improve the situation. Now we are going back again, not just in the inner urban areas but across the whole country. Little do people realise what will hit them if this provision gets on the statute book. The Under-Secretary understands local government and has a wealth of experience of it. He cannot be too happy about this provision. I hope that he will take it back and perhaps bring forward a revised version of it in another place.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): In the early hours of this morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you called the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) "Gordon" and me "Graham". On the blight notice provisions of the Bill I can understand how our reversal of rôles led you to do that. When we were considering the Land compensation Bill, I was arguing in favour of greater flexibility in widening the blight notice provisions. For the Government of the day, the right hon. Member for Crosby defended the position. We have now reversed rôles completely.

  1183
  This debate has gone wider than the strict wording of the amendment, to the disposal notification areas themselves. The right hon. Member for Crosby said that no part of the Bill had caused more dissension among ordinary people than this part. The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) said that it was the most Draconian part of the Bill, whereas the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) said that it was the most objectionable part of the Bill. If remarks of that kind reflect the true feelings of the Opposition, it surprises me that they single out this provision for their criticisms, when I recall that they have been heard to refer to the measure as a whole as the "Communist Land Bill".
  Let us be clear why some people outside the House are worried about disposal notification areas. It is because of the deliberate and misleading propaganda about them which has emanated not so much from the Opposition as from Conservative Central Office, both in its publications distributed to local councillors and in the course of the disgraceful and misleading party political broadcast on 1st October of this year.
  Anyone who watched that television programme and had read some of the literature to which I have referred might be forgiven for imagining that with the passing of this Bill the whole of England, Wales and Scotland will become one vast disposal notification area, resulting in anyone wishing to sell a house having to tell his local town hall of his intention. The Opposition know that disposal notification areas will be limited and that the normal provisions of the Bill will be to take in areas of land to the benefit of the community where disposal notification areas will not be necessary at all. There will be limited occasions on which a local authority, in order to save itself money but without prejudice to the vendor—as I shall explain in a moment—will decide that a disposal notification area is necessary for the better planning of the area and for the better operation of this legislation. So let us be clear that we are dealing with a very, very limited area and let us dispel the idea put out by the Conservative Party that almost every Owner-occupied house in the country will be affected by these provisions.
  Mr. Durant: I accept what the Minister says—I confess that I did not see the party political broadcast—but will the hon. Gentleman say where in the Bill we can find what he is saying?
  Mr. Oakes: What I am saying will not be found in the Bill. It is what the Opposition have imported into the Bill.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: For the record, what that party political broadcast said—as opposed to what the Minister is saying—was that under the Bill a local council could declare that if a person lived in a certain area he would have to notify the council of his intention to sell his house. It said quite explicitly "a certain area".
  Mr. Oakes: The way the matter was put across and the way Conservative Members are talking today—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman serious in saying that if a person lives in a certain area and may have to notify the local council that he is selling his house that is the most Draconian part of this Bill, and that is the reason why the Opposition are opposing it? I can hardly believe it.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that towns throughout the country will not implement disposal notification areas?
  Mr. Oakes: Of course some of them will, in limited areas, where it is necessary. I am trying to point out that it will be in limited areas and in limited circumstances; it will not be a general provision throughout the country, as the Opposition are trying to suggest in order to frighten people.
  Another thing said in that party political broadcast, and often repeated—although I did not detect it in any speech today—was that if a local authority acquires the property it does so at "rock-bottom prices". Patently it does no such thing. Local authorities cannot acquire at rock-bottom prices. Conservative Members know that perfectly well. The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), for whose views on most matters I have great respect, may have misunderstood the note that was sent out. The point of that note is not that the base value will be depressed for the vendor. The owner who sells to an authority will get market

  1185
  value as determined under the compensation code. In view of the "net of tax" provisions which are to come in under the Development Land Tax Bill the net price to the authority may be less.
  The benefit of a lower price might, therefore, be lost if there were an intermediate transaction. That may benefit the authority but it does not make the position any worse for the vendor. Before we deal with the provisions of these clauses, let us get this disposal notification area business into perspective. If this is the most Draconian part of the Bill, the most far-reaching Socialist measure, I feel somewhat ashamed that night and day we have been labouring on the Bill and yet produced such a little mouse. Of course this is not the most Draconian part of the Bill, it is the most glamorous part of the Bill for the purpose of misrepresentation by the Opposition.
  Let me turn now to the amendments. This subject has been discussed in Committee. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) withdrew an amendment in Committee, in the hope that the matter would be looked at again, although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave no undertaking. We have, however, looked at the question again, but the answer must be the same.
  It is recognised that the effect of a counter-notice stating that the authority intends to acquire may cause hardship in certain cases where owner-occupiers find it difficult to sell their property except at a loss. This is why subsection (9) applies the blight provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in such cases, so that some owner-occupiers can force the authority either to acquire their land or remove the blight by declaring that it does not intend to acquire.
  The amendment would introduce an alternative procedure which would be available to any person who received a counter-notice stating that the authority proposed to acquire. It would not be limited to residential and agricultural owner-occupiers and owner-occupiers of property whose rateable value does not exceed £2,250, who are the only categories of persons entitled to serve blight notices at the moment. These categories are designed to protect those who suffer
  1186
  the greatest hardship from blight, for example, the residential owner-occupier who needs to sell his house because he has to move to another area. It has always been accepted hitherto that the protection of the blight provisions should not be extended to other categories, for example, the absentee landlord, who is not affected by blight to the same extent as is a person who has to dispose of his home. If the Opposition believe that the blight provisions ought to have been extended to cover such cases, I can only ask the right hon. Member for Crosby why he did not do it three years ago, in the Land Compensation Act. [Interruption.] I know. I feel a little hypocritical when I say that.
  It is uncertain what the effect would be of that part of the amendment which provides that the authority is "deemed" to have abandoned its intention to acquire if it does not respond to the request to purchase within six months. Under the present blight provisions an authority may serve a counter-notice to the blight notice stating that it does not intend to acquire unless forced to do so through the blight provisions. The owner-occupier can contest the counter-notice and refer the matter to the Lands Tribunal for determination. If the Lands Tribunal determines that the counter-notice was correct the blight is effectively removed.
  It may be doubted whether the procedure in the amendment would be so effective. Would the fact that the authority was merely "deemed" to have abandoned its intention to acquire satisfy prospective purchasers? The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will realise that this is crucial for the conveyancing of a house. If it did not satisfy them, presumably the owner-occupier could still try the alternative procedure of serving a blight notice under subsection (9), but this is a very cumbersome way of dealing with the problem.
  Amendments 178 and 179 are virtually identical with an Opposition amendment debated in Committee.
  "It would be wrong of us to give any guarantees or false hopes that we shall be able to extend the blight provisions, but certainly we shall look at the categories as they presently exist and see whether they can be extended to help anyone who might be the victim of some unforeseen circumstance that

  1187
  even the right hon. Gentleman with his far-sighted wisdom might not have seen during the Committee Stage. "—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 2nd July 1975; c. 2064.]
  Those words were said not by me but by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. That review of the blight provisions to which my hon. Friend referred has resulted in a wide extension of the provisions to cover cases in which the planning permission has been suspended under Amendment No. 311. But we still do not accept that the blight categories themselves should be extended, as these amendments advocate.
  Amendment No. 360 is both ineffective and unnecessary. It is unnecessary because the provision it seeks to replace already provides the owner-occupier with a clear route to the blight provisions of the 1971 Act. All he has to do is serve a disposal notification on the authority. If the authority replies that it does not intend to acquire, the blight is lifted. Otherwise the owner-occupier can serve a blight notice.
  The amendment is also ineffective in that it would appear to enable an owner-occupier to serve a blight notice without the need to serve a disposal notification on the authority first. But it should be pointed out that one of the criteria which has to be satisfied before a blight notice can be served is that the owner-occupier has:
  "made reasonable endeavours to sell that interest"
  to quote Section 193(l)(c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. So, in this respect, little is gained by the amendment, because by virtue of Clause 25(5) the owner-occupier would have had to serve notice on the authority anyway if he proposed to dispose of a material interest in land in a disposal notification area.
  I am sorry for having taken longer than normal, but I believe that the substance of Clause 25 merited it. In the light of what I have said, I ask my hon. Friends to reject all three of the amendments that have been proposed by the Opposition.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Rossi: This has been an important debate because it has underlined what the Opposition regard as one of the
  1188
  most objectionable parts of the Bill. I do not go as far as to say that it is the most Draconian part of the Bill, but I give it equal honours with other parts of the Bill that we find objectionable.
  We find objectionable the taking away of private citizens' rights in the amendments that are being made to compulsory purchase legislation. We find objectionable the confiscatory terms upon which private citizens' property is being taken from them. We find objectionable the fact that local authorities are to exercise both planning and developers' functions with the result that there will be serious breaches and inroads into planning criteria.
  The importance of the clause is that it is the one part of the Bill that is easy for the layman outside the House to appreciate and understand, because it does not involve him in a consideration of all the complexities and technicalities of the other areas of law and legal procedure to which I have referred. It is easy for the layman to understand and see the effect that a declaration of a disposal notification area can have on the value of his home. He has experienced the effects which declarations of this kind in other areas of local authority activity have had upon the value of property.
  The hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that the party political broadcast to which he referred was misleading in the respects he underlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) quoted the exact words used. Those words stand up on a strict interpretation of this part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to my own party political broadcast, which went out the same day on Radio Four. I prepared the script, and I was even more pungent in my terms. I have heard no criticism of that, although I do know that the Minister had my script on his desk within a few days. He has not been able to fault any of the language that I used.
  I turn to the reason why we find this so objectionable. The hon. Gentleman has said that it is absurd to say that the whole of the United Kingdom can be made a disposal notification area. He has said that this will not happen. Perhaps he is right, but no limitation, geographical or otherwise, is contained in the clause concerning the extent of any disposal notification area. Under the clause a local

  1189
  authority, if it so wishes, can declare the whole of its area a disposal notification area. There is nothing in the legislation to restrict it.
  The only test that a local authority has to apply is that within the area it declares a disposal notification area there must be some development land. That is not defined in the Bill at all. We were told that by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, because he said, when referring to the question of vetoing or giving his approval to disposal notification areas, he would wish to see that there was some development land in the area. How much development land? Within how big an area? Again, we are not told. We must be forgiven if we are suspicious of this concept. We know that the Government's ultimate objective is the total solution to the land problem—the most Socialist measure introduced by any Government.
  Mr. Oakes: Can the hon. Gentleman conceive why a local authority would want to make the whole of a major part of its area a disposal notification area? First, it would have the difficulty of receiving and processing the notifications. Secondly, it would risk having to meet the blight provisions. What use will it be to the local authority?
  Mr. Rossi: I can foresee a local authority imbued with a particular political philosophy, anxious to acquire and bring into its ownership as much land as possible.
  The issue between us is the Government's determination to pursue what they consider the most Socialist measure that they have sought to enact, namely, the total solution to the land problem—the bringing of land into public ownership. Were we not told yesterday by several hon. Members that the land belongs to the people? What they mean is not that the land shall be owned by the people but that the land shall be taken from the people and owned by the State. That is their philosophy, and it is to that that we have the greatest objection.
  The first point that the hon. Gentleman made was that it cannot or will not be a whole area. There is no limitation in the clause concerning the extent of any area. A local authority, if it were so minded, and were pursuing a particular political philosophy or objective, could deliberately
  1190
  use the powers which the Government are giving it in the ways I have designated.
  Mr. Oakes: That is not true. The hon. Gentlemen referred earlier to the fact that the clause states that it is restricted to cases where there is some development land. That appears in Clause 21(1). The power can be used only to find out about disposals of development land.
  Mr. Rossi: What is development land? It is any land which in the opinion of the local authority is suitable for development. Who is the judge and jury? The local authority determines what is development land. It says that an area contains some development land and declares it a disposal notification area.
  What is the effect? It is simple. Let us assume that I decide to sell my house. It may happen to be in a disposal notification area. That area can be anywhere within the borough, because the authority may decide that there is some land in the borough that is suitable for development purposes. Let us assume that I go to the estate agent because I have formed the intention to sell my house. The clause requires any person intending to sell land to notify the local authority. Therefore, at the point that I form the intention to sell my house and go to the estate agent, I must send a notice to my town hall telling it of my intention. If I fail to do so, I shall be prosecuted and be subject to a heavy fine. That is the liberty of the subject in Socialist Britain, 1975.
  The local authority has four weeks in which to make up its mind whether it will serve me with a counter-notice. What will happen to my estate agent in the meantime? Will he get on with putting the house on the market, or will he sit back and say, "I am extremely sorry, but I have to wait for the local authority to reach a decision before I spend any money on advertising. If he does, I have to sit back for four weeks before my house even goes up for sale. Where does that put me in the personal circumstances in which I may happen to find myself at the time I decided to sell my house? It is spelt out word for word in the clause. There is no exaggeration. Mine is a correct interpretation of the legal language used in the clause. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that.
  Mr. Oakes: The hon. Gentleman has challenged me. I repeat—the provision relates only to disposals of development land. Therefore, the example that he has given, even if there is development land somewhere within his borough and the local authority can declare the whole of the borough a disposal notification area, does not apply. All I can say is that his house would have to be on development land before the provision would apply.
  Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman is reading more into the clause than is actually there. All that we are required to have is the presence of some development land in an area which can therefore be called a disposal notification area. Subsection (5) provides:
  "A person who—
  (a) proposes to enter into a binding contract to dispose of a material interest in land"—
  not development land, but "in land"—
  "in a disposal notification area, or
  (b) proposes to dispose of a material interest in land in a disposal notification area,
  shall give notice to the authority in accordance with Part II of the said Schedule."
  That is quite clear. There is no reference to development land being the subject of a notice and counter-notice.
  Mr. Oakes: I refer the hon. Gentleman to Clause 25(1), line 23.
  Mr. Rossi: Clause 25(1) provides:
  "An authority may exercise the powers conferred by this section for the purpose of obtaining information about disposals of development land."
  Mr. Oakes: "of development land."
  Mr. Rossi: Subsection (2) provides:
  "An authority may pass a resolution declaring any land in their area to be a disposal notification area."
  Later it provides that anyone wishing or intending to sell land—unqualified—in that area must give notice.
  I accept that there is no obligation on the local authority to buy my house, because the counter-notice that it serves upon me can state either that it wishes to buy it from me or that it does not wish to buy it from me. Presumably, if it decides that it is not on development land, at that time it will serve upon me a notice saying that it does not want my house. That is not my argument. The
  1192
  vital question is: what will this do to the value of my house?
  Let us assume that the council does not want my house. Nevertheless, a buyer will be on notice that my house is in a disposal notification area. When he has made a search in the local land charges register he will find that it is in a disposal notification area and he will know from that that this is an area in which the local authority intends to operate a redevelopment scheme. I have not heard of any council redevelopment scheme which does not have an adverse effect upon nearby properties. That is a fact of life. That is what the people of this country understand, and that is why they are concerned.
  If, after his searches and inquiries, my buyer finds that my house is in a disposal notification area, even though the counter-notice does not say that the council wants my property now, he will say: "The council may not be ready today, it may not be ready this month, in six months, in a year or even in two years, to acquire this property, but, blow it, I will not buy a house when it is possible that within a few years the local authority will start operating and may acquire the house, because it is then ready and I have been put on notice that it is in a disposal notification area."
  Mr. Graham Page: If he decides to take the risk, will anybody lend him any money on mortgage?
  Mr. Rossi: That is another consideration. The notes on clauses, which the Minister now claims that we misread, clearly stated that the intention of the declaration of a disposal notification area was to depress base values to enable the local authority to gobble them up the more easily, my dear. That is the concept and that is the effect that it will have. That is what we are unashamedly telling the people, because we think that they have a right to know. Every person with a house or land or garden has a right to be concerned about what the Government are doing.
  6.15 p.m.
  We have all this nice talk about a Bill for the benefit of the people—to return to the people the value created by the community. Yet the right hon. Gentleman said that taxation can deal with that.

  1193
  Going back to my earlier remarks, we are concerned with the Socialist total solution to the land question. We know what that is. When one speaks of rock-bottom prices, one speaks of precisely what any owner of property in a disposal notification area will get if he is lucky to find someone who is prepared to buy his property in the first place. The Under-Secretary of State and his right hon.
  Friend can try to persuade us as much as they wish, but we are not buying this one. We object to it, and I support my right hon. and hon. Friends in pressing the amendment.
  Question put. That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 270.

  Division No. 334.]

  AYES

  [6.18 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Lloyd, Ian

  Alison, Michael

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Loveridge, John

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Freud, Clement

  Luce, Richard

  Arnold, Tom

  Fry, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  MacCormick, lain

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  McCusker, H.

  Baker, Kenneth

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Banks, Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  MacGregor, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Bell, Ronald

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Goodhew, Victor

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Madel, David

  Benyon, W.

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Marten, Neil

  Biffen, John

  Grant Anthony (Harrow C)

  Mates, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Maude, Angus

  Blaker, Peter

  Grieve, Percy

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Body, Richard

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Mawby, Ray

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grist, Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Hall, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Brittan, Leon

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mills, Peter

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hannam, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Moate, Roger

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Molyneaux, James

  Budgen, Nick

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hawkins, Paul

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Henderson, Douglas

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hicks, Robert

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mudd, David

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)

  Hordern, Peter

  Neave, Airey

  Clegg, Walter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nelson, Anthony

  Cockcroft, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Neubert, Michael

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Newton, Tony

  Cope, John

  Hunt, John

  Nott, John

  Cordle, John H.

  Hurd, Douglas

  Onslow, Cranley

  Costain, A. P.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Crawford, Douglas

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Critchley, Julian

  James, David

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Crouch, David

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

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Penhaligon, David

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Percival, Ian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Jopling, Michael

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Dunlop, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Durant, Tony

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Emery, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Raison, Timothy

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Eyre, Reginald

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lamont, Norman

  Reid, George

  Farr, John

  Lane, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Fell, Anthony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Finsberg. Geoffrey

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rifkind Malcolm

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Wakeham, John

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Stokes, John

  Wall, Patrick

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Walters, Dennis

  Scott, Nicholas

  Tapsell, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Watt, Hamish

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Shepherd, Colin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wells, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Welsh, Andrew

  Sims, Roger

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Thompson, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  Totter, Neville

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Sproat, lain

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stainton, Keith

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Mr. Michael Roberts and

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Fred Silvester.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Doig, Peter

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Allaun, Frank

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Anderson, Donald

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  John, Brynmor

  Archer, Peter

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dunn, James A.

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Ashley, Jack

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Eadie, Aiex

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Edge, Geoff

  Judd, Frank

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Bates, Alf

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Soun)

  Kelley, Richard

  Bean, R. E.

  English, Michael

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Ennals, David

  Kinnock, Neil

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lambie, David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Bishop, E. S.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lamond, James

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Boardman, H.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Booth, Albert

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Lee, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Flannery, Martin

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bradley, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Litterick, Tom

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Ford, Ben

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Forrester, John

  Luard, Evan

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Buchan, Norman

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  George, Bruce

  McCartney, Hugh

  Campbell, Ian

  Ginsburg, David

  McElhone, Frank

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gould, Bryan

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Cant, R. B.

  Gourlay, Harry

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Graham, Ted

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Carter, Ray

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cartwright, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hardy, Peter

  Madden, Max

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Harper, Joseph

  Magee, Bryan

  Cohen, Stanley

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)

  Mahon, Simon

  Coleman, Donald

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Mallalieu. J. P. W.

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Marks, Kenneth

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hatton, Frank

  Marquand, David

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Corbett, Robin

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Craigen. J. M. (Maryhill)

  Hooley, Frank

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Horam, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Cronin, John

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cryer, Bob

  Huckfield, Les

  Millan, Bruce

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Molloy, William

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Hunter, Adam

  Moonman, Eric

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Deakins, Eric

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Moyle, Roland

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Delargy, Hugh

  Janner, Greville

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Newens, Stanley

  Dempsey, James

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Noble, Mike

  1196

  1197

  Oakes, Gordon

  Ryman, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Ogden, Eric

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Urwin, T W.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ovenden, John

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Owen, Dr David

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Padley, Walter

  Sillars, James

  Ward, Michael

  Palmer, Arthur

  Silverman, Julius

  Watkins, David

  Park, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watkinson, John

  Parker, John

  Small, William

  Weetch, Ken

  Parry, Robert

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Weitzman, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Snape, Peter

  Wellbeloved, James

  Perry, Ernest

  Spearing, Nigel

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Spriggs, Leslie

  White, James (Pollok)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Stallard, A. W.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

  Whitlock, William

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Stott, Roger

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Radice, Giles

  Strang, Gavin

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Swain, Thomas

  Wilson. Alexander (Hamilton)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Woof, Robert

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Tierney, Sydney

  Roper, John

  Tinn, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Rose, Paul B.

  Tomlinson, John

  Mr. Tom Pendry and

  Rose, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Torney, Tom

  Mr. David Stoddart.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Question accordingly negatived.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 313, in page 24, line 25, after 'counter-notice' insert
  'served in accordance with paragraph (b) of subsection (8) above'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 314.
  Mr. Oakes: This is a drafting amendment to remove any possible confusion between the use of the term "counter-notice" as it is used in the Planning Acts and its use here. The amendments make it clear that the counter-notice referred to in subsection (9)(b) is one served under the provisions of this clause and not under the Planning Acts in response to a blight notice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 314, in page 24, line 28, at end insert 'in accordance with that paragraph'.—[Mr. Oakes.]
  Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 180, in page 24, line 28, at end insert—
  '(9A) Any compensation payable to any person under subsection (9) above shall be agreed with the authority or in default of agreement assessed within six months of the date of service of a blight notice'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendment, No. 181, in page 24, line 28, at end insert—
  '(9A) The service of a blight notice under subsection (9) above shall not operate so as to deprive the person serving the notice of his right to a home loan payment under the Land Compensation Act 1973'.
  Mr. Rossi: On previous amendments we have been discussing the unfortunate effects of the declaration of a disposal notification area and the right of a local authority to serve a counter-notice stating that it wants the land. In those circumstances the owner of the property can then serve a blight notice if there are delays by the local authority. We have also considered the situation in which the local authority fails to serve a counter-notice, in which case the owner of the land can serve a blight notice, the effect of the blight notice under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1971 being to oblige the local authority to purchase that land.
  In our amendments, what we are seeking to do is, first, to ensure that the local authority will not cause unnecessary hardship by delaying or spinning out the purchase of the property or delaying the payment of the owner affected by a disposal notification area resolution and procedures under it, to enable him to get his money as quickly as possible. We therefore propose in Amendment No. 180 that the compensation shall be agreed or, in

  1199
  default of agreement, assessed within six months of the owner serving the authority with the blight notice requiring the authority to take the property from him.
  Hon. Members on both sides know from their constituency experience how some local authorities like to put off the day of reckoning, of payment, and that some owners often have to wait a long time for their compensation, in the process often losing alternative homes which have come on to the market but which they are not quick enough to buy because they have not been paid for their existing home which has been affected by the activity of the council. So the amendment seeks to put a strict time limit on the local authority to ensure that the wretched owner gets his money as soon as possible.
  Co-extensive with that, we would introduce by the second amendment a concept by which we wish to ensure, so that there is no misunderstanding as to the legal position, the rights of the owner, so that, as well as getting the price for his property, his compensation under the blight notice, he will also get the home loss payment which was introduced in the Act brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), the Land Compensation Act of 1973.
  I hope that the Minister will help us to mitigate some of the evils brought about by the clause by at least helping the private citizen to obtain his money quickly and on as generous a basis as possible.
  Mr. Oakes: I am, of course, at one with the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) in his desire to see that a person affected gets his money quickly. I must ask the House to resist these amendments, but I hope that what I say will convince the hon. Member that he should withdraw them. I am advised that Amendment No. 180 is both unnecessary and impracticable.
  Under the existing law the authority has two months in which to respond to a blight notice. If the notice then succeeds it becomes a deemed notice to treat, and the claimant may, if he chooses, refer his claim to the Lands Tribunal at any time after 28 days have elapsed from the date of the notice to treat.
  I ask the Opposition to listen carefully, coming, as they do, hot foot from Blackpool,
  1200
  to my next words. The amendment would remove any element of choice. The owner-occupier may want longer than the time given—effectively, only four months if he has to wait two months before the local authority responds to his blight notice—to present and argue his claim. He may be content to allow the negotiations to continue till agreement is reached. The assessment of compensation is complex and time consuming, and even when both sides are willing to reach agreeement it may be impracticable to do so within the time limits imposed by the amendment.
  However, if the claimant is genuinely anxious to avoid delay he can already resort to the Lands Tribunal. So the Opposition's point is already met in existing law. Given that explanation, and the fact that both sides want to avoid delay, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.
  On Amendment No. 181, we are back to the question whether home loss payments should be payable to those who are also receiving compensation under the blight notice—something that we discussed for many hours under the Conservatives' Land Compensation Bill. Under that, on the whole, admirable Act, it was finally settled that he should not.
  The difficulty in accepting the amendment is that it would put the person in a disposal notification area in a privileged position compared with the position of a person receiving compensation for blight from other conditions. We can see no reason for that differentiation. Had it been the Opposition's desire to extend the law they could have done so in 1973. It would create anomalies if we accepted the amendment.
  In the light of that explanation, I would ask the hon. Member not to press either of the amendments.
  Mr. Rossi: With leave of the House. I was encouraged by the Minister's saying that both sides wished the owner to receive his compensation as quickly as possible, but he then proceeded to put in our paths every possible obstacle to deny us that objective.
  The hon. Gentleman said, first, that our amendment as it stands would deny the choice of an owner to go to the Lands Tribunal. If that is so, I would

  1201
  be prepared to accept an alteration to the wording to retain that element of choice. The last thing I would want to do is remove it. As we have seen throughout the debates on the Bill, it is not only Opposition amendments which are defective but also clauses which, already in the Bill, have had to be altered as we have gone along. Neither side has a monopoly of drafting defective provisions. So we may not have been as clever as we might have been, or thought the thing through sufficiently, and I would be prepared for the Minister to accept our principle and, in another place, to have put in that element of choice that he rightly says should remain.
  My preoccupation at the moment is with the small man, the small householder, the owner of a limited amount of property, because my experience in these matters, which is similar to that of the Minister, both professionally and in public life, is that ordinary citizens are extremely shy of going to the Lands Tribunal. It is normally the big property owners who exercise that right.
  The ordinary individual is deterred from going to the Lands Tribunal because of the expense involved. The Lands Tribunal is not a body to which legal aid applies, and therefore a person who wishes to go before it has to face the whole of the expense himself. Appearing before the Lands Tribunal is an expensive procedure. The person concerned has to employ experts in this field who, because of their expertise and the limited market within which they operate, are able to demand fairly high fees.
  I have come across this problem both professionally and as a Member of Parliament. When a constituent says to me "I am not satisfied with the amount of compensation that the local valuer is offering on behalf of the local authority, what shall I do, how can I get more?", I tell him that he has the right to appeal to the Lands Tribunal, and he immediately asks "How much will that cost? I had better take what the local authority is offering me rather than risk losing a great deal of money in legal and professional fees".
  This element of choice is not a real one for the average citizen, and to that extent I am not very concerned that it did not appear in our amendment in the first
  1202
  place, although I agree that when we consider matters of this kind we must not apply our minds simply to helping a particular section of the community but should try to assist all land owners and not deprive a particular type of land owner of the right to go to the Lands Tribunal if he wishes.
  Coming now to the other amendment dealing with the home loss payment, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can put the argument to us that we had the opportunity in 1973 of extending home loss payment to compensation for blight in respect of disposal notification areas. These areas are only just being introduced by this Bill, and what we are saying is that the compensation terms should be extended in a particular way presented with the piece of legislation now before us.
  We feel that it would not be a question of giving a privilege, to use the hon. Gentleman's word, to these people to give them this additional compensation. We consider those who find themselves within disposal notification areas and subject to all the procedures which the Minister is now bringing upon their heads to be extremely oppressed and disadvantaged. Therefore, we feel that if we can help them in the slightest way we should do so.
  In view of the encouraging manner in which the Under-Secretary of State greeted these amendments in the first place, although he feels that he must reject them now, for the technicalities that he mentioned, I hope that between now and Committee in the other place the Government will give further thought to these matters and that, without giving any undertaking, the hon. Gentleman will consider whether he can meet us in this respect. On that basis, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will forgive me if, before he asks leave to withdraw the amendment, I come to the aid of the Minister on this matter, because the hon. Gentleman quite rightly said that when we were dealing with the Land Compensation Bill in 1973 we decided that a home loss payment should not be payable in a case in which the owner initiates the blight procedure

  1203
  After all, the whole point of the blight procedure is that the owner wishes to sell. The whole point of a home loss payment is that the owner does not wish to sell. My name is to the amendment because I thought that this matter ought to be discussed, but I believe that the Minister is right in saying that as the blight procedure is started because someone wants to sell his property and cannot sell it at the proper value, and the home loss payment is made to someone who is being forced out of his home, it is not appropriate to make the change proposed unless that argument is set aside altogether and one applies home loss payment whether or not the owner has initiated (he business of selling.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey will forgive me for coming to the aid of the Minister in this case.
  Mr. Oakes: I hope that I may have the leave of the House to speak again. What the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said is true. There is a different philosophical concept between the man who wishes to sell and the man who is forced to leave his home and does does not wish to sell. I was trying to say that there is an added difficulty. I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that disposal notification areas were not in existence when the Land Compensation Bill was being discussed, but we would create an anomaly if we were to accept his suggestion, in that compensation provisions would apply to a DNA different from those which apply in respect of blight not resulting from the operation of this measure. Outside a DNA people would not receive the home loss payment, whereas within it they would.
  I do argue against the amendment not purely on the technical ground of defective wording but because, within the existing law, there is an element of choice which the amendment would deny. The law exists via the Lands Tribunal, and I tell the hon. Member for Hornsey that legal aid is available to anyone wishing to appear before that tribunal.
  Having said all that, I, as a practising solicitor, take note of the point made by the hon. Member for Hornsey that a person may be frightened and reluctant to appear before the Lands Tribunal
  1204
  because of its very name, even though he can get legal aid to put his case there. I still think that the provisions of the existing law are infinitely better than the amendment proposed by the Opposition. I do not want to mislead the House, but I tell the hon. Gentleman that without any commitment I undertake to consider the amendment, to see whether, in another place, we can meet some of the points that he has made. I do not think that we can. I regard the existing law as better than what is proposed in the amendment, but I undertake to consider it further.
  Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. It is obvious that I have been out of private practice for too long, because I missed the point about legal aid being available to appear before the Lands Tribunal. In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 7

  DISPOSAL NOTIFICATION AREAS
  Amendment made: No. 182, in page 78, line 5, leave out 'may be' and insert 'practicable'.—[Mr. Oakes.]
  Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 183, in page 78, line 14, leave out 'council or, in Wales, every' and insert 'or'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments:
  No. 189, in page 79, line 20, leave out 'council or, in Wales, every' and insert 'or'.
  No. 194, in page 80, line 19, leave out 'council or, in Wales, every' and insert 'or'.
  Mr. Jones: These are purely drafting amendments. They delete specific references to Welsh community councils as being bodies to which copies of DNA resolutions have to be sent. The references are not needed, as, in the context of the paragraphs concerned, the term "community council" could apply only in Wales, anyway. We therefore propose to delete these words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made:
  No. 184, in page 78, line 16, leave out 'may be' and insert 'practicable'.
  No. 185, in page 78, line 23, leave out 'may be' and insert 'practicable'.
  No. 186, in page 79, line 11, leave out 'may be' and insert 'practicable'.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]
  Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 187, in page 79, line 15, leave out from 'area' to 'may' in line 16 and insert:
  'a map on which that part of the area is defined'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments—Nos. 188, 191, 192 and 193.
  Mr. Alec Jones: These, too, are drafting amendments. I believe that they are of some importance because they will make the position somewhat clearer and easier as regards the details of the changes in any DNA. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Schedule 7 as drafted are slightly defective, in that they do not prescribe with sufficient precision what the map defining the extent of a DNA that has been varied should show. The map is an important clement in the publicity to be given to DNAs and has to be available for inspection as well as being sent to the parish and community councils and deposited in the land charges register. In our view it is essential, therefore, that such a map should indicate clearly the changes which have been made. Amendments Nos. 187, 188 and 193 ensure that this will be done.
  Amendment No. 191 brings the wording of the beginning of paragraph 4(2)(a) into line with that in paragraph 2(6)(a). It provides that where an authority varies a DNA it must publish a notice of the effect of its resolution instead of, as the Bill at present provides, a notice of the resolution itself. The idea of indicating the changes and the effect of these changes would be much more acceptable to those involved. This approach should be more helpful to interested land owners as it will save them time and make it much easier for them to understand the relationship between the original proposal and the new resolution.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 188, in page 79, line 18, leave out "amended";
  No. 189, in page 79, line 20, leave out "council or, in Wales, every" and insert "or";
  No. 315, in page 79, line 27, after "notice" insert:
  "shall be in the prescribed form and ";
  No. 190, in page 80, line 12, leave out "may be" and insert "practicable";
  No. 191, in page 80, line 14, leave out "resolution identifying the area" and insert "effect of the resolution";
  No. 192, in page 80, line 16, leave out "a map on which" and insert:
  "in the case of a resolution affecting a part only of the area, a map on which that part of";
  No. 193, in page 80, line 18, leave out second "the" and insert "any";
  No. 194, in page 80, line 19, leave out "council or, in Wales, every" and insert "or";
  No. 195, in page 80, line 23, leave out "may be" and insert "practicable".—[Mr. John Silkin.]
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move, Amendment No. 196, in page 80, line 29, after "publication", insert:
  "in the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette, as the case may require, and".
  Schedule 7(5) provides that the notices that are required to be published concerning disposal notification areas shall be published in two or more papers circulating in the locality of the area concerned. The amendment extends this requirement to include publication in the London Gazette or, in Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette. The House will agree that this meets a point that was made in Committee, when it was suggested that the publication should extend beyond the local Press. We are happy to propose this amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, Amendment No. 197, in page 80, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert:
  "(a) liability for any offence committed, or

  (b) the operation of any notice served under section 193(1) of the Act of 1971 or section 182(1) of the Scottish Act of 1972 (power to serve blight notice),

  before the resolution or notification.".

  1207
  This is a further saving provision for offences committed at a time when land is in a disposal notification area, but the land is subsequently taken out of the area either by the authority or by the Secretary of State. The effect of the amendment is to add a further saving provision for blight notices under Section 192(1) of the 1971 Act, served at a time when the land is blighted, where the land in question subsequently ceases to be in a disposal notification area. Once the land has ceased to be in a disposal notification area the blight may remain because an authority may still have plans which could involve the acquisition of the land. It is right that the blight procedure, once started, should be allowed to take its natural course, so that the authority will still have the opportunity to issue a counter-notice saying that it does not intended to acquire the land or may be forced to buy it if it is clear that it still requires it.
  Without this saving provision made by the amendment the blight procedure might simply stop in midstream leaving the owner-occupier in considerable uncertainty about the authority's intentions. This is a provision to help the owner-occupier in those circumstances.
  Mr. Graham Page: The first part of the amendment draws attention to the unacceptable face of land nationalisation in that it has to be accompanied by offences which the individual may commit if he proposes to dispose of his land and if that land happens to be in a disposal notification area, and if he omits at the right time—I still do not know what the right time is—to state when he proposes to dispose of it. If he fails to do that he is liable to be fined £400 or, on indictment, he is liable to "a fine", which means any size of a fine.
  The sad point is that if the disposal notification area is removed the prosecution continues, because he has failed to give that notice. There is a saving grace in the amendment, as the Minister has said. It is contained in the second part of the amendment. It says that even when the disposal notification area has been cancelled, removed, or suspended—or whatever the correct word may be—if the blight procedure has been started it will continue. I am grateful to the Minister for discovering this omission in the
  1208
  Bill as drafted, and for proposing the second part of the amendment.
  I mention a small drafting point. The last words of the amendment are "resolution or notification". The Minister will observe that in paragraph 6 notification is used in two senses—namely the disposal notification area and the notification of cancellation under paragraph 2(6). Will the Minister consider adding to the last word of the amendment the words "under paragraph 2(6)", or in some other way identify the notification to which he refers? The amendment may be all right as it stands, but when I read it I was puzzled and had to read it again to make quite certain which notification it meant.
  Mr. Oakes: With the leave of the House. Anything that puzzles the right hon. Gentleman might cause consternation to someone else. I am grateful to him for making the point, and for his remarks. I will give my attention to the possibility of adding words after the word "notification". It is essential that we are clear what sort of notification we mean.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move, Amendment No. 198, in page 80, line 40, after 'but', insert '(a)'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 201, in page 81, line 5, at end insert—
  'and

  (b) in the case of a resolution passed by of notification received by a general planning authority, that authority shall send as soon as practicable a copy of such resolution or notification and of any map to every district council whose district com prises any part of the disposal notification area or any part thereof affected by the resolution, or as the case may be, notification'.

  Mr. Ewing: Paragraph 7 of this schedule requires resolutions declaring or terminating disposal notification areas, and also notifications from the Secretary of State revoking or amending declaration of such areas, to be placed on the register kept by virtue of Section 31(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, in other words, the planning register. This amendment requires that in addition to registering the resolution or notification in the planning register, the general planning authority shall send a copy of any resolution or

  1209
  notification and of any map to every district council whose district comprises any part of the disposal notification area.
  It is our opinion that these authorities should receive individual notification regarding disposal notification areas which affect them and this falls within the procedures for notification of parish councils in England.
  It has the further advantage that in the widespread geographical area of a general planning authority there will be available, within reasonable distance of a disposal notification area, a copy of the resolution or notification appertaining to it, access to which could, if it were convenient, be made available for inspection by the public.
  Mr. Graham Page: Could the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he has joined the Liberal Party or whether the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has joined the Government because at the head of the Amendment No. 201 there appears the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, but the amendment is being moved by the Minister.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I can clear that point up with considerable ease. To my certain knowledge the only attempts that have been made in recent history in the House for two parties to join together were the rather abortive attempts of the Conservative and Liberal parties after the General Election in February 1974. The amendment should be in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting a little wide on what is obviously a misprint.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 199, in page 80, line 42, leave out 'may be' and insert practicable'.
  No. 200, in page 81, line 1, leave out 'may be' and insert 'practicable'.
  No. 201, in page 81, line 5, at end insert:
  'and
  (b) in the case of a resolution passed by or notification received by a general planning authority, that authority shall send as soon as practicable a copy of such resolution or notification and of any map to every district
  1210
  council whose district comprises any part of the disposal notification area or any part thereof affected by the resolution, or as the case may be, notification'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Clause 27

  ASSUMPTIONS AS TO PLANNING PERMISSION ON OR AFTER SECOND APPOINTED DAY
  Amendments made: No. 316, in page 25, line 11, leave out from beginning to 'to' and insert:
  '(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) below, this section shall apply—
  (a)'.
  No. 317, in page 25, line 14, leave out from 'on' to 'in' in line 15 and insert:
  'a date on or after the second appointed day, and (b)'.
  No. 318, in page 25, line 18, at end insert 'interest in'.
  No. 344, in page 25, line 19, at end insert:
  '(2) This section shall not apply where—

  (a) during the period beginning with 12th September 1974 and ending with the date mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, the interest in land has not been owned otherwise than by a charity, and

  (b) that period is a period of not more than ten years;

  and for the purposes of paragraph (a) above, the interest in land shall not be treated as having been owned otherwise than by a charity at any time if, at that time, a charity had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition.'.
  No. 319, in page 25, line 23, leave out 'relevant'.
  No. 320, in page 25, line 26, after 'specified', insert:
  'in Schedule (Exempt development) to this Act or'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 321, in page 25, line 35, leave out from 'of' to end of line 38 and insert:

  '(i) any change, effected by an order under section 22 of the Act of 1971 or section 19 of the Scottish Act of 1972, in the uses of land not involving development, or

  (ii) any change, effected by the making, variation or revocation of a general development order, in the kinds of development falling within paragraph 1 of Schedule (Exempt development) to this Act,

  being (in either case) a change effected on or after the second appointed day or, if the interest in land is being compulsorily acquired

  1211
  and notice of the making or preparation in draft of the compulsory purchase order was first published before that day, on or after the day on which it was so published'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take Opposition Amendment No. 208, in page 25, line 38, at end insert:
  'or after the date of the compulsory purchase order'.
  Mr. Silkin: The Government amendment arises out of the recasting of these clauses and is related to them. I shall come back to the effect in general, but I want to point out the effect of the latter part of the Government amendment, which says:
  "if the interest in land is being compulsorily acquired and notice of the making or preparation in draft of the compulsory purchase order was first published before that day, on or after the day on which it was so published".
  This meets a point put by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Budgen) in Committee. He wanted to point out that it was possible that someone might not have objected to a compulsory purchase order on certain assumptions, and then one might get a change in the use class order or general development order, or something like that, and the effect would be, as the Bill was then drafted, that he would get a lower value because, for example, one might get—to use a fanciful situation—a use class order on industrial premises grouped together but then a person might make a new use class in which industrial premises of a particular sort were put into a separate use class.
  The result would be that, of course, the limits of the original value in that particular use class would be varied. I was not unsympathetic to the point, and the Government amendment therefore exactly meets the point, although only incidentally. To that extent, it is the same, in effect, as the Opposition amendment. I hope, therefore, that the Opposition will support our amendment instead.
  The other part of the Government amendment arises because of the recasting of these provisions, but it deals with much the same point on the question of values that arise on the second appointed day. It freezes the assumptions as they were on the second appointed day just as we are freezing the assumptions for the compulsory purchase order. In other words,
  1212
  we are saying that because other changes may take place in, say, the use class order or the general development order, a person is not to be denied the original assumptions of what the current use value would have been at the set date of the second appointed day. I hope that the amendment as a whole meets the Opposition's view.
  Mr. Rossi: The right hon. Gentleman has put the Government amendment to us on the basis that he is meeting a point made by the Opposition in Committee. It just shows how difficult it is to deal with technical and complicated matters of this kind at such short notice, because, again, this amendment is one of the eleventh-hour group put to us. We marked this amendment with the word "Divide"; now we are told that it is a helpful amendment, designed to meet a point that we made in Committee. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can help us further in his explanation. This is a very difficult area.
  As the Bill now stands, we are told by Clause 27 that when compensation is being assessed for payment to a dispossessed land owner, no account is to be taken of any changes that may take place in the kind of developments which are relevant development by virtue of regulations that may be made under the Bill. In other words, if the value of a man's interest in his land is altered by the Secretary of State changing his regulations under the Bill, no change will take place in the compensation being paid, either up or down. I assume that it could work both ways.
  Subject to the reservations that we made concerning the effective date, we accepted the concept that anything being done under this Bill after the given date should not affect the valuation, but the amendment seems to depart from that concept, because we are moving entirely from the subsection, as I understand it, by reference to changes which may be made in that concept of relevant development by regulations that the Secretary of State may choose to make under the Bill. It is being replaced by changes which may take place in the use class under the town planning legislation, and any change that may take place because of changes in a general development order.

  1213
  These are slightly different things, because, at the moment, if changes are made in the planning effect upon land an owner does not benefit from them, or suffer from them, to an extent, either way. This seems to be a somewhat different concept from the one in the Bill as we considered it in Committee. It was this change in concept that alerted us and made us consider that perhaps it was not acceptable.
  Primarily, what the Opposition are concerned to do is to ensure that the compensation payable to a dispossessed owner is as generous as possible and not as mean and niggardly as possible. It seemed to us that what was happening now was that we were being asked to accept that changes in matters outside the Bill itself should not be taken into account when assessing the compensation. Even if those changes augmented the value of the land and enabled the owner to obtain a more generous compensation than he otherwise would, we were being required to say that that should be disregarded. To that extent, we felt that the Government amendment was not acceptable.
  I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind that we are trying to grope through these technicalities at a late hour, would enlighten us on the question whether the concept which I have put to him is correct or incorrect, so that we may decide whether or not to divide the House.
  Mr. John Silkin: I am awaiting confirmation of what I believe to be the case. In the meantime, I shall say what I believe to be the situation and we shall see whether my view is correct. This is what I was trying to achieve, and in doing that I was hoping to meet the legitimate point made by the Opposition not just in relation to the compulsory purchase order question but in general terms. In principle, I do not think that we are far apart from one another.
  The amendment effectively deletes subsection (3)(d) of Clause 27. The reason for that is that "relevant development" now has no meaning in that clause. The intention of the amendment is to freeze the basis of current use value at the second appointed day, so that the owner is neither prejudiced nor advantaged by any changes made for planning and not for compensation reasons. The hon. Gentleman
  1214
  will see that that exactly parallels the compulsory purchase order concession made in recognition of the Opposition's argument, and that we have succeeded in doing exactly the same thing. We have given a certainty to the owner of the land that whatever change in planning there may be it will not affect him. He will know exactly where he is and he will not be disadvantaged accordingly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that explanation.
  Mr. Graham Page: Surely the amendment deals only with certain specific matters, namely, those under Section 22 of the 1971 Act, the corresponding section in the Scottish Act, and the General Development Order. In respect of the use classes orders and the General Development Order I have it at the back of my mind that we have always recognised the principle that if they are changed to the disadvantage of an owner he will not be paid compensation for that change.
  If one owns property one runs the risk of the property being increased in value by more things being included in the GDO or the use classes, or being decreased in value by a more stringent GDO. That is what seems to have crept into the amendment—and it seems to be all that has crept in.
  I feel that the amendment must have been drafted after the amendments which delete "relevant development", because the Minister put his amendment on the basis of merely tidying up. It has to recognise that "relevant development" no longer exists in the Bill and there is, therefore, no point in mentioning it in this subsection. The amendment must have been drafted before Amendment No. 261, which brought in the new classes of excepted development by regulation. If those regulations are changed, that may have exactly the same effect as a change in the General Development Order or the use classes orders. Should they not come into the amendment?
  Amendment No. 208 contains simply the words:
  "or after the date of the compulsory purchase order".
  The Minister has cluttered this simple phrase with words about the draft of the compulsory purchase order being first published, and so on. I suppose that there is some precedent for that, but the

  1215
  normal date of a compulsory purchase order is the date when the draft order is published and awaits confirmation by the Secretary of State.
  The Minister may have omitted to include the regulations introduced by Amendment No. 61, and I feel that they should be included in the amendment.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Silkin: I should like to assist the House to come to an early decision on the amendment, one way or another. I think that the Opposition understand that the Government were trying not only to make the parallel changes necessary but also to meet the Opposition's point. I take the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that he and his hon. Friends had not realised that, but he will take my point that that is what we intended to do.
  If the House is willing to agree to the amendment, I undertake to reconsider the matter between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place to see whether there is anything in the point made by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), that because the drafting was somewhat out of order, as he believes, we may not have the wording quite right. If the Opposition are satisfied with that undertaking, I am happy to give it.
  Mr. Rossi: With the leave of the House, may I say that in view of that assurance, we shall not divide the House on this occasion.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28

  COMPENSATION PAYABLE IN TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN CERTAIN AUTHORITIES
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 209, in page 26, line 8, leave out from 'person' to end of line 11 and insert:
  'from whom the interest is being acquired is a local or new town authority, the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint or Lake District Special Planning Board, or a joint board established under section 2 of this Act;

  (c) the person acquiring the interest is a body mentioned in paragraph (b) above or a Minister'.

  The sole purpose of the amendment is to rectify the omission from Clause 28, as introduced, of local authorities out-
  1216
  side their areas and joint boards constituted under Clause 2.
  In the transitional period of the community land scheme the basis of compensation for land acquired compulsorily by the Crown or any other authority exercising compulsory purchase powers will continue to be market value, assessed in accordance with the rules set out in the 1961 Act and in the equivalent Scottish Act of 1963. The actual cost of land to the land scheme authorities or local authorities buying land from the private sector will be reduced not by changing the market value basis but by enabling them to buy at a price which excludes the amount of development land tax for which the vendor would be liable. But as proposed in draft Clause 10 in the White Paper "Development Land Tax" the land scheme authorities and local authorities outside their areas or in Wales will not be liable to development land tax.
  If, therefore, it should be decided that certain transfers between authorities should take place on the same basis as acquisitions from the private sector, that is to say, with the acquiring authority receiving the benefit of the reduced price facility, the Secretary of State will need to be able to modify the rules in the Land Compensation Acts in their application to such transactions to produce a "net of notional tax" result. These modifications cannot be spelt out in the Community Land Bill because they will depend on the final terms of the Development Land Tax Bill, but they will also provide the basis for achieving the same result in the overwhelming majority of cases where transfers of land between public authorities are effected by agreement, since the practice is to relate the considerations for such transfers to the compulsory purchase basis.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29

  FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TRIBUNALS
  Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 383, in page 26, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'is' in line 32 and insert:
  'conferring on the Lands Tribunal the duty of discharging such functions as may be specified in the regulations and the Lands Tribunal in carrying out such functions'.
  Mr. Speaker: With that amendment we may take Amendment No. 384, in line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 27.
  Mr. Morris: The amendment concerns the financial hardship tribunals and in particular their constitution. It is for the purpose of simplification and for bringing in the specific responsibility of the Lands Tribunal.
  I am conscious that we had some deliberations early this morning on the rôle of such a tribunal and its attitude to the Bill. It seems right to us that the rôle of the tribunal should be written into the Bill in this clause.
  Mr. Michael Latham: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to accept the amendment or at least to make a concession. As I said in Committee, I cannot understand what other tribunals he can have in mind under the present drafting of the clause. The only tribunals which possibly come to mind are the local valuation panels. However, such panels are not properly constituted to deal with complex matters. The Lands Tribunal is manifestly the right body for this sort of work. I would have thought acceptance of the amendment to be a good idea.
  Mr. John Silkin: I do not want to accept the amendment and I shall explain why. It is not that I am without some sympathy for the amendment. As I think the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) will remember, I was not totally without sympathy with the point in Committee. I do not want to close options on this matter. There are good arguments in support of the amendment and I thank the hon. Member for Melton for not putting them at great length this evening. He adduced those arguments extremely effectively in Committee.
  I accept that there are good reasons for choosing the Lands Tribunal. It has authority and a deal of history. One reason for my being against it is that although it sits district by district, and will sit in the district where the land is concerned, it is a national body. I cannot help feeling that there may be advantage in a much more informal tribunal which is related to the area in which the land is situated right from the beginning, and
  1218
  not merely as a branch from a central organisation.
  Equally, much as I love my profession—and I am delighted to be able to further its advancement on any occasion—the kind of tribunal I had in mind originally was one having a rather more lay approach. It would deal with cases in which the compensation would be cut and dried and agreed, but if there were a sympathetic tribunal the ordinary citizen could approach it, saying "Can you help me? These are my circumstances." The sort of tribunal I had in mind would sit on that sort of basis and would not have the wig-and-gown attitude to compensation.
  I accept that this is a matter of balance. It may be that because the Lands Tribunal is already set up—and I take into accounts its experience—the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Melton are right. It may be that what they put forward is the right way in which to proceed. I would not like to close my eyes or those of any successor of mine to the idea that we might be able to produce much more local and informal tribunals. That is my only reason for resisting the amendment. I understand the amendment and I accept that in many ways it is sensible, but it represents only one approach. This is a subject that I would prefer to be considered much more carefully before we get to the second appointed day. I should like the advantages and disadvantages to be more carefully weighed.
  Mr. Michael Morris: When the right hon. Gentleman is weighing up these factors I hope that he will take into consideration the need for some conformity of approach to these problems. It seems that one of the problem areas is that in different localities there are varying reactions to these situations. I think that when it comes to dealing with hardship there needs to be some conformity throughout the country. That is why I welcome the idea of the Lands Tribunal.
  Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has been very forthcoming and has demonstrated that he has an open mind. However, I must press him a little further. He must realise that when the financial hardship tribunals were first mentioned, hope came in the breasts of

  1219
  all of us that there was to be some compassion for those who would suffer under the Bill. We were disappointed when we saw that the clause provided only that such tribunals may be set up. When we heard the presentation of the clause by the Minister we were further disappointed because it appeared that he was not intending to set up the hardship tribunals for many years. We thought that they were to come in at the outset to help the unfortunate who suffers under the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has in mind informal tribunals. I do not necessarily go along with him on that. If I were given the choice I would rather have experience than informality. The tribunal with the experience is the Lands Tribunal. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that when we were dealing with the Land Compensation Bill we were endeavouring to set up smaller tribunals within the Lands Tribunal. In the county courts we knew that there were the registrars' courts. I used that phrase in the hope that the then Lord Chancellor would see that we had the, registrars' courts as well as the Lands Tribunal—namely, small courts for the sort of compensation claims which were bound to arise under the Bill when it became the 1973 Act.
  If we are progressing along the lines of small courts within the Lands Tribunal, it must be possible for such courts to be approached rapidly and for there to be no very great procedure. They should be able to deal with small cases. They should be able to hear people in person if they want to appear in person or to hear their representations from their legal representatives.
  I do not want to set up new tribunals. We already have the Lands Tribunal. We have its experience in valuation and in understanding hardship as well as in assessing compensation. I ask the Minister to consider the development of the Lands Tribunal along the lines of being an approachable tribunal that can undertake different sizes of hearings so that it can deal with the small cases as well as the large, with the layman's case as well as the professional's case. That would
  1220
  provide the tribunal which the right hon. Gentleman appears to have in mind.
  I am hesitant about setting up new courts or new tribunals. If we do so, I think we are only looking for trouble. We shall not get the value out of them that we shall get out of the experience of the Lands Tribunal.
  Mr. John Silkin: I was impressed by what the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) said about uniformity. I agree that there is something in that point. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) spoke with considerable authority. I am bound to say that I found what he said attractive.
  I give an assurance that I shall consider this matter at leisure. I shall consider what may be the best way of proceeding in the light of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. I still do not want to close my mind to an alternative to the Lands Tribunal although I must say that I found much of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to be most persuasive.
  Mr. Budgen: I realise that I am not expected to intervene in this part of the debate. I do so because I am appalled that the Minister gives the impression that he meets the idea that there should be uniformity in the law as though it were a fresh idea he had not previously considered in relation to hardship tribunals. I would have thought that any qualified lawyer would come to the belief at an early stage in his professional career, if not whilst taking his examinations, that certainty in the law was one of the law's most important characteristics. The idea that we should have what are called sympathetic tribunals acting on quixotic, varied and subjective judgments is plainly alien to all ideas of law.
  One of the most important things about the law is that it should be uniform and should be known to everybody without the necessity for immediate recourse to litigation. To talk about setting up informal tribunals which will be sympathetic when dishing out taxpayers' money may be agreeable to those who possibly are concerned about the effects of legislation, but it is wholly alien to the idea of certainty and the concept of the rule of law.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Silkin: I am grateful to the hon Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) for his little lecture on the law. I wish that I had had the hon. Gentleman by my side when I was taking my solicitor's final examination 30 years ago. By some curious chance, I succeeded in passing. I maintain that in those days the examination was tougher than is the present piece-by-piece examination. On this occasion, we are not dealing with purely undiluted law, if such a creature exists. We are dealing with hardship, and the situation may differ from individual to individual.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) appeared to be offering something related to the district, such as the registrar's court in the county court—in other words, a body which is related to the district but which, nevertheless, has the compassion to deal with hardship cases. Of course, in law compensation must be uniform. We need to look subjectively at the citizen, and it would be a good thing if we could lay down solid guidelines for such institutions. All this simply proves what I have been saying—namely, that we should wait and see and choose the best possible means we can. My argument amounts to saying that the amendment should be withdrawn.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I do not think that the matter should be left as it is. I first wish to apologise for having come late into the debate. I had intended to stay throughout because we are dealing with matters of some importance.
  I begin by agreeing with the Minister that we are dealing here not with a strictly judicial tribunal but with an administrative tribunal. Obviously hardship is a matter largely at the court's discretion. People may take a different view on these matters, but certain grave difficulties arise. Clause 29 (10) deals with the regulations and involves the establishment of a financial hardship tribunal. It also involves the conferring of functions, which is a simple matter, but then there is reference to prescribing
  "the criteria by reference to which a financial hardship tribunal is to decide questions arising in relation to any application …"
  1222
  It will be difficult to decide which criteria should be laid down in the regulations and it will involve an Affirmative Resolution of this House.
  I was involved in the original preparation of the report which later led to the system—a system which was violently opposed by the then Minister—related to inspectors' reports and the criteria which they should follow in deciding questions of fact. First, there are the broad criteria involving discretion of the tribunal and, ultimately, there is the decision. The Minister is entitled to disagree with the tribunal's opinion, but he must not assail the findings of fact.
  The wider aspects of the Bill worry me since we appear to be moving away from successful past practice. I take some pride in the fact that we produced a report relating to the activities of inspectors and, despite the opposition of Mr. Duncan Sandys, as he then was, that system was successful. Therefore, I hope that in laying down criteria care will be taken to ensure that the tribunal in its duty to determine the facts on the question of hardship will make the situation clear and will report upon it. I hope that on those facts, properly stated, the decision will be made.
  What often happens is that the facts go wrong. That is why we as politicians face difficulties in considering the cases that come before us in our Saturday surgeries. Time and again we find that our constituents have got the position wrong because they have their facts wrong, or perhaps the civil servant concerned has got his facts wrong. If the facts are right, the Ministry or the body concerned can come to a correct decision.
  I hope that the Minister will not break with the tradition that has been built up and will look carefully to ensure that, however far down the path of Socialism we are moving in this Bill, we shall not be so unwise as to lay aside the excellent administrative code of practice which has been built up over many years. We must preserve the system that a tribunal must determine and publish the statement of facts so that those facts are able to be challenged in a court of law if they are wrong or if the Minister totally disregards them. We must look carefully at this provision and its application.
  Mr. John Silkin: The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) has given yet another reason for the fact that we should examine these matters together. There should not be any party political difference on this matter. We should all decide what is the best way of giving effect to what we all want to achieve. Therefore, I hope that in the light of my assurance that I shall study the matter, the amendment will be withdrawn.
  Mr. Graham Page: Will the Minister give an assurance that when he thinks about the matter, he will take the extraordinary course of consulting Members of this House? That is never done by a Minister. He consults associations of local authorities and other bodies outside the House, but he never asks any hon. Member, however informed that hon. Member may be, for his view. I know that we can all call in at the Ministry if we so wish, but we would be most happy if there were to be some form of consultation, under the chairmanship of the Minister, among those of us who are concerned with these matters.
  Mr. Michael Morris: I thank the Minister for his sympathetic and generous response. I believe that this is one of the most important elements in the Bill because hardship hits individuals and we should carefully examine its effects. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 210, in page 27, line 18, leave out 'authority' and insert 'person'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the amendment we shall take Government Amendment No. 211.
  Mr. Oakes: The amendments will ensure that a more satisfactory definition is given in subsections (6) and (7) of those liable to pay the compensation and therefore responsible for paying the additional payments ordered by the tribunals.
  These are very technical amendments. The reference to "authority" is incomplete because, in cases of compensation for compulsory purchase, the order may have been made by a statutory undertaker which is not an authority defined in Clause 1. We are therefore substituting
  1224
  the word "person", where the definition is from Section 13 of the Interpretation Act 1889.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 211, in page 27, line 22, leave out 'said authority' and insert:
  'person by whom it is to be paid'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
  Mr. Budgen: I beg to move Amendment No. 212, in page 27, line 40, at end insert:
  '(d) stipulate that the right to make a claim or the benefit of any claim which has been made shall pass with or without express assignment to the personal representatives of any person entitled to make or having made a claim'.
  The object of this, I hope, only technical amendment is to allow the right of appeal to a hardship tribunal to be transmitted after the death of the person owning the plot or other area of land affected by the action of Clause 27 of the Bill.
  It is plain that a plot may be not just an asset of an individual land owner but something which is really the asset of the whole family. If an individual person has a right of appeal to a hardship tribunal, it is plainly wrong that that right should end at his death. This small technical amendment allows it to be passed on to his personal representatives to the benefit of those who benefit either under his will or under his intestacy.
  Mr. Oakes: We have every sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). A similar amendment was moved in Committee and I said then that we would look at it sympathetically.
  It was thought originally that this would be dealt with by process of general law, but the hon. Member has put down his amendment and there is no reason why it should not go into the Bill for greater clarity. The wording of the amendment is not quite right but I give the hon. Member an undertaking that in another place the full intention of this amendment will be placed in the Act.
  Mr. Budgen: I am very grateful to the Minister for his assurance. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move Amendment No. 382, in page 27, leave out lines 41 to 44.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the amendment, we may take Amendment No. 400 in page 27, line 43, leave out '£50,000' and insert '£500,000'.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I do not wish to go through the discussion which took place in Committee on this point. Amendment No. 382 seeks to remove the limitation, which was increased from £25,000 to £50,000. The alternative amendment, No. 400, which is obviously less satisfactory, seeks to increase the limit from £50,000 to £500,000.
  These points were previously discussed in Committee, and I find it interesting that the right hon. Gentleman, in discussing the points raised, did not merely use the argument that it was wrong. He used the argument that it was open-ended expenditure and that the Treasury would say that they could not afford it. I can think of some other reasons why the Treasury might say that they could not afford it, but the right hon. Gentleman has particularly fastened on this one, which seems to be a rather weak argument.
  If financial hardship of a substantial kind has been incurred by a large public company, as opposed to an individual, it is equally entitled to compensation, particularly when we realise that a recent survey of some 10 property companies showed that 86·5 per cent. of their equity and issued capital was owned by institutions, in addition to which there was another 3·5 per cent., bringing it up to 90 per cent. owned by small shareholders, in sums of £1,000 or so. Therefore, 90 per cent. of the people who suffer from pension funds being put to financial hardship are persons of very limited means. Pension funds are equally at risk under the provisions of this Bill.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again about these two amendments, particularly in the light of his Treasury-oriented answer in the Committee.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: In the earlier debate, I could not understand why any figure at all was placed in line 43. It seemed to me that the financial hardship tribunal would award such sum as it felt proper
  1226
  in all the circumstances. The figures would be a few hundred pounds in many cases, but in the case of a property company the figure might be large. Had the Minister indicated earlier any valid reason for putting a figure in to determine what is far better left to the tribunal?
  Mr. Burden: Might I, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), answer the question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies)? If he looks at Clause 29 he will see that the hardship tribunal pays out its awards in relation to subsection (4), which refers back to Clause 27. Clause 27 is a confiscatory clause which lays down that confiscation shall take place because the land owner will be compensated not at the development value but at the current use value, and therefore the Minister is right in saying that by his arguments there has to be some sort of limit.
  If one is confiscating the development value of a whole area, such as Wolverhampton, for example, the amount by which land owners are deprived of their property may be enormous, and the cost to the taxpayer of compensating those land owners may be enormous. Indeed, the proposals of the financial hardship tribunal bring forward a totally new concept in land compensation for all previous measures of land compensation have been based on the proposition that each individual land owner receives compensation upon the same basis. If, for the sake of argument, Grannie Smith in my constituency loses a plot of land, and in another area the Duke of Devonshire, the friend of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), loses a similar plot, each of them receives compensation on the same basis, and plainly, that conforms to the basic concept of English law that there should be equality under the law as between rich and poor alike. Perhaps one of the most important trends of recent law has been an attempt to make sure that the poor receive the same good law and the same properly administered law as the rich.
  But the proposals with regard to the hardship tribunal lay down a wholly new concept. They attempt to give the poor an advantage under the law which the rich do not enjoy. They say to the poor,

  1227
  "You may have lost exactly the same as a rich person, but, because you are poor, you may have a right to refer your case to a hardship tribunal." In effect, they are saying to these people, "You have no need to appeal to the Sun newspaper or to the Daily Mail in the way in which many people who were adversely affected by the old Land Commission appealed to the popular newspapers. You will be bought off by the taxpayers' money which is administered by a financial hardship tribunal." It is a wholly new concept of the law.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: With due respect to my hon. Friend, I cannot share his view. Is it not the magnitude of the building operation—the size of the property company—which will be the difficulty? The case in point may be that of a very large company with great financial hardship, or it may be that of a fairly substantially wealthy land owner running up to about £50,000. Surely it is not the poverty of the individual but the size generally of the operation which will determine these factors.
  Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West. He makes his point again. But if, for the sake of argument, a property company finds its property confiscated under the provisions of Clause 27 and it loses £1 million, the £1 million being the difference between the development value and the current use value, and it can get that £1 million from the hardship tribunal, the effect of Clause 27 has gone and compensation is not at current use value but at development value, which means that the whole effect of the Bill has gone.
  We are told repeatedly that the idea behind the Bill is that the community should have the additional value arising as a result of the granting of planning permission and the consequent development. Neither my hon. and learned Friend nor the Minister can have it both ways. So that no matter how these criteria are laid down and no matter how sophisticated they may be, it means that the individual person who has his assets in a single block of land will be able to appeal to the financial hardship tribunal and, because he has his land in one block, he will receive some benefit from the tri-
  1228
  bunal, but that the person whose assets are vested in a right to a pension invested by a pension fund will find that he cannot be compensated adequately for the diminution in the value of his pension when the pension fund suffers the confiscatory effects of Clause 27.
  There is no way round this. The only way round it is for the Minister to abandon his central objective and to say that he will cease his depredation on property held by property companies and landowners and will compensate people properly—that is to say, on market value taking into account potential development value, and not upon current use value.
  Mr. John Silkin: I am unable to accept the amendments, and I intend to resist them. As the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) said, the two amendments are contradictory, one giving a totally blank cheque and the other establishing a limit of £500,000.
  The basis of the financial hardship tribunal as we envisaged it was simply that it would deal with relatively small cases. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) put his finger on it when he said that the overwhelming majority of such cases would involve sums of £100 or £200. That was one reason why, a couple of years ago, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was so interested in home loss payments. However, we still get cases in our surgeries which are not covered by that provision. It is that kind of case which will form the majority.
  At an earlier stage, we put the limit at £25,000. The hon. Member for Hove is entitled to have his fun at the expense of my views of the Treasury. If ever he occupies my position he will find that he, too, will have to take notice of the Treasury. Any responsible Minister must. That is why it is not possible to have an open-ended cheque, though I agree that it is attractive to be able to say to a body such as the financial hardship tribunal, "You make your own decisions."
  Even the limit of £500,000 goes beyond the idea of helping the small man. Very few small men would be liable to be in for £500,000. We thought the figure of £25,000 fairly generous and reasonable.
  In Committee, similar amendments were moved by the hon. Member for

  1229
  Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). They were withdrawn when I accepted an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) suggesting an increase from £25,000 to £50,000. The basis on which I was willing to agree that amendment was that there could be occasions on which a working farmer, even though he would lose nothing in the value of the land, since he would be able to buy an equivalent farm for what he had lost, suffered the inevitable disturbance in terms of the working up which is necessary. I appreciate that a farm is such that a great deal of individual skill goes into it and that is not easily replaced. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that there were other cases as well. Therefore I was happy to meet the general views of the Committee.
  Having agreed that it was reasonable for the Minister to listen to and to accept arguments advanced in Committee, the official Opposition withdrew their amendment, which I thought was a slightly propagandist exercise of the kind that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) made a few moments ago. Whether such propagandism is effective is not for me to say, but that was the exercise, and it remains that today.
  The amendments must be resisted. We are talking purely in terms of the small man. He has not suffered and he will never suffer personal hardship to the extent of £500,000 because he will not earn that even during the whole of his working
  Mr. Sainsbury: I must put right the impression that we are suggesting that individuals would be getting half a million pounds. That is highly unlikely. But companies, behind which lie a large number of what the right hon. Gentleman calls small people, do run the risk of losing that sort of money. Unhappily, we have recently been aware of the consequences of companies making that sort of loss and perhaps going bankrupt. I am delighted to hear of the right hon. Gentleman's responsiveness to the Treasury. In the light of that, perhaps the correct thing to do is to withdraw the whole Bill. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  8 p.m.
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 213, in page 28, line 21 at end insert—
  '(14) In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) there shall be inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order the entry:
  "A Financial Hardship Tribunal within the meaning of section 29(1) of the Community Land Act 1975."
  This subsection shall extend to Northern Ireland.'.
  The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 provides that anyone holding offices of profit under the Crown set out in the schedule to that Act shall be disqualified from holding office in the House of Commons. As membership of a hardship tribunal will carry with it the possibility of remuneration from money provided by Parliament it is considered that such tribunals should be added to this schedule and members of them disqualified from the House of Commons.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30

  POWER TO ACQUIRE UNOCCUPIED OFFICE PREMISES
  Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move Amendment No. 214, in page 28, line 38, at end insert:
  'and

  (c) that all reasonable steps have not been taken to find a tenant or tenants in respect of the unoccupied office accommodation during that period. '

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this amendment, we shall take Government Amendments Nos. 216 and 217.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The Government amendments are a response to an undertaking given in Committee. They use wording which is taken from the Conservative rating surcharge in the Surcharge Act 1974. Once again we are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). In these circumstances I hope that I shall be able to withdraw Amendment No. 214 and that the House will accept Amendments Nos. 216 and 217.
  Mr. Oakes: We gave an undertaking in Committee on this point. I am sure that Amendments Nos. 216 and 217 cover all of the points raised in Amendment No. 214 but that they do so in a more appropriate way. I would, therefore, ask the hon. Member to ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 214.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 215, in page 29, line 3, leave out from 'the' to 'and' in line 9 and insert 'completion date'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that amendment, we shall take Government Amendments Nos. 218, 219 and 220.
  Mr. Oakes: These are drafting amendments. Their main purpose is to make it clear that a valuation for the purposes of Clause 31 is made at the date when the office accommodation in a building is completed if the building as a whole is left incomplete.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made:
  No. 216, in page 29, line 15, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 16 and insert:
  'The Secretary of State shall not acquire compulsorily under subsection (2) above—
  No. 217, in line 19, at end insert:
  'or
  (b) any interest in the land to which this section applies, if he is satisfied that the person entitled to possession of the unoccupied office accommodation has tried his best to let it.
  (4A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) above whether the person entitled to possession of the unoccupied office accommodation has tried his best to let it, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the following, as well as other relevant factors—

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

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

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

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

  (e)the nature and extent of advertising of the accommodation by that person or those agents.'

  No. 218, in page 29, line 23, at end insert—
  '(5A) In this section and in section 31 of this Act "completion date", in relation to an office building, means the date on which—

  (a) where the office building consists only of office accommodation, the erection of the building, or

  (b) where it also comprises other accommodation, the erection of such part of it as consists of office accommodation.

  was completed'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Clause 31

  AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UNDER SECTION 30
  Amendments made: No. 219, in page 29, line 33, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 34 and insert 'completion date'.
  No. 220, in page 30, line 10, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 11 and insert 'completion date'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Clause 32

  ADDITIONAL POWERS OF ACQUISITION
  Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move Amendment No. 221, in page 31, line 6, at end insert—
  '(3) The Acquisition of Land Acts shall apply to the compulsory acquisition of land under this section as they apply to the compulsory acquisition of land in a case falling within section l(l)(b) of the Act of 1946, or as the case may be the Act of 1947'.
  This amendment follows a point raised in Committee. I recall that a little while ago the Minister said that anything which puzzled my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) caused consternation to everyone else. We are dealing here with a point which puzzled my right hon. Friend in Committee. What we are concerned with is whether anyone whose land is compulsorily acquired by the Secretary of State purely to enable him to manage, run, develop or re-sell empty office blocks which he has acquired under other provisions of this Bill should have that property taken away from him under the penal compensation code in Clause 31 or whether it should be taken away under the normal compensation code. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that

  1233
  it is taken away under the normal compensation code. The point was left open at the end of the Committee debate.
  Mr. John Silkin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) for his probing amendment because it enables me to set the matter out and put the record straight. Under Clause 33(1) the Acquisition of Land Acts are already applied to the compulsory acquisition of land under Part IV of the Bill. The modifications of those Acts in Schedule 4 do not apply to any compulsory purchase order under Part TV and the modifications in subsection (2) of Clause 33—which disapplies the requirement to specify the purpose for which the land is required—do not operate in respect of a compulsory purchase order under Clause 32. In short, the Bill already makes the provision which is sought by the amendment.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am delighted that we are now seeming to be more certain on these points than we were in Committee. In the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33

  APPLICATION OF ACQUISITION OF LAND ACTS
  Amendments made: No. 222, in page 31, line 11, after third 'the', insert 'Scottish'.
  No. 223, in line 13, after third 'the', insert 'Scottish'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Clause 35

  DETERMINATION OF DATE OF COMPLETION
  Amendments made: No. 224, in page 32, line 22, leave out:
  'subject to the following provisions of this section'
  and insert:
  unless the Secretary of State serves a completion notice under subsection (2) below'.
  No. 225, in page 33, line 29, leave out 'subsections (2) to (7) above' and insert 'this section'.—[Mr. Oakes.]
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 226, in page 33, line 33, at end insert:
  '(9) In this section, unless the context other wise requires, references to an office building include references to part of such a building.'
  This amendment is identical to the Government amendment moved in Committee but the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) raised a point or two on it and we withdrew it because of uncertainty about its effect. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I go into a little detail so that I may reassure hon. Members.
  Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 30 provide that the Secretary of State may acquire an office building—being a building which consists of or comprises office accommodation occupying more than 5,000 sq.m. of floor space—if he is satisfied that at least 75 per cent. of the office accommodation has remained unoccupied for the whole of the period mentioned in subsection (3).
  Subsection (3)(a), as amended, and new subsection (5A) provide that this period begins with the date on which, first, where the office building consists only of office accommodation the erection of the building was completed or, secondly, where the office building comprises both office accommodation and other accommodation—this was the point that arose—the erection of the part consisting of office accommodation was completed.
  The combined effect of these provisions is to enable the Secretary of State to acquire an office building where the erection of the part of it which consists of office accommodation has been completed and remained 75 per cent. unoccupied for at least two years, but the erection of the part consisting of other accommodation has not been completed. If it were otherwise a developer could escape Part IV simply by leaving the "non-office" part of the building half built. But, as explained, the relevant date to be determined may be the date on which the erection of the part of the building consisting of office accommodation was completed. It is therefore necessary to state that unless the context otherwise requires references in Clause 35 to an office building include references to part of an office building.

  1235
  When Clause 35, as proposed to be amended, is read with subsections (3)(a) and (5A) of Clause 30 there can be no doubt that the completion date being determined is the date of completion of the erection of the office accommodation—which will also be the date of completion of the building where it consists only of office accommodation, or the date of completion of the office part of the building in the other case.
  I have read this because it is right to have it clearly on the record so that those outside the House may be in a position to fully understand this.
  Mr. Sainsbury: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, which he read with great clarity and skill, because I followed him in the notes that he helpfully supplied to us. I do not know whether he has followed the advice given in those notes because when Clause 35, as proposed to be amended, is read with Clause 30(3)(a) and (5)(a), it says in the notes, there can be no doubt about it. I am not a lawyer but I confess that I was left with a nagging doubt as to why the wording was so.
  We have often heard the right hon. Gentleman talk about the amount of consultation he has undertaken. Will he tell us whether, on this point, he has consulted the British Property Federation and, if he has not, whether he will undertake to do so to ensure that there is no doubt on either side about this matter?
  Mr. John Silkin: I am with the hon. Gentleman on the first point he made, I confess that it was confusing. That was why I wanted to reconsider the matter. On the question whether I consulted the BPF, I point out that it has not raised this matter with me.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36

  POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
  Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move Amendment No. 227, in page 34, line 31, after '(a)', insert 'without reasonable excuse'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Amendment No. 228, in page 34, line 31, leave out 'without reasonable excuse'.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The effect of the two amendments is to move the position in the clause of the wording "without reasonable excuse". At present, it reads:
  "A person who—
  (a) refuses or without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a notice under this section".
  I find it hard to understand why it would not be better if it read:
  "A person who—
  (a) without reasonable excuse refuses of fails to comply".
  I am sure it would be generally agreed that one can sometimes have a reasonable excuse for refusing. Often it is not wilful refusal, but a refusal to do something based on reasonable grounds. Therefore, it seems to me that the best of the two options is to move the words "without reasonable excuse" to the beginning of the paragraph so that they qualify both the refusal and the failure. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept that.
  Mr. Oakes: I am afraid that I cannot accept it. We considered this matter in Committee and the hon. Gentleman will remember that I said then that it was a semantic point but that I would see whether the wording proposed by the Opposition was better. This is one of the occasions on which I think the Government's wording was right in the first place.
  There have been many amendments on which I have accepted points that the Opposition have put forward in Committee. Perhaps I can explain my reasons by giving an example. If there is no response whatsoever to a Clause 36 notice, that would constitute a refusal and if the power is to have any teeth there must be a penalty. On the other hand, if the person in question responds to the notice by saying that, for the reasons he gives, he is unable to supply the information required, that would constitute a failure to comply. If, in the Secretary of State's opinion, those reasons did not justify the failure, the matter could be pursued before the courts.
  In short—this arises in many Acts—it is important to preserve, as does the present wording, a clear distinction between refusal and failure and the Department therefore stands by the paragraph in its present form.
  Mr. Graham Page: I thought that the Minister was rising to accept the amendment, because it is such an obvious amendment. Let us suppose that one refuses in the belief that one has a perfect right to do so. Surely if one has reasonable excuse to refuse one should not be liable to a £400 fine or
  "on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both."
  This is a serious matter. It may well be that a person does not just fail to comply with the notice, but definitely refuses to do so thinking that in the circumstances he has a right to refuse. He may well have that right to refuse, but he may be wrong. Surely, if he has a reasonable excuse for refusing and he makes a positive refusal—that sound like a contradiction in terms, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands what I mean—he may yet be found liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment. I am sure that no harm is done by putting the words, "without reasonable excuse" at the beginning of the sentence, as suggested. However, certainly possible harm and indeed probable harm will come from leaving them where they are at present.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has raised a valid point, because it is clear from subsection (4)
  "A notice under this section may…require the person to whom the notice is addressed—

  (a) to state whether he has in his possession or control any document which constitutes, or is evidence of, any lease or other disposition".

  Wide-ranging information can be asked for because it says,
  "to produce to an officer of the Secretary of State, being an officer duly authorised".
  Let us suppose that he is not convinced that the officer is duly authorised and he refuses. Surely that is a reasonable ground for refusal if the officer is unable to produce appropriate documents to prove that he is so authorised.
  A solicitor who refuses to reveal details of his clients' affairs on those grounds would render himself liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment or both. It is unreasonable not to allow us to give him reasonable grounds for refusing.
  Mr. Oakes: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's example of a solicitor. What a solicitor would do in the circumstances is not merely refuse but say, 'I am a solicitor of the supreme court. I would be in breach of professional etiquette if I disclosed that information." The court would test his reason. Similarly, there is the example put forward by the right hon. Gentleman where a notice has gone out and he says, "I cannot supply this information". The position is not that he does nothing about it. He says, "I have not got this information." The matter can be judged. Any clause must have teeth. I suggest that we leave the matter as it is.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 39

  ACQUISITION OF LAND BY THE CROWN
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 346, in page 36, line 20, after 'common' insert 'or'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may discuss Government Amendment No. 347.
  Mr. Ewing: The effect of Amendment No. 347 is to disapply the words
  "or fuel or field garden allotment"
  in the application of Clause 39(1) to Scotland. Clause 39(1) sets out the circumstances under which the Secretary of State may acquire land in addition to that needed for public service.
  Amendment No. 347 is consequential.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 347, in page 36, line 24, at end insert—
  'In the application of this subsection to Scotland the words "or fuel or field garden allotment" shall be omitted. '.—[Mr. Harry-Ewing.]
  Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 229, in page 36, line 27, at end insert
  'it is proposed to use not only for the public service but also'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Government Amendment No. 230.
  Mr. Oakes: These Government amendments arise from an undertaking which

  1239
  was given in Committee when Opposition Members were concerned about the point. Perhaps I can briefly explain them. Any use of the acquisition powers extended by subsection (2) will be founded on a basic requirement for land for public use, for example, Government offices. Only when such a requirement exists will the question arise whether other developments not actually required for public service use ought to be combined with the public service development. Although the motivation for the acquisition and development will be the needs of the public service, it does not follow that in all such cases the public service will need to occupy the greater part of the development in physical terms.
  In future, when a public service development is proposed and the local authority indicates, in the course of its normal consultation procedure, that it considers a mixed public and private development as the most suitable approach for the area, the effect of this amendment comes into operation. It is basically in response to an undertaking which we gave in Committee.
  Mr. Sainsbury: We are back with the consequences of my old friend the Commission of Works Act 1852 about which I remember writing reports a long time ago.
  In Committee we suggested the word "primarily" instead of "partly". The helpful notes with which we have been supplied suggest that this change in wording is to meet the point raised in Committee that this kind of development should be where the majority of the accommodation would be for the public service. I am not clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that using the words
  "not only for the public service but also"
  makes that absolutely clear, although it is implied in the notes. Is there any precedent for using the words
  "not only for the public service but also"
  which implies that the majority of the development must be for the public service, as was the point in the debate in Committee and as is implied in the notes on the effect of the amendment?
  Mr. Graham Page: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr.
  1240
  Sainsbury). The intentions may be very good and laudable in endeavouring to meet the point raised by my hon. Friends and myself in Committee, but I cannot see how they have met that point.
  We were seeking to ensure that an authority should not take over land ostensibly for use for the public service and then develop it for other purposes—perhaps keeping one room as a Government office and disposing of the whole of a 20-storey block for commercial purposes.
  In Committee I suggested that if we said that land should be acquired primarily for the public service but could be used for other purposes, that would meet the case. The wording in the amendment,
  "it is proposed to use not only for the public service but also",
  does not seem to meet the point at all. I wonder why the Minister did not adopt the obvious phraseology of saying that the public service should be the primary purpose and instead chose the words now in the amendment which do not alter the position about which we were complaining in Committee.
  Mr. Oakes: I think that the words do alter the situation. That was their intention.
  The original Opposition amendment in Committee proposed that the land should be used primarily for the public service or mainly or any words meaning or implying more than 50 per cent.
  The Government's amendments approach the matter in a different way, emphasising, by positioning the words,
  "it is proposed to use not only for the public service but also",
  before paragraphs (a) and (b), that the acquisition for use for other purposes must be justified by the factors set out in those paragraphs. That is why this subsection is amended in the way that is proposed.
  The mixed development will usually be in the form of Government offices on top of public amenities such as shops, other offices, a restaurant, and so on. The public service element in that type of development would be the major element in physical terms. However, this will not necessarily be so in all cases of mixed development. For example, a small Government office might be required in a particular location where, for economic and

  1241
  environmental reasons, it is necessary to develop to a much greater extent. In that situation, the public service element would not predominate in physical terms, but would be no less essential concerning the siting of the office.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 230, in page 36, line 31, leave out:
  'it is proposed to use partly for the public service and partly'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Clause 41

  GRANTS TO AUTHORITIES WHO BUY OR RENT CROWN LAND
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, Amendment No. 348, in page 38, line 9, leave out 'an authority' and insert:
  'a local or new town authority, the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint or Lake District Special Planning Board, or a joint board established under section 2 of this Act'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 349.
  Mr. Silkin: As I think the House knows, these amendments substitute for "authority" a list of the bodies for which it is intended that the grant arrangements in subsection (2) shall apply.
  These grant arrangements arise because, during the transitional period of the community land scheme, the basis of compensation for land acquired by authorities from the private sector will continue to be market value, but less development land tax.
  The Crown does not pay development land tax. It does not pay any tax. Therefore, it is intended" that, where authorities buy land from the Crown, the price should correspond to what it would have cost had they bought it from the private sector. In other words, there is a grant of the notional loss of tax.
  Since the "net of tax" arrangements will apply not only where local authorities acquire land for the purposes of the community land scheme but where they acquire land for the purposes of their other specific functions, it is right that local authorities, when acting outside their areas, and local authorities in Wales, which are not "authorities" as defined
  1242
  in the Bill, should be brought within the scope of the grant arrangements. Furthermore, any joint board constituted by order under Clause 2 would be established as an authority for the purposes of the Bill and should also be covered by these arrangements.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 349, in page 38, line 13, leave out 'authority' and insert:
  'body mentioned in subsection (1) above'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Clause 42

  EXCLUSION OF SPECIAL PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 231, in page 38, line 26, leave out:
  'an authority, a local authority in Wales'
  and insert:
  'a local or new town authority, the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint or Lake District Special Planning Board, a joint board established under section 2 of this Act'.
  The purpose of this amendment is to remove a small discrepancy in Clause 42. The exclusion of special parliamentary procedure effected by this clause is intended to apply to the exercise of all compulsory purchase powers by the bodies specified in subsection (l)(b).
  This paragraph uses the term "an authority" and by virtue of Clause 1(8), authorities as defined in Clause 1 are empowered to acquire only development land within their areas. The modification to special parliamentary procedure is intended to apply where a compulsory purchase order is made in respect of any land either within or outside the area of an authority.
  In paragraph (b) it correctly does so only for local authorities in Wales, which are not land scheme authorities, and for statutory undertakers and Ministers.
  To cure this defect, the amendment spells out by name the bodies which are authorities, in addition to any statutory undertakers or a Minister. The reference to a local authority in Wales is subsumed in "a local authority".
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 232, in page 38, line 31, after 'the', insert 'Scottish',—[Mr. John Silkin.]
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I beg to move Amendment No. 233, in page 38, line 33, at end insert '(i)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, we may take the following Amendments:
  No. 234, in page 38, line 34, after to', insert '(i)'.
  No. 235, in page 38, line 35, at end insert:
  'or—

  (ii) subject to subsection (3) below, a parish council or the parish trustees of a parish in England or a community council in Wales.

  (3) Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1946 shall not apply to any interest belonging to a parish council or the parish trustees of a parish in England or to a community council in Wales if—

  (a)planning permission for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 has been, or is deemed to have been, granted for the development for which it is proposed the land be compulsorily acquired; and

  (b)save where the Secretary of State certifies that it is unnecessary, there has been or will be given in exchange for the land proposed to be compulsorily acquired other land not being less in area and equally advantageous to the owners of the land to be compulsorily acquired, and

  (c)the Secretary of State certifies that he is satisfied that the acquiring authority has made adequate efforts to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms land (including the land proposed to be compulsorily acquired) suitable for the development referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection.'.

  No. 236, in page 38, line 35, at end insert:
  'or

  (ii) subject to the following subsection the interest belongs to a parish council or parish trustees in England or to a Community Council in Wales'.

  (3) Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1946 shall not apply to any interest belonging to a parish council or parish trustees in England or to a community council in Wales if:—

  (a) planning permission for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, has been, or is deemed to have been granted for the development for which the land is proposed to be compulsorily acquired, and

  1244

  (b)save where the Secretary of State certifies that it is unnecessary there has been or will be given in exchange for the land proposed to be compulsorily acquired other land not being less in area and equally advantageous to the owners of the land to be compulsorily acquired, and

  (c)the Secretary of State certifies that he is satisfied that the acquiring authority has made adequate efforts to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms land (including the land proposed to be compulsorily acquired) suitable for the development referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection'.

  Mr. Winterton: In moving this amendment, I am pleased to declare an interest in that I am an honorary vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils and have much sympathy with the points which they are putting to the Government in order to protect their position.
  In its existing form, Clause 42 exposes parish and community council property to compulsory purchase orders under many enactments. I have a list of 29 here. I will not delay the House by reading them out because I am sure that the Minister is only too well aware of them. It has hitherto always been considered that, as public authorities, community and parish councils should have parliamentary protection against such treatment, and that is why I am putting these amendments to the House. There is great disquiet among the 8,000 local councils and the voluntary and charitable bodies with which they deal about the potential threat of expropriation that still seems to hang over the properties they administer. I must emphasise that they administer these properties on behalf of the public.
  I share the view of the council of the NALC who cannot believe that such an intention forms part of the Government's policy. I hope that, in replying, the Minister will give good reasons why he feels the fears now being expressed so widely are groundless. The House has a right to be disturbed about these matters. Governments change and so do the policies of Governments in power. The Minister who replies to this debate may give us assurances, but another Minister in a future Government may not feel bound by them. The policy of the Welsh Office in relation to the transfer of community property in Wales has been far less liberal than that of its English counterpart. The urban districts and boroughs in Wales

  1245
  have lost the most property, and what can happen in one part of the United Kingdom can surely happen in another.
  This is not a trivial matter. The individual parish and communities may be small, but collectively they cover 80 per cent. of the area of this country and contain 11 million people.
  I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind in his reply. These councils cover tens of thousands of acres of land and are very important to local people. I am delighted to be associated with the NALC, which is a grassroots body administering properties extremely efficiently on behalf of the public. I know the amendments are supported by at least one hon. Member opposite and I hope that in his reply the Minister can say something to remove the fears and doubts currently held by the NALC.
  Mr. John Silkin: Both the nature of the proposed amendments and the very moderate and extremely lucid way in which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spoke to them show that there is a certain amount of anxiety which needs to be considered and I am glad that the opportunity has arisen to consider it in this House. It is the loss of the opportunity to petition Parliament against compulsory purchase orders which alarms local councils the most. Every hon. Member will understand their proposed amendments to this Bill and the fact that they are motivated by the feeling that they can no longer look to Parliament for a final decision on compulsory purchase orders on their land.
  This matter cannot be lightly cast aside and the hon. Gentleman was right to bring it to our attention. The approach of the amendments is much respected. They are recognised as being aimed at restoring to parish councils, and on a formal basis, some of the protection lost by the general exclusion of the special parliamentary procedure.
  At the same time, however, it has to be recognised that the county and district councils, among the other land scheme authorities, have been specifically charged with the responsibility of acquiring land for development and, furthermore, that the abolition of the special parliamentary procedure applies also to transactions among those authorities. There is also the inference that the hon. Gentleman
  1246
  mentioned. He pointed out that either the Secretary of State or those of his Ministers concerned with him would be free from bias but that there might be some bias on the part of the successor to the present Secretary of State and that he might not be quite unbiassed, that he might reach a judgment in favour of a land scheme authority and at the expense perhaps of the right answer in that case.
  There is also the main practical consideration, that the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the main amendment involve certification machinery with implications for argument over whether exchange land was necessary and whether the acquiring authority had done all it could to acquire other land and so on.
  If I am to be as negative as that, I must be positive also, since I have said that I approve of the hon. Gentleman's approach and understand the reasons for it. The better course is that the Government should state clearly their attitude towards compulsory acquisition of local councils' land under the community land scheme. This is that the Government will not accept CPOs for such land to be confirmed unless there are good planning reasons for doing so which override the reasons for which the local council wishes to retain the land. The attention of the land scheme authorities, I can promise the hon. Gentleman, will be drawn to this policy in an appropriate circular of guidance.
  Finally, I hope that the relationship between the land scheme authorities and the local communities will be one of cooperation. I hope that the question of compulsory purchase never arises. I can tell the hon. Gentleman—he will understand it, perhaps—that there is no more painful prospect for a Minister than to have to decide between the claims of two competing local authorities. With those assurances, I hope that he will seek to withdraw the amendment. They are sincerely given and I hope that they will give some comfort to the local councils.
  Dr. Edmund Marshall: As my name is associated with some of the amendments, perhaps I might say how much I appreciate the sympathetic way in which the Minister has dealt with them. There is just one point on which I should be grateful for further clarification.
  The special parliamentary procedure is now available as protection for local

  1247
  councils in respect of compulsory purchase orders under a large number of enactments. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) referred to 29, and there are probably more. Will that procedure in relation to those enactments be affected by the Bill or does the exclusion of the special parliamentary procedure, which is referred to in Clause 42(2), apply simply to compulsory purchase orders which might be made within the implementation of the Bill alone, so that that procedure as it has applied a to this date will continue for local councils in respect of all other enactments?
  After all, the special parliamentary procedure will be continued, even under the Bill, in respect of the National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland, and I am sure there is general agreement that that should be the case. Whether it ought to be extended to local councils under the Bill is the subject of the debate, but I should like an assurance that the special parliamentary procedure protection for local councils in respect of compulsory purchase orders under other enactments is not affected by this measure.
  Mr. John Silkin: It is true that the special parliamentary procedure will be removed for acquisitions under any enactment, but it will remain—and these are important exceptions—for commons, for village greens and for recreational ground.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation, because I was concerned about the same point. Both the problem itself and the sympathy with which the right hon. Gentleman has looked at it tonight are matters of concern by hon. Members of all parties. I, too, am a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils, and I am a former parish councillor.
  The right hon. Gentleman must understand the deep concern—and it has been strengthened after the period of local government reorganisation—among local councils about their relationship with other authorities over matters of property, and the kind of clear guidance which the right hon. Gentleman has offered to give will be necessary because this has been an uneasy period.
  Reorganisation has brought about changes in local government status. Previously,
  1248
  borough councils and urban district councils enjoyed complete control over their property but they now find themselves in districts with which they are, on some occasions, in dispute over property matters. It is not easy for these two levels to act entirely without suspicion that one is working against the interests of the other.
  Many of the market towns are concerned that district councils may be so far away from them as not to appreciate the facilities of their community and may consider their area to be an ideal place for development. It is essential for these towns to keep the facilities which they manage efficiently and economically. No Minister envies the job of being the judge between local authorities in this situation, but it is a job which the right hon. Gentleman has given himself in some respects by the procedure provided by the Bill.
  I hope that clear guidance will be sufficient, but it must be seen to run through not only this legislation but other measures and other decisions that the Department recognises that local councils are not, if they were ever so considered, some minor partners in the local government system but are the essential form of local government for substantial communities and that this is of the greatest importance to those citizens.
  Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the trouble that he has taken to reply to the amendments which, by the standards of what we have been discussing, may be considered by some to be trivial but these matters are important to the National Association of Local Councils and to millions of people who live within parish communities.
  I am sure I glean from what the right hon. Gentleman said that he appreciates that parish and community councils administer their scattered property efficiently and, in addition, do it far more effectively and at a much lower cost than it is done by "big brother" local authorities, whether they be borough or county councils.
  In view of the firm assurances which the Minister has given and the guidelines which he has said he will communicate to local authorities, beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44

  ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 322, in page 40, line 1, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 15 and insert—
  '(a) keep such accounts and records, and

  (b) prepare and submit to the Secretary of State such statements of account, relating to the acquisition, holding and disposal of land as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury direct.

  (2) Directions under subsection (1) above may in particular relate to—

  (a)the items which are or are not to be included in the accounts, and the kinds of transactions which are to be recorded, and

  (b)the form and manner in which the statements or accounts are to be prepared and the times at which they are to be submitted to the Secretary of State.'.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it is convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 323 to 330, together with Amendment No. 333.
  Mr. Oakes: This is a long and seemingly forbidding list of amendments. The House need spend little time on it because most of the amendments deal with the mechanics of the accounting system and those hon. Members who were Members of the Committee will remember that at the time the Committee was told that the Government were discussing this matter with the local authority associations. This is the product of those discussions and agreement has been reached with the associations that the amendments to be made in Clauses 44, 45, 48 and Schedule 9 shall be in this form. I owe it to the House to mention one or two. They fall into two groups.
  In the first group the main amendment is No. 322 which deals with the form of accounts. It reflects two major points. First, the way in which the arrangements have been framed means that authorities will need to be able to prepare a number of statements of account dealing with various aspects of their operations. These will be covered by directions by the Secretary of State. Authorities will, therefore, need to keen such accounts and records
  1250
  as will enable them to prepare these statements. However, the way in which the accounts and records are kept can be left to each authority to determine in the light of its existing accounting practice.
  I mention two other amendments to Clause 45, namely, Amendments Nos. 327 and 328. They deal with the way in which the sharing arrangements for land account surpluses will work and cover two points. First, there will need to be a specific statement of account, which will be the determining account for the sharing of surpluses. This will basically, but not entirely, be a cash statement, but it has not proved possible to define it sufficiently for the legislation and Clause 45(1) as now drafted is not accurate. Accordingly, Amendment No. 326 gives the Secretary of State power, with the approval of the Treasury and after consulting the associations concerned, to designate the appropriate statement of account for this purpose.
  Secondly, considerable thought has been given to how the 30 per cent. share to be redistributed between authorities will work. It has been agreed that in the early years this will be distributed between authorities pro rata of their deficits as a recirculating pool. Thus the first claim on any authority's surplus will be to repay to the redistribution pool any payments which it has received from it. Amendments Nos. 327 and 328 are designed to cover this arrangement.
  The second group of amendments relates to Amendments Nos. 323 and 332. They deal with the provisions which allow authorities to roll up the interest on land account borrowings, instead of having to make annual provision in the rates for repayment. It was originally intended to achieve this by an amendment to paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 13 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the equivalent provision for Scotland. Hence paragraphs 8(2) and 10 of Schedule 9. However, further examination has shown that there are technical difficulties in this approach so Amendment No. 323 deals with the matter by inserting a new substantive provision in Clause 44.
  Those matters should be on the record. I apologise to the House that they are rather turgid but I assure the House

  1251
  that there is no change in policy whatever. These amendments simply relate to the mechanics of the account.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 323, in page 40 line 18 at end insert—
  '(3A) Where any item debited to an account kept under this section has been defrayed by borrowing, the authority shall not be required, notwithstanding anything in Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1972 or Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 or in any other enactment, to make any annual provision for the repayment of the capital.'.
  No. 238, in page 40, line 19, leave out
  'and every officer of an authority'.
  No. 324 in page 40, line 23, after 'kept', insert
  'or to verify any statement of account submitted to him'.
  No. 325 in page 40, line 27 leave out from 'appropriate' to end of line 29 and insert—
  '(a) statements of account submitted to him under this section, and
  (b) any information obtained by him under subsection (4) above.'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Clause 45

  COMMUNITY LAND SURPLUS ACCOUNTS
  Amendments made: No. 326, in page 40, line 32, leave out from beginning to 'a' in line 35 and insert—
  '(1) The Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury and after consulting such associations of authorities as appear to him to be concerned, direct that any statement of account which—

  (a)is submitted to him under the last preceding section for any financial year, and

  (b)is of a kind specified in the direction, shall be'.

  No. 327 in page 40, line 36, leave out from beginning to 'as' in line 37 and insert
  'So much of any surplus in a community land surplus account'.
  No. 328, in page 40, line 41, after 'surplus' insert '(if any)'.
  No. 329, in page 41 leave out lines 16 to 18.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Clause 46

  DISPOSAL OF LAND AT DIRECTION OF SECRETARY OF STATE
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 240, in page 41, line 38, leave out from 'land' to end of line 42 and insert—
  '(a) section 23 of this Act shall not apply to any planning permission in repect of that land which is specified in the direction, and
  (b) sections 22 and 23 of this Act shall not apply to any planning permission in respect of that land which is subsequently granted by the Secretary of State.'.
  This is a drafting amendment. The point is that when the Secretary of State gives a direction to dispose of land, any planning permission attached to it which is granted on or after the commencement date and is either specified in the direction or subsequently granted by the Secretary of State, will not be suspended under Clause 23 and the development it permits can therefore proceed.
  We thought earlier that suspensions under Clause 22 were also covered, because land would already have come into the ownership of an authority so that any suspension under Clause 22 would have been terminated. But as Clause 22 stands, it would still catch planning permissions granted subsequently by the Secretary of State after issuing a direction under Clause 46. An authority could still defeat the whole object of Clause 46 by serving a new notice of intention to acquire a second direction, thus achieving the suspension of the planning permission granted by the Secretary of State.
  This amendment remedies the situation.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48
  ADJUSTMENT OF ACCOUNTS ON APPROPRIATION OF LAND
  Amendment made: No. 330, in page 42, line 20, leave out Clause 48.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
Clause 50

  Powers of Secretary of State
  Mr. Raison: I beg to move Amendment No. 363, in page 44, line 16, leave out from 'shall' to 'a' in line 21 and insert 'cause to be held'.
  In this very important clause, where the Secretary of State seeks to take away from an authority its functions under the Bill, he must, if the authority requests, hold a public local inquiry rather than simply give the authority the opportunity to make representations to his appointee. I do not intend to make a long speech because the House wishes to get on, but I remind the House that this clause, to which, rightly, a great deal of time was devoted in Committee and which is of very great importance, deals with the reserve powers of the Secretary of State in a case where he believes that an authority should cease to be responsible for exercising the functions conferred on it by the Bill.
  In our view, this is a simple question of justice to the local authorities. The powers given to the Secretary of State in Clause 50 are astonishingly wide. Where it appears expedient, as the Bill says, to the Secretary of State, he can deprive an authority not merely of functions under this Bill but under any other Act to do with the disposal and management of land. It is astonishing that a Bill of this kind should contain provisions which cover not only this Bill but other matters outside the Bill.
  Then the Secretary of State proposes to give himself power to transfer an authority's functions to himself or to another authority or to some other body altogether. This is not just a case of transferring functions but of transferring also the property and rights of the authority. At the same time, if this procedure takes place all the expenses have to be paid by the transferee—in other words, by the authority having its functions and possessions stripped from it. These are Draconian powers, and because they are so enormous we believe that the local authorities should have the right to demand a public inquiry. In other words, we believe that the scheme put forward by the Government should not be allowed to operate unless the authority agrees.
  1254
  The authority is on trial and it should be entitled to a public inquiry rather than being treated in this way.
  We believe strongly that justice should be seen to be done. I ask the Secretary of State what he intends to be published if there is to be no public inquiry. How will the findings be given to the public, and how much will be revealed of what has happened at this secret examination?
  The clause as it stands is one more example of the tyrannical streak which runs through the Bill. However bland the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State may be when they discuss the Bill, when one looks below the surface one finds a number of matters which cause one great alarm. Our amendment is a case of simple natural justice.
  Mr. Graham Page: I wish to add one further argument to those advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). He put the case on the basis that the local authority should be fairly heard. I agree entirely with that, but the citizens of that local authority—the ratepayers—should be entitled to hear the public inquiry. It should not be behind closed doors between the local authority and the Secretary of State. They may be in collusion to the disadvantage of the ratepayers of the district when property is transferred either to the Secretary of State or to an organisation set up by him. It is the citizens we have to think about, and they are entitled to have a public inquiry when an order of this sort is to be made.
  Mr. Oakes: Again, Opposition Members use hyperbolic language but I will explain what the Bill says and does on the question of transferred functions.
  Quite deliberately, there is a two-stage approach for the Secretary of State to consider objections to the proposed transfer order. First, he must, where the authority concerned so requests, afford it a hearing. Secondly, he may hold a public inquiry. The two-stage approach is deliberate.
  Any authority can if it wishes always put its case before the Secretary of State. Where the issues concerned are relatively minor ones, that will be sufficient, but where they are major issues the power to hold a public inquiry will ensure that

  1255
  they are properly ventilated. The public inquiry will normally supersede any separate hearing. There is only a power rather than an obligation to hold a public inquiry because it would be a waste of time and money to hold a public inquiry when the matters at issue are minor ones which can properly be dealt with at a hearing.
  Amendment No. 363 would remove the two-stage process and simply require a public inquiry in all cases, and that is wrong for the reasons I have given.
  I am surprised by the vehemence of the Opposition on this matter. We are dealing, first, with a local authority which is a public body whose doings are public in the sense that they are reported in the Press and, secondly, with the Secretary of State who is answerable to the House. However, in view of the strong feelings expressed by Opposition Members, although I believe their fears are misplaced, without commitment, I promise to look again at the matter.
  Mr. Raison: The Under-Secretary of State has gathered that we feel very strongly about it, but in view of his assurances we shall not press the amendment to a Division.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 241, in page 44, line 21, leave out 'exercise of his powers' and insert 'making of an order'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that amendment, we shall take Government Amendment No. 243 and Amendment No. 242, in page 45, line 4, at end insert
  '(13) An order made under this section shall—

  (a)be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either Houses of Parliament where a public enquiry has first been held under subsection (6) above;

  (b)be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament in every other case.

  Mr. Silkin: In Committee it was accepted that orders made under the clause should be subject to some form of parliamentary procedure. At that time there were basically two amendments to be considered, namely, an Opposition
  1256
  amendment providing for an affirmative resolution procedure and an amendment introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton. Test (Mr. Gould) providing for a negative resolution procedure.
  Those hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that we reached some sort of deadlock. Suddenly, in the midst of the debate, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), wearing his Kissinger outfit, suggested a compromise by which orders should be subject to affirmative resolution procedure unless there had been a public inquiry, in which case they should be subject to negative resolution procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton. Test saw that as an attractive compromise. I must say that I did myself. We agreed to consider it. The amendment seeks to achieve the compromise which the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing an amendment in the right words. An Opposition amendment was tabled for the same purpose. I have never had the honour of being called a Kissinger before, but if it suits the amendment I accept the title.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 243, in page 45 leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
  '(13) An order under this section—

  (a) shall not be made before the first appointed day, and

  (b) subject to subsection (14) below, shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

  (14) Where in connection with the making of an order under this section a public local inquiry has been held under subsection (6) above, the order shall not require to be approved in draft by a resolution of each House of Parliament but shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Clause 51

  RE-TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 244, in page 45, line 7, at beginning insert:
  'Where any functions have been transferred from an authority under the last preceding section'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that amendment, we shall take Government Amendment No. 245.
  Mr. Silkin: The clause was drafted in its present form because it was considered that although there would be many cases where a re-transfer should involve all of the transferred functions there could be cases where it would be right for functions to be re-transferred piecemeal to an authority, and where an authority may wish a transfer to take place only in those circumstances.
  In Committee it was suggested by Conservative Members that there was the risk that such a course could be unfair to the authority concerned. We have considered this matter, although I do not think we gave any undertaking about it at the time. We can see some force in the argument, and it is not clear how much use the additional flexibility would be in practice. The arrangements therefore make it possible only to re-transfer the functions in one go, as it were. That is what the amendment achieves.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 245, in page 45, line 8, leave out from 're-transferring' to end of line 9 and insert:
  'to that authority all of the functions so transferred'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Clause 55

  REGULATIONS AND ORDERS
  Amendment made: No. 351, in page 47, line 6, leave out:
  'and particulars to be contained in'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
  Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 350, in page 47, line 14, after 'than', insert:
  'paragraphs 18(4) and 19A(5) of'.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) as a Kissinger. I must say that many of the minor amendments which we have been able to accept, and suggestions for amendments, have emanated from the right hon. Gentleman. This is such an amendment. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman indicated that without the specific reference to the relevant paragraph, which is what we are suggesting by the amendment, any reader interested in the Bill would have to wade through
  1258
  several pages of Schedule 4 to find what the order in question was about.
  We accept the weight of the argument and put forward this amendment to improve the drafting.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 331, in page 87, line 35, at end insert:
  '(3) In section 194(2) of the Act of 1971 (grounds of objection to blight notice), in paragraph (d), the words "(in the case of land falling within paragraph (a) or (c) but not (d), (e) or (f) of section 192(1) of this Act)" shall be omitted and for the word "fifteen" there shall be substituted the word "ten".
  This sub-paragraph applies to every counter-notice served under the said section 194 on or after the first appointed day.'.
  No. 332, in page 88, line 10, at end insert:
  '(3) In section 183(2) of the Scottish Act of 1972 (grounds of objection to blight notice), in paragraph (d), the words "(in the case of land falling within paragraph (a) or (c) but not (e), (f)or (h) of section 181(1) of this Act)" shall be omitted and for the word "fifteen" there shall be substituted the word "ten"
  This sub-paragraph applies to every counter-notice served under the said section 183 on or after the first appointed day.'.
  No. 333, in page 88, leave out lines 15 to 25.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]
  Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 250, in page 88, line 36, leave out
  'by Commission for Local Administration'
  This is a drafting amendment. It is desired in the Bill to give a brief description of the purposes of Section 25(1) of the Local Government Act 1974, which the Bill seeks to amend. The practice is to undertake this task by quoting the side heading, but the additional words which we desire to delete were inadvertently included.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 251, in page 88, line 39, after 'Wales', insert:
  'and any body corporate established by an order made by the Secretary of State under section 52 of the Community Land Act 1975'
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that amendment, we shall take Government Amendment No. 334.
  Mr. Oakes: The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) asked about joint boards and dealt with the question whether they were based on central or local government. We promised to examine the point. These amendments are designed to deal with that matter and I hope that the House will accept them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 334, in page 89, leave out lines 2 to 13 and insert:
  '10. In section 23(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (authorities subject to investigation), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
  '(aa) any body corporate established by an order made by the Secretary of State under section 52 of the Community Land Act 1975.'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Schedule 10

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 335, in page 89, line 17, column 3, at end insert:
  'In section 194(2), the words "in the case of land falling within paragraph (a) or (c) but not (d), (e) or (f) of section 192(1) of this Act)'".
  No. 336, in page 89, line 19, column 3, at end insert:
  'In section 183(2), the words "(in the case of land falling within paragraph (a) or (c) but not (e), (f) or (h) of section 181(1) of this Act)'".—[Mr. Oakes.]
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, to the House's relief, the last amendment—No. 337—in page 89, line 21, at end insert:
  'These repeals take effect on the first appointed day.'.
  The substantive changes in relation to the two Acts of Parliament in Schedule 9, paragraphs 6 and 7 as extended by Amendments Nos. 335 and 336 do not themselves take effect until the first appointed day. Therefore, it is necessary that the repeal schedule should follow suit.
  Amendment agreed to.

New Schedule

  EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT
  1. Development for which planning permission is granted by a general development order for the time being in force and which is carried out so as to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission is so granted.
  2. The carrying out, on land which is used for the purposes of agriculture or forestry, of any building or other operations required for the purposes of that use, other than operations for the erection of dwelling-houses or operations for the erection, improvement or alteration of buildings used for the purposes of market gardens, nursery grounds or timber yards or for other purposes not connected with general farming operations or with the cultivation or felling of trees.
  3. The winning and working, on land held or occupied with land used for the purposes of agriculture, of any minerals reasonably required for the purposes of that use, including the fertilisation of the land so used and the maintenance, improvement or alteration of buildings or works thereon which are occupied or used for those purposes.'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
  Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent signified].
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I have been told that no Government have ever before consulted on a Bill as widely as we have on this one. The Secretary of State and I were, I believe, among the earliest in our party to advocate public ownership of development land. We believe that the result of those consultations has been a better Bill, and we want to take this opportunity to thank those professional bodies, local authorities and individuals who have assisted us with their constructive proposals.
  It is cheering to know that bodies such as the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association, which at the beginning had reservations about certain aspects of the Bill, now give their whole-hearted support to what we are doing.
  The changes we have made have been designed to bring greater clarity to the Bill. For example, on Second Reading I said that acquisition of development land must be planning led. Indeed, it is

  1261
  surely a cardinal principle that a Bill aimed to promote positive planning must rely upon the planning framework. This has been spelled out in the Bill itself.
  By incorporating this change we have also been able to clarify the changes on compulsory purchase procedure. Our aim has always been to strike a proper and fair balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of the community at large.
  The effect of these changes is that the owner of land will have the opportunity to put his case before a public inquiry on how his land may be used. But one public inquiry—not two. To insist on two inquiries, both at the planning stage and at the compulsory purchase stage—two inquiries dealing with exactly the same point—is bureaucratic nonsense.
  For home owners, I want to emphasise that the compensation provisions remain essentially as they always were, and they will continue to receive the proper price for their land in accordance with the Compensation Acts of previous Governments.
  I was impressed in Committee by the need to make changes on blight procedure. We have done this. Where planning permission is suspended, and the owner cannot therefore get the land developed until the suspension is lifted, he may have some difficulty in disposing of his land in the meantime. We have provided that he can serve a blight notice during the period of suspension.
  We promised on Second Reading to give help to Churches and charities. The Bill now provides that they can proceed with development without local authority intervention, and, together with the provisions on development land tax, we have given recognition to the special function of Churches and charities in the life of the community.
  Consultations also convinced us that we needed to clarify the provisions, and, indeed, the very names of what are now "exempt" and "excepted" development. I should say that I, like the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), had no great affection for the term "permanent non-designated relevant development", and I am delighted that we need no longer use it.
  1262
  The scheme was never concerned with every bit of development with which owners might wish to proceed. The land problem needs to be dealt with strategically, and it has never been part of our aim that all land on which minor development is to take place should have to pass through local authority ownership. This, too, is now spelled out.
  With these modifications I believe that the Bill is better placed than ever to bring life to our key proposals. Through it we are giving the community the power to control and initiate the development of land in accordance with its needs and priorities.
  There may be hon. Members who would wish to dismantle the whole planning system, but I do not believe that this is typical of the overwhelming majority. If we are agreed that market forces, commercial interests and short-term benefits must not be allowed to destroy the heritage that has been handed down to us, then planning we must have. The question is whether the system that we have employed for the past 30 years is now sufficient to protect our towns, our cities, and our countryside.
  The Opposition's argument throughout the various stages of the Bill has been that negative planning plus taxation are enough, and yet they themselves by implication have realised the inefficiency of that approach: that is why they took steps to encourage the use of Section 52 agreements under the 1971 Planning Act—to strengthen the protective rôle of local authorities. Now, put baldly, a Section 52 agreement enables a local authority to initiate development of a sort that is required in return for granting planning permission to the developer for a project which may or may not be desirable. I do not want to suggest that all such agreements are undesirable. That would be unfair.
  But Section 52 has often worked to the advantage of the large, wealthy development company and the large, monumental style of development now, perhaps rightly, out of fashion. It has often worked to the disadvantage of the small company whose economic power to buy a planning permission has not been sufficient. Like the sale of indulgences, Section 52 agreements still the conscience but offer no proof that they are really effective.

  1263
  Whatever else such agreements may achieve, they cannot meet the needs of the community and control the pace and form of development. They are at best palliatives. But of course it is the failure of mere control and the weakness of the attempts to strengthen it that makes positive planning necessary—that is to say, the planning by an authority which—as the Uthwatt Report recognised so long ago—is the owner of the land on which the development takes place and, therefore, ipso facto, is able to be the initiator rather than merely the controller of the development.
  To steal an analogy from transport, there is a need for traffic wardens who give parking tickets—even at £6 a time—but the important question is who directs the traffic.
  Added to this, no solution must ignore the just pressure of ordinary people to exert their influence in the planning of their own environment. The local people have to live with mistakes long after the landowner and the developer have taken their profit and departed. That is why I want the democratically elected local authorities to play their full part in the ownership and planning of the development land in their own areas and, by this means, to control and initiate development.
  For the clearest of tactical reasons the Opposition have spent much of their time in attacking the capabilities and, in a few regrettable cases, the bona fides of local authorities. In fact, the tradition of local democracy in our country is older by a thousand years than that of democracy in central Government, and, dare I say it, the local authority is sometimes more sensitive and responsive to the immediate needs of the local people whom it represents.
  But, of course, local authorities certainly differ in their capabilities and their resources and in their expertise. We have made it clear from the outset that the Community Land scheme will not be implemented in full in every local authority area from the date of Royal Assent. The Bill enables local authorities to go at their own pace, and specific provision is made for local authorities under the land acquisition and management schemes to work together in order to avoid a dupli-
  1264
  cation of effort in planning. Whatever else the Local Government Act of 1972 did, it did not exactly discourage such duplication, and it is to the credit of our land acquisition and management schemes that they may succeed in reducing this duplication.
  Incidentally, one benefit in which the local authorities will all share is that, immediately the scheme comes into operation, purchases of land needed for their own use to fulfil their present functions will be bought net of development land tax. At a time of public expenditure constraint this is particularly important and has, I know, been widely welcomed.
  But, as I have said, in the acquisition of land for private development, some local authorities will be much better placed to take full advantage of the scheme than others, and they will be given the duty, not just the power, to acquire development land early on. The time scale depends on the ability to do the job. This gradual, flexible implementation of the scheme was deliberately decided upon, and it is a measure of its strength that the Opposition have had to juggle with statistics in an attempt to discredit it.
  I have heard figures quoted that the scheme will cost over £1 million a day. The Opposition know perfectly well that that is not a true estimate of the
  "first year's full operation of the scheme"
  —to quote the words of their television broadcast of a fortnight ago. Certainly, it would be the cost after the Second Appointed Day; but the broadcast omitted to point out that, at that time, for every £1 million spent by local authorities, the community will on the very same day be receiving back nearly £4 million, which is not a bad deal.
  I have never objected to reasoned criticisms of this Bill. Indeed, some of the criticisms, as I have tried to show, have been helpful in our aim of producing constructive proposals. But the kind of scaremongering which has been used in the latter stages for party political purposes is not intended to assist but only to destroy.
  I find it particularly disquieting when this kind of propaganda is used without any justification whatsoever to frighten the ordinary owner-occupier into a belief

  1265
  that his home and garden are threatened and, in defiance of all the compulsory purchase statutes of the past hundred years, insinuates that the price to be paid for his house will be at the whim of the council and not as prescribed by law.
  Right from the days of the White Paper and throughout we have emphasised, re-emphasised and re-re-emphasised that it is not part of the Community Land Scheme to threaten the owner-occupier. Rather the scheme will help him. A stable land price with lower costs for schools, roads and other facilities where he lives will be of enormous value to him.
  As to those who seek a home of their own for the first time, the ability of local authorities to see that land for private house building is made available at the right time and in the right place is an infinitely better solution than the half-baked, half-hearted £80 million scheme which the party opposite introduced when they were in power in an effort to get the local authorities to provide land for private house building. But perhaps we should not be too surprised at the Opposition's tactics: it was they, after all, who produced a White Paper dealing with the land hoarding charge, a policy produced in desperation, and then dropped because it was totally unworkable.
  So, we are left with one final piece of scaremongering—the argument that enormous quantities of skilled manpower that do not exist will be needed for the scheme. At a time when, understandably, we are all concerned with the size of the staffs of local authorities, there appears to them to be good political mileage to be made from bandying about nonsensical figures which bear some relation only to the ultimate estimates of manpower when the scheme is operating in every part of the country in respect of all relevant development land, and applying those calculations to the present, immediate, situation. This particular scare totally ignores the step-by-step and area-by-area approach on which the whole scheme is based—and of course it is intended to do so.
  On the contrary, because the authorities in each area must draw up a land acquisition and management scheme which takes account of the needs of their areas and the manpower available, I believe that
  1266
  we shall see a keener scrutiny of the resources and of how they are being employed and the more effective use of highly-trained staff. I believe that we shall see throughout our local authorities the same sort of highly successful and well-established system that now prevails in our new towns. I am not aware that it has been a source of grief to house-owners or to industrialists, or to those engaged in commerce, that the land on which they carry out their undertakings in the new towns came to them through public ownership.
  I do not wish to blur the clear difference in philosophy that exists between the two sides of the House: between those who believe that ownership of land should remain subservient to private interests and those who, like ourselves, believe that it should be used in the service of the community. But, when I consider the oft-repeated threat of the party opposite to repeal the Bill if ever they should come to power again, it seems to me that their case against the Bill can be summed up in one sentence used by an hon. Member opposite:
  "It is a useless and wicked measure, a dead letter; and the Minister's policy will soon be on the scrapheap"—
  Mr. Raison indicated assent.
  Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman agrees—but that remark was not made about this Bill at all. It was made about the New Towns Act nearly 30 years ago. The hon. Member who made that remark has left the House, while the new towns remain and flourish. I am content to rest my case and my belief in the future of the Community Land Scheme on the same vision and realism that made the "new towns experiment" one of the greatest of our post-war successes. I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me tonight.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Raison: The right hon. Gentleman was obviously facing something of a problem in making his speech tonight. If we think back to the Second Reading it will be remembered that he ended his speech then with a bit of a bang. He was faced with the fact that tonight he was bound to end his speech with a whimper. He naturally decided that the obvious tactic was to try to stir things up a little.

  1267
  He decided, for example, to suggest that the Conservative Party is anti-local government. I say at once that that is completely untrue. There has been nothing in the conduct of our campaign against the Bill to justify that charge. We believe profoundly in the importance of local government. The only point that we have had to make repeatedly is that the Bill is damaging to the relationship which local government has with the people as a whole and that it imposes on local government burdens which are quite unfair. The right hon. Gentleman also resorted to the alleged scaremongering on the Conservative side. Let me say flatly that his charges do not begin to be substantiated. What he has seen throughout this long campaign has certainly been hard and justified opposition. All the time it has been based on a realistic appraisal of the Bill.
  What the right hon. Gentleman ought to have done tonight is the one thing which he has never done, namely justify the Bill by detailed argument. He did not do that on Second Reading. He did not do it in Committee. He has not done it tonight.
  The House knows that this Bill started its life with two avowed objectives. The first was to recoup development gains and the second was to promote positive planning. The history of the passage of this Bill so far is the history of the Government's failure ever to justify the need for the Bill even in terms of their own objectives. The fact is—and it has been said again and again—that the recouping of development gains can easily be done by tax. I believe that at one point the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that. There is clearly absolutely no need for the Bill on that score.
  What about the promotion of positive planning? The case has never been made out to show that this cannot be done by a combination of existing local authority and new town powers and development control. We do not dispute that this system may need examination and improvement. Anyone who suggests that this sort of power is perfect is foolish. What has never been done is to show that the existing pattern is incapable of doing the job. Certainly the effectiveness of some of the existing powers has been much argued about in the last year or two.
  1268
  We are all agreed that the present pattern of development control needs reviewing. The fact is that it has been reviewed by Mr. George Dobry in his report. The fact is also that his work has been largely sabotaged by this Bill, above all with its creation of new categories, relevant, exempted and excepted development. Most people with an interest in this subject felt that when the Dobry Report came out we had something constructive to work on. We did not necessarily accept every word of it but it was something that made sense in the eyes of professional people.
  Yet the fact is that by coming up with this new classification, the Government are trying to throw the whole thing back into the melting pot for no conceivable advantage. Far from improving planning, the Bill will clearly make it more difficult because it will make the whole thing more contentious. I say to the Minister that even if the Bill goes through Parliament the likelihood of the second appointed day—with a duty to acquire—ever being reached is slender because the system that the Government are putting forward is too bizarre, too totalitarian ever to work.
  Against this—and this is the tragedy—the Bill is already causing upheaval and a serious loss of confidence. As the Bill has gone through Committee the Government have been making concessions. The right hon. Gentleman started by talking of these concessions and no one for a minute would deny that some substantial concessions have been made in some cases. When the right hon. Gentleman started his campaign to get this Bill through the House, his approach seemed to be to try to cloud things in a rather vague atmosphere of good intentions. I believe that as a result of the highly effective campaign carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and some of my other right hon. and hon. Friends who served on the Committee, the Government were forced to change tack. I pay a clear tribute to my hon. Friends for their work in Committee.
  What happened was that they provided an analysis and a critique of the Bill of unparalleled vigour. At the same time I acknowledge that they were helped by a mass of detailed, expert and impartial criticism from outside. I do not

  1269
  believe that any Bill can ever have been subject to such a detailed appraisal—or for that matter such a highly critical one.
  The Opposition welcome the concessions. We are pleased that we have won them from the Government. I only add that any criticism that the right hon. Gentleman may make about our campaign is negated by the fact that our campaign has led to these concessions.
  However, the fact remains that the Bill is, in our eyes, still deeply wrong. It is not just flawed but fundamentally wrong in a number of important principles. During the next few minutes I wish to revert to some of the original objections put forward by the Opposition on Second Reading and by other critics of the Bill. Then I wish to see what has happened to those objections during the passage of the Bill in Committee and the House.
  The first objection was that there was a confusion over the planning powers and the development rôle of the local authority. There was a disruption of the kind of counterpoint which exists between these two aspects under our present system. Local authorities were being asked to do two things which were in essence mutually contradictory.
  Secondly, the argument was put forward and, indeed, it has grown in vigour, that the Bill is, in a number of ways, constitutionally objectionable. For one thing, too much of it depends on regulations. Moreover, there was the loss of individual liberty in its provisions for compulsory purchase powers. Also there was, in effect, the retrospective clause about the LAMS.
  Another objection on Second Reading was that the Bill had a thoroughly bureaucratic approach. The more one listens to the proceedings the more one realises that the elaborate rigmarole requires a substantial number of new staff at a time when we are trying to keep down the number of public servants, especially in the local authorities. It also puts on to local government a rôle which, by and large, it is not at present equipped to perform.
  The next line of criticism is that it will not in any way help home ownership or encourage development. Houses for sale would not become cheaper—indeed, the
  1270
  reverse. Furthermore, it would discourage people from bringing forward land for development.
  There was also the public expenditure aspect. There is no doubt that especially in the early stages there will be a considerable public expenditure burden. It is not only a matter of borrowing the money with which to launch the fund, but also a matter of staffing. Any additional gains in revenue said to come about will in reality be largely a transfer from tax in the Exchequer to local government rather than real gains.
  Another line of criticism on Second Reading and early in the summer was the damage the Bill would do to Churches, charities, pension funds, agriculture and many other interests. Moreover, there was the damage it would do to industrial investment, not least in the nationalised industries. There was the threat of a worsening local authority relationship with the public, which is a very serious matter.
  The Bill is odious to the people of Wales, who were never able to understand why Welsh local government was not to be trusted in a way in which apparently English local government was to be trusted. There was the risk of corruption. Finally, there was the wholly unnecessary spread of public ownership and the loss of freedom which the Bill is fundamentally about.
  I have mentioned only 10 of a very large number of criticisms that have been made. I wish to examine these criticisms briefly to see how far they have been removed as a result of the pressure to which the Bill has been subjected. I shall deal first with the planning problem. It is certainly true that the planning emphasis has been much strengthened. I acknowledge that and I am glad that it is so. The fact remains that the conflict between the two roles of the local authorities is still clearly there. They will still have to operate both as planners and as developers.
  It is worth pointing out that the new towns, about which the right hon. Gentleman is fond of talking as a kind of prototype for his Bill, do not have this problem. They do not exercise the ownership power and the planning power as well, so they are not a fair comparison.

  1271
  I turn now to the constitutional objections to the Bill. Again, I acknowledge that we have had a real improvement in the compulsory purchase procedure, but it is limited. The right of appeal and hence a public inquiry are not always guaranteed, for instance, where land is in the framework of a structure plan. This part of the Bill is still an affront to justice. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made that point forcefully in the last couple of days.
  Next, there is the objection that far too much is left to regulations and not spelt out in the measure itself. Again, regulations constitute too large a part of the Bill.
  We welcome the fact that there is a schedule for exempt development, but excepted development is put in the regulations. However, as I pointed out last night, it was all published in a Press notice a few days ago. We have never had a satisfactory answer to the question why the Minister can put something in a Press notice but not in a schedule to the Bill. That is absolutely wrong.
  We deplore the serious failure on the part of the Government to deal effectively with the question of how acquired land is to be sold. This issue has not featured as prominently over the last couple of days as some of the other issues, but it is very important and some of my hon. Friends have pressed it hard.
  Turning to the attitude towards the land acquisition management scheme and the date by which it had to be prepared, the House will recall that when the Bill was brought in there was an expectation by the Government that it would have reached Royal Assent some time ago. In fact, that has been delayed, if it is ever to come about. Indeed, it will not come about until some time in November. To allow time between November and the end of December to require the local authorities to draw up their schemes seems quite wrong. I say clearly now that at 2.30 this morning there occurred what I thought was an absolutely disgraceful episode. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will read it in Hansard. When we debated the date for the LAMS, the Minister replied with what was frankly a threat of blackmail to the local authorities. It was abso-
  1272
  lutely outrageous I ask hon. Gentlemen to read Hansard to find out what happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "We were here."] If the Secretary of State thinks that his colleague behaved well, he should be ashamed of himself. The Secretary of State may have heard it; I hope he was as embarrassed as he should have been.
  The next point about the constitution is that the position regarding the disposal notification areas is still highly unsatisfactory in its impact on the rights of citizens and on the value of their property. This, again, has been argued very effectively today by my hon. Friends.
  I turn now to the charge that, in essence, this Bill is a thoroughly bureaucratic monster. We have gained from the removal of the smaller categories from the scheme, and we acknowledge that, but the Bill will still need—the Government never attempted to deny this—a massive increase in staff and bureaucracy. There are still doubts about the ability of the local authorities to operate as developers. Some of them may be able to do it. I do not deny that some of them have experience. However, to impose on every local authority the special skills will be very difficult.
  The position regarding home ownership has been improved for the smaller developments, and we acknowledge that. But basically there is no encouragement to bring land forward for the bigger and, indeed, the medium-sized schemes. I suggest that homes will not be cheaper but will, if anything, be dearer.
  Mr. Michael Latham: And slower.
  Mr. Raison: And, as my hon. Friend said, slower. The fact is that as a result of taking away from builders the possibility of land profit, but charging them the full value of the land that they buy, builders will have to put up their prices. There will be more expensive housing as a direct consequence of this Bill.
  As the Minister must know, the public expenditure objection remains strong. This is no moment to launch into this kind of scheme, assuming that there is ever a moment to do so.
  The strength of objections from Churches, charities, pension funds and agriculture remain. Again there have

  1273
  been concessions, in some cases important concessions, but they are still inadequate, particularly in relation to pension funds. The position of Churches and charities has not been safeguarded either. I hope that, at the very least, the Government will be prepared to look again at all these matters when the Bill reaches another place.
  Objections based on the worsening relationship between local authorities and the public remain valid as does the odiousness of the Bill to Wales. The risk of corruption when local authorities are put in a monopoly vendor position also remains. I am not saying that it will be widespread, I do not believe for one minute that it will. But the risk remains.
  Objections to the unnecessary spread of public ownership and the loss of freedom remain, too. There have been concessions here, but the fundamental objection remains and, in addition, the Secretary of State has been given excessively Draconian reserve powers with inadequate rights for local authorities—though the Parliamentary Secretary made some sort of gesture in what was almost the last debate on Report.
  The Bill is still essentially odious, unworkable and unnecessary. The final stage of the full duty to acquire would be a monstrosity if it ever came about.
  The question before Parliament—and this relates to our whole parliamentary system—is what should be done. I suggest very seriously to the Minister and Secretary of State that they make one more concession, the greatest and most valuable concession that they could make, and withdraw the Bill in this Session of Parliament. I suggest that they go away and try to produce something which would be acceptable and workable and which could remain on the Statute Book indefinitely, as this Bill cannot.
  This issue has been going backwards and forwards in British politics for a very long time and there is a widespread feeling among the public that it ought to be settled. The number of people outside the dogmatists of the Tribune group and those who aspire to win their favour who believe that this Bill provides the right solution is very small. The reaction of nearly all interested parties is that the Bill is still an inadequate measure.
  We want to show that Parliament is capable of looking at the problem again
  1274
  and coming up with an answer that can remain on the Statute Book. This means going back to everyone whose criticisms have been so strong and re-thinking the problem. How do we get good planning, effective development and a fair return for the community while, at the same time, preserving reasonable liberty for the individual?
  These problems can be settled and we would be happy to take part in the search for a solution. I beg the Government to think very deeply about this. They have a grave responsibility in this matter. The Bill is not the right way to deal with it and I call on the House to reject it.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: We have listened to an incredible speech from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) but before I comment on it I should like to say how grateful I am to have the opportunity of making a brief contribution to the debate on the Bill. As the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, right the way through to the end of July, I had to live under an enforced silence during the Second Reading debate and the 156 hours that the Bill was considered in Committee upstairs, and I am grateful at last to have the opportunity of saying a few words about the Bill which, needless to say, I support wholeheartedly, not just because I happened to be the PPS to the Minister, but because I believe it to be a thoroughly good Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he has conducted this measure through the House.
  All that I can say to the hon. Member for Aylesbury is that if he had sat through the 156 hours in Committee through which I sat he would have made a rather better informed speech than the one to which we have just listened. I do not want to say any more about the hon. Gentleman's speech, except that I was astonished at his claim that the Tories believe in local government. After all, the hon. Gentleman supported a Government who took powers away from local government on an unprecedented scale by the Housing Finance Act, by the Counter-inflation Act and by other pieces of legislation such as the Water Act. They removed power from democratically elected local authorities.

  1275
  One of the things of which I am proud is that the Labour Government and this Minister are carrying out the devolution of power to local authorities, and in this Bill my right hon. Friend has given them enormous responsibility and power. I recognise the fear that the hon. Member for Aylesbury expressed about the Bill and about the power that is being granted to local authorities, but at last we are granting power to democratically elected bodies. There may be complaints about local authorities. There may be a suggestion that local authorities sometimes are not as responsive to the communities that they represent as they might be, but the answer to that problem is to give local authorities not less power but more power.
  By giving local authorities the kind of powers that the Bill gives them we shall give them responsibilities that will make local government more interesting than in some ways it has been to some of the electorate, and that is one of the important factors in the Bill. Not merely does this measure give responsibility to local authorities, but it gives them power to carry out positive planning on the lines that many local councillors whom I know want to be able to do. That is one of the powerful advantages of the Bill.
  I believe that, as we give power to local authorities, it is important to ensure what the Opposition have never admitted, namely, that this is a community land Bill, that it is a measure that will enable the ordinary citizen to play the sort of part that he wants to play in the planning process. One of the enormously important developments in our society—and we can all speak of this from knowledge of our constituencies—is the development of residents' associations, conservation societies, tenants' associations and other similar bodies. Some of them have almost reached the stage of development where they could evolve into neighbourhood councils on a statutory basis.
  This development is of immense importance, in the sense that this is the kind of response that the community is already making to dealing with the problems of its environment. By giving local authorities the powers that we are providing by this measure we are recognising the positive interest that the community is showing in its environment. We can look
  1276
  forward to an exciting stage in the development of local government, in the sense that by giving local authorities the powers that they are to gain under the Bill, and by the development of neighbourhood councils and other organisations to which I have referred, we shall see the development of public participation in planning and in control over the environment in which people live in a way that has never been possible before. Therefore, this is a first-class piece of legislation.
  We have listened to a destructive and negative speech from the Opposition Front Bench. It has been typical of much of the opposition that we have heard and of the scaremongering tactics to which the Minister referred. I refer, for example, to the broadcasts, which went as follows:
  "Do you own a house, a garden, or a piece of land? If so do you know what this Government has in store for you? You may have heard about the Community Land Bill but decided it's got nothing to do with you. You couldn't be more wrong. Let me explain."
  So it goes on—scare, scare, scare.
  I sat through two sessions of debates on Clause 25 on denotification areas. I noted the degree to which the Minister over and over again was able to reassure the Opposition in Committee that the fears which they were expressing were virtually without foundation. I am sure that the sort of scare tactics that have been used by the Opposition will rebound on them in the end.
  When the Bill becomes an Act it will transform many of our towns, improve our environment and for the first time give to ordinary citizens an opportunity to play a positive part in the determination of the environment in which they live.
  9.52 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: It is true that since the Bill was first introduced it has undergone a considerable metamorphosis, for which we must thank the Minister. It is to operate within existing planning procedures, and that is a great improvement.
  There has been the concession to the Churches and charities, although, as I pointed out yesterday evening, I would have preferred that those caught up at the end of the 10-year period—there are bound to be Churches and charities caught up otherwise there will be an

  1277
  unseeming rush—should have received the reassurance I sought that they would be compensated out of a global fund.
  For my pains I have been connected with a church for 15 years. I can remember vividly that we had some land to be developed. I was ashamed of the fact that we were putting it on the market at an exorbitant sum in order to build 10 executive type houses. When I challenged this I was told that I should form a charitable housing association which I ultimately did. Many people connected with churches and charities have disliked having to put property on the market and receive the full speculative price for it in order to carry out the development they wish, for example, the building of new churches or charitable homes. The sooner charities are out of this sort of game the better. We should reassure them at the end of 10 years that they will not lose a valuable asset.
  We have received assurances and concessions for the agricultural industry which I greatly welcome. They could have gone further but the Minister's words were reassuring and I am sure that they will be noted in Hansard.
  Developments have been written into the Bill which will be exempted and we have received information as to those that are likely to be excepted by regulation. It is a fair criticism that far too much is being left to regulation and too little is being written into the Bill. We have been assured that all this is in the interests of flexibility. I am all in favour of flexibility but that is going too far.
  We are bound to question whether such a complicated measure is needed to deal with what was, by common consent, a scandal in the early 1970s, namely, the exploitation of development values which had been created by the community. It is interesting to note that at this moment legislation is being introduced in France on the land question. One of the most favoured amendments calls for a site value tax. Surely this is a simpler way. It is not Common Market thinking. It happens to have been good Liberal policy for many years. Fortunately, the French are looking across the Channel this time to see the right way to do it. If there is a simple way to go about things, it should be tried. This country is already punch-drunk with legislation and incomprehensible definitions.
  1278
  As far as existing building land is concerned, it is still our contention that the introduction of a variable site tax based on annual value of the land is all that is needed, as this not only reduces land prices but gives real power to local authorities to see their proposals—the land development schemes they agree with builders and others—implemented and not left lying around while someone sits on the land until the price goes up.
  If it is claimed that the Bill gives the land to the people, the people are going to have to pay a hefty price for the right to develop it. If land is to come in at existing use value, it is going to be planned by local authorities and then sold, and they will not give it away. They will look for the top price. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said, that certainly will not reduce the price of houses.
  One can see the sort of problems which will arise in local government when it realises that 30 per cent. of the realisable price will come back to it. I do not think that this will lead to positive planning but rather to positively bad planning. Why cannot this land be passed at cost-plus the overheads of the local authority? The present proposal is a bad way for local authorities to obtain finance.
  As far as newly released land is concerned—land which local authorities have decided to include in a town boundary—I believe that the authorities should be able to purchase at existing use value, or at least the cost prior to 12th September 1974, whichever is the higher. They should have three months' option in which to do it. If after that they have not decided to take up the option, the owner should be entitled to deal with that land as he likes and be exempted from acquisition for a five-year period.
  On Second Reading, the Liberals voted against the Bill largely because of its cost at this time of economic stringency and its lack of likely effects on the house market. That is still very much the case today, despite the revised estimates of the manpower required.
  I consider it very foolish to talk about complete repeal. We cannot just go on proceeding as we have in the past with a succession of measures. I want to

  1279
  quote from what The Times said on Monday. The hon. Member for Aylesbury likes quoting from this newspaper so I shall quote it back at him. The article said:
  "The ideological approach of both the Government in presenting the Bill and of the Conservative Party in its relentless decline into root and branch condemnation and shameless panic-mongering in party political broadcasts, have helped to surround it with a miasma of bitterness. The real nature of the problem is becoming lost to view."
  I was a supporter of the old Land Commission but I do not support the idea of a betterment levy. It was a pity that the Land Commission was wiped out in 1970. I said consistently in Committee on the Bill that I believe some sort of regional structure will have to be set up if this Bill is to work. If the local authority is to be the planner and also the developer, who is to safeguard the interests of the community? The rôle of the local authority is surely to preserve the existing interests of the present community by whom it has been elected.
  This responsibility may lead to inertia and may stultify development. There may also be a conflict of interest between the counties and the district. A land action board or a similar body should be established. At first it would have to be appointed, but perhaps in time if we get elected regional councils the board could be elected. A lot of work needs to be done on a regional basis to translate national and regional policies into a local context transcending local boundaries and prejudices.
  It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Community Land Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Harper.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Ross: The rôle of the board, which I put forward seriously—I believe that the Government have considered it—would be to act as a catalyst in bringing land to the market, to act as an arbiter in cases of dispute that hinder development and occasionally, in the last resort, to be the initiator of projects for development.
  1280
  It would also act as a funding agency for local authority development projects.
  I make a plea for the wider exploration of the benefits to the community to be gained by the further use of selective partnership schemes operating between local authorities and development agencies, some of which have been successful in various cities in this country. These schemes at least ensure that the benefits gained from the market mechanism, such as the adventurous initiation of development, the stimulation of innovation, the efficient rationing and allocation of resources, the promotion of consumer preference, the accumulated skills of project management, the implicit tests of feasibility and the facilitation of funding are not lost.
  Finally, I reflect that the speculative nature of subsisting land and property values is frequently a function of the poor performance of past planning policies and the uncertainty of future ones.
  Much as I admire the ability, affability and skill of the Minister, I have to say that my hon. Friends and I shall join the Opposition and vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Irving: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that the matter will be settled shortly in the Division Lobby. I believe that the will of the House will be decisive in supporting the Bill.
  I welcome the amendments moved by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government during the last two days. They put the position of the owner-occupier and the owner of a small piece of land beyond doubt. There has been a great deal of misrepresentation during the past few months which should now be at an end.
  It should be possible lot housing schemes for 10 or 12 houses and up to 20 flats to go ahead without the acquisition by the public of the land, as all development under 10,000 sq.ft. and all industrial buildings under 15,000 sq.ft. are exempted from the scheme. We hope that up to one acre of land will also be exempt from the development charge.
  Contrary to what has been said by many opponents of the Bill, I believe that the

  1281
  scheme will bring benefit to owner-occupiers and the community in the long-term stabilisation of the price of land, and in better planned and better located housing, schools and other local amenities when local authorities no longer have to pay the speculative prices charged. The Municipal and Public Services Journal described the Bill as
  "the most exciting thing to happen to local government for decades."
  Contrary to all that has been said by Opposition Members, local government will vigorously accept the challenge.
  One reason for my intervention tonight is the indignation I feel as a member of a local authority at the outrageous statement in the Estates Times of last Friday:
  "There have been too many cases of corruption in local government for the general public to have any confidence that their powers under the Bill will be properly exercised."
  That is a disgraceful attack on the integrity of members and officers alike. Despite the difficulties that some members of some local authorities expect in operating the Bill, they will operate it with honesty and fairness.
  My own county of Kent, through the County Joint Committee—of which I am chairman—which links together counties and districts, has already decided in principle to set up its county-wide land acquisition and management scheme. I believe that many other local authorities will take speedy steps to follow suit.
  I congratulate the Minister on getting the Bill so far. I believe that it will be successful in its other stages, and I am pleased to support it tonight.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I want to speak about a different part of the United Kingdom from that admirable area about which the right hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving) has spoken—namely, Wales. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said, the Opposition—and I include Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Liberal Party—are still concerned about the Welsh aspects of the Bill, which sets up in Part II a statutory body, small in membership—a minimum of six—and very different from the democratically elected bodies which the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) was talking about earlier. It is a small, compact body nominated by the Secretary of State, which has to
  1282
  comply with directions given to it by the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) was right yesterday to describe the Land Authority for Wales as a creature of the Secretary of State.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) questioned in Committee whether Clause 10(3) was constitutional. Subsection (3) reads:
  "The Authority, in the performance of their functions under this Act, shall comply with such directions as may be given to them by the Secretary of State".
  My right hon. Friend asked whether that was constitutional because the directions are totally unspecified. We have not had an answer to that charge.
  We have been told by the Government that the Authority must comply with the Secretary of State's directions because he is answerable to the House. That being so, one would have thought that the Secretary of State would have been anxious to assist the House to exercise its function of supervising the discharge of the Secretary of State's responsibilities by laying copies of his directions before the House as he is prepared to do in connection with the Welsh Development Agency set up by the present Government. But no, we must await the Authority's annual report before we know what directions have been issued.
  The Government have made much of the fact that the meetings of the authority are to be open to the public and to the Press. They seem to have forgotten that the original Bill contained no such provision and that this concession of open Government was wrested from them by an Opposition amendment in Committee. Nor are we unaware that a great deal can still happen behind closed doors.
  Here we have a compact and powerful body that will be tightly controlled by the Secretary of State for Wales. It is to acquire, manage and dispose of land in Wales on an unparalleled scale. It will have a staff of 750 and will cost £4 million a year to run. It will be able to borrow up to £40 million and with further parliamentary approval, £60 million. After yesterday's reduction in the initial debt of the Authority from, £750,000 to £100,000, as a result of a Government amendment, we are at a loss

  1283
  as to how much reliance to place on Government estimates.
  As to how the Authority will work in practice, we were told in Committee that during the initial period—namely, before the second appointed day—the Authority might acquire about 5,000 acres at between £10,000 and £15,000 per acre, and that the total outgoings will amount to between £70 million and £90 million.
  During the same period the Authority may dispose of 1,500 acres at £20,000 an acre. The difference between these disposals, amounting to £3 million, and the outgoings gives a borrowing requirement of between £40 million and £60 million in the Bill. That is what we were told. The arithmetic is incredibly simple. Incidentally, I am surprised that there has been no reduction in the borrowing requirement in view of the recently announced and incorporated exceptions to "relevant development". Surely they must reduce the amount of land that is required by the land authority.
  One matter is clear even from the Government's own figures, and that is that every acre acquired will increase in price by 20 per cent. simply by passing through the hands of the Authority and before the Authority has taken any profit. We fear that the Authority, despite being a monopoly dealer in land, will be very slow to make a profit, if indeed it ever does. Meanwhile, it will require an enormous amount of capital, just as the Land Commission did, although that was on a much smaller scale. The price charged by the Land Authority for land is likely, in my opinion, to be way beyond the means of many developers and possibly beyond the means of certain local authorities which presumably will have to purchase from the Land Authority.
  The Bill has two major functions, one of which relates to planning, but the Land Authority for Wales is not a planning authority. Although in England and Scotland ownership of land and planning go together under the local authorities, in Wales they are divided. Baroness White in another place queried the sense of such a division between planning and ownership. She also wanted to know about the relationship between the Land Authority and the local authority. We
  1284
  have asked that question time and again and we are tired of waiting for a clear answer.
  The relationship between the Land Authority and the local authorities in Wales is in a frightful muddle. Who is to do what is still a mystery, and the rapid introduction of the Bill, which the Secretary of State for Wales had hoped for, will not, I believe, be achieved because of the confusion about the relationship between the Land Authority and local authorities.
  The truth of the matter is that the Secretary of State for Wales on an inadequate basis of reasoning, as we found on Second Reading, opted for a centralised land agency against the advice of the rest of the White Paper on land simply so that we in Wales should be different from England and Scotland. I suspect that he is now beginning to regret it and is looking to the Welsh local authorities to bail him out when they act for the Land Authority on an agency basis.
  If he were wise he would now admit, at least to himself, that it is all a big mistake. I am afraid that it is one mistake that is liable to be very costly indeed to him in every sense, financially and politically. We shall remind him time and again of other more urgent priorities on which to spend the £40 million to £60 million that is to be expended under the Bill on a bureaucratic body whose name will become anathema in Wales. While the Land Authority indulges in a buying spree, we know that people in Wales will lack local authority mortgages to buy houses.
  The local authorities themselves are starved of money to build on the land they already own. Never was a body created more at variance with and superfluous to the real needs of the people of Wales than this bureaucratic nonsense, which can add only a few thousand acres to those thousands already held by the Secretary of State for Wales, and which his civil servants failed to count for me when I asked him in a Parliamentary Question how much land he held in Wales.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: At least we can be grateful that the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) thoroughly approved of the position as

  1285
  outlined in the Bill in regard to England. No doubt he will be supporting many of us in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: As a member of the Committee, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) will recall our precise position on this. We do not like the Land Authority. If we are to have any kind of authority we would prefer these powers to go to the local authorities, but we do not like that either.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not want to provoke a lengthy further intervention. I was somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), after he had made some quite interesting and very proper comments about the urgent need to come to a decision on the whole issue of land and its use in the future, should nevertheless have made a rather surprising recommendation about voting against this Bill, for it seems to me that this Bill is the best hope we have had of a solution which can stick and mean something, not only in this House but throughout the country, offering some excitement and hope for the future.
  His own recommendations seemed to suggest no more than going back to the Land Commission. It was one very good and sincere effort to deal with this problem, and one of the reasons for its failure, according to Opposition Members, was that that provision did not allow adequate power to the local authorities, so they should be the last people to object to the choice of the local authorities as the instrument in this case.
  I have been in this House, with one or two interruptions, for some while, and I apologise, perhaps, for that, but I well remember the first attempt of the Silkin Act, the Town and Country Planning Act, to deal with this matter. It was accorded world-wide support and interest and achieved a very great deal. It was a very complicated measure. But it was destroyed. The main virtue—in a sense the guts—of that measure was torn out by the Tory Party, when they came into office, by the financial amendment that they made. This meant the destruction of the possibility of real positive planning in this country, and was responsible for a great deal of the ill-will that has developed since towards the planning profession.
  1286
  A great deal stemmed from that great disaster of the withdrawal of the effective financial powers. The Tory Party can claim credit for that, and the sadness of tonight is that the spokesman for the Conservative Party seems to have learned nothing over this period. The most he can say about the possibilities for the future is that we should reconsider the recommendations of the Dobry Report.
  I pay tribute to the work that was done by the Dobry Committee. But to imagine that that is a sufficient answer for all our planning problems is quite unreal and shows how narrow and limited is the approach of the Opposition. The Dobry Report makes many valuable suggestions about administrative detail of one form or another which I hope will be carried into effect, but it neither attempts nor was the Dobry Committee asked to deal with the fundamental problems tackled in the Bill.
  As one who has seen the other attempts brought forward in this House, I pay credit to the fact that in my view this is the most realistic set of proposals that we have. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) had the impudence to suggest that the Bill would increase house prices. If any body of people are experts on that, it is the Opposition. They have the greatest experience of all. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Bill would stir up difficulties in local government. The greatest award there must lie again with the Opposition, for they have presented us with a form of local government which is not what we asked for and which we regret in many ways. But we are accepting the necessity of working within the framework that we have, and we are trying to ensure that despite the difficulties this will provide the kind of agency that we need.
  I am sure that it is right to use local government for this purpose. I regret only that the administrative set-up that we have been given through the reorganisation of local government is not what many of us wished to see. Nevertheless we accept the situation, and we shall ensure that the Bill as presented enables the set-up that we have in local government to operate satisfactorily and above all to give a new and exciting opportunity to elected members and staff alike to carry out what they have wanted

  1287
  to do for years in tackling the priorities in their areas.
  The fact of our economic and financial difficulties merely adds to the necessity for an answer of this kind. Of course, we have to be careful to scrutinise the provisions about staff and the rest, and we shall do that. But this enables us to tackle the problems in a way which previous provisions did not, and it enables us to give a positive view to planning which I know that many people in the planning profession have wanted for years. This at last gives them the opportunity for which they have been waiting.
  1288
  I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, though I hope that some of the excessive comments which have come from the Opposition, presumably stimulated by the winds of Blackpool, with their wild talk about abolishing the Bill and about trying to prevent it coming into operation in the local authorities will be seen merely as a temporary aberration and that they will recover from it and accept the need on their side to ensure that this legislation is given a fair chance of full operation in order to meet the needs of people who have been clamant since the end of the war.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Crawford: As I heard the honeyed words of the Minister for Planning and Local Government introducing the Third Reading of this Bill I wondered whether he was talking about the Community Land Bill. When the Front Bench Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), spoke he almost made me change my recommendation to my hon. Friends about how they should vote on the Bill. The political arguments about the Bill seem, once again—the same thing happened on Second Reading—to have moved from the extreme right to the extreme left and back again.
  My party reserved its position on the Second Reading in the hope that something would be done to alleviate the worst effects of the Bill and that some common sense would be written into it. The draftsmen of the Bill appear to have been moved by the aphorism of the West Highlands gentleman who stated, "These are the conclusions on which I base my facts." As I said on Second Reading, there is in Scotland a vast local authority land bank, vacant and unused, which could be used without the provisions of the Bill.
  My party's objections to the Bill are primarily threefold. The first concerns the Churches. I should declare an interest, as I did last night. I am a "son of the manse." My father is a Church minister. Last night we discussed the ten-year rule. That was agreed. The Church has operated for a long time in this manner and I hope that it will continue to do so. I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) that the Churches need more reassurance on this matter.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman last night. I thought that between then and tonight he would at some time make his usual distorted speech. I thought that he would perhaps check his facts. Is he aware that following the Committee stage of the Bill the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to which he says his father belongs, wrote to my noble Friend, Lord Hughes, the then Minister of State, thanking the Government for the concessions that had been granted and saying that the Government had acted in the best interests of the Churches? The
  1290
  hon. Gentleman continually presents a distorted picture which does not represent the views of the Churches in Scotland. They are delighted with what the Government have done. While I am on my feet—
  Hon. Members: Too long.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. It is not for the Chair to time interruptions. It is for the hon. Member who has given way and the hon. Member who has the Floor.
  Mr. Ewing: I understand that the Scottish National Party is to vote against the Bill tonight. I hope that in the weekend speeches the SNP will tell the people of Scotland why it has said that the people ought not to have the land.
  Mr. Crawford: I will not go into that last point. I will refer the hon. Member to the fact that further representations have been made by the Church of Scotland and to the fact that the Moderator of the Church of Scotland does not necessarily represent all the views of that Church. The Church of Scotland is a democratic body.
  My party's second objection to the Bill relates to farming and forestry. It is not always realised that Scotland is a self-supporting country in terms of agriculture. We export £30 million worth of agricultural goods per annum. We have a net balance of £30 million worth of agricultural goods whereas the United Kingdom has a net deficit of £1,000 million per annum.
  Scotland also has great forestry potential. The provisions of the Bill would effectively sterilise large areas of good farming land around such places as the city of Perth in my constituency. It is important for Scottish working farmers, and presumably English and Welsh working farmers, to have freedom to develop their own land.
  The third objection concerns the ability of local authorities to administer the scheme. Perhaps in Scotland we have more experience on this point although the North-East of England has a considerable amount of experience in this respect. There is a certain lack of ability on the part of local authorities to administer their affairs as efficiently as possible.

  1291
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has experience of a local authority which is not wholly capable of exercising its duties with total efficiency. I hesitate to say that local authorities are capable of exercising their duties in this respect. The bona fides of local authorities are not always "bona"
  The SNP manifesto of last October said:
  "The land of Scotland is its most important material resource."
  Perhaps this answers the Minister's point.
  "The SNP has always held that ultimately the land belongs to the people. In order to do this it is necessary to balance against the collective rights of the people the rights of the people as individuals."
  It is my party's opinion that the Bill does not strike that balance. In the pursuit of unnecessary aims, the Government have gone too far. They are throwing a desirable baby out with an awful lot of undesirable bath water.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is peddling his usual Conservative capitalist line representing the interests not of the people of Scotland but of big business which finances the Scottish National Party. It is those interests which are being peddled in this House tonight, not the interests of the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Crawford: I am peddling the interests of my country, and my country is Scotland.
  It is too much to hope that Conservative Members will be present in the Division tonight. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, they were noticeable by their absence in the vote on the Counter-inflation Bill. I should like to quote the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) who, a few months ago, said that the only opposition to the Government had come from the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Party. The SNP will vote against the Bill for one reason, and one reason only: that it is against the interests of the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) has sat down.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask the hon. Member not to gabble when he makes a reference to me, because I can hardly understand what he says.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very clever, but he knows that that is not a point of order.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Fairbairn: When the Minister for Planning and Local Government spoke earlier in the proceedings on the Bill he corrected me in my wrong assumption that he was a member of the senior half of my profession. The members of the junior half of my profession in Scotland are also called solicitors. There is a saying that they never waste an estate on the beneficiaries. If ever there were an Act of Parliament which did not waste its estate on the beneficiaries, it is this one. It is conceived out of jealousy of the concept of profit.
  The Bill was brought in because somebody on the Government side, stimulated by whatever thought, said to himself, "It is wrong that anybody should make a profit out of his land". The word "land" has a terrible connotation for hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is something that they hate, despise and resent, even though none would be there if they did not eat what was grown in it. It was out of the resentment of profits made out of land—with your honourable exception, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and even made out of slag heaps that some people forget that this Bill was conceived.
  I heard a delicate and generous term come from the rather resentful lips of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland: why should not the people have the land? Let us be clear about this matter. This Bill does not transfer any land to any people. It is not meant or designed to do so. It does not remove the profits on any land transaction to any people. It merely removes a jealousy that Mr. Slag Heap makes a profit from an armchair. Provided that Mr. Slag Heap is not Lady anybody else, they resent it.
  Let us be clear about this matter. [Interruption.] I did not serve on the Committee on this Bill, but I read the proceedings from beginning to end. I

  1293
  doubt whether any hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on the Government side of the House have done that. I may be wrong. There is one thing about a Scot—he always rights a wrong and if I have said something about hon. Members which is unjustified, I withdraw it.
  This long and complicated Bill is intended to remove resentment of the concept of profit made out of land. If there is one thing this country needs from any source, it is wealth and profits. Hon. Members opposite want and need it for those they expect to vote for them.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the hon. and learned Member declare his interest and tell us how many acres of land he owns and how many castles there are on those acres?
  Mr. Fairbairn: I did not hear the whole of the question. I thought the hon. Member asked how many cattle I had on my acres. My education made me incapable of understanding his linguistics. There is one castle on the acres I own. I bought it for £100. I declare that interest. I did it up with my own hands and employed a lot of people who were unemployed to help do it up. There are 3,000 similar houses in Scotland which could be done up in this way if the Labour Party was interested in employment.
  Just because my house happens to be called a castle—though it started as a ruin—hon. Members opposite are jealous. If it were called a council house, they would not be jealous.
  The Bill is complicated and bureaucratic. It deals identically with every land transaction, whether big or small, in Scotland or in Wales, in town or in country, and it deals with them in a bureaucratic way. There is an important principle which ought to be of concern to giggling hon. Members like the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) who is likely to lose his seat at the next election to those who are more interested in Scotland than he is.
  Planning decisions on development are being taken out of the hands and minds of those who will be affected by them and put into the hands and minds of those who will not be affected by them. I am immensely unimpressed. One of the dangers in this country since the war has
  1294
  been that when there is a problem, it is handed over to the bureaucracy or an extension of the bureaucracy—carcinoma bureaucratica. Decisions are taken by people who will not be affected by the results of taking them.
  That is a dangerous choice: it is the choice that Russia has taken. Russia, Hungary—all those countries—are bureaucratic countries. All choice is in the hands of people who are unaffected by decisions they take. The Bill—rightly or wrongly, but I ask hon. Members to think about it—puts into the hands of people who will not be affected by planning decisions, the decisions which should be taken by people who will be affected by them.
  Hon. Members opposite resent the party political broadcast which has been mentioned, but they do not know what form the regulations will take, how they will be applied in North Wales, South Wales, my constituency or theirs, by this planning officer or that. I was called here to represent not a constituency, not a party or a country, but each human being—Mrs. MacGregor, Mr. Snodgrass, Mrs. Smith. We are interested in Mrs. MacGregor's garden. It may be said that the Bill is not intended to apply to Mrs. MacGregor's garden, but it does—[Interruption.] I am surprised that hon. Members opposite are so derisive when one mentions the individual. We are all sent here to represent the individual and no-one else, from whatever party or country we come.
  It is because the Bill will affect the tax that the individual will have to pay, the rights the individual has, the land the individual owns—however large or small—and affect them adversely and wrongly and stupidly and blindly and purblindly, out of a desire of Labour Members to curb the profits which they so resent unless they make them themselves, that the Bill is an obscenity. Let it go out from the House tonight that the Bill stands head and shoulders on the neck of every individual—rich or poor, big or small, Tory or Labour, Scottish, English or Welsh. It has that effect, regardless of its purpose.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: If I agreed with any part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire

  1295
  (Mr. Fairbairn), it was his last point—that the Bill will affect every citizen in the community, wherever he lives and whatever his station in life. That is one of the happiest recommendations that I have heard for the Bill, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member will vote with us tonight for precisely that reason.
  I apologise to the Minister for not having heard all his speech. Having read the weekend Press and the reports of the gales of jubilation from Blackpool last week, I thought that Third Reading would not be reached before ten o'clock on Wednesday morning, so I had hurriedly to rush down to hear his last thrilling notes.
  My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated. We were told that the Bill was a Communist Bill, that it represented the dead hand of bureaucracy on the necks of the British people, that it was the worst possible Socialist measure we could have. Yet it has now reached its Third Reading and the guillotine has not been used. The saga of the poor Industry Bill must pale into insignificance beside this measure. Despite the trumpeting of the Opposition that they would fight the Bill line by line, from Second Reading, through Committee and Report, we have reached Third Reading without the guillotine.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and my comrades on the Front Bench are to be congratulated on their skill in handling the Bill, which is a most controversial and complicated measure, and getting it through the House. I say nothing about the conduct of the Opposition. I was disappointed that we did not have a guillotine. I was disappointed that the Opposition gave in so easily. That made me worry at times about the content of the Bill. Was it as good a measure as I thought it was, I wondered, but having heard some of the Opposition speeches on Third Reading I am reassured.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire said that the Bill was conceived out of jealousy of profit. That is an interesting concept. During the Second Reading debate I spoke of the profits that had been made by faceless landowners who, quite fortuitously, had bought swampy land within
  1296
  my constituency and then reaped enormous profits when it was designated as housing land for council tenants. The drains, the roads, the schools, the houses and all the other development there came from the community, and it is not because of jealousy but because we want to see the profit going to the people who create it that we support the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has an equally scandalous example in his constituency of vast profits being made by faceless landowners because of planning decisions so that Mrs. MacGregor, Mrs. Snodgrass and Mrs. Smith could each have a decent house with an inside toilet and bath, and a decent environment for their children to enjoy.
  That is what the Bill is about. It is about ordinary people having an opportunity to live their lives in decent surroundings, and if we can achieve that by the Bill, as we think we can, by having proper planning procedures, by getting rid of excess profits, and by ensuring that the community gets the profits that it creates, my right hon. Friend and my Government will have done a lot of things of which they can be proud.
  My right hon. Friend has gone a long way to meet the needs and requests of the Churches and charities. I listened with amazement to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) who put his name to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) and myself on the subject of Churches and charities. We should have loved to have the hon. Gentleman battling side by side with us on behalf of the Churches and charities, but where was he? He was at home in bed.
  Then we had the crocodile tears from the Opposition. One Tory Member derided the simple letters that were received from humble churchgoers throughout the land asking the Government to consider their situation. The hon. Gentleman referred to their letters as "grubby little pieces of paper". That is the kind of concern that Tory Members have for the ordinary people of this land.
  My right hon. Friend has gone a long way to meet the legitimate interests of

  1297
  the Churches and charities. It is right that these bodies should be in a position to organise their land holdings and so order their affairs as to be able to make proper use of their land, but it is not right that they should be a privileged section of the community and be able to make speculative gains out of land because they are treated separately and differently from others. That is why the 10-year rule is a reasonably coherent and sensible provision. It will enable men of good will to sit down and work out their priorities so that in the end nobody is able to make a speculative profit, be it the Churches or any charity.
  It has been said that the Bill is over-bureaucratic and puts too heavy a demand on local government. I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). The Bill gives local government a real opportunity to plan how the community should develop, how it should use its land and how to make the best use of the resources that are available to it. The Humberside County Council has already set up a committee which is actively working on plans for the benefit of the whole community of Humberside. I hope that this will be an example which will be followed throughout the country. It is already being followed in many counties and districts.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister is to be congratulated on the courage and the perseverence that he has shown in carrying out this important Manifesto commitment. If for the first time we can get land out of the grip of the speculative developers, if land is used in the interests of the community with long-term interests being taken into account and not quick profits, and if we can give people an opportunity to be decently housed, to work in a decent environment, for their children to go to proper schools without being in the slum buildings that exist at present, we shall have achieved a great deal.
  The Bill is about ordinary people being given an opportunity to live their lives in a decent, well-ordered environment, to own their houses, to rent their houses, to seize opportunities for their children and to work and retire in decent conditions. I commend the Bill to the House.
  10.51 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Morris: It is 159 days since the first meeting of the Standing Committee which, according to the Minister's statement in the early stages of the Committee, means that the Bill is about 90 days behind its original schedule, and that without the guillotine.
  I find it surprising, but I enjoyed the proceedings in Committee. I am sorry that we have left a wound on the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will be back to full health and strength before too long.
  We have come a long way since the early meetings of the Committee when the right hon. Gentleman made it clear to the Opposition that only a few meetings, discussions and minor amendments were necessary before the Bill would be on its way to the Report stage. It was made clear that the Minister hoped to get the Bill on Report by the middle or late June.
  I take some pride in the Opposition. It is an Opposition that has flushed out the Government on a number of issues. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) made a gallant effort to pick up the threads of why the Government forgot about the charities and Churches in the White Paper, but he bungled it. Labour Members are kidding themselves if they believe that there is a charity in this country that would rather not be without the Bill. Charities do not want the Bill.
  Mr. McNamara: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that with what was written on many of the grubby pieces of paper he received saying that people do not object to the principles of the Bill?
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we dealt with that at great length in Committee. If he cannot remember what was said, he should go back and read it.
  It is the Opposition that has pointed out to the public the loss of rights under the compulsory purchase orders. There is a genuine loss of freedom there. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that loss of freedom will be sorely felt by members of the public.
  Even this evening when we were debating the disposal notification areas the

  1299
  Under-Secretary did not know what was in the Bill. He does not know what a definition of "land" is. I refer him to page 7 of the Bill.
  Mr. Oakes: I have read it.
  Mr. Morris: I am glad that the Under-Secretary has read it. He will know that the word "building" is included which includes every home owned by anyone in the country. There will hardly be a town that does not have a disposal notification area after a year or so. That is not scaremongering. We shall have a review after a couple of years—if the right hon. Gentleman is still here—and see how many there are.
  We understand the right hon. Gentleman's filial obligation, but what we cannot understand is that this is supposed to be the total solution on land, yet we spent next to no time on agriculture which has a primary requirement for land. The Government have paid no attention to the warnings given by the people who build houses that the Bill will slow down house building, increase unemployment in the building industry and increase hardship amongst those who want a new home.
  The Labour Government has listened to the unions' pleas for investment, and I find it amazing that the sole concession the Government have made to British industry in its drive for further investment is the 15,000 sq.ft. limit. That shows the Government's lack of understanding of industry.
  The Conservative Opposition have made clear that we believe that the gain element in land should be taxed, but from consultations we have had with professional bodies—and I place on record our thanks to those who have given their help and support through many long hours—we know that there is hardly a professional body involved in land which has not come out against the Bill. Even some local authorities have reservations. That is perhaps not surprising. One has only to go round North London and the disgusting deserts of Glasgow—knowing which party has controlled Glasgow for many a long year—to see how good Socialist planning is. It has never yet provided a decent home for anyone and it never will.
  1300
  The costs of the Bill are too high in human terms and in pounds and new pence. We are told in the Bill that 14,000 civil servants will be needed. Despite the exemptions, exceptions, amendments and undertakings, that number is still 14,000, which suggests either that 14,000 was an underestimate or that we now have a surplus. Perhaps that figure will be changed yet again in another place.
  Some day the humbug of Socialism will come through and people will see that the individual freedom they have lost through the Bill—if it becomes an Act—is one of the greatest losses we have had in the last generation. The only saving grace is that there will be local elections next spring and the following spring. Thank goodness for the element of discretion for local authorities in the Bill. I suggest that the second appointed day will be a long way off as the Conservatives win authority after authority.
  10.57 p.m.
  Mr. Durant: We have been told that the Bill is far-reaching and is the final solution. There is the usual Labour Party belief in "positive planning", a phrase which fills me with horror. I have seen some results of positive planning in towns in which a local authority has taken over an area, been undecided what to do about it, moved people out in an ad hoc way, boarded up buildings and left the place like a slum. That is what the Labour Party calls positive planning, and that is what will occur in our towns and cities if the Bill goes through.
  We know of local authorities which are sitting on large tracts of land not even knowing that they own them. It took me four years to prize out of officials information about the land owned by my local authority. We did not know we had that land. Therefore, once again, we shall have land banks and we shall not be sure whether the local authority owns them or not. This Bill is an attack on the individual and ownership, and I deplore it.
  I want to deal with the question of disposal notification areas. I said earlier that this was one of the most Draconian measures. The Under-Secretary of State attacked the use of the word "Draconian". But anything which affects an individual is important. Of

  1301
  course I have faith in local government; it does a good job in many ways, but in other ways it does not. One has seen different sorts of local government in different sorts of area. We have seen corruption and we know that once this Bill becomes law we shall see corruption of the planning queue as people try to get in earlier to get their plans through.
  The Minister says that everyone is to participate. He spoke of residents' associations. Are they all to go to the planning committee and have their say? If so, it will be an interesting exercise. But it will not happen. The matter will remain in the hands of the planning committees and the council as owners.
  We shall have a new host of bureaucrats—12,000, 14,000, whatever it may, we do not know just how many. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that only over a period will the figure of 14,000 be reached. But it is a lot of bureaucrats by any yardstick.
  The timetable is made. They all have to produce their plans by the end of December. December will be full of little men in bowler hats driving round measuring up in order to get their plans ready in time. Local government will not be able to cope.
  We have not heard what will happen if there is no profit. What happens if the local authority takes on development land and cannot sell it at a profit? Who stands the loss? That question was not answered in Committee. It could happen. Plenty of people are losing money in developing land at present, and the local authorities can do the same.
  Socialists seem to think that the only way to solve problems is by passing legislation. Then we get another long and involved Bill. This one will have the usual result—less land available, fewer houses built, more muddle, bureaucracy, with the poor citizen left muddled, bemused and sickened. This Bill is another in the long saga of interference with human rights and the need for decent housing.
  11.3 p.m.
  Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friends the Members for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) and Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) have rightly emphasised the effect of the Bill on the individual. I am sorry that they did not join in the congratula-
  1302
  tions to the right hon. Gentleman on his achievement in getting the Bill to this stage. It is a remarkable achievement. He has met the most massive, sustained and informed criticism of his Bill—he frequently calls it "his" Bill—from all sorts of quarters, and 156 hours were spent on it in Committee.
  These were some of the criticisms. The Observer said:
  "This is a bad Bill which should never have been introduced. It ought now to be withdrawn."
  Justice said:
  "… unacceptable from the Constitutional point of view."
  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said:
  "We still believe that the scheme will be counter-productive to achieving development which accords with the social and economic needs of the community."
  These are important criticisms from informed sources—sources which, I regret to say, are not noted for their affiliation with or support for the Conservative Party. They are criticisms to which most people would have listened. That is just the first of the many obstacles over which the right hon. Gentleman has leapt. Perhaps it was in so doing that he sprained his cartilege.
  How did he do it? The silky skill at soft soaping has been very effective, and with local authorities, sometimes I fear, there has been the iron fist, a little blackmail—rather nasty blackmail we heard last night, blackmail of the local authority associations, "If you do not play the game on this Bill it will be the worse for you because we shall give you another Land Commission and you will not have the opportunity to make a muddle yourselves. You will have another body outside to make a muddle of your land for you."
  He got over that hurdle, but one can imagine the scene in Marsham Street with the conversation, "We have this Bill for nationalisation of land. It will call for many experts, to make a list for the great, the good and the gullible, but that is not enough. How do we get over the problem of title?" I suspect that in Marsham Street there is a word expert for whom they send on these occasions. They say, "The Minister wants to nationalise land", and he says "Nationalisation? Not acceptable" and adds,

  1303
  "Community, that is the new word". They reply "Well done. The Community Land Bill. You can have next Saturday off".
  But that is not the end of it. There is worse to come. This would give local authorities control over every single bit of land in the country—or it would have done originally. It is fractionally better now. They say "Local authority control is definitely not acceptable". In comes our expert again, and we have "positive planning". That is splendid.
  I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. The members of the department for nice words have done a fine job and have succeeded perhaps all too well. In the early stages, the public—and I suspect to some extent the media—were taken in as they had not read the Bill, or, understandably, had not understood the Bill as presented and did not recognise the implications.
  But there were other obstacles the right hon. Gentleman had to face. There was his own side of the House. How was he going to sell this fundamental bit of Socialism? [Interruption] I am told that it is alleged that there are opposite some Social Democrats. They are extremely hard to discern. I suspect that they are like those distant objects of the solar system whose existence can be deduced only from the movements of other objects, although not actually observable themselves. How to get those alleged Social Democrats to accept this Socialism—that was the question. What were the words the right hon. Gentleman used? "Do not worry, it will only be strategic land. It will not be implemented in full. Step by step. "I use his words. "Step by step"—but to where? Do those Social Democrats never stop to ask what they might unhappily find if the legislation were ever to reach the statute book?
  Surely there must be another obstacle, almost insurmountable, to which he paid tribute: the Treasury. Are we not led to believe that the Treasury has everything in this country under control—except, perhaps inflation? How can the Treasury possibly allow on to the statute book a piece of legislation which spends public money as if it were going out of fashion? I suppose that it is possible that the Treasury believes that money is going
  1304
  out of fashion. Surely the Treasury could not have been taken in by the Minister's juggling with the figures, by his failing to allow for any interest on acquisition costs in the cost figures he gave to the House, by his failing to make any assumption of the length of time for which local authorities, with their speed of action and reaction, would hold this land?
  Surely it cannot have been that the Treasury has not learned a little about property development recently, bearing in mind its experience of the banking sector, does it still think that property is the certain way of making money? The chairman of a most important and stable company, respected throughout the world, pointed out that property today is a very different ball game. Interest rates are now 16 per cent. or 17 per cent., not just 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. Labour costs are astronomical. Very few development projects are worth anything like their cost at the end of the day.
  How in the face of that knowledge could the Treasury let the Bill go through? I suppose that, like others, it could have been taken in by the kind words, the soft sell and a few behind-the-scenes assurances. Now we are all being urged to give a Third Reading to this dangerous, damaging and odious piece of legislation.
  The fundamental criticism of the Bill is not the bureaucracy, not the cost, not the infringement of human rights; it is something that goes back, as few people suspect, to our old friend Karl Marx and his theory that control of the land is control of the people. I am sure that some Labour Members know the text from Das Kapital better than I.
  I give a brief example or what I mean. Recently I visited a nice, large, new shopping centre which had been developed by an authority of the type of which the right hon. Gentleman is proud, an authority set up under the new town legislation. It was a very fine and expensive shopping centre. It was only a local shopping centre, but a great deal of money had been spent on it. The authority could be justly proud of the centre, but sadly it had some 20 or more empty shops. I inquired why there were lovely supermarkets but no greengrocer, no butcher, no baker, not even a candlestick maker. This was very strange,

  1305
  because those Members who bother to find out how housewives shop will realise that many housewives rather like buying their vegetables in a greengrocer's shop rather than in supermarkets. They prefer to buy their meat in a butcher's shop rather than in a supermarket. They prefer to buy their bread in a baker's shop rather than in a supermarket. But in this shopping centre there was no butcher, no baker and no greengrocer. Instead there were two large super stores.
  I asked why there was no butcher baker or greengrocer. I said "Surely some of them would like to trade in your lovely new shopping centre". I was told "We do not want them. We do not think that they are the right sort of shops for our shopping centre. We think that people should buy their meat in the supermarket. We think people should buy their greengrocery in the supermarket. We think people should buy their bread in the supermarket. We are not going to give them a choice. We own this shopping centre and all the land around, and no butcher, baker or greengrocer can trade in the area".
  That is an example of what is meant by control of the land being control of the people—namely, control of the detail of people's lives. That consequence of the concentration of economic power in the hands of the State is why the Bill must be condemned. It is that concentration which leads me to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it. If it is not rejected, we must repeal it.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I am participating in this debate to declare my belief in the concept of the private ownership of land and property. Perhaps it is a concept that does not appeal very much to Labour Members, but I assure them that it appeals very much to the majority of my constituents in Uxbridge. I believe strongly that the Briton's home is his castle and that he should not be dispossessed of his home by any Government, let alone by a Labour Government. I believe that an Englishman, a Briton, should be dispossessed of his home only if there is some overriding national objective of supreme importance to make such a move essential in the national interest.
  It so happens that I represent the constituency of Uxbridge which is part
  1306
  of the London Borough of Hillingdon. That borough will be familiar to the Minister for Planning and Local Government because it has the unenviable reputation of being known in some parts of the country as "The CPO borough"—a borough in which more compulsory purchase orders have been applied for than is good for the health of the people who live there.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment and his Labour colleagues are doubtless aware of the London Borough of Hillingdon. Since I have been the Member responsible for that constituency, I have become familiar with the sabrerattling tactics of the Socialist-controlled council which tries to dispossess people of their homes by threatening and cajoling them to move and to make their homes available for development. My constituents are deeply disturbed by the provisions of the Community Land Bill, which I have been studying with great care.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: They are appalled.
  Mr. Shersby: I agree with my hon. Friend. They are appalled, angry and distressed, and they look to me to put forward their point of view, and I shall do so.
  A visitor to the London Borough of Hillingdon can see for himself the great gaps that exist in the rows of houses following acquisitions by Hillingdon Borough under existing powers on the statute book. I refer to houses which have been destroyed, pulled down, and are no longer available for occupation by my constituents and by the constituents of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder).
  In short, my borough is under siege and attack by those who believe that it is right for a local authority to decide that it knows best who shall live where and in what house, and who should be allowed to maintain his freehold and who should not. The Bill is not an insidious attack but is a frontal attack on the whole concept of property ownership. Therefore, I oppose the Bill root and branch.
  I read with interest the proceedings before the Standing Committee and I have

  1307
  also listened to the debates on the Bill in the last two days. I have been unable to find any feature in the Bill or in the proceedings so far which would encourage me to support it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Those Labour Members below the Gangway who jeer and shout know nothing about the interests of owner-occupiers in the London Borough of Hillingdon. They have made no study of the problems affecting my constituents. They sit there smiling smugly thinking that, with the aid of their parliamentary majority, they will pass the Bill into law.
  Let me pass on to Labour Members this message. Come the local government elections and the next General Election, they will be swept away. They will be replaced in this House by a Government led by people who believe in the rights of Britons to live in their own homes without disturbance so that they may pursue their own lives without the threat of compulsory purchase. They will be swept away to the ignominy they deserve. They will be replaced in this House of Commons by a Government led by people who believe in the right of the Briton to live in his own home without disturbance and to be able to pursue his own life without threat of compulsory purchase.
  It is all very well for Labour Members to snigger and smile tonight. I shall look forward to standing here in two or three years' time, when they no longer occupy the benches above and below the Gangway, and when the Government which I shall support, and which my constituents will support, will repeal this odious Act of Parliament now being foisted on the House of Commons.
  11.21p.m.
  Mr. Rossi: I should like to begin, as the right hon. Gentleman who opened this debate on Third Reading began, by thanking various people. He thanked all those who had helped him with the Bill. He thanked them for the consultations he had with them. I give my thanks to those who helped me.
  First of all, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends who sat with me through the long, hot hours of May, June and July, discussing this Bill in great detail. We considered some 700 amendments altogether. As a result of that—as the right hon. Gentleman has been generous
  1308
  enough to admit, both in Committee and throughout yesterday and today, when he was bringing forward other amendments based on undertakings he had given us—we have played a part in amending this Bill and removing some of the rough edges and ugly corners that we saw in it. I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for all they did in that respect.
  They also, in carrying out this detailed examination right through those summer months, caused the Bill to be delayed a little. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman does not thank us for that. He had hoped that it would receive Royal Assent some time at the end of June or the beginning of July, and here we are still debating the Bill after the recess. Depending on what the other place will do with it it may or may not be at a certain amount of risk.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends, in their detailed examination and exposition of the Bill, have also in the course of the past few months alerted the country to the enormity that is being perpetrated by this Parliament in the name of the people of this country.
  I also thank the representatives of the various outside bodies who sat with us for several hours each week in between Committees—representatives from the local authority associations, statutory undertakers, pension funds, representatives from the Churches and charitable organisations, the various professional bodies all concerned with land questions, the house builders' associations, the representatives of the National Farmers' Union and the various amenity bodies throughout the country. They gave us invaluable assistance in analysing and dissecting this Bill in the way in which we have been able to do.
  One feature concerning this Bill stands uppermost in my mind. When we started the consideration of the measure we found that there was a general feeling of acceptance amongst the various representatives—indeed, even of approval—because they had read the White Paper, published some four weeks before an intended General Election. Of course, the phrase? in that White Paper were intended to influence, and did so. People approached the Bill with the idea that it was seeking to return to the community wealth created by the community, and also to improve the

  1309
  planning system, of which there had been a considerable amount of criticism in this country over the years. There was acceptance of those concepts.
  But as they began to look at the Bill in detail and study what it was all about, they found that it was sometimes entirely different. Horror upon horror sank into their minds as they proceeded with their discussions. We started our consideration in this atmosphere of public acceptance. We ended with every professional and informed body concerned with land matters dedicated in its hostility to this measure and, apart from the planning associations, which have accepted the planning background which the right hon. Gentleman says that he has incorporated in the Bill, that attitude of hostility and objection by every informed opinion in the country remains.
  Between the two major parties in this House, there is an underlying philosophical disagreement which we shall never bridge. Government supporters, in all sincerity, believe that the cure to the country's problems is to be found in more and more State ownership and State control. The Opposition take a different view. We place a greater reliance upon the individual, his endeavour, his enterprise, his worth—
  Mr. Robin Corbert: His greed.
  Mr. Rossi: I wish that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) would not be quite so childish. He reminds me of the classical definition of a baby—an alimentary canal with a loud noise at one end and no responsibility at the other—except that the hon. Gentleman has progressed beyond mere babyhood. Now both attributes apply to both ends.
  Apart from the underlying philosophical divide separating the two sides of the House, there are fundamental objections to the Bill which exist, even apart from all party considerations. First, there is the constitutional point. Here I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), who raised this matter in Committee. He drew our attention to the work of Lord Hewart in 1929 entitled "The New Despotism". That famous former Lord Chief Justice said in his analysis of our constitution
  1310
  that if a Minister wished to possess himself of arbitrary power, he could do so simply under our parliamentary system by producing a Bill which was a skeleton of law, clothing the framework with powers to make regulations reserving to himself a discretion in all important matters, and in such a way that his discretion could not be interfered with by the courts.
  That is precisely the framework of the Community Land Bill. It is the worst kind of constitutional measure that could be expected to be produced to this House, and it has tremendous inherent dangers in it. That is not only the view of the Opposition. One would expect us to be critical. But it is also the view of Justice, of which Gerald Gardiner, a former Socialist Lord Chancellor, is President. Justice has condemned the Bill on precisely that constitutional ground.
  During the passage of the Bill, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) was PPS to the Minister for Planning and Local Government, and I suppose that to some extent he speaks with the voice of his right hon. Friend. He said that this was "a great measure" in as much as it devolved tremendous responsibilities and powers to local authorities and gave local authorities a discretion, a freedom to act that had been denied them in the past by the Conservatives when they were in Government. That argument is not tenable when we see what are the powers reserved by the Secretary of State in the Bill for the control of the activities of the local authorities.
  First, it is the Secretary of State who, apart from a small exemption which he has now written into a schedule, determines what is relevant development. He does that by regulation under Clause 3. Relevant development determines the area within which local authorities can exercise their acquisitive powers. The right hon. Gentleman defines their area of operation by his power to make regulations dealing with what is relevant development.
  Having done that, the right hon. Gentleman then controls what land the local authorities can acquire under Clause 18 because ultimately he has the last word in the exercise of their compulsory purchase powers. Not only does

  1311
  he control what they can acquire but he also controls that of which they can dispose. To this extent he has considerably altered existing legislation. Under the Local Government Acts as at this moment a local authority is free to dispose of its land in any way it wishes provided that it obtains the best market price. If it does not wish to obtain the best market price for any reason, it applies to the Secretary of State for his consent.
  Clause 43 of the Bill amends Section 123 of the Local Government Act. The effect of that amendment is to take away this discretion of local authorities to dispose of their land in any way they wish. They must now apply to the Secretary of State for consent. He has stated that he will lay down regulations and issue circulars directing local authorities as to how they may dispose of their land. Not content with that, he gives himself another power, under Clause 46, to order local authorities how they may dispose of their land. Not content with that, he also has powers under Schedule 5 to direct how the functions of local authorities shall be allocated as between district and county councils under their management and acquisition schemes.
  Finally, as the ultimate deterrent, if the local authorities do not carry out his will in the way in which he wishes it to be carried out, the Secretary of State may reserve and bring back unto himself all the powers and functions of the local authority—bring them back into Marsham Street and the Department of the Environment. Or he may create another body to exercise those powers on behalf of the local authority. And in Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) has said, the local authorities do not even have that power because a land authority is set up.
  Local authorities, with great respect to the hon. Member for Greenwich, do not have this great trust reposed in them by the Secretary of State. They are his puppets on a string. They are that and no more.
  Let us not have any of this nonsense from Labour Members. It does not begin to stand up. In so far as local authorities do have a discretion, that
  1312
  discretion relates not to their dealings as between themselves and the Secretary of State. It relates to their dealings between themselves and individual private citizens. There they have a discretion because they can declare whether in their opinion any man's property is suitable for relevant development purposes.
  For all those platitudes, those bromides that have been issued concerning the home-owner, any home-owner can be affected by that determination by a local authority. There is absolutely no protection for him at all under that formula and discretion. We have also discussed the effect of disposal notification areas where local authorities can require every owner of every house, of every piece of land, every garden, within an area it deems to declare a disposal notification area to inform it of their intention to sell. An owner cannot even put the place in the hands of an estate agent without first notifying the town hall of the intention to sell. Then the local authority has four weeks to hold up the transaction while it makes up its mind whether to buy. As I said in the party political broadcast on radio, to which the hon. Member for Greenwich took exception, the result is to debase the value of every house and garden within the disposal notification areas, because buyers are bound to be frightened off when they know that the local authorities will exercise their powers in this way. There it is. Between the powers of central Government and local government, this is an oppressive, autocratic measure which we cannot begin to accept in any circumstances whatsoever.
  Another fundamental matter which concerns not only us but people outside this House, is that local authorities are now to be both planners and developers of land. Local authorities will now go into the land market as developers in the expectation of making a profit. I say "expectation", because, as everyone knows, land development can be a very risky business. Looking at some city centre developments which have been carried out, we see that some local authorities have already burned their fingers very badly. In fact, the authority within whose area my constituency lies has not shown itself to be over-bright in the way it is seeking to carry out a development of that kind.

  1313
  Local authorities are exercising or using the profit motive for themselves and at the same time they are the planners who are to act in a semi-judicial capacity to protect the environment, the amenity, for all the people who reside in or wish to enjoy a particular area. That is why the conservation societies, the amenity societies and the farmers' union are extremely anxious, to put it in a neutral manner, about the fact that local authorities are to have this dual capacity of action.
  Another fundamental objection to the Bill is that in future planning decisions will not be decided purely on the basis of planning criteria as in the past.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Would the hon. Gentleman prefer what he has just criticised to the present system whereby Lord Wimborne sold for £7 million to Poole Borough Council land which he had acquired from his father seven years earlier worth £200,000? How does the hon. Gentleman justify that situation?
  Mr. Rossi: If there is time, I will deal with that suggestion at the end. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] My immediate answer, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench know because they have heard it time and again, is that this can be dealt with very simply through the taxation system without all this paraphernalia of bureaucracy and public ownership about which we are talking.
  Another matter which is fundamental to the Bill to which we object concerns the terms of compensation, which are confiscatory. I will not go into detail on that matter, because of the time.
  We have also discussed the compulsory purchase order procedures whereby the citizen is to be denied the protection which he now enjoys against autocratic action against him. His right to a public inquiry is to be denied. The grounds upon which he can object to compulsory purchase orders are being seriously eroded and taken away from him.
  Another fundamental objection is to the disposal notification areas, of which I have already made mention today.
  As far as house owners are concerned, even the exemptions given for single-plot owners are not sacrosanct. A local authority can produce a general development
  1314
  plan which would override their rights.
  It is a very curious Bill that requires the setting up of a hardship tribunal to mitigate hardship caused by the measure that is being put on the statute book. That is the ultimate absurdity. The Government see that so much hardship will be caused by this Bill that they have to set up the tribunal and give it power to pay up to £50,000 to mitigate hardship.
  The Bill will be a very bad thing for this country. It will stultify development and stop house building. It will make property development much more expensive. The alternative is to use the tax system and it was explained in an admirable paper produced by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. It is a pity that the paper came out after publication of the Bill. If it had come out before then, I am sure the Government would have had second thoughts about the approach to the land problem.
  There should be common ground between all parties in seeking to arrive at a solution to the land problem. There are strong indications of how it could be done, but as long as the Labour Party is wedded to its doctrinaire attitudes and is prepared to try to deal with the problem not in a practical and human way but only by using the power of the State to crush the individual, we shall oppose and resist as far as we are able in this House and, ultimately, when we have the opportunity, we will do away with this Bill altogether.
  11.42 p.m.
  Mr. Oakes: Any Bill relating to land is inevitably complex and complicated and the greater the degree of change affecting land, the longer and more complicated the Bill is bound to be.
  I want to pay tribute to all those who have assisted the Government with this Bill, whether within the Government service or outside. I pay a particular tribute to my hon. Friends who sat day and night through the Committee stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were silent."] Yes, they were silent because they wanted to get the Bill through. They were some of the most capable hon. Members in this House and they sacrificed their contributions to the debate in order to make sure that this Bill became law.

  1315
  I would like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government. He conceived and introduced this Bill. It was his vision, and he was prepared to translate that vision into reality. He had the dedication to do so in order to restore to the public and the people something that was stolen from them after his distinguished father had provided it several years ago. It is a great tribute to my right hon. Friend that we have reached this stage, and we have done so in the face of the most strident hypocrisy and humbug we have known in this House for a long time.
  On 29th April, the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) described the Bill as the "Communist Land Bill" and went on:
  "It would take away from the individual, without any real right of appeal or protest, that upon which his independence and ultimately his freedom depends. It would give the State a complete monopoly in the basic wealth of this land, to be administered by faceless bureaucrats, and give the most terrifying powers to politicians. It is a denial of basic human rights. "—[Official Report, 29th April, 1975; Vol. 891, c. 246.]
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Oakes: I take it from those noises—one could not call them intelligent comments—that Tory Members are still of that view. Their conference was of that view last week. Many speakers got cheap cheers by saying how bitterly they would oppose this Bill. Yet within the last 24 hours a vital amendment to the Bill was moved by the hon. Member for Hornsey, and fiercely argued, at 1.30 in the morning—not an unearthly hour by our standards—and what was the result? Fifteen Opposition Members went through the Lobby in its support. On this "Communist Land Bill", this denial of basic human rights, an official Opposition amendment—not a maverick—could not attract more than 15 of them.
  Some of their supporters at the conference last week must have been misled by those on the platform, who said, "The Government are in the majority and we cannot always win. "They must be thinking some peculiar thoughts about the standard of opposition here. I remember—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)
  1316
  will explain to his constituents why he was not here last night supporting that amendment.
  Hon. Members opposite have said that they will repeal the Bill when they return to power. That is what they did in the 1950s with the bulk of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. They took away betterment value, so that by 1960, local authorities—the community itself—which had conferred benefits on land by planning permission were heavily penalised by the price of land that they needed for their own requirements, by their own decisions.
  We tried to put that right in 1967 by the Land Commission Bill, which, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said, would have worked, given a chance. But it was strangled in its infancy by an impatient Conservative Government as one of their first acts in 1970—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I gather from the cheers of Conservative Members that they are proud of the level that land prices reached in 1970, 1971 and 1972 as a result of the repeal of that Act.
  This is the third attempt by a Labour Government and this time I am convinced—no matter what threats the Opposition may make—that this Bill will have permanence. The local authorities to which we are giving these powers—their own local authorities—will bitterly resent any Conservative Government taking them away.
  What does the Bill do? It gives the community a share of the benefit that the community itself has conferred on the area. That is the main concern of the Bill. The hon. Member for Hornsey says that what we seek to do can be achieved by taxation. It is true that Lord Barber as he now is, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the dying days of the previous Conservative Government, imposed an 80 per cent. tax on land speculation and land development, but that was too late. Taxation is not the whole point.
  What we are concerned with is not merely taxation and not merely with money coming to the Government. The Labour Party believes in democracy and local government, and it is proud of local authorities. Members of my party do not regard anyone who works in a town hall as a faceless bureaucrat in a

  1317
  bowler hat, as those who work in our town halls have been called in this debate, or think that every councillor is corrupt and unable to carry on his public duties, as is often implied in the speeches of Opposition Members. What we are saying is that it is a question not merely of taxation but of local communities getting benefit from as well as some control over their own environment. That is why, particularly in view of the contributions made to our debate by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, I am sad that members of the Liberal Party will not find it possible to join us in the Lobby tonight.
  I am sad, too, that members of the Scottish National Party will not find it possible to come into the Lobby with us, especially when one considers the urban deprivation that one finds in the cities of Scotland, because that is where the Bill will help most.
  It is not only a question of financial benefit. It is also, and I proudly repeat the phrase, a question of positive planning by local authorities. I do not know why Conservative Members sneer at positive planning. Perhaps it is because many of them do not understand it. Positive planning means the development of those empty areas in city centres that could be used for the benefit of the community as a whole. It means the use of those areas which could not be bought either because the local authority could not afford them or because it did not have sufficient power to acquire them. These areas have remained sterile and empty while someone waited to make a profit on them when the land could be used for some purpose. I do not absolve some of our nationalised industries from blame in this respect. They have been as bad as some private individuals.
  The purpose of positive planning is to allow the community as a whole to decide the development of its own environment in the best possible way through its democratically elected councillors. That is what the Bill does. As my right hon. Friend said, this is the first major legislation for 30 years that has given powers to local authorities instead of taking powers away from them.
  The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) mentioned Wales. Wales has been given different treatment because it is different. The problems in Wales are different. [Interruption.] Some of the ideas about Wales that we have incorporated in the Bill might have been valuable ideas for regions within England, had regions existed and had the Redcliffe-Maud Report been accepted instead of mutilated, as it was by the previous Conservative Government.
  However, at present the local authorities are getting on with the job of creating the land acquisition management schemes because not only the officers but councillors, many of whom are Conservative councillors, on those authorities can appreciate the benefits to their community that the Bill confers. No matter what advice they receive from Conservative Central Office, no matter how slanted it may be and no matter how it may misinterpret the facts, those councillors will nevertheless want to pursue the Bill and would bitterly resent any Conservative Government who tried to take these powers away from them.
  The hypocrisy that has been shown is the defence that we would expect from the Conservative Party—a defence of power, prestige and privilege, hiding when possible behind the owner-occupier, Churches and charities. The essential reason for the Tory Party opposing the Bill is the defence of the ancient privilege of land owners. This lies behind their whole objection to the Bill. We want to give powers to the community to develop its land and to benefit from the profits derived from the planning and the development of that land.
  At the end of a long road from Second Reading, through night and day sittings of the Committee, I am proud to have served on the Bill and to reply to the Third Reading debate. I confidently ask my hon. Friends to give it a triumphal majority through the Lobby.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 264.

  Division No. 335.]

  AYES

  [11.58 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Allaun, Frank

  Ashley, Jack

  Bates, Alf

  Anderson, Donald

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bean, R. E.

  Archer, Peter

  Atkinson, Norman

  Benn. Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Bennett, Andrew (Slockport N)

  Hardy, Peter

  Moyle, Roland

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Boardman, H.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Newens, Stanley

  Booth, Albert

  Hatton, Frank

  Noble, Mike

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Oakes, Gordon

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Ogden, Eric

  Bradley, Tom

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hooley, Frank

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Horam, John

  Orbach, Maurice

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Ovenden, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Huckfield, Les

  Owen, Dr David

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Padley, Walter

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Park, George

  Cant, R. B.

  Hunter, Adam

  Parker, John

  Carmichael, Nell

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Parry, Robert

  Carter, Ray

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Pendry, Tom

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Perry, Ernest

  Cartwright, Joan

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Price, C, (Lewisham W)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Radice, Giles

  Coleman, Donald

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jones Barry (East Flint)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Judd Frank

  Roper, John

  Cronin, John

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rose, Paul B.

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Kelley, Richard

  Ross Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Cryor, Bob

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Ryman, John

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Lambie, David

  Sandelson, Neville

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lamond, James

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Deakins, Eric

  Lee, John

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Sillars, James

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Doig, Peter

  Lipton, Marcus

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dormand, J. D.

  Litterick, Tom

  Small, William

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Snape, Peter

  Dunn, James A.

  Luard, Evan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Eadie, Alex

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Stoddart, David

  Edge, Geoff

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stott, Roger

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  McElhone, Frank

  Strang, Gavin

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  English, Michael

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Ennals, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Swain, Thomas

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Mackintosh, John P

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Madden, Max

  Thorne, Stan (Praston South)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Magee, Bryan

  Tierney, Sydney

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Mahon, Simon

  Tinn James

  Flannery, Martin

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Tomlinson, John

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Torney, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marquand, David

  Tuck, Raphael

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ford, Ben

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Forrester, John

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

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

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Meacher, Michael

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mellish, Rt Ron Robert

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ward, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Millan, Bruce

  Watkins, David

  Ginsburg, David

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)

  Watkinson, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Weetch, Ken

  Gourlay, Harry

  Molloy, William

  Wellbeloved, James

  Graham, Ted

  Moonman, Eric

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Whitlock, William

  1320

  1321

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. Laurie Pavitt and

  Williams. W. T. (Warrington)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mr. Joseph Harper

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mates, Michael

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Maude, Angus

  Alison, Michael

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Mawby, Ray

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Arnold, Tom

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Awdry, Danrel

  Goodhart, Philip

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mills, Peter

  Baker, Kenneth

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Banks, Robert

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Beith, A. J.

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Moate, Roger

  Bell, Ronald

  Grant Anthony (Harrow C)

  Molyneaux, James

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Gray, Hamish

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Grieve, Percy

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Biffen, John

  Grist, Ian

  Morgan, Geraint

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Blaker, Peter

  Hall, Sir John

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Body, Richard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mudd, David

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Harmam, John

  Neave, Airey

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Neubert, Michael

  Brittan, Leon

  Hastings, Stephen

  Newton, Tony

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Nott, John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Buck, Antony

  Henderson, Douglas

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Budgen, Nick

  Heseltine, Michael

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pardoe, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Hordern, Peter

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Carlisle Mark

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Penhaligon, David

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Percival, Ian

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hunt, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Clegg, Walter

  James, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Cockcroft, John

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

  Rathbone, Tim

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Cope, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cordle, John H.

  Johnston Russell (Inverness)

  Reid, George

  Costain, A. P.

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  Jopling, Michael

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Crawford, Douglas

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rifkind Malcolm

  Critchley, Julian

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Crouch, David

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Knox, David

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Dunlop, John

  Lamont, Norman

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Durant, Tony

  Lane, David

  Sainabury, Tim

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Emery, Peter

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shersby, Michael

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lloyd, Ian

  Silvester, Fred

  Farr, John

  Loveridge, John

  Sims, Roger

  Fell, Anthony

  Luce, Richard

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  MacCormick, lain

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McCrindle, Robert

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  McCusker, H.

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Chasles

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Speed, Keith

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacGregor, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Sproat, lain

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Stainton, Keith

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Freud, Clement

  Madel, David

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Fry, Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D

  Marten, Nell

  Stewart, Donad (Western Isies)

  1322

  1323

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Wells, John

  Stakes, John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Welsh, Andrew

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Tapsell, Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  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

  Thompson, George

  Warren, Kenneth

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Watt, Hamish

  Mr. W. Benyon and

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

  Trotter, Neville

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

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

  SCHOOL UNIFORMS
  12.11 a.m.
  Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun: I am glad to have the opportunity of talking about school uniforms for they are an important part of family budgeting and their increasingly high cost is causing serious concern to millions of families. In raising the question—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. It is very difficult for the hon. Lady to be heard above the noise.
  Mrs. Colquhoun: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In raising the question of school uniforms, my intention, I must say at once, is not to be against the wearing of school uniform. This is not an anti-school uniform debate. It is my intention in this date to seek a declaration of intent from the Minister about the attitude of the Labour Government, and to discover whether a Labour Government, through the Department, will be brave enough to issue a circular to local education authorities which will once and for all clear up the vexed question whether children in Britain in 1975 ought to be prevented by head teachers and a court interpretation—Spiers v. Warrington Corporation 1954—which by now ought to have been challenged by some brave parent, from receiving State education unless the child dresses according to the requirements of a particular school.
  1324
  I suppose that this debate can be said to be fundamentally to do with dignity—the dignity of parents and the dignity of children—and that it is perhaps in part due to the rigidity of a downright minority—and I stress that it is a minority—of educationists who value the wearing of a school uniform above that of a child and the right of a child to receive a free State education.
  I shall resist going into the particular case in Northampton. It was not in my constituency, although the head teacher saw fit to attack me personally, but it was to do with the school uniform situation. It resulted in seven boys initially being precluded from education and in two boys being banned from attending school. When the boys returned to school, after the parents had received a grant from the education authority, they were faced with the hideous adult situation of Press cuttings in the case being pinned on the school notice board.
  I cannot tell the House how distasteful I find this action by an educationist. It was very anti-children. There is nothing in the Education Acts or regulations under them that says that school uniform is compulsory. Statute law touches on school uniforms—or "distinctive clothing" as the officials like to call it—only where provision is made for local authorities to subsidise school uniform in hardship cases.
  The Education Act 1944 provides local education authorities with the power to give assistance by means of scholarships, but otherwise regulation is to be made by the Secretary of State under Section 81
  "empowering local education authorities, for the purpose of enabling pupils to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them—

  (a) to defray such expenses of children attending county schools, voluntary schools or special schools, as may be necessary to enable them to take part in any school activities:"

  1325
  Local authorities also have the power to provide ordinary clothes for pupils who would otherwise be unable to take full advantage of the educational opportunities open to them. That power is contained in Section 5 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948 and the provision of clothing regulations made under them. Those powers are used to provide boots, shoes and sports clothes and so on, but not to make grants towards school uniform purchase.
  Interestingly, in the figures available in Statistics of Education 1973, Volume 5, we see that £955,000 was spent in 1973 on the provision of clothing and footwear in primary schools, £1,198,000 in secondary schools and £244,000 in special education schools. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will say what would be the Government's attitude if the education cuts were to mean that no clothing grants were available? Would head teachers then be able to preclude children from their education as was done recently in Northampton?
  There is no doubt in my mind that the enforcement of uniform rests on an extraordinary mixture of social pressure and blackmail. In the State system it has no legal basis. If a parent, when a child goes to a secondary school, signs a form promising to observe the rules of the school, which implicity or explicitly includes the wearing of a uniform, that is not a legally binding commitment by the parent. In Spiers v. Warrington Corporation, in which the court went against the parents, the ruling confirmed that a head teacher can, under the specific heading of "discipline", object to the wearing of trousers by a girl, and successfully ensured that the child was unable to attend school for that reason.
  In drawing the attention of the House to this matter I think it is time that these curious situations were ended once and for all. They could be ended by a circular from the Department. Regrettably the attitude of the Department over the past couple of decades has always been that the Minister declines to intervene. Why not intervene? Why not take a firm decision? Why not give a lead if we are the country's legislators?
  We have the situation that a head teacher can penalise a child and her or
  1326
  his parents for possibly capricious and certainly subjective reasons, and at the same time put the parents in danger of committing an offence which they never had any intention of committing. I refer, of course, to absenteeism from school. There is barely a country in the whole of Western Europe whose system of public law would tolerate such an unequal relationship between parent and teacher and the ludicrously vague view of the discretion of public employees—which, after all, is what head teachers are—and on which the matter rests.
  The courts could change that attitude. There could be another ruling, but are there enough parents to resist, by legal action, the arbitrary actions of a minority of teachers? I suspect that there are not. I suspect that, when one's own children are involved, the difficulties are too great to take that risk. Many of the parents who get into these difficulties, such as those involved in the Northampton case, are themselves in a deteriorating economic situation and are quite unable to spare the money not only for school uniform but to take such legal action as I have outlined. In this situation the worst hit are those who are least able to afford to fight that kind of injustice.
  Perhaps the Minister will say whether she thinks it fair that these parents should have to go through the indignity of meanstesting to dress their child to attend school. Common sense should prevail and, as has been shown in various cases throughout the country, where educationists cannot show common sense, the Government should be able to take a definite decision. For far too long the Department has shied away from a difficult but important decision. It is important to parents, educationists, and certainly to the children.
  More and more parents will be faced with difficulties over the cost of school uniforms, particularly in the light of the present economic situation. Is it too much to expect that the Labour Government will set right the situation once and for all, will refuse to shelter behind local autonomy, and be brave in the interests of parents' democratic right to dress a child as they wish and as they can afford, without having to resort to a means test via the local education authority?

  1327
  To return to the question of a head teacher's power to refuse a child admission to school on the grounds that he or she is not wearing a school uniform, it appears to be a generally-held view that a head teacher has every right to do this, provided that he or she is not acting unreasonably. But how much more unreasonable can one get than to tell a child, "Go home, you are not properly dressed", as did a head teacher recently in Northampton? We have a moral responsibility to end that kind of situation, and I hope that the Minister will agree.
  Finally, I wish to draw my hon. Friend's attention to Regulation 7(1) of the Schools Regulations, 1959, SI No. 364, which provides that:
  "A pupil shall not be refused admission to or be excluded from school on other than reasonable grounds."
  I submit that the fact that a parent does not wish to undergo a means test with the local education authority, or does not agree with school uniform, or wishes the freedom to dress a child according to his or her means is not unreasonable in a democratic and free nation. What is needed now is a show of strength from the Government to end the injustices which have existed over school uniforms for far too long.
  12.25 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the sympathetic way in which she has presented a situation which I know has given her a great deal of concern in recent times. I shall try to deal with the several points she has raised, but not necessarily in the order in which she raised them.
  The main point is that the question of school uniform has always aroused fierce argument in the country amongst educationists and within schools. On the one hand, it is claimed that it avoids invidious comparison, engenders a corporate feeling in a school, and helps individuals to achieve a sense of identity. On the other hand, there are those who maintain that uniform denotes elitism, unnecessary regimentation and is a suppression of the individual choice of the pupil and parent.
  Whatever the view we may take of this, the decision, so far as the individual school is concerned at the moment, is
  1328
  one for the head teacher to take in the light of any guidance given by the school managers, governors or authority. The Government have no power to intervene in the matter unless it gives rise to some subsequent action—for example, the exclusion of a pupil from the school in circumstances which appear to be unreasonable.
  I will comment shortly on the case in Northampton raised by my hon. Friend but there are other aspects to be taken into consideration particularly at the present time. At the moment, in the present economic circumstances, it may be particularly inappropriate for a head to insist rigidly on an elaborate uniform, obtainable, say, at one shop only and at a price disproportionately high for every parent to afford. We know that some schools need to take this into account.
  We also see, on the other hand, a more liberal and flexible view of uniform being taken in many schools. Some do not require sixth formers to wear it. Some offer a choice. Some carefully select—for approval in collaboration with the parents' association, and sometimes with the children—clothing that is simple and durable and can be obtained from a variety of relatively cheap sources. But for people of low incomes, even a modestly priced uniform, at least so far as the initial outlay is concerned, can represent a serious financial burden. In these cases local education authorities have discretion to help.
  It has been said that some parents are too proud to seek such help, and many of us know that this applies to many areas of help that is available. I think that this is misplaced pride, but we know that it exists. The facility is provided for a good purpose and parents in difficulties should avail themselves of it for the sake of their children. Most authorities are at pains to preserve confidentiality, and I think all of us would want to see that.
  The matter of school uniform is one that can, as my hon. Friend has said, and must, as the law stands, be left at the discretion of authorities and schools. There is no one overall approach that would command universal acceptance. In the vast majority of cases any difficulty or hardship arising from school clothing

  1329
  rules is solved in a common sense manner, but I would hope that in present circumstances the need for economy and durability may be uppermost in the minds of heads and managers, and that the views of parents are taken into account locally where school clothing rules are being considered. I believe that these factors are self-evident and that they should not need to be spelled out.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to a specific case in Northampton. I shall be writing to her when I have received further information from the authority in response to the points that have been raised. The decision in this case, that pupils should wear school uniform, appears to have been reached democratically, with the agreement of the parents' advisory committee, the governors, on which body the parents are also represented, and the staff.
  The parents on whose behalf my hon. Friend has written were advised by the school in June that a clothing grant might be available, but for some reason the application to the authority was not received until the day before the autumn term started. The grant was paid within two days of the start of term, but meanwhile the children had appeared at school without uniform, and my hon. Friend related the remainder of the story. I shall be writing to her when I have received further information, but I understand that the children are now attending school in uniform, and I hope that their troubles are over. I regret any humiliation which they may have experienced as a result of the difficulties which they encountered about the uniform.
  There is nothing in the Education Acts or School Regulations which deals specifically with what shall be or shall not be worn in schools. These are matters of organisation and discipline within a school and, as such, are in practice the responsibility of the head teacher in consultation with his managers or governors. The Secretary of State has no direct jurisdiction over school uniforms or how they are to be retailed to parents. It is up to parents themselves to take matters up with the school or local education authority if they are dissatisfied with the arrangements.
  1330
  My hon. Friend quoted the school regulation which has a bearing on this matter. It says:
  "A pupil shall not be refused admission to or excluded from a school on other than reasonable grounds."
  If there were a case of an authority or school acting unreasonably in this context, a complaint could be lodged with the Secretary of State under Section 68 of the Education Act 1944. If my right hon. Friend were satisfied that the complaint was justified, he could then give such directions as appeared to him to be expedient. At the moment, that is how the law stands.
  My hon. Friend also raised another very important matter when she referred to the Government's Circular 1/75 of 3rd September dealing with the extent of the standstill in some expenditure. As my hon. Friend knows, according to the circular,
  "… the change to an overall standstill in expenditure in 1976–77 will call for a careful reappraisal of priorities and commitments"
  "There will be no scope for increased expenditure in real terms on the rest of the education service—including … maintenance allowances or other assistance to individual pupils".
  I underline the words "increased expenditure in real terms", because I think that they are sometimes misinterpreted. In reviewing their services in the light of rising costs—that is, not in "real" terms—authorities will have to consider priorities and may have to be selective in updating expenditure on the different elements of the education service.
  Nevertheless, it is to be hoped that in any review of school clothing arrangements, authorities will bear in mind the position of poorer parents and ensure that grants towards the cost of distinctive clothing such as school uniforms are adequate, as Section 81 of the Education Act 1944 puts it,
  "… for the purpose of enabling pupils to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them."
  It is quite clear from that that it is unfair and foolish for a uniform to be insisted upon if grants available to poorer parents to buy it are to be withdrawn.

  1331
  I hope that local education authorities will take note of this.
  The question of whether uniform must be worn is a matter for the school. The level of school clothing grants is a matter for the local authority's discretion. Clearly, if poorer parents are not to be put in an impossible position, the requirements of the school must be tailored to the grant available. In the present economic circumstances, it is as much the responsibility of the school to have regard
  1332
  to the need for economy and durability in drawing up school clothing rules as it is for an authority to have regard to the needs of those less well off financially.
  My hon. Friend raised one or two other matters. As I have said already, I shall be contacting her when I have had fuller information from the authority about the specific case to which she referred.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Artistic Works (Purchase Grants)
  Artistic Works (Purchase Grants)
  Local Authorities' Youth Committees
  Local Authorities' Youth Committees
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Bullock Report
  Bullock Report
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  Student Unions' Funds
  Student Unions' Funds
  Normal College, Bangor
  Normal College, Bangor
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Play Centres and Meals (Cost)
  Play Centres and Meals (Cost)
  Secondary Schools Reorganisation
  Secondary Schools Reorganisation
  School Building Programme (Bromley)
  School Building Programme (Bromley)
  Broadcasts for Schools
  Broadcasts for Schools
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS)
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  HELSINKI CONFERENCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  HELSINKI CONFERENCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
DEFENCE
  Research
  Research
  BAOR
  BAOR
    Sea Cadet Corps
    Sea Cadet Corps
    Northern Ireland
    Northern Ireland
EMPLOYMENT
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
  Nail Guns
  Nail Guns
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Haemophilia
  Haemophilia
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Medical Treatment (Home and Abroad)
  Medical Treatment (Home and Abroad)
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  National Health Service Doctors (Circular)
  National Health Service Doctors (Circular)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Kingston General Hospital, Hull
  Kingston General Hospital, Hull
  Viral Hepatitis
  Viral Hepatitis
ENERGY
  Departmental Staff (Pay)
  Departmental Staff (Pay)
  Nuclear Fuel Supplies
  Nuclear Fuel Supplies
  Offshore Oil (Divers)
  Offshore Oil (Divers)
  BAIL
  BAIL
ENVIRONMENT
  Rents
  Rents
  A6 (Northamptonshire)
  A6 (Northamptonshire)
  Construction Exports Advisory Board
  Construction Exports Advisory Board
  Construction Industry Overseas Directorate
  Construction Industry Overseas Directorate
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Guard Dogs
  Prison Guard Dogs
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Remanded Prisoners
  Remanded Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Bail
  Bail
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Parole
  Parole
  Family Affairs (International Conference)
  Family Affairs (International Conference)
  Highbury Magistrates' Court
  Highbury Magistrates' Court
  Conspiracy
  Conspiracy
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Journal
  Journal
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorism and Road Accidents
  Terrorism and Road Accidents
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Detainees (Releases)
  Detainees (Releases)
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  European Development Fund
  European Development Fund
  Zambia
  Zambia
  Sierra Leone (Appeal Fund)
  Sierra Leone (Appeal Fund)
WALES
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Local Government Staffs
  Local Government Staffs
  Housing
  Housing
  Government Factories (Employment)
  Government Factories (Employment)
  Industrial Locations
  Industrial Locations
  Livestock Exports
  Livestock Exports
  Cattle Prices
  Cattle Prices
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Industrial Aid
  Industrial Aid
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Health Service Staffs
  Health Service Staffs
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Housing Waiting Lists
  Housing Waiting Lists
  House Demolitions
  House Demolitions
INDUSTRY
  Factory Building (London)
  Factory Building (London)
  Chrome Ore
  Chrome Ore
  Postal Services
  Postal Services
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Incomes, Production and Taxation
  Incomes, Production and Taxation
  Estate Duty Gifts
  Estate Duty Gifts
  Development Gains Tax
  Development Gains Tax
  Business (Self-financing)
  Business (Self-financing)
TRADE
  Multi-national Companies
  Multi-national Companies
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
  Patents (Fees)
  Patents (Fees)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
The Lord Greenway—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

POST OFFICE: CHRISTMAS CARD RATE
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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, after further discussions with the Post Office, they are able to make a further statement concerning a cheap postal rate for Christmas cards posted sufficiently early.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, I am afraid I can only repeat the answer previously given that a cheap rate of postage for Christmas cards would, in the judgment of the Post Office, involve a cost penalty which they do not feel able to accept. Even if this concession were limited to November, as my noble friend has suggested to me by letter, the same considerations would apply.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, realising the volume of public support since this Question was asked originally on 17th July, and the continuing efforts of the Post Office Users' National Council, may I ask whether it is not obvious that if we had a cheaper rate a great many more Christmas cards would be posted than would otherwise be the case? Believing that we have the sympathy of my noble friend, if that does not embarrass him, may I ask whether he would raise two points with the Post Office? First, do they not understand that if they were to make such an experiment at least it would be a gesture of some good will towards their customers?
768
Secondly, is it not true that until an actual experiment has been carried out, no amount of research either way can indicate for certain what would be the result?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, as to the first part of the noble Baroness's Question, I am sure that she is absolutely right that there would be more Christmas cards posted if the postage rate was less, but I am informed that if there was a half-pence concession there would need to be 40 million extra cards posted simply to recover the loss in that reduction. If there were a 2½p reduction—which is the figure that I have seen quoted in some of the correspondence—there would need to be 300 million extra items posted before even the revenue was maintained, and that is leaving aside the added costs of administration of this additional burden. Those are the figures given to me by the Post Office. As to the good will issue, I have no doubt that what my noble friend says is quite right; but maybe I might add on behalf of the Post Office that it is always possible to acquire good will it one is generous with other people's money.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is much too competent a Minister to accept those figures from the Post Office without further research. Why should they be right? Why do they know any more than the rest of us about how many extra ones would be sent?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite certain from what authority they derive this extra intelligence, but I can assure the noble Baroness, first, that I have questioned this and, secondly, that they stick to it.
The Marquess of HEADFORT: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if citizens of this country post their postcards in a parcel to a friend in the Republic of Ireland and they are subsequently posted in the Republic of Ireland, they cost only 5p a card?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree that there are anomalies at the moment.
Lord WADE: My Lords, is it not true that for years there have been appeals to post early for Christmas? Would it not

769
be reasonable in this respect to provide some small economic incentive to post early for Christmas?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, this is a point which has been raised and has been considered. It is suggested to me that, if they did post early enough, extra administrative costs would still be incurred and they would not be met by this lower rate of postage.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in regard to the question that has been asked by my noble friend Lady Burton, is the noble Lord aware that the only way to ease this position would be to have the unsealed letter, the envelope, where you could put only the one Christmas card in order of transit from one address to another instead of the position being where you have got the sealed envelope where the customer is able (or it can come from one household) to put thereof four cards in one envelope instead of three or four cards in three or four separate envelopes? Is he not further aware that even at this moment the Post Office is having to cut down for the Christmas service in regard to increasing their labour force to deal with the amount of postal matters which will be arising this year?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite certain that I have followed the first part of the question. If my noble friend is suggesting that an unsealed envelope would meet the difficulties that I have indicated, I am afraid he is mistaken.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in view of the fact that he has said that he does not understand the first part of my question is my noble friend aware that he ought to? I should have thought that his intelligence was more advanced than what it really is. Is he not aware that there is a two-stage postal service in this country—what is called the first- and second-class mail—and the second-class mail now requires a sealed envelope, with the result that you find that at Christmas time instead of one card being in an envelope you have three or four?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the fact remains that, whether an envelope is sealed or unsealed, it cannot be transported at the reduced rate of postage. That is the point I have been trying to make.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, can the Minister say what will be the reduction in the number of Christmas cards sent this year as a result of the increase in postal charges? If he cannot say, then the reduced revenue he will get by decreasing the stamp surely amounts to a valueless judgment.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I cannot say what reduction there will be. I can only tell the noble Earl, if I may do so in confidence, that I have had a wager about what the effect would be.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, despite the deep feeling on this question in all parts of the House, and indeed outside, some of us will feel with him that at this season a careful eye on any form of public expenditure is sadly the necessary thing?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, because it is so easy to criticise public expenditure in general and then argue for it in particular.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, will my noble friend ask the Post Office to consider producing a simple card, already franked, which could be sold to the public and which would be a good commercial proposition?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: A bit too late for this year, my Lords.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, whether the cost of doing what my noble friend suggests would be within the limits of economy I cannot say. It is a point which might well be considered, but I am afraid that it could not be operated this Christmas.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I know this is a matter close to your Lordships' hearts, but I would point out that we have already spent seven, nearly eight, minutes on this Question and perhaps we could now move to the next Question.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, perhaps I could delay your Lordships on this matter for maybe 25 seconds longer and ask my noble friend, on this matter of research, whether he feels it is possible for an answer to be

771
given before the experiment has been carried out?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, it will be possible to tell whether or not my wager has been won, which is what is involved here, only at the end of the Christmas postal season, but I will tell my noble friend what the result is.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, how much is the wager for?

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS: AVAILABILITY
2.45 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: 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 the Leader of the House how many of the Parliamentary Papers shown in the Minutes as having been laid during the last week before the Summer Recess were not available by the time the House rose; and how many are still not available; and, in particular, when it is expected that the Law Commission Report on Exemption Clauses, minuted as having been laid on 5th August, will be available.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, of the 74 Parliamentary Papers shown in the Minutes as having been laid in the last week before the Summer Recess, 57 have been published and 17 remain outstanding. The Law Commission Report on Exemption Clauses was published on 2nd October.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. Does not his Answer show the absurdity of Parliamentary procedure requiring papers to be laid, or pretended to be laid, before Parliament quite a long time before they are ready? Would the noble Lord invite one of his right honourable friends in another place to draw these absurdities to the attention of the Committee of another place which is to study Parliamentary procedure?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord raised this matter some 12 months ago and I explained to him that although it might appear to be absurd to
772
lay dummy orders, this was the means by which papers could be printed by an Order of both Houses during the Recess. Without this procedure these papers could not be printed. Since the noble Lord put this Question on the Order Paper, I have given the matter further consideration and what I intend to do is ask the Clerks at the Table to look into this matter and perhaps have discussions with their colleagues in another place to see whether some change could be made in procedure. But I hope the noble Lord appreciates that it is a matter not only for this House but also for another place.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for those remarks.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord also to consider in the same bracket the question of Statutory Instruments laid during the Recess, which sometimes come into force during that time but against which it is impossible to pray because the House is not in Session?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my understanding is that by the Negative Resolution procedure Statutory Instruments require certain numbers of Parliamentary days, and naturally those Parliamentary days do not include periods in Recess. So I do not see that the noble Lord's point arises.

DIEGO GARCIA INHABITANTS
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that more than 1,000 inhabitants were evicted from the islands of Diego Garcia when they were allocated to serve as an American base.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, according to Mauritian Government records, 1,151 people returned to Mauritius from the entire Chagos Archipelago between 1965 and 1973. Of these, 359 were transferred from Diego Garcia when the copra plantations were closed down in 1971.

773
The Mauritian Government have told us of their difficulties in devising a plan to resettle the islanders using the £650,000 which Her Majesty's Government have provided for the purpose. We welcome the Mauritian Prime Minister's recent suggestion that we should provide expert assistance in working out an acceptable scheme.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer may I ask him two questions? First, why is it that there has been so much silence on this issue for many weeks, indeed for some months; and why is it that we have had to rely on Washington for the facts, not only about the number involved but about the actual commitments to Diego Garcia? Secondly, could my noble friend add to what he has said about the settlement of these people as to the provision which is being made for their retention in Mauritius, their return to the Islands or their transfer to the Seychelles?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the first point I do not believe it is quite correct to say that there has been any deliberate silence about this matter. I have been looking at the Instruments which have been placed before Parliament since 1965 when the British Indian Ocean Territory was established, The story is there and a great deal of detail was given to Parliament, and therefore to the people. Of course, there has in recent weeks been a revival of interest in what has happened to the 359 Diego Garcians who were transferred back to Mauritius, because the Mauritian Government have found it difficult, if not impossible, to devise an acceptable scheme of resettlement for these people.
Naturally, as an independent country, it was for Mauritius to disburse the substantial amount of money which was made available to them and which they regarded in 1973, when it was made, as a full and final discharge of Britain's obligations in this respect. However, at their request, we have now welcomed a suggestion that we should send out British experts to the area to help formulate an acceptable scheme of long term resettlement. I cannot go into the details of the possible scheme that may come out of those discussions, but I am sure that my noble friend and the House
774
will be following the course of the discussions and, no doubt, at appropriate times in the future my noble friend will raise the matter again. I shall be delighted to discuss it.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, on the whole, Her Majesty's Government, both Labour and Conservative, behaved properly and generously in the arrangements made on paper? Also, is it not a fact that the Mauritian Government, having accepted something in the region of 1,300,000 dollars, put it into the coffers of Mauritius and left the majority of these 1,000-odd individuals from the Chagos Archipelago either to starve or to remain homeless; and that, while there is no legal, or perhaps, moral responsibility on Her Majesty's Government or their predecessors in the arrangements, we now have a direct concern in seeing that these people are treated not only generously, but properly—for these are not quite the same things? Further, would the Minister agree that he used a word in his reply which was of some significance? He said that these individuals would "return" to Mauritius. The word "return" means that their home was in Mauritius and that they went to the Chagos Archipelago. Does he not agree that many of them were born there, and would he give the House an assurance that if oil is subsequently discovered—and there are suggestions that there are considerable deposits of oil—those who lived in the Chagos Archipelago will be the beneficiaries of at least some of the great wealth that may accrue from that fact?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the use of the word "return" was, I believe, absolutely appropriate in the case of a great many of the people concerned, but I agree that others have been migrants among the Islands. It is very difficult to define precisely the nature of this population. It was very largely made up of contract labour which moved about from one island to another, and there are a great many islands in this part of the world, as noble Lords will know. So that if I say that the majority returned to Mauritius, I feel that that is a fair statement. However, I agree that many others were born on islands in the BIOT.

775
As to the point about oil or other natural resources which may be discovered in the area, we have informed the Mauritian Government that any benefits from such natural wealth, if discovered, will accrue to Mauritius and nobody else. I should make it clear that the possibility of investigating this will not arise until the need for the retention of this island and others in the Territory for defence purposes has ended. But the undertaking is firm: whatever wealth is discovered in this area will accrue to the benefit of Mauritius.
On the point about the generosity of Her Majesty's Government, I am delighted to agree with my noble friend. Her Majesty's Government have indeed been very generous, but, dealing with an independent country, they have not sought to follow up the provision of a large sum of money for this specific purpose, and, indeed, an even larger sum of money in compensation for loss of sovereignty, by intruding upon the arrangements which we understood the Mauritian Government were themselves making. However, they have now come to us and asked us to help them, not only by being generous, as my noble friend put it, but by helping them to be effective in using that generosity.
Lord HALE: My Lords, would my noble friend say whether it is true that these people were evacuated and obliged to depart from their homes virtually by force, that one party returning to Diego Garcia was accommodated in the local gaol for the night and put on a boat the next morning for Mauritius, where some of them had never lived, and that the deportees refused to leave the last boat arriving in Mauritius until they were obliged by force to leave—all this in the most over-populated area of the whole continent of Africa where there was absolutely no provision available for them? Lastly, is it now true that the population of Diego Garcia consist of 1,000 American troops and 30 to 60 British naval ratings?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, what my noble friend has said does not accord precisely with the information which I have. It is, for instance, not true to say that more than a very few of the population of Diego Garcia were finally reluctant to leave,
776
and it is absolutely true to say that no physical force or anything like "evictionary" practices were used in the final stages of the transfer. Naturally, some were reluctant to leave, but the great majority left voluntarily and none was forced in the sense my noble friend means. As to the conditions which many of these people have found in Mauritius when they have gone there—some returning, others going there—it is undoubtedly true that a great many enjoy a lower standard of life than they did when they were living on Diego Garcia. However, of the 421 families who have been surveyed by the Mauritian Government, 243 heads of families were found to be in fairly consistent employment, which was not the position when they were working on the Islands in copra. Fifty-seven were in receipt of old age pensions from the Mauritian Government and 74 were in receipt of various forms of public assistance. The object of the expert advice which Her Majesty's Government will proffer to the Mauritian Government at their request will be to devise a scheme—and here I reply to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Wigg—which will effectively use the £650,000 made available by Her Majesty's Government to the Mauritian Government, the great bulk of which is still intact.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister not also agree that in considering the matter he will inform the House of the details of the arrangements made with the American Government, by which rebates were given on the sale of Polaris and Polaris parts as a quid pro quo for financing this operation and coming to a political arrangement which enabled the Americans to have access to the island as part of their defence policy in the Indian Ocean?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend is of course referring to the circumstances in which the British Indian Ocean Territory was set up. That cost a lot of money. It was anticipated that it would cost £10 million to establish it. The Americans offered on certain conditions to make a contribution —some half of the cost, but up to £5 million. This was met by an off-set arrangement, very much on the lines which my noble friend has described. There was nothing unusual or questionable about that. In the event, the

777
Americans and we have a limited naval communications facility in the Ocean; not in any way to be compared with what other Powers have already established for themselves on the littoral of that Ocean.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that perhaps this is the kind of question that might be more appropriately put down as an Unstarred Question? We have been going now for 23 minutes.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has intervened. It is very difficult to know what to do when subjects which are very close to the hearts of Members of your Lordships' House are being put to the Minister. But I agree with the noble Lord that 23 minutes on three questions is too long. This is something we ought to take into account in the future, and I hope that as a response to what the noble Lord has said we might now proceed to the next Question and that we can deal with it briefly.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, having just returned from that area, might I seek the leniency of your Lordships, bearing in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has had three bites of the cherry? If there is any truth in the well documented article which appeared in the Sunday Times last month on this very question, would the noble Lord not agree that, in effect, the Diego Garcians are living in great squalor in Port Louis; and does the noble Lord not think it desirable that this question should be looked into very expeditiously? Would he also bear in mind that there is great concern in the area about the future living conditions of these people?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the responses of my noble friend, he will see that he has already dealt with the assurances for which he is asking. I hope that we can now proceed to the next Question.

INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORIAL ADMINISTRATION
3.2 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the British Indian Ocean Territory and what rights have been granted to the United States of America in respect of Diego Garcia and in what terms.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, administration of the Territory is the responsibility of the Commissioner, who is the Governor of Seychelles, assisted by the Administrator, and represented on Diego Garcia by the officer commanding the Royal Navy element there. Under the terms of the Exchange of Notes between the United Kingdom and the United States Governments (Cmnd. 5160) presented to Parliament in November 1972, the United States Government has the right to construct, maintain and operate a limited naval communications facility on Diego Garcia.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while the British House of Commons has been told that this was to be a staging post, in America it was described as going to be the Malta of the Indian Ocean? Is he also aware that written undertakings had been given to the Indian Government that no such station would ever be erected; that the whole of the Chagos Archipeligo was hived off from the resettlement agreement; that it consists of a large number of islands, many inhabited? Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that it is a thousand miles from the nearest island of Mauritius, and that it is several hundred miles to the Seychelles?
How on earth is the Governor of the Seychelles to administer an island which has been wholly leased to the United States of America as a military base, and in respect of which Congress has already voted, somewhat reluctantly, 30 million dollars as a first instalment? Would the noble Lord further say whether the whole of this agreement was embodied in the first instance in letters from the British

779
Government to the United States Ambassador in London, with the intention of not listing them in the treaty series, and had there been protests from Mauritius, Seychelles and India?—
Several Noble Lords: Speech, speech!
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will forgive me if I do not deal with all the points he has raised. In fact I am inclined to accept the suggestion made both by my noble friend the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that possibly we might look at all these points together on a more appropriate occasion, when no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, will raise the point to which I was unfortunately unable to give an answer; it was because of a little local difficulty on this Bench. On that occasion perhaps I may be forgiven for not intervening in a war between "Whigs" and Tories!
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in so far as this matter relates to defence, may I ask my noble friend whether, in view of Soviet designs and obvious intentions in that area, it would not be far better to have the Americans there rather than the Russians?
Lord GROONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords.
Lord HALE: My Lords, would that suggestion not be equally appropriate to the abandoning of other British territories? Are they to be deprived of their homes, and their livelihood, and their factories and other places of employment? Would the noble Lord, to whom I always listen with the pleasure and affection, recall that the Leader of the House did not make any reference whatever to terminating the discussion on the British Indian Ocean territories, which had not commenced?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend made a suggestion. This is Question Time, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Hale would take up this matter with my noble friend the Minister. Certainly when Parliament returns for the next Session, if there is a desire for this matter to be debated we shall provide time for it.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION BILL
3.7 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That at the conclusion of the Report stage the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 34 to 43, 54. 55, 111, 113 and 117, and that Standing Order No. 44 be dispensed with in order that the Committee (on Recommitment) may be taken on the same day as the Report.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Airports Authority Act 1965 and certain related enactments. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la; and to be printed.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION BILL
3.8 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 109 [Excluded classes of employment]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 71 A:
Page 92, line 20, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
"(7) The following provisions of this Act do not apply to employment under a contract for a fixed term of 12 weeks or less or to employment under a contract made in contemplation of the performance of a specific task which is not expected to last for more than 12 weeks, unless in either case the employee has been

781
continuously employed for a period of more than 12 weeks that is to say, section 22 and 29.M
( ) The following provisions of this Act do not apply to employment under a contract for a fixed term of 12 weeks or less or to employment under a contract in contemplation of the performance of a specific task where that employment was undertaken in the knowledge that it would terminate upon completion of that task unless the employment is terminated by the employer prior to the completion of that task, that is to say, sections 90, 91 and 93."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as your Lordships will see from the Amendment, Clause 109(7) remains practically as it was already drafted except for the omission of reference to Clauses 90, 91 and 93; that is, those clauses dealing with redundancy payments. The Amendment which we are proposing, and which we hope the Government will accept, concerns the special difficulties of the construction industry relating to the requirement to consult trade union representatives prior to the dismissal of employees as redundant. Clause 90(8) provides for a plea of special circumstances which an employer can use as a defence when appearing before a tribunal for non-compliance. However, the categories of employee in the construction industry cannot be considered to fall within the definition of special circumstances. It is the very nature of their work that we are asking to be considered in this Amendment.
Employers in the construction industry may be broadly divided into two categories. The first consists of the so-called "travelling men"—the construction workers engaged by a firm on a permanent contract of employment. They travel to one site and work there until their part of the job is finished, and they then move on to another construction site with the same employer. But the other category of employee which is our concern in this Amendment is the more traditional site worker, the so-called "local man", engaged by a particular construction firm to undertake a particular job on one construction site only. Their engagement is for that specific task, and when it is over their employment comes to an end and they then seek new work.
The pattern of work in the industry as between travelling men and local men has been changing. We accept this, but there is still scope in the industry
782
for both groups. While some construction workers prefer the security of permanent employment as travelling men, others prefer to remain local men and to seek new work when their contract of employment is over. But the Bill's provisions on consultation before redundancy make the continuation of the employment of local men extremely difficult, and the real difficulty about consultations before redundancy arises with these local men. There is an inevitable uncertainty about work on construction sites. Weather conditions can have a major effect in delaying progress or making it faster; and so, too, can other factors, such as the availability of men, materials or machinery.
It will be clear to those who have been involved in any way with the construction industry that employers of local men cannot consult their union representatives 90 days in advance of redundancy, because the employers themselves cannot know 90 days ahead which employees will have completed their task. I think it is not correct to say that this will be unfair to local men, because this is an aspect of construction work which is accepted by those who prefer to retain the ability to choose when they work provided they remain in their home town; and I think it will be accepted that the wages paid to these men reflect what might to some extent be termed their ad hoc employment.
The proposed Amendment would bring the Bill into line with the EEC Directive, and in particular I should like to refer to section 2, paragraph (a), of the Directive, which says that the Directive
"shall not apply to collective redundancies effected under contracts of employment concluded for limited periods of time or for specific tasks".
I think that this Amendment would safely fall within that definition. I have been shown a letter from the Minister of State to the Engineering Employers' Federation, to the effect that if some Amendment could be proposed which would fall within the terms of the Directive it might be possible for the Government to accept such Amendment. So, my Lords, I hope that this Amendment, No. 71A, will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, there have been a number of discussions in regard to this matter between the industry and the Ministers at the Department of Employment. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that if this matter had been considered, as perhaps it ought to have been considered (and in my view should have been considered), at the meeting of the Economic and Social Committee at which the CBI, the representatives of the employers, were present, when the Directive was being formulated and before it went to the Council of Ministers, many of the difficulties which the noble Baroness has referred to could have been avoided. It is true that complete exemption is not possible under the terms of the Directive, but the noble Baroness is right when she says that the particulars in the Amendment are to be found within the Directive. But, my Lords, we are not bound to take the minimum. In earlier parts of the Bill, both in Committee and, I believe, on Report, we have agreed to go a good deal further than the Directive as it is binding upon the European Community countries, in particular in regard to the aspects relating to notification—the 90 days and the 60 days.
My difficulty—I will be frank with the noble Baroness—is that it was only yesterday that I saw this Amendment, when it was in the form of a manuscript Amendment. The first indication the Department had that this Amendment was being considered was a letter from the employers' association dated the 10th of this month. We have taken the view that as far as possible we should seek agreement between the two sides of industry before we formulate policy and make any changes. To the best of my knowledge there have been no discussions in regard to this matter between the employers' association and the appropriate trade unions. If there had been consultations, if there had been a recognition of the problems, and if there had been an agreement, I do not believe there would have been any difficulty in finding some formula to put into this legislation. But I hope the noble Baroness will see that when, at this very last moment, at the very end of the Report stage, we suddenly have an Amendment which would exclude from this important piece of legislation a very large number of
784
employees, without there having been any form of consultation between the two sides, the Government are in very great difficulty in responding in a constructive way to the speech which she made.
We have accepted and have expressed sympathy about the difficulties of the industry in the type of labour it employs and the conditions of service under which the workers operate; but at this stage I cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons I have given. If, between now and Third Reading, the two sides of the industry were prepared to go to the Secretary of State and say that some provision ought to be made in this Bill, and if it were possible to move the necessary Amendment, then I should be very happy to do so on Third Reading; but I think it would be wrong for us to react at such a short notice from one side of the industry without taking into account the views of the other side. I would therefore say to the noble Baroness that if both sides are willing to approach the Government through the Secretary of State, then we will see what we can do to deal with it.
However, as I am sure the noble Baroness herself will be aware, Clause 98 enables the Secretary of State to exempt an industry from the provisions of the Bill where both sides of the industry jointly approach him and ask him to exempt them because they have alternative arrangements under a collective agreement which are no less adequate than those proposed in the Bill. So although we may not be able, in the time available, to find the necessary formula to put into the Bill, Clause 98 still makes it possible for exemptions to be made, on agreement by both sides, following an approach to the Secretary of State. Clause 97 also enables the Secretary of State to exempt certain classes of workers from the provisions, although the length of notice to which the trade unions are entitled may not be reduced below the minimum requirements of the EEC Directive. It is therefore still possible for the construction industry to obtain some form of exemption on a joint application.
While recognising the difficulties of the industry, I hope my approach to this Amendment is acceptable, and if the two sides are willing, in the time which is

785
available between now and Third Reading, to come together on a joint approach to the Secretary of State, then I shall certainly see what can be done to make the necessary provision. Having said that, and even though that may not be possible between now and Third Reading, I repeat that Clause 98 still provides for exemption at a later stage, after the passing of the Bill.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I raised these points at the Committee stage purely by chance, but I raised them on behalf of industries which I thought would suffer; namely, the holiday hotel industry and certain types of seasonal industry, such as canning and sugar grinding. The Government reply was that they had consulted somebody or other who had decided that the 12 weeks (or whatever was the period) was quite sufficient to cover these industries. Personally, I did not believe that. I hope that in any reconsideration representatives of the industries that I have mentioned will take the opportunity of coming to the Government, as they are perhaps not represented by the CBI, and making their case at the same time.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I should like to make two points. The first is that from correspondence I have before me, which will be available to the noble Lord if he wishes—although, no doubt, he has copies himself—it is clear that there has been correspondence going on between the Employers' Engineering Federation and the Minister, certainly since the 3rd July. In fact, the letter from the Minister begins: "Thank you for your letter of 28th July. "This is not the first time that this matter has been raised between the Federation and the Minister himself. On a more personal basis, with regard to the Economic and Social Committee of the EEC, I think the same would apply for the European Parliament: that I, as a member of the Social Affairs and Economic Committee, was concerned with the drafting of the Collective Redundancies Directive and I must tell the noble Lord that over and over again I was hampered by not having members of the Party opposite or of the trade unions who could put their own points. I must tell the House that, as I have
786
said over and over again, I am not in a position to come with an answer to this until I have the response of the members of the trade unions, because industrial relations will be good only when all parties agree. Whether or not the CBI were represented sufficiently on the Economic and Social Council is another matter.
My Lords, with regard to this Amendment, I do not think that Clause 8 is adequate. The construction industry do not feel that it is; and they are the people who have to work it. I should like to take up the noble Lord's offer that if the Federation and the unions concerned would get together and consult with the Minister before the Third Reading, we might be able to put it in a form more acceptable to the Minister, to the Federation and to the unions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 115 [Interpretation]:
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, Amendment No. 79 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, leave out lines 20 to 23.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.26 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 100, line 23, at end insert:
("All references to a wages council shall include the Agricultural Wages Board of England and Wales and the Agricultural Wages Board of Scotland.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 80. I have had the opportunity of discussing this with the Department and I realise that they feel that my Amendment is not adequate but that, if it is accepted today, they would be pleased to put it in a correct form. I am not going to say much about this, for it sets out exactly what I mean. Having read previous debates on this subject, I know that there are controversial views concerning it. I feel very strongly at the moment that the Agricultural Wages Board is not able to move towards Joint Industrial Council status and they are therefore in less privileged conditions and the regulation of wages does not work

787
n a basis that is normal in other industries. Therefore I hope that we may debate this subject, so that I can hear the views of other noble Lords and reserve my right to test the views of the House.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving her Amendment in such a generous way as to invite your Lordships to express their views. I accept the opportunity to do so, although I am bound to say that the views that I would be tempted to express might not accord with those implied in her Amendment. This Amendment places an obligation on the Agricultural Wages Board to fall into line with the Amendments which the noble Baroness has put down later, and particularly Amendment No. 89. It imposes upon the Agricultural Wages Board an obligation to put, as a minimum rate, two-thirds of the average industrial earnings. I am bound to say that, in wage negotiations, I find it difficult to think it right to compare a minimum rate with an average industrial rate; because as soon as the minimum rate increases so also does the overtime rate and so also often does the premium rate. Therefore, the mere fact of increasing the minimum rate jacks up very much more the average earnings, provided the amount of hours worked are the same. If long hours of overtime are worked, thus increasing the average earnings, that imposes an obligation to increase the minimum rate.
My Lords, I find it very hard to believe that it is correct to put an obligation upon the Agricultural Wages Board to put as its minimum two-thirds of the average industrial earnings. I also feel that, while at the moment the Agricultural Wages Board undergoes free collective bargaining between employers, employees and also with independent people, this amendment will put a statutory obligation to fix the minimum rate irrespective of the conditions of the industry and irrespective of the conditions outside.
It is true that the Amendment of the noble Baroness seeks to make the Agricultural Wages Board conform with the wages councils; but there is a significant difference. It is that the rate paid in agriculture is directly related—I repeat, directly related—to the minimum rate
788
prescribed by the Agricultural Wages Board. Those rates are the key figure for all rates paid in agriculture. This is very often not so with wage councils in industry where free collective bargaining can often fix rates far higher than those rates agreed by the wages councils. Some noble Lords, and certainly my noble friend Lady Vickers, may feel that there is not much difference between the Agricultural Wages Board and the wages councils. I would refer her to the Donovan Report—the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers'Associations—where it is stated quite clearly that the Agricultural Wages Board is totally different from the wages councils.
My Lords, I would therefore say to my noble friend that, while I understand and appreciate the reasons which prompted her to put down this Amendment, I believe that if it were to be accepted not only would it be highly inflationary but it would place an arbitrary figure on the discussions between employees and employers on the Agricultural Wages Board which has nothing to do with the conditions of the industry and which would be binding and unsatisfactory. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not feel minded to press this Amendment.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, a good deal of the case of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, against this Amendment was based upon the effect of Amendment No. 89. I think I can throw some light on that: that Amendment was discussed yesterday and I made it clear that that Amendment was not acceptable to the Government. I do not think we need fear the effect of Amendment No. 89 when considering Amendment No. 80. So far as Amendment No. 80 is concerned, it is completely acceptable to the Government. We have the same strong feelings as the noble Baroness, and if the House accepts this Amendment and establishes the principle, the Government will see to it that the necessary additional Amendments which are needed for the principle expressed will be prepared and submitted in due course.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer, and I beg leave to divide the House on this Amendment.
3.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 80) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 135.

CONTENTS

Greenway, L.

Popplewell, L.

Airedale, L.

Hale, L.

Pritchard, L.

Amherst, E.

Hankey, L.

Raglan, L.

Amulree, L.

Hoy, L.

Rhodes, L.

Bacon, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L.

Rusholme, L.

Birk, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Seear, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Sea1.)

Brockway, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Simon, V.

Burntwood, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Slater, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Loudoun, C.

Snow, L.

Byers, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stamp, L.

Champion, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Stedman, B.

Chorley, L.

Lytton, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McLeavy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Summerskill, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Maelor, L.

Swaythling, L.

Darwe, L.

Mais, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Vickers, B. [Teller.]

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Milford, L.

Wade, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L Chancellor.)

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wigg, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Pannell, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Platt, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Drumalbyn, L.

Kindersley, L.

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Kintore, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Effingham, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Alport, L.

Elles, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

Amory, V.

Elton, L.

Lothian, M.

Armstrong, L.

Essex, E.

Luke, L.

Ashdown, L.

Exeter, M.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Balerno, L.

Ferrier, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Balniel, L.

Forbes, L.

Merrivale, L.

Barnby, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mersey, V.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Middleton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gage, V.

Monck, V.

Boothby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Glasgow, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Burnham, L.

Goschen, V.

Caccia, L.

Grenfell, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Cairns, E.

Gridley, L.

Newall, L.

Camoys, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Onslow, E.

Carrington, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cathcart, E.

Harcourt, V.

Porritt, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hawke, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cobham, V.

Headfort, M.

Reigate, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hereford, V.

Roberthall, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Hertford, M.

Rockley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hives, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Cowley, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Crawshaw, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Sackville, L.

Croft, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Daventry, V.

Inglewood, L.

St. Helens, L.

de Clifford, L.

Ironside, L.

Sandford, L.

de Freyne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sandys, L.

De La Warr, E.

Killearn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kilmany, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Sharples, B.

Suffield, L.

Tranmire, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Swansea, L.

Vernon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinton, E.

Vivian, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Tenby, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Terrington, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Thomas, L.

Willingdon, M.

Strathspey, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Young, B.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.43 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like not to move Amendment No. 81 and to substitute a manuscript Amendment. The Amendment is entirely drafting. The manuscript Amendment would agree with the Amendment which was before the House, except that the three words "expressions used in" would be omitted. I beg leave to move the manuscript Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 25, leave out from first ("in") to end of line 27 and insert ("the provisions of this Act relating to unfair dismissal and in provisions of the 1974 Act relating to unfair dismissal have the same meaning in this Act as in that Act.")—(Lord Jacques.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord seeks leave not to move Amendment No. 81 and to substitute the manuscript Amendment. I take it there is no objection being raised in the House to this procedure? The Amendment proposed is:
"Clause 115, page 100, in line 25, leave out from first ("in") to end of line 27 and insert ("the provisions of this Act relating to unfair dismissal and in provisions of the 1974 Act relating to unfair dismissal have the same meaning in this Act as in that Act.").
Lord PLATT Lord PLATT moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 100, line 32, after ("any") insert ("relevant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I must deal with Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 at the same time. They are in fact the same Amendment and I was surprised when I found them put down in two parts on the Marshalled List. I should apologise for not having brought the Amendments—or rather this subsection of Clause 115—to the notice of your Lordships at an earlier stage. It was, however, brought to my notice only comparatively recently,
792
and your Lordships will no doubt realise that a Bill of this kind, which is almost entirely concerned with industry, is difficult for a professional man like myself—who may wish to go through it clause by clause—to understand what it is all about: in fact, the task is almost impossible.
Clause 115 deals with interpretation and I am concerned with subsection (3), relating to union membership agreements. In the case of those agreements, this subsection says that,
"… employees are to be treated … as belonging to the same class if they have been identified as such by the parties to the agreement"—
which I take to be the employer and the trade union—
"… and employees may be so identified by reference to any characteristics or circumstances whatsoever."
I submit to your Lordships that this is such a wide-ranging subsection that it is almost meaningless. If they are to be considered of the same class through any characteristics whatever, one could make a perfectly stupid suggestion such as saying that they might be selected by the colour of their eyes.
Of course, one could make the more relevant suggestion that they might be people all working in the same place. If so, does this not lead to what I consider to be the danger that professional people may very easily find themselves put into a trade union which really does not represent their interests at all, and whose Code of Practice may be quite different from that of professional bodies in general? Though, naturally, as a doctor, I speak from the point of view of the medical profession, I think this has to be looked at carefully as it concerns all professional people. I shall be very surprised if the Government's reply does not go at least as far as saying that they will alter this wording. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him, when he does so, to explain the meaning of the

793
last phrase of the subsection. It is very difficult to understand what exactly is meant there.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I will proceed with the reply to the debate and hope that by the time I have finished a note will have reached me, so that I can give an answer without the need to look up that point. May I first assure the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that the Bill as it stands, and in particular this subsection, will not have any effect whatever as regards forcing professional classes to belong to any union, or not to belong.
The wording used here is that which was used in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill earlier in the year. There was some doubt as to whether the characteristics which had to be enjoyed by a class excluded from a closed shop agreement had to be relevant to their employment. In order to meet Opposition criticism, the Government put forward an Amendment containing wording which made the whole matter flexible, and put it beyond all doubt that the characteristics need not have relevance to the employee's employment.
The Government's attitude was welcomed by all sides of the House and by all sides of the other place. The position is this. Here we are not concerned with who should be included in a closed shop agreement; we are concerned with whom the parties may exclude from such an agreement. It is the wish of the Government that, without invalidating an agreement, either the employer or both parties shall agree that any class whatsoever shall be exempt from the closed shop agreement; not that they shall or shall not join any union, but that they shall be exempt from the closed shop agreement. As the wording stands now, exemptions should be granted on age—all over 65, if you like; exemptions could be granted on existing union membership—to exempt from the closed shop agreement, for example, all those who are in a professional union; there could be exemption of those who have some conscientious conviction. We believe that there should be absolute flexibility in excluding people from union membership agreements, and that is why the Bill is worded in this way. We believe that in its present form it would facilitate industrial relations.
794
The Amendment is wholly unacceptable to the Government for two reasons. First, it would make it more difficult to exclude people whom the parties wish to exclude from closed shop agreements. Secondly, it would mean that this clause would be quite different from Clause 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. We take the view that a declaratory clause dealing with the same subject should be identical. Therefore, we would think that this was an inconsistency which should be avoided. I hope that with those explanations the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw the Amendment. Before sitting down, may I say that my message is that we are not sure about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and if he does not mind we will write to him on it.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, it is the noble Lord's Bill. Could he not explain what the clause means? The explanation I have listened to does not appear to me to have any relevance to the words in the Bill; but of course I may be entirely wrong.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, very much for his lucid explanation of his interpretation of the Bill. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in that I could not have read that into this subsection at all. But I understand from the noble Lord who replied that it is not this subsection that matters, and that other parts of the Bill make this point clear. I still think that this is an undesirable way of going about it. Nevertheless, I am extremely glad that I raised the matter because the assurances which the noble Lord has given to professional people like myself are important and valuable, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, before this Amendment is withdrawn, with the leave of the House I should like to thresh out this point with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. As I understand it, he is dealing with subsection (3) on page 100.
Lord HAWKE: Yes, my Lords.
Lord JACQUES: The query concerns the meaning of the last two lines.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord was talking a great deal about exemptions while, so far as one can read

795
it, the subsection appears to be concerned with inclusion.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can find nothing here which would enable the noble Lord to come to that conclusion. I can assure the noble Lord that this provision is concerned with exemption; that is to say, those who can be excluded from a closed shop agreement.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Hawke and Lord Platt. I have listened with great interest to every word said and have read this clause carefully. There is not one word here about exemption, not a syllable. It says:
"belonging to the same class as if they had been identified as such by the parties to the agreement, and employees may be so identified by reference to any characteristics or circumstances whatsoever".
This wording made me think that everybody was going to be included in an all-purpose, umbrella clause. It is quite understandable to the initiated, and I may be very stupid, but I am glad to have both Lord Platt and Lord Hawke ask about it in the same way. This provision is extremely badly drafted if it is supposed to mean what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has so ably said to us. But that is not what it says.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, is not this a good argument for doing something about this clause? One assumes that your Lordships' House is at least of average intelligence and this Bill is meant to be understood by people some of whom may be of below average intelligence. If we cannot understand it, is it not likely that they cannot understand it? Is not this a good argument for ensuring that the subsection is clear?
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, it is often said that people with a less intelligent attitude than Members of your Lordships' House might have to deal with this matter. If the noble Baroness is referring to trade union officials, I would say that their standard of intelligence may in many cases be somewhat higher than that of Members of your Lordships' House, especially in matters of this kind.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I hope that this legislation will not be wholly handled by officials but will be intelligible also to the rank and file.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, to return to the question which seems to be mystifying us, is it not more simple than some noble Lords have tried to make out? This clause deals with union membership agreements. Is it not a fact that a union membership agreement can say, on the one hand, there is to be a closed shop with so-and-so in it and, on the other hand, there is to be a closed shop with so-and-so not in it? Surely that is what we are discussing, and with that flexibility the clause seems to me to make perfect sense and to be capable of a quite sensible interpretation.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I find this subsection a little difficult to understand, too. May I ask the noble Lord what difference will be made to the whole Bill if this clause is just taken out? May I also ask, as a matter of interest, whether the position of the nursing profession—I happen to be a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing—will be as free as it is at the present time? I do not want to get any profession with which I am connected involved in any way, without knowing what I am getting them involved in. So perhaps the noble Lord could explain what difference it would make if the clause was just taken out of the Bill.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, if, with the leave of the House, I may speak again, I would remind noble Lords that here we have a Part of the Bill which is headed "Interpretation". The normal identifiable class is all employees. The Bill enables the parties to a union membership agreement to indicate that that agreement shall comprise all employees except—and the exception can be any class with any characteristics in common. It gives the maximum freedom in excluding people from the union membership agreement and is quite clear when it is read in the context of that part of the Bill, particularly that part of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, it seems to me that there is something in what the Government say—that this gives great freedom to exclude anybody. However, it seems to me to give even greater freedom to include people without even consulting them. May I suggest to the Government

797
that this clause is not very comprehensible? As a diplomat for many years, I found that clauses which were obscure usually led to trouble and that it very seldom paid not to clarify them if it was possible to do so. In view of the very good assurances that the Government have given, may I ask them to have another look at this clause to see whether or not, in the light of the criticisms which have been made in your Lordships' House they could improve the drafting? Perhaps we could then amend it at Third Reading.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that we are on Report stage? We are not discussing the clause as a clause. That opportunity was open to us at the Committee stage. To the best of my knowledge, the problems which have now arisen did not arise in Committee. If there is a wish that the Government should look at this clause to see whether it can be drafted in a clearer fashion, certainly I will undertake to do that. But I cannot give any undertaking that we shall be able to improve it, because Parliamentary draftsmen have a particular art of their own and are very difficult to shift. However, I will see whether any improvement can be made. We are discussing the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Platt. I wonder whether the noble Lord would either withdraw his Amendment or press it.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I have already asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord SHEPHERD: Then, my Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would do so rather more audibly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 117 [Northern Ireland]:
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, Amendment No. 86 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 40, leave out ("Ireland") and insert ("Irish").—(Lord Jacques.)
Schedule 1 [Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service etc.]:
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 88 is to correct a
798
serious omission. In Clause 7(4) the appointment of assistant certification officers is made possible, but no power has been granted for the payment of their remuneration or allowances. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide for that. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 110, line 20, at end insert ("and any assistant certification officer").—(Lord Shepherd.)
Schedule 13 [Amendments of Employment Agencies Act 1973]:
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, Amendment No. 92 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 151, line 22, leave out ("substitute") and insert ("insert")—(Lord Jacques.)
Schedule 14 [Amendments of Employment and Training Act 1973]:
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 93 to 98 inclusive. I spoke to all of these Amendments when I moved Amendment No. 71.
Amendments moved—
Page 153, line 30, leave out ("and")
Page 153, line 33, at end insert—
("and
(c) obtaining employment for any description of persons in Great Britain who in his opinion would, because of their special circumstances and a high or increasing level of unemployment in Great Britain, otherwise have or be likely to have difficulty in obtaining employment;")
Page 153, line 38, leave out ("Paragraph (b)"and insert ("Paragraph (b) and (c)")
Page 153, line 43, after ("(b)") insert ("or the said paragraph (c) or both paragraphs")
Page 154, line 2, leave out ("that paragraph is") and insert ("either or both of those paragraphs is or are")
Page 153, line 5, after ("(b)") insert ("or (c)")—(Lord Jacques.)
Schedule 16 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, Amendment No. 99 is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 163, line 10, at end insert—

799
("12A. In section 31(4) (repayment from Redundancy Fund in certain cases) for the words "the appropriate allocation to the Redundancy Fund" substitute the words "the amount paid into the Redundancy Fund from the appropriate employment protection allocation".")—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 100 is to tidy up the definition of "insolvency" in Section 32 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, and to bring it into line with that used in Clause 60 of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 163, line 10, at end insert—
("12A. In section 32(5) (definition of insolvency), at the end of paragraph (a) insert the words "or a receiving order is made against him."
12B. In section 32(6) (definition of insolvency in Scotland) —

(a) for the words "paragraph (a) and (b)"substitute the words "paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)";

(b) in paragraph (a) as substituted omit the word "or" in the third place where it occurs; and

(c) after paragraph (b) as substituted insert the following paragraph—

": or
(c) where the employer is a company, a winding up order has been made or a resolution for voluntary winding up is passed with respect to it or a receiver of its undertaking is duly appointed".")—(Lord Jacques.)
4.7 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 167, line 39, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("eight").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will notice that in Part II of what is now Schedule 16, which deals with amendments to the Contracts of Employment Act 1972, among other things certain minimum periods by way of notice of termination of contract are laid down. It is interesting to note that when the Act was originally passed in 1963 the minimum periods of notice to be given by an employer to an employee were one week's notice after six months' service but less than two years, two weeks' notice after two years but less than five years and four weeks' notice
800
after five or more years of service. In 1972, under the Industrial Relations Act 1971, those periods were increased to one week's notice after 13 weeks' service but less than two years, two weeks' notice after two years but less than five years and four weeks' notice after five years but less than 10 years, six weeks' notice after 10 years but less than 15 years and eight weeks' notice after 15 or more years of service.
The effect of paragraphs 1 and 2 in Part II of Schedule 16 to this Bill is that employees are entitled to one week's notice after four weeks' service only, and an additional week's notice for every year of service from two years up to 12 years. By way of illustration, one may say that a man with two years' service will get a minimum of two weeks' notice, that a man with seven weeks' service will get a minimum of seven weeks' notice and that a man with 12 or more years of service will get a maximum of three months' notice. Throughout all this legislation, ever since the original Act of 1963, the notice demanded from an employee has remained a period of one week. So far as notice to an employee is concerned, the notice requirement has been dropped from 26 weeks in 1963 to 13 weeks in 1972 and only four weeks in 1975. Equally, the minimum notice will have gone up from four weeks in 1963 to eight weeks in 1972 and 15 weeks in 1975, three years later. From the employee's point of view these are very considerable improvements. So far as the present proposals are concerned, I submit to the House that the new provisions go too far down the road so that what has perhaps previously been an imbalance one way has without doubt now tipped the other way.
I appreciate that to an extent the Government have had to "pay"—if that is the right word—the TUC in relation to their commitment to the Social Contract. But, as I shall illustrate, the "payment", if it can be called such, will have wide-ranging and possibly deleterious effects on industry. In our view a minimum of three months' notice is too long, whatever the employee's service may be, and this is particularly so at the present time of recession. Many companies, large and small, are experiencing grave cash-flow problems. Naturally they want to keep their workforce together as long as they

801
can, but sometimes they find themselves in extreme difficulties when it comes to redundancies, particularly where long-service employees are concerned. Some just do not have the cash available to pay the redundancy payments, and for long periods of notice as well, and the provisions in this part of the Bill will exacerbate the situation still further.
So, while being in sympathy with the principle behind the legislation—and I wish to emphasise that—noble Lords on this side of the House propose that the maximum amount of notice should, as it were, reach a compromise under the Bill at eight weeks, so that in effect we accept the basis of one week per year up to that amount. Indeed, we are even prepared to accept one week's notice after only four weeks' service, although I daresay some would consider that as being overgenerous. My Lords, we consider this to be a reasonable compromise. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Bill as drafted provides for 12 weeks' notice as a maximum and only after 12 years' service. The Amendment would seek to limit the employee's maximum length of notice to 8 weeks after 8 years' service. The provision in the Bill is quite obviously made to protect people with long service. These are often the older people in employment, people who find it extremely difficult to get another job, and certainly people who find it even more difficult to get a job which is commensurate with their experience, their status and the salary which they have enjoyed.
We feel it is right that the employer and society in general should show generosity to people who have given this kind of long service and who find themselves redundant at a later stage of their lives. The idea for the improvement does not arise out of any Social Contract. It is an attempt by the Government to bring us more into line with the EEC, although we shall still be behind some of the EEC countries if this Bill is accepted. At present in Germany the maximum is 13 weeks for manual workers, but it is 26 weeks for clerical workers. All we are suggesting is 12 weeks for all workers which would make us comparable with, say, the Netherlands, where it is 13 weeks for all workers. If we are going to be
802
brought into line with the other EEC countries, the workers are part of this country and they have a right to be brought into line, to their advantage.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord's heart is large and generous, but it is easy to be so when it is with other people's money. I fully appreciate what he has said about the European Economic Community, but unfortunately we do not have the standard of living that they have in Western Germany—through their own efforts—and we do not have a "cake" which we can slice as generously as we should all like. In these Amendments we have tried to strike what we consider to be a fairer balance as between the employee and the employer than the Government have done. Nevertheless, I see, and I am sure all noble Lords will appreciate, the difficulties of those who find that they are redundant after many years' service with one employer. These Amendments were tabled and certainly have been debated to emphasise, perhaps fairly starkly, where the imbalance between employers and employees lies in this Bill. I believe I have made the point, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, Amendment No. 104 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 168, line 12, leave out ("there shall be substituted") and insert ("substitute").—(Lord Jacques.)
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 170, line 32, at end insert—
". After paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 insert the following paragraph—
"4AA. Any week of employment with a previous employer which by virtue of a provision in a written statement of terms of employment issued by an employer to an employee in accordance with section 4 of this Act counts as continuous employment with the employer, shall count in computing a period of employment."."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope I shall have greater success with this Amendment than with my previous one. Paragraph 4 of Part II of the

803
Schedule amends the Contract of Employment Act 1972 by requiring employers to state whether any employment with a previous employer counts as part of the employee's continuous period of service with him, and if so, to specify the date on which the continuous period of employment began. Despite this, it is understood that there will be no automatic entitlement to rebate as a consequence of Amendments under the 1972 Act, as proposed in the present Bill. The local government authorities are in a special position in regard to this, because although an employee may move from one authority to another technically he has a new employer and the service with the previous employer counts as continuous service: for example, for his pension and also for redundancy payment. This Amendment, if accepted, will enable local authorities to claim rebate in respect of a period of continuous employment, whether it is in the employee's present or previous authority. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, speaking personally I have a good deal of sympathy with this Amendment. I have spent a lifetime in the Co-operative Movement, where my friends move from one society to another in much the same way as people move from one local authority to another. On one occasion I lost my pension rights as a result of such a move. But the problem, as we see it, arises largely when there is a takeover; that is, when one employer takes over the business of another employer. That is the problem that we saw when we were drafting this part of the Bill. In those circumstances, after the takeover an employee can often find that while he thought the new employer was recognising his past services, in fact he was not doing so. Consequently, the employee can find that he has lost the benefits of that past service if the employer says, "I am not recognising your past service".
We have tried to remedy this in an Amendment which is embodied in Schedule 16 to the Bill. We are laying it down there that, when there is a takeover, the new employer must specify in writing whether he is recognising any past service by the employee to a previous employer, and if so, to what extent; that is, he has to indicate the date back
804
to which he is recognising service. We feel it is absolutely necessary to make it firm so that the employee really knows how far his past service is being recognised when he is being taken over by a new employer.
However, we cannot go as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, wants us to go, because there are great dangers. For example, if this Amendment were embodied in the Bill, it would facilitate the "poaching" of employees. An employer who wanted an employee from another firm could say, "In addition to the increased salary, I will recognise your service with your present employer". That would encourage "poaching". But, equally important from our point of view, it would mean that payments out of the Redundancy Fund would not be related to the facts, but would be related to whatever an employer wanted to do. So far as we are concerned, that is untenable; consequently, we feel we cannot accept this Amendment.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am disappointed with that reply. I should like to take it up again with the county councils, because they are the people worried about this. Perhaps I can discuss this again later. Meanwhile, I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.22 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 174, line 32, after ("specified") insert ("for the purposes of or in relation to a union membership agreement").—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, Amendment No. 107 does not materially alter the sense of the relevant paragraph, but it does achieve consistency. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 177, line 26, leave out ("serious") and insert ("substantial").—(Lord Jacques.)
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I do not in any way want the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to think that in what I am going to say I am twitting him, but it remains a fact that during Committee stage my noble friend Lord Gowrie moved an Amendment to what was then Schedule

805
11, seeking to insert the word "substantially" not "substantial". The noble Lord the Leader of the House when replying in the debate, at column 529 said:
"But I have to tell him, of course, as other Ministers of different political complexions have done in the past, that the word 'substantial' always raises very considerable difficulties in legislation when it comes to interpretation by the courts. Therefore I would not advise the Committee to believe that this Amendment would in any way help to meet the case that the noble Earl has himself put forward."—[Official Report; 25/9/75; col. 529.]
This particular part of the Bill deals shortly if I may so put it, with the regulations governing the industrial tribunals, and in effect it may provide for tribunals to sit in private where evidence has to be given about certain information, the disclosure of which would cause "substantial", as it is now, but previously "serious", injury. This is not a semantic argument on the play of words. We do it for this reason, and this reason alone: that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Gowrie, carried on a Division, will no doubt eventually come to be considered by the Government, and possibly with recommendations—or the lack of them—in another place. Therefore, I ask the Government to be consistent in this matter. The circumstances of that Amendment and this are not precisely parallel or the same, but the principles are the same. If "substantial" is good enough for this Amendment to do with tribunals, I suggest it is also good enough for my noble friend.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we are trying to be consistent, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will not let us be so. The facts are that Clause 18(1)(e), which we discussed yesterday, enables an employer to decline to give information to a trade union because it would do substantial injury to the undertaking. In the clause we are now considering we are dealing with the appeal that might be made, that the employer has refused to give the information and inadvertently caused, it says "serious" injury. We are now suggesting that that should be "substantial" injury, so that this is in line with the substantive Clause 18(1)(e).
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 178, line 2, after ("42") insert ("and"). —(Lord Jacques.)
4.26 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, my note says, "This is a minor drafting Amendment". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 178, line 13, at end insert—
("26A. In paragraph 28(2) of Schedule 1 for the word "claimant" substitute the word "complainant".")—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment to take account of change of name. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 179, line 13, at end insert:
"33.—(1) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the change of name of the Industrial Court to the Industrial Arbitration Board originally effected by section 124(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and continued in force, so far as the Industrial Courts Act 1919 is concerned, by paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the 1974 Act, shall, as respects the relevant period be taken not to have divested that body of any functions under any other enactment or any instrument notwithstanding that after the repeal by the 1974 Act of the said section 124(2) references in any such other enactment or any such instrument to the Industrial Court were no longer expressly directed to be construed as references to the Industrial Arbitration Board.
(2) In this paragraph "the relevant period" means the period beginning with 16th September 1974 (the day appointed for the coming into operation of the said Schedule 3, and ending with the repeal by this Act of Part I of the Industrial Courts Act 1919."—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 179, line 35, at end insert—
"(1A) The following provisions and passages are hereby repealed:
Sections 1, 2 and 3.
In section 4(1), the words "whether or not the dispute is reported to him under Part I of this Act".
In section 7, the words "of the Industrial Arbitration Board and".
In section 9, the words "before the Industrial Arbitration Board, before an arbitrator or".
Sections 11 and 12."—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 184, line 21, leave out ("there shall be inserted") and insert ("insert").—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 184, line 29, leave out from (""offices"") to end of line 31 and insert ("insert the following entry at the appropriate place in alphabetical order:—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 113 and 114. Amendment No. 114 is a substantive Amendment, and Amendment No. 113 is consequential. Amendment No. 114 will permit members of a statutory joint industrial council constituted under Schedule 8 to be Members of the House of Commons. The Bill as drafted would disqualify them from membership of the House of Commons under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Disqualification of members of statutory joint industrial councils from being Members of Parliament is not appropriate, because they will not be appointed by the Secretary of State, and payment will be confined to expenses and allowances for loss of earnings; thus, the element of ministerial patronage—the main criterion for statutory disqualification—will be removed.
As a consequence of Amendment 114, sub-paragraph (3) provides for only one entry to be inserted in Part III of Schedule 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Amendment No. 113 redrafts sub-paragraph (3) to take account of this. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 114.
Amendment moved—
Page 184, leave out lines 34 to 36.—(Lord Jacques.)
Schedule 17 [Transitional Provisions]:
4.30 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 186, line 22, after ("Board") insert ("(whether by that or any other name)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment follows Amendment No. 3 made to Clause 10, and reflects the fact that the name of the industrial court established under the Industrial Courts Act 1919 was changed to Industrial Arbitration Board by the 1971 Act, but its constitution was not altered. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may, I will take Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 together. These Amendments seek to extend paragraph 7 of Schedule 17, which makes transitional provisions in respect of the Bill's provisions relating to unfair dismissal to apply also to Clauses 69 to 71. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 186, line 26, leave out ("67") and insert ("71").
Page 186, line 47, leave out ("67") and insert ("71").—(Lord Melchett.)
Schedule 18 [Enactments repealed]:
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as a result of the repeal provisions in Schedule 18 to the Bill relating to the Industrial Courts Act 1919, no reference to the Industrial Court or Industrial Arbitration Board will be left in the Trades Union and Labour Relations Act. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Trades Union and Labour Relations Act will therefore no longer be necessary, and it is removed by this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 192, line 58, at end insert ("3,").—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, this Amendment follows from the repeal of the 1959 Act earlier in the Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 192, line 58, at end insert ("8,").—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, this Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 193, line 1, after ("10(4)") insert ("and").—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 193, line 37, at end add—

"1975 c.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

In section 82(1), the definition of conciliation officer.

In Schedule 5, paragraph 4.")—(Lord Melchett.)

In the Title:
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may, I will take Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 together. These Amendments to the Title are required consequent upon the introduction of Clause 103. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Line 7, after ("to") insert ("entitlement to and recoupment of").
Line 8, leave out from ("benefit") to ("to") in line 9.—(Lord Melchett.)
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with, pursuant to Resolution:
4.33 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on Recommitment on the Bill in respect of Clauses 34 to 43, 54, 55, 111, 113 and 117.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment.—(Lord Jacques.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Viscount GOSCHEN in the Chair.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Rights of employee in connection with pregnancy and confinement].
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 14:
810
Page 29, line 1, leave out ("both").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps at this stage I should explain that we do not come to the clauses dealing with the funding of the maternity scheme until we get to Amendment No. 20. Amendments Nos. 20 to 28 inclusive are the substantive Amendments. At the moment I am concerned with Amendment No. 14, and I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 inclusive, Nos. 18, 29 to 30 inclusive, and Nos. 32 to 38 inclusive. All of these are drafting Amendments making corrections to incorrect references. I beg to move Amendment No. 14, and I will move the others formally at the appropriate time. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 4, leave out ("entitled to either right") and insert ("so entitled").—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord JACQUES: I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 9, leave out ("and").—(Lord Jacques.)
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 29, line 13, leave out ("if he so requests").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said, has nothing to do with the funding of these provisions. It is simple, but it is nevertheless important. Your Lordships will see set out in what is now Clause 35 of the Bill the rights of the employee in connection with pregnancy and confinement. Clause 35(2) sets out the way in which an employee is entitled to the rights set out in subsection (1), whether or not a contract of employment subsists. More especially, subsection (2)(c) says she shall not be entitled to those rights unless, in effect,
"she informs her employer (in writing if he so requests) at least three weeks before her absence begins or, if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as reasonably practicable."
The words complained of—if that is the right phrase—are "if he so requests", and this Amendment seeks to exclude them from the subsection.
The history of the matter is this: in another place the clauses dealing with maternity questions, and in particular maternity leave, were substantially redrafted at Committee stage, and as a result of representations the Government added the requirement that the woman should put her notice of intention to return in writing if the employer so requests. Unfortunately, the Amendment as it is at the moment in the Bill does not cure the mischief. I say that because if one considers it for a moment the reason for asking for the notice to be put in writing is to avoid endless disputes which may arise as to whether or not such notice has been given.
One can only too easily visualise a woman claiming that she told the wages clerk or the head of the typing pool, or even, dare I mention it?, a shop steward, or somebody who seemingly has authority, but in fact does not; this person may or may not realise the import of what was being said, and equally may or may not act on the information which was being given to him or her. The gravity, or at any rate the importance, of the situation is exemplified if one considers the provisions that follow once a woman has intimated her intention to return that is to say, the possibility of unfair dismissal and redundancy claims and all the sums of money involved in such processes.
My submission is that it is surely right that a woman should give notification in writing if she intends to exercise her right. It is not sufficient to provide that the notice shall be in writing if requested. Junior clerks and heads of typing pools will not know, and in any event may feel thoroughly embarrassed at having to make the request, and especially in the big organisations. If the notice is put in writing, then, of course, the boot is on the other foot, because there is no excuse for an employee, even of a fairly junior rank, not pushing the notice, if I may so describe it, up to the correct level. If the lady, or the woman as we have to call her for these purposes, has gone sufficiently high up the hierarchy of the organisation or the management in the first instance, it probably would not be necessary to put the notice in writing. But we cannot always legislate for that and there is no means of knowing, so far
812
as the individual employee is concerned, who is the right person to tell.
By way of reinforcing the argument, what is now Clause 42 requires an employer who takes on a temporary replacement to notify that replacement in writing of her temporary status. What is sauce for the goose ought surely to be sauce for the gander, so that this similar obligation put on the employer in that part of the Bill should in this particular context be put on the employee in this clause. I beg to move.
4.41 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: The present wording, which requires notice in writing if the employer so requests, was introduced as a result of an undertaking given in Committee in the House of Commons and was accepted by the Opposition as meeting their point. I wonder how many Opposition points we have to meet. We thought we had met the point raised in Committee in the House of Commons, where it was acknowledged that we had met it. We feel that the wording, which is flexible, is the one most likely to be satisfactory in practice.
In the very small company, where there are few employed and they work closely together, it is seldom that all these things are put in writing, but in the larger concern there are usually staff regulations which deal with such matters as sickness, and so on, which indicate what has to be put in writing and what has not to be put in writing. If the employer wanted, he could get this put into writing. All he has to do is to say so in his staff regulations. Therefore, we feel that in the draft as we have it at the moment we are catering for the very small firm which does not require it in writing, and for the very large firm which can have it in writing if it so wishes. On balance, we feel that it is better to leave it as it is now, which apparently satisfied the noble Lord's colleagues in another place.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Perhaps our colleagues in another place had not quite the same amount of time to consider the matter as we have had. There are good reasons for requiring this information to be put in writing. The obvious one is that if there is a dispute about the facts then there is a piece of paper in evidence, or alternatively there is no piece of paper

813
in evidence, and therefore the tribunal will draw its conclusions accordingly. Surely it will avoid a great deal of trouble if this is required to be put in writing.
I was rather expecting the noble Lord to say, "Surely the woman who is giving the information on pregnancy would not necessarily know that she has to put it in writing". I would not for a moment accept that argument. This is the sort of thing that women talk about—and I understand they talk quite a lot among themselves—and it is inconceivable that a woman would not know that she had to put this in writing if it was so required, and that is the only objection that could be made to the omission of the words, "if he so requests".
The noble Lord says that it will give greater flexibility in smaller firms. Even smaller firms have to take account of what the Statute actually says, and women in smaller firms will also observe them. I can see no objection at all to this. If we were always to agree on either side of the House with what is said in another place and the way in which Amendments are received in another place, there would not be any point in having two Houses. I hope that the noble Lord will not use that argument again.
There is a difficult point here because this is a serious matter, and a matter on which there should be firm evidence. On this depends whether the woman making the application, and when giving the information, is going to be entitled to her maternity pay and whether she is going to enjoy the right of return to her job. These matters are so important that they ought to be put in writing. You cannot leave them to the chance memory of some employee. They really ought to be properly dealt with. I cannot see any possibility of things not going wrong unless we have a provision of this sort and these words are left out.
In any case, I think this provision will give rise to difficulties, because what the employee has to do is to state her intention of returning to work. I am not at all certain that she will even know whether or not she intends to return to work at the time she gives her notice. We are bound to accept that some women will not be quite honest about the intention they express, either because they have
814
not made up their minds or because they think that it does not very much matter. All that would happen in that case is that the employer would pay out the maternity pay and the woman would not return to work anyway.
In view of the clauses we are coming to, it will be the State who will be in difficulty here, and I think that we have to have regard to public expenditure in this way. This is going to cause difficulty, and I hope that between now and the next stage the noble Lord will look at the whole principle involved in this subsection. It is important that we should get this right, otherwise trouble is bound to arise, as it has arisen in other parts of the social services before, simply through a lack of clarity of facts and of intentions. So far as this Amendment is concerned, I hope that my noble friend will press it.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: May I first reject the argument put up by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that because a particular Amendment was accepted in the other place we are in some curious way estopped from pressing the matter again in your Lordships' House. Even the most cursory reading of Hansard will reveal the pressures under which the other place works, and surely the whole basis of your Lordships' role as a Revising Chamber is to reconsider what has happened in the other place and, if necessary, to seek to revise and improve legislation still further. The fact that my right honourable friend was content in Committee stage in another place is neither here nor there.
I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, made no attempt to deal with the merits of this Amendment. I tried to point out to him that biologically speaking the people who are going to make the request are going to be young, and they are probably going to be in comparatively junior positions, although that does not necessarily follow. I tried to point out that the difficulty of proving whether or not a request has been made, and the form in which it is made, will be extremely difficult to unravel at a later stage, if indeed it has to be. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has remarked, it is a question of public money. In my submission, it will be totally unsatisfactory if some young lady says she thinks she

815
will go off because she is not feeling very well and at a later stage someone seeks to claim, as they are likely to do, that that was notice that she was pregnant and that after her absence she wanted to come back again. These are the practical difficulties which will rear their heads, and whether the firm concerned is
large or small, the difficulties will still be there. The noble Lord was less than helpful when he replied, and I will therefore test the matter in the Lobby.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 123; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Ogmore, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Glasgow, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Amory, V.

Goschen, V.

Platt, L.

Balerno, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, E.

Gridley, L.

Reigate, L.

Barrington, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Haig, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Belstead, L.

Hankey, L.

Rochdale, V.

Berkeley, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rockley, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hawke, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brentford, V.

Hayter, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Byers, L.

Hereford, V.

Sandford, L.

Caccia, L.

Hives, L.

Sandys, L.

Camoys, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Seear, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Ironside, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cathcart, E.

Kemsley, V.

Sharples, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Killearn, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kimberley, E.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kintore, E.

Stamp, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Croft, L.

Long, V.

Cromartie, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

de Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Suffield, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Swansea, L.

Deramore, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swaythling, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Tenby, V.

Dundee, E.

Margadale, L.

Terrington, L.

Eccles, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tranmire, L.

Effingham, E.

Merrivale, L.

Vickers, B.

Elles, B.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Meston, L.

Wade, L.

Elton, L.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Falkland, V.

Mottistone, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Wise, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Young, B.

Fortescue, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Crook, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bacon, B.

Darwen, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beswick, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blyton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Brockway, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

McLeavy, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gaitskell, B.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Burntwood, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Maelor, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Mais, L.

Champion, L.

Hale, L.

Melchett, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Collison, L.

Hoy, L.

Pannell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Jacques, L.

Peddie, L.

Phillips, B.

Segal, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Summerskill, B.

Popplewell, L.

Shinwell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Raglan, L.

Slater, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Rhodes, L.

Snow, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Roberthall, L.

Stedman, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Rusholme, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Stow Hill, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.0 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: I spoke to Amendment No. 18 on Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 24, leave out ("both").— (Lord Jacques.)
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Calculation of maternity pay]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 30, line 29, after ("pay") insert ("or £72 whichever is the less").
The noble Lord said: So far as I know, this is a matter which has not been discussed in principle. I believe that there is a principle here which ought to be considered. In case I waste the time of the House, perhaps I should ask whether I am right in thinking that there is no limit on the amount of a week's pay on which maternity pay is calculated?
Lord JACQUES: There is none.
Lord DRUMALBYN: That being so, I believe that it is worth discussing this as a matter of principle. It appears to me to be the first time that benefits are to be provided by Statute without an upper limit in a case where they have not been earned by contributions. It is also noteworthy that there are already upper limits for redundancy pay and that, under the Bill, upper limits are proposed for compensation for unfair dismissal. Of course I freely admit that the case is clearly distinguishable from guaranteed payments where payments arise out of the action of the employer in laying off the employee, though there also a guaranteed payment is limited to £6 a day under Clause 25. It is also distinguishable from the right to a remuneration where an
818
employer suspends an employee from work on medical grounds because the suspension is due to and arises out of the employee's work. That is the reason why it is distinguishable: it arises out of the employee's work.
In both these cases it is the employer who pays, whereas under the provisions we are about to discuss it will be the State which ultimately pays, through the employer. It could be argued that, since the woman who receives maternity pay is a taxpayer and contributes more in taxes the higher her remuneration, she should be entitled to pay which is related to her remuneration which, I take it, is subject to taxation, though I was not quite clear about this following the closing proceedings on the Bill last night.
The fact remains that this would be a new principle in State benefits and, clearly, maternity pay will be a State benefit, in effect if not in name, if the Government Amendments are accepted. No doubt when the Government decided on these provisions for maternity pay they had in mind mostly the needs of women whose earnings did not exceed the national average for weekly earnings, but it is by no means exceptional for women to become pregnant in their thirties or even their forties when they are at the top of their earning capacity and are holding highly-paid jobs. I am aware that the employers of many such women give them leave on full pay for a generous period when they become pregnant. No doubt they will continue to do so, but there is no reason why a statutory liability to provide maternity pay should depart from the normal provisions relating to statutory benefits, whether the financial burden falls on the employer or on the State.
As I said, the case is clearly distinguishable from benefits in respect of disabilities arising in the course of employment. I do not believe that it very often happens that maternity pay arises in the course of employment. I am moving the Amendment with an open mind, but I

819
feel that the case for having no limit needs to be made out and I am therefore giving the Government this opportunity to make it out. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: At the outset I should say that maternity pay will be subject to tax. The issue is clearly two-sided. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has properly put one side of the case—that is, the case for limiting—and I shall put the other side. The Amendment provides that no person shall receive more than £72 a week in maternity pay. This means that any person who is earning more than £80 a week would not receive the full nine-tenths otherwise provided for. The maternity pay provisions are designed to ensure that any employee will continue to receive her normal income for the short period of six weeks after leaving work. The aim is to prevent a sharp drop in income during the latter stages of pregnancy in order to minimise the problems facing women at that time. Any reduction in income during the period of maternity pay would undermine the principle.
I believe that one effect of the Amendment which the noble Lord has overlooked is that many of the women who receive higher salaries are already covered by contract for their absence. Under the Bill as it stands and subject to the funding, the employer would be able to claim at least six weeks of the benefit from the Maternity Fund, but he would have to bear any addition to the six weeks which he had given by contract. However, if the Amendment were carried, he would have to bear the whole amount over the £80. In the case of the higher salaried woman, that could be quite substantial and the employer would get no relief in that respect from the Maternity Fund. So it is not in the interest of the employer who is under contract to those in the higher salary scales that this should be done.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I understand the point that has been made by the noble Lord, but I was not considering whose interest was served. Rather, it was the effect on State benefits and the general principles applying to them. The employer will not be losing in any way because the kind of employer to whom the noble Lord referred will not lose—all that will happen is that he will not
820
gain, so to speak. He will no thave the maternity pay for the six weeks rebated to him by the Secretary of State. He will not be losing anything on what is happening just now. That is not a consideration which it is really proper to take into account. The Government ought to think very carefully about where this could lead; perhaps they have already done so. I am quite certain that there will be different opinions within the Government on this matter. At any rate, I think it desirable to bring to the notice of the Committee what we are doing here, and I do not intend to vote against the clause on this account. But now we know exactly what we are doing. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
5.12 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 38 insert the following new clause:
Maternity Pay Fund
".—(1) There shall be established under the control and management of the Secretary of State a fund to be called the Maternity Pay Fund out of which payments shall be made in accordance with the following provisions of this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State shall prepare accounts of the Maternity Pay Fund in such form as the Treasury may direct and shall send them to the Comptroller and Auditor General not later than the end of the month of November following the end of the financial year to which the accounts relate; and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine and certify every such account and shall lay copies thereof, together with his report thereon, before Parliament.
(3) Any money in the Maternity Pay Fund may from time to time be paid over to the National Debt Commissioners and invested by them, in accordance with such directions as may be given by the Treasury, in any such manner as may be specified by an order of the Treasury for the time being in force under section 22(1) of the National Savings Bank Act 1971."
The noble Lord said: We now come to the Amendments which are concerned with funding. The Government have been under some pressure both inside and outside Parliament regarding the funding of maternity benefits; that is to say, to arrange that all employers should contribute to a fund out of which claims

821
could be made. Those who have advocated this have had different points in mind, but one of the most common has been the safeguarding of the small employer who employs a high proportion of women of child-bearing age. The position of the employee has also to be borne in mind. It may be that if we did not have funding there would be some difficulty, in certain circumstances, on the part of a woman of child-bearing age in getting employment; or it may be made more difficult for her to get employment, because of the fact that there was a maternity benefit which would fall directly upon the employer concerned.
In an exchange in the other place, the Opposition made it categorically clear that they were seeking to fund the cost of maternity, but they were not seeking to transfer any part of the cost from employer to employee; and we hope that that categorical statement will be accepted in this House. We are proposing changes bearing in mind that assurance which was given to us. When the Bill came to this House, we had two Amendments on this point, one from the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and another from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Those have been among the alternatives that have been considered. But we also had to bear in mind whether or not it would be constitutionally proper to introduce into this House Amendments which would involve taxation, and we have been assured that these Amendments dealing with finance can be introduced in this House, provided that they are accepted in due course in another place.
After considering all the various alternatives available, we have decided on a scheme which is as close as possible to the redundancy scheme, and the details for funding which are before the Committee have been modelled on the redundancy scheme. The scheme embraces the establishment of a maternity fund financed by contributions from all employers who pay secondary Class 1 contributions. The employers will pay the claims made by employees and will get a full refund, which will be known as a rebate. At the present time, it is expected that the cost by way of contributions would be 0.04 per cent. of wages. But we must bear in mind that the scheme is not to come into operation until April 1977,
822
when it will come into operation in relation to both contributions and claims at the same time.
We believe that between now and that date it is extremely likely that women's wages will increase as a percentage more than the general wage level will increase. Consequently, we believe that the contribution is likely to be 0·05 per cent. rather than 0·04 per cent., because of the change which we anticipate will take place between now and April 1977. But even at 0.05 per cent. that is only £1 in every £2,000 paid in wages. The contributions will have to cover, first, the £14·5 million which we anticipated would be the cost of the scheme. But in ascertaining the cost of the scheme, we ignored the benefits which were already being paid under contract by employers. They will continue as before to pay under their contract with the employee, and therefore that was not a new cast on industry, but it will be a cost upon the maternity pay fund. We estimate that at present employers are paying the amount of £2·5 million by way of maternity benefit under contract which in the future will have to be borne by the maternity pay fund, so that the total cost will be £17 million.
I come now to the question of administrative costs. The Department of Employment pays the Department of Health and Social Security for the contributions it collects on behalf of the Department of Employment, and it pays at a percentage rate. For example, the Department of Health is the collecting agent for the Redundancy Fund, and a percentage of that is retained by the Department of Health as a contribution towards the cost of the collections. That is assessed on a percentage basis. On that percentage basis, there would be an additional payment by the Department of Employment to the Department of Health of £300,000 as a contribution to the cost of collection.
Since there will be an increase only in the percentage that has to be deducted by employers, the amount of additional work involved will be negligible. The additional cost will be negligible—obviously something well below the £300,000. But let us put it at its worst and say an additional cost of £300,000, because we have to collect the money for the Fund. We have now to turn to the

823
question of the administrative costs arising out of the payments from the Fund. It is estimated that there will be 220,000 claims per year, and on the basis of the Ministry's experience in the handling of Redundancy Fund claims we estimate that it will cost £600,000 to receive, check and pay those claims.
So the total administrative costs of the fund would be, at a maximum, £900,000; that is, approximately 5 per cent. I would say that the real cost to the State is likely to be substantially less than that, because, although there will be a payment of £300,000 from one Ministry to the other in respect of the additional contributions, the actual cost is likely to be something much smaller than that; so it may well be that the real cost will be something between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent., rather than the 5 per cent.
That gives a brief outline of the scheme, but since I am dealing with Amendment No. 20 I should like to explain to the Committee what the subsections of this Amendment would do. Subsection (1) provides for the establishment of the Maternity Pay Fund, from which payments may be made to employers who have made maternity payments or to employees who are entitled to maternity pay and have not received it. Subsection (2) provides for the preparation and certification of the accounts of the Fund, and for copies to be laid before Parliament. Subsection (3) provides that money in the Fund may be paid over to the National Debt Commissioners for investment by them in accordance with directions by the Treasury. When we come to the other Amendments, Nos. 21 to 28, I will, if it is the wish of the Committee, explain the meaning of each subsection. At this stage I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Baroness ELLES: First, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his explanation of the new Maternity Pay Fund which the Government have been willing to set up; and certainly we on this side of the Committee should like to thank most deeply and sincerely the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for having originally introduced, when the Bill was in Committee, an Amendment in relation to the setting up of a Maternity Pay Fund, and also for the efforts that she has made, with the Government, to reach this
824
stage. Certainly, I think it is only the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who have worked so hard in the cause of women, who would have had the tenacity and perseverance to reach this stage, and I know that women who will be benefiting from this maternity allowance will be grateful to them.
So often have we heard from the other side of the Committee the phrase "to be in line with the EEC". It is a very convenient yardstick when we on this side want to differ from them; but in this case, of course, we are way behind any of the EEC countries with regard to any of the maternity legislation in this country, whether it is with regard to unfair dismissals, to the right to return to work, to the maternity allowance or to how much or to whom. In every aspect of maternity legislation we are miles behind, and even with this Bill we shall still be miles behind. I hope that this is a first step towards an improvement in the maternity provisions in this country.
First, I should like to ask one or two questions of the noble Lord on points which have not been made quite clear to me, particularly with regard to two points that he raised. The first is the question of cost. I understand that the cost of the scheme is to be £14·5 million and that the rate of contribution of an employer will be.04 per cent. of wages. Could the noble Lord quantify this in terms of how much per week this would mean an employer would pay per employee, so to speak? When he says, ".04 per cent. of wages", does that mean total wages or does it mean average wages? What does it mean? What does it mean in terms of pounds and pence per week to an employer by way of contribution additional to that which he is already paying? Secondly, I must ask the noble Lord why it is to take until April, 1977, to be put into force. It seems to me that this is the kind of legislation which should be hurried rather than delayed. We have seen several cases in this Bill of payments being made to employees which could equally well have been put off until April, 1977, but I see no reference to delay in the payment of such compensations and funds. I do not really know why it is to take such a long time to reach that stage, and I would ask the Government whether it is possible to advance this and to start

825
payment from this Fund in April, 1976, at least. If not, could they kindly give reasons why not?
Thirdly, I should like to comment on the cost of receiving, checking and making these payments. As I understood it—and I hope I was wrong—the cost is to be £600. Is that £600 per payment? Because it seems to me very much more than the woman will ever receive. It seems to me a curious imbalance if it is to cost the Department £600 and the woman is to receive £350. There seems to be something wrong either with the administration or with the amount of money that she is to get. I wonder whether I could have some clarification of that. Fourthly, I would ask the noble Lord to qualify his figure of 220,000 claims per year. I imagine—but perhaps he can correct my impression—that it is based on the number of maternity benefits which are now being paid under the National Insurance provisions. I understand that there are something like 220,000 cases of maternity benefit being paid each year. But the noble Lord will notice—and his is something which, of course, I would contest eventually, when we have an opportunity, when we are in Government, to produce some more up-to-date legislation on this matter—that it would not be necessary for a woman to have been in work for a period of at least two years. These 220,000 who are receiving maternity benefit have only to have made, I think, 26 contributions in order to qualify for maternity benefit. So I would suggest that possibly this figure of 220,000 is higher than the number which will be eligible for this maternity pay. Perhaps the noble Lord could comment on this.
Otherwise, in principle, of course, we on this side of the Committee are very much in favour of maternity allowances being paid. I think this is a very good contribution to a family policy which will enable a woman, or anyway help a woman, to stay at home to look after her child. It is, of course, not enough. It is not for a long enough period and it does not protect her sufficiently, but it goes some way towards answering the problems raised by the Child Poverty Action Group with regard to the one-parent family, the unmarried mother and also those with low wages and where the woman has been working and her wage
826
is lost to the family budget when she is pregnant. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could answer the points that I have raised, but I should again like to say from these Benches that we thank most sincerely the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and we hope that this is the beginning, at least, of better and further protection for women who have children.
5.30 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: May I make clear one or two of the points that have been raised. First, in regard to the cost, the cost will not be £14·5 million; that was the cost of the scheme. The maternity fund will be liable for more than the cost of the scheme; it will be liable for the payments which employers were already making voluntarily. Consequently, the cost will be £17 million. The contribution by the employer will be 0·05 per cent. of wages below the £69 limit, the same as any other secondary Class 1 contribution. It will not be on the total wages but on wages below the limit set at any point in time. At the present time, it is the £69 limit.
So far as the cost of dealing with claims is concerned, I think that I probably said £600 instead of £600,000. It is £600,000. The number of claims to be dealt with will be 220,000. So far as the date of commencement is concerned, until today everybody has been shouting from the other side of the Committee, "Delay this as much as you can! It is a cost upon industry, and we must not have too much cost on industry—especially at the present time." Consequently we gave undertakings all over the place that this scheme will not come into operation until 1977. Now, because it is going to be funded, everybody wants it in operation tomorrow. It is still going to be borne by the employers, just as much as it was borne by the employers before. The difference is that it is going to be spread over.
Furthermore, we cannot put the whole Bill into operation at once. If we are going to start this new fund time must be allowed in order to prepare for the work that has to be done, to prepare and train the staff that will be involved in dealing with the Fund. There will be 140 staff dealing just with claims; so you must have time in order to do the work involved. I think that it is not reasonable to say that it will be put into operation in April 1977. Those, I think, were

827
the points raised by the noble Baroness. I hope she is satisfied with the replies.
Baroness SEEAR: Since reference was made by the noble Lord to the Amendment that I put forward at Committee stage, I should like to say from these Benches that we consider the Government proposals a very great improvement on what was previously in the Bill. This will make a much more satisfactory plan than was previously proposed. Having said that, however, I do not think that I shall let the Minister get away with his complacency in bringing it into operation as late as 1977. To say that we ought to be consistent because we had argued that this was to be too heavy a cost on the employers is to miss the point. It was going to be a very heavy cost on a relatively small number of employers. One of the great improvements in the Government's proposal is that the cost is going to be more widely spread. Whereas a heavy additional charge in, for example, the clothing and textile industry might well have been the last straw to break the back of the already wilting camel, to have this relatively small cost spread across the whole of industry is another matter. That argument does not hold. Secondly, to say that the highly-skilled British civil servants will need from now until 1977 to learn how to pay out a maternity benefit is something I cannot swallow.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I have rarely heard a more ungracious speech than that from the noble Baroness on the Front Benches opposite. Of course we pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Vickers and Lady Seear, but I would remind the Party opposite that when I had the privilege of sitting on the Front Benches opposite I cannot recall one occasion during the passage of the Social Security Bill when they gave way on any Amendment at all. I am on record as saying this. Surely the Government have given way on this Amendment and the least that the noble Baroness could have done would have been graciously to accept it rather than taking it in this grudging way. This is a major step forward. It would have been nice if the Party opposite had introduced some of these far-reaching measures when they were in Office for three years and had the opportunity to do so.
ord DRUMALBYN: I think it is a little unfortunate that the noble Baroness should talk about the grudging attitude of my noble friend. Speaking as a woman, she naturally regretted that this kind of provision had not been introduced before, wanted to have it accelerated as much as possible and was sorry that it should take 18 months to introduce. I do not think that that is grudging. She welcomed the provision as much as we all do.
The real question was how it should be paid for. The provision was to be made anyway and the question was how to pay for it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said, this is an obviously better way of paying for it because it spreads the liability more widely and it also makes it clear to everybody concerned that this is not something that they depend on as a charity from the employers, being paid for not working, but something that they are entitled to by an Act of Parliament and which is paid for by the State. We agree with this and I welcome it. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will not feel that we are really grudging in our acceptance of this. We welcome it very much but I think my noble friend was entitled to say that she would have liked it to come into operation sooner. If I may say so, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, would have said the same if she had been on this side.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My noble friends on the Government Front Bench have realised by now that it does not matter what they do they will not give complete satisfaction. I do not think that we ought to be ungracious about the significant change which the Government have made in their proposals. They do not give me complete satisfaction, either: but this is a great improvement on what was in the Bill before. Some of us—the noble Baronesses, Lady Vickers and Lady Seear—pointed out how the proposals to put the burden of maternity payments on individual employers might have been highly discriminatory against the employment of women and especially among the small employers who rely mainly on the employment of women.
On the question of the effective date, I thought that in any case it was to be April 1977 because the change which the Government propose, to spread the cost of

829
the scheme widely over employers generally, did not of itself justify bringing the scheme into operation at an earlier date than that originally contemplated. I thought—I may have been mistaken— that the 1977 date was related to other changes which were to be made in family endowment under other Acts of Parliament; with regard to family allowances, for example. I thought that the idea was to bring these changes together at a date which would be a little removed from the immediate economic crisis through which we are now passing. We have to bear in mind that we are supposed to be going through the gravest economic crisis since the War. That is certainly true when one looks at the situation realistically, despite a chink of light which seems now to be showing and which is most welcome. For myself, on the general principle of spreading the cost over employers generally, it is still difficult to accept that this is a liability wholly for employers. Sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, other things related to employment, industrial injury and disease, are all paid for jointly by contributions under the social security scheme. Redundancy is in a class by itself and arises directly out of conditions of employment.
As I pointed out in an earlier debate, when a woman becomes pregnant it is not usually anything to do with the employer! It is not clear that it is a hazard of employment! it is usually a hazard of activities outside employment! I am not convinced that this is something that the employer should wholly pay for. The compensation for this period, and probably for a longer period, is fully justified. I agree with the noble Baroness who spoke from the Front Bench opposite: we are still behind the EEC. The six weeks period is probably not long enough. These improvements may come later, when we are in a more affluent position. I am not clear why the Opposition in another place insisted that no part of the cost of this scheme should fall upon the employee. It seems to me to be essentially a benefit of employment which comes within the general ambit of a social security scheme. I am not going to make a point of this now because the spread over employers generally really meets the main objection to the original proposals.
We ought not only to compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers and Lady
830
Seear (both of whom have played a significant part in bringing about this change), but congratulate the Government on introducing into your Lordships' House a significant change in the Bill. Little hope of being able to accomplish this improvement in the remaining stages of the Bill was expressed in another place. For once in a while I will offer my humble congratulations to my noble friends on the Front Bench.
Baroness VICKERS: May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, how grateful I am to him for putting down this Amendment, and also for the kindness which he and the Secretary of State for Employment showed me when I discussed this matter with them during the Recess. Following on what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, at column 139 of Hansard on 22nd September, I said that it was my intention that the sum should be paid by employees as well under the Class 1 and Class 2 contributions. The decision has been made now that it shall come on the employers. In fairness, when I went to the Ministry, having said at column 139 of Hansard on 22nd September that I could put down Amendments to the Social Security Act 1975, I took along the details which I gave to the noble Lord, but he came down in favour of this type of payment. I am not criticising him, but I should like to say I gave the choice as I originally said, and I kept my word in so doing.
I am glad that we are going to have the Fund. I have received letters saying that it will save local authorities a considerable amount of administrative work, and I have also received letters from private employers as well. I wish this Fund success. As time goes on and everything can be improved—we may be able to get some of the improvements suggested by my noble friend Lady Elles and catch up with the EEC. Finally, I should like to express my gratitude to the Government for what they have done.
Baroness ELLES: Just to put the record right, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, does not feel I was ungrateful to the Government. I think the noble Baroness will find on reading Hansard that I certainly welcomed this as a basis for family policy. Although I said, and I say again—and I have been supported by the noble Lord, Lord

831
Houghton of Sowerby—that it does not go far enough, I welcome it as a first step in order to protect cases of maternity. I know the noble Baroness will agree that this is one of the categories in our society which have so far not had their fair share of the cake. From these Benches we welcome this Maternity Pay Fund, and we hope it will provide greater support for women in the future.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 38 insert the following new clause:
Financing of Maternity Pay Fund
".—(1) In the Social Security Act 1975 for the words "appropriate allocation to the Redundancy Fund", wherever they occur, substitute the words "appropriate employment protection allocation".
(2) In section 1(1) of that Act (outline of contributory system), after the words "Redundancy Fund" insert the words "and the Maternity Pay Fund".
(3) In section 4(6)(b) of that Act (amount of secondary Class 1 contribution), for the words "8.5 per cent." substitute the words "8.55 per cent".
(4) In section 122(4) of that Act (power to alter contrbutions), after the words "the Redundancy Fund" insert the words "or the Maternity Pay Fund", and for the words "that Fund" substitute the words "either or both those Funds".
(5) In section 134 of that Act (destination of contributions etc.)—

(a) in subsection (4), for the words "0.2 per cent." substitute the words "0.25 per cent."; and

(b) in subsection (5)(b), for the words "that Fund" substitute the words "the Redundancy Fund and the Maternity Pay Fund in such shares as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury determine."

(6) In Schedule 20 to that Act (glossary of expressions), at the appropriate place in alphabetical order insert in the first column the entry "Appropriate employment protection allocation" and against it in the second column insert the entry "See section 134(4)"."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to make the necessary amendments to the Social Security Act 1975. For example, subsection (1) amends the Social Security Act 1975 by replacing references to the Redundancy Fund with references to employment protection allocations which would cover both the Redundancy
832
Fund and the Maternity Fund. The other subsections cover similar innocent matters and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I do not read out my full brief. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 38 insert the following new clause:
Advances out of National Loans Fund
".—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) below, the Treasury may from time to time advance out of the National Loans Fund to the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Maternity Pay Fund, such sums as the Secretary of State may request; and any sums advanced to the Secretary of State under this section shall be paid into that Fund.
(2) The aggregate amount outstanding by way of principal in respect of sums advanced to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above shall not at any time exceed £4 million, or such larger sum, not exceeding £10 million, as the Secretary of State may by order made with the consent of the Treasury determine.
(3) No order under subsection (2) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) Any sums advanced to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above shall be repaid by the Secretary of State out of the Maternity Pay Fund into the National Loans Fund in such manner and at such times, and with interest thereon at such rate, as the Treasury may direct."
The noble Lord said: This clause provides for loans to be made out of the National Loans Fund to the Maternity Pay Fund. The first subsection gives the Treasury power to advance money out of the National Loans Fund to be paid into the Maternity Pay Fund at the request of the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) limits the total amount of loan outstanding at any one time to £4 million. The subsection gives the Secretary of State power, by order, to increase the amount of the outstanding loan to not more than £10 million, with the consent of the Treasury. Subsection (3) provides that an order under subsection (2) must be made by the Affirmative Resolution procedure. Subsection (4) provides for repayment of any sums loaned out of the National Loans Fund.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 38 insert the following new clause:
Maternity pay rebate
". (1) subject to section (Reduction of rebate in certain cases) below and to any regulations made under this section, the Secretary of State shall pay out of the Maternity Pay Fund to every employer who makes a claim under this section and who being liable to pay, has paid, maternity pay to an employee, an amount equal to the full amount of maternity pay so paid (in this section and sections (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund), (Reduction of rebate in certain cases), (Supplementary provisions in relation to employer's insolvency) and (Complaint and appeals to industrial tribunal) below referred to as a "rebate").
(2) The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit, and if he is satisfied that it would be just and equitable to do so having regard to all the relevant circumstances, pay such a rebate to an employer who makes a claim under this section and who has paid maternity pay to an employee in circumstances in which, by reason of the time limit provided for in section 38(2) above, a complaint by the employee has been dismissed, or would not be entertained by an industrial tribunal.
(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above, a payment of contractual remuneration by an employer shall be treated as a payment of maternity pay to the extent that, by virtue of section 37(4) above,—

(a) it extinguishes the employer's liability to pay maternity pay; or

(b) in a case falling within subsection (2) above, it would extinguish that liability if a complaint by the employee were not time-barred as described in that subsection.

(4) The Secretary of State shall make provision by regulations as to the making of claims for rebates under this section and such regulations may in particular—

(a) require a claim to be made within such time limit as may be prescribed; and

(b) require a claim to be supported by such evidence as may be prescribed."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides for employers to receive a rebate from the Maternity Pay Fund to cover the cost of the payments of maternity pay that they have made to employees. I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to deal with the other subsections, but I will be happy to do so if the Committee so wishes. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: This Amendment says:
(2) The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit, …pay such a rebate to an employer who makes a claim under this section and who has paid maternity pay to an employee in circumstances in which, by reason of the time limit provided for in section 38(2) above, a complaint by the employee has been dismissed, or would not be entertained by an industrial tribunal.
The clause envisages the case where the employer has paid maternity pay and a complaint has been made by the employee—these two conditions—to an industrial tribunal and the claim has been dismissed as being time barred. I do not quite understand what these circumstances would be. The Secretary of State must pay the employer the amount of maternity pay which the employer has paid unless it appears that the employer has paid more than he ought to have paid. I take it that such a case might arise, but it would not arise under this clause. May I ask the noble Lord whether it is envisaged that, although a complaint is time barred, the employer may nevertheless pay the woman the additional amount she is claiming? On what grounds would she be claiming the additional amount?
If the employer pays what he is asked because he recognises that the claim is justified—for example, because he has made a mistake—why should the Secretary of State reimburse him only if he thinks fit? Surely the Secretary of State should reimburse the employer if the complaint is justified. I certainly do not want to see an employee deprived of her due, but would not employers be less willing to meet time-barred claims if they were uncertain of being reimbursed by the Secretary of State? I simply do not understand the circumstances that are envisaged in this subsection.
Lord JACQUES: Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State to give a rebate to an employer who has paid maternity pay to an employee whose claim to such pay is, or would be, time barred. The purpose here is to avoid hardship. It may have been the employee's fault that it is time barred. There may have been a mistake by the employer in paying it. We want to reach the position where every such case is looked at on its merits. In those circumstances, if an employer deliberately pays something which is time-barred then he does so at

835
his risk, and I think that is right. He can in turn apply to the Secretary of State for the rebate, and if the Secretary of State feels it is just and reasonable for a rebate to be given—for example, because a mistake has been made—then the rebate can be paid. Your Lordships will find when we come to a later Amendment that there are adequate provisions made for appeal. Even when an employer has paid something which is time barred and the Secretary of State has refused a rebate, there is still a right of appeal in such a case against the decision of the Secretary of State. The main purpose here is to prevent hardship and to cover the possibility of a genuine mistake.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I then ask the noble Lord what an employer should do in these circumstances where a complaint is time barred? Ought he then to approach the Secretary of State, put the case to him and get the agreement of the Secretary of State? If that were done, would the Secretary of State make the payment direct from the Maternity Pay Fund, or would the employer make the payment and be later rebated by the Maternity Pay Fund? The main point is: how can the employer make sure that he will be reimbursed? If he is told that he will not be reimbursed and then chooses to pay the money himself, that is fine, and obviously that is done at his own expense. But it seems to me hard on an employer if, where he thinks there is an open and shut case, even though time barred, or—let me put it this way—would be if it were not time barred, he makes the payment and then is not reimbursed by the Secretary of State simply because the Secretary of State takes a different view.
Lord JACQUES: Surely the noble Lord would agree that it would be slightly inconsistent to provide for all employers who pay claims which are time barred to have a rebate. If that were done, then it is no use having a time bar. There has to be some long-stop. At the same time, one has to prevent hardship, and so we are saying here that if an employer pays a claim which is time barred and the Secretary of State feels that it is just and reasonable to do so, he can rebate, even though the claim was time barred, whereas without this provision he could
836
not rebate and it would fall on the employer. Returning to the first question: what should the employer do? If I were an employer and had a claim which was time barred, I should certainly consult the Secretary of State, which means consulting the local office and getting their approval. I should not have any doubt about that.
Baroness ELLES: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether any consideration was given to the payment of this maternity pay being made by the Government rather than by the employer. It seems to me that the employer is paying his contribution each week to the Maternity Pay Fund and at the same time the employee in fact will have left the employer during the time of her confinement, and she will be eligible for six weeks' pay while she is at home. Are there any statutory provisions for the way in which this is to be paid or when it is to be paid?—for example, whether it is to be paid in advance, at the end or weekly? I suggest that perhaps it might be more satisfactory if it were to be paid with maternity benefit, so that the process of payment is done in one exercise. There may be great difficulty for some women who live some way away from their place of employment in getting to the workplace during the six weeks they are away. It would also be difficult for the employer, particularly if he were a small employer with a small cash flow, suddenly to have to pay a new employee a wage as well as paying the maternity allowance, when he has already made his contribution to the Maternity Pay Fund and would, of course, be eligible for rebate—and I am talking of cases where he is perfectly willing to pay this amount. I should therefore like to ask the noble Lord whether any consideration was given to the Government's paying out the maternity allowance to a woman, rather than this being paid by the employer, who then has to claim the rebate later.
Lord JACQUES: The noble Baroness raised two questions. I believe the first was whether any consideration had been given to a State contribution—have I understood that correctly?
Baroness ELLES: No. I asked whether any consideration had been given

837
to the implementation and the actual payment; that is, whether the actual payment would be paid through the DHSS or the Post Office, for example, to the woman who was eligible for the maternity allowance. I am not questioning the Fund itself, but only the method of payment to the woman, in order to avoid an employer, after having paid the allowance, having to claim a rebate from the Fund to which he has already contributed.
Lord JACQUES: In that case, there is only one question rather than two questions. That point was considered, but in the end we came down in favour of modelling the scheme on the Redundancy Fund. The machinery of that Fund is for the employer to pay and then to seek a rebate. We came to the conclusion that that was the best way of doing it.
5.59 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 38 insert the following new clause:
Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund
".—(1) Where an employee claims that her employer is liable to pay her maternity pay and—

(a) that she has taken all reasonable steps (other than proceedings to enforce a tribunal award) to recover payment from the employer; or

(b) that her employer is insolvent (as defined in section 60 below for the purposes of sections 55 to 59 below);

and that the whole or part of the maternity pay remains unpaid, the employee may apply to the Secretary of State under this section.
(2) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claim is well founded the Secretary of State shall pay the employee out of the Maternity Pay Fund the amount of the maternity pay which appears to the Secretary of State to be unpaid.
(3) Where the Secretary of State makes a payment under this section out of the Maternity Pay Fund—

(a) any rights and remedies of the employee in respect of the unpaid maternity pay or, if the Secretary of State has paid only part of it, in respect of that part, shall become rights and remedies of the Secretary of State; and

(b) any decision of an industrial tribunal requiring the employer to pay an amount to the employee in respect of maternity pay shall have the effect that the amount or, as the case may be, that part of it which the
838
Secretary of State has paid is to be paid to the Secretary of State;

and section (Maternity pay rebate) above shall apply as if the payment made by the Secretary of State to the employee had been made by the employer to the employee in respect of maternity pay, so that, except in a case where a rebate is withheld or reduced under section (Reduction of rebate in certain cases) below, the amount payable to the employer by the Secretary of State by way of rebate under section (Maternity pay rebate) above (as it applies by virtue of this subsection) is equal to the amount recoverable from the employer by the Secretary of State by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b) above."
The noble Lord said: This new clause sets out the circumstances in which employees can be paid direct from the Maternity Pay Fund. Subsection (1) provides that where an employee claims that her employer has not paid the maternity pay for which he is liable, and that she has taken all reasonable steps to recover payment from her employer, or where her employer is insolvent she may apply to the Secretary of State for payment. Subsection (2) provides that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claim is well founded the unpaid amount may be paid to the employee out of the Maternity Pay Fund. Subsection (3) provides that where the Secretary of State makes a direct payment from the Fund to an employee, he shall take over the rights and remedies of that employee in respect of the unpaid maternity pay. Ibeg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should like to direct the noble Lord's attention to the last three lines of the clause, because I do not understand the words,
"equal to the amount recoverable from the employer by the Secretary of State by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b) above".
If the employer is insolvent, what amounts are recoverable from him? In the second place, the woman has to take all reasonable steps to recover payment from the employer. If she cannot recover payment from the employer, why does she not go to the industrial tribunal? If in the Bill we provide a means of remedying a wrong, is it right at the same time to allow that means to be sidestepped and a direct approach to be made to the Secretary of State? I do not understand this.
It does not seem to me to be either necessary or desirable to provide this sidestepping, where a person who thinks she is entitled to payment and has taken

839
all steps to recover payment should go to the Secretary of State. Or does it mean that she can go to the Secretary of State after she has been to the tribunal? Is that one of the steps open to her? No, it does not mean that because it says, "other than proceedings". So this is a sidestepping of the procedure. I do not understand why this additional remedy should be provided. It seems to me it is going to mean a certain amount of chaos if it is followed in frequent cases.
Lord JACQUES: This provision is necessary to prevent hardship where there is a claim by an employee and it is not paid by the employer for any number of several reasons. For example, the employer may be insolvent. The employer, although not yet insolvent, may be on the way to insolvency and may be hiving off the kind of claim which the woman has made. In a scheme like this we have to cover all manner of circumstances. Consequently, that is what we are trying to do.
The position is, according to the note I have received, much as I have said. Where there is a need for money immediately because of hardship, then the Secretary of State would pay and take over the woman's rights. But of course, on the other hand, there would be cases where it would be reasonable that the claim should have gone to the tribunal before the Secretary of State intervened; for example, where there is no hardship. In that case the Secretary of State is in a position to decline and to insist that the matter goes to the tribunal before any decision is made. Put in another way, we have tried to make the position as flexible as possible so that we can deal with all manner of cases which are likely to arise.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Is it the intention that a woman should be able to go to the local office and say, "I am not being paid my maternity pay by my employer"—if he is still her employer—"or the person who previously employed me. Will you advance me the money?" Is this what she will say? Will she be able to do that?
I am not certain whether the noble Lord answered my noble friend's question as to whether these payments are expected
840
to be made weekly. After all, maternity pay, filling the gap, is in lieu of pay. Is it expected that the employer will make the payments weekly and, indeed, that the woman will report to the employer to get them in the ordinary way on pay day?
Lord JACQUES: Yes, it is expected that the payment would be made by the employer in exactly the same way as he pays wages. If wages are paid weekly then it would be paid weekly. If for any reason a woman feels that she has a claim against the employer for maternity pay and she has not been paid, she will be free to go to the local office of the Ministry and lodge her complaint which will then be dealt with. Because we have to provide for that we must have the kind of remedies in the ultimate that are put into the Bill.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I revert to my first observation? I do not understand the wording at the end of the clause. Nothing seems to me to be recoverable from the employer by the Secretary of State by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b).
Lord JACQUES: This is a technical matter on which I prefer to write to the noble Lord.
Baroness ELLES: I regret to delay the Committee further on this matter, but I wonder whether the noble Lord could give some kind of assurance that a woman who is making a claim will be assisted by some local office of the Department of Health and Social Security or some other Department. How is a woman to be able to prove, for instance, that her employer is insolvent under subsection (1)(b)? It seems to me that redundancy payments methods have been applied to cases which are not practical. A pregnant woman in the last stages of confinement is not likely to be able to find out how to prove that her employer, or ex-employer, was insolvent. These are practical points and they may not have struck the Minister as creating a difficulty. May we have an assurance that every help will be given to a woman who is entitled to maternity pay in order that she will receive it? I see considerable difficulties in the procedures which have been laid down in these Amendments.
Lord JACQUES: There will be two kinds of help. First, it is intended that there will be leaflets dealing with different aspects of the Bill. This will certainly be one of the aspects and it will help to explain some of the rather technical and intricate clauses we have been considering. Secondly, the Department will ensure proper provision for advice to be given in the local offices.
6.8 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
Reduction of rebate in certain cases
".—(1) The provisions of this section shall apply where the Secretary of State makes a payment to an employee in respect of unpaid maternity pay in a case falling within section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund) (1)(a) above and it appears to the Secretary of State that the employer's default in payment was without reasonable excuse.
(2) In such a case the Secretary of State may withhold any rebate to which the employer would otherwise be entitled under section (Maternity pay rebate) above, as applied by section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund) (3) above, or reduce the amount of any such rebate to such extent as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Where such a rebate is withheld or reduced and a sum is accordingly recovered by the Secretary of State in exercising a right or pursuing a remedy which is his by virtue of section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund) (3) above that sum shall be paid into the Maternity Pay Fund."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 25 deals with the reduction of rebate in certain circumstances by the Secretary of State. This new clause, which is on the same lines as the Redundancy Payments Act, empowers the Secretary of State to withhold or reduce a rebate in certain circumstances. Subsection (1) provides that the clause will apply where payment has been made directly from the Fund to an employee because the employer has failed to pay maternity pay without reasonable excuse. Subsection (2) provides that in these circumstances the Secretary of State may withhold or reduce the amount of the rebate. Subsection (3) provides that where a rebate is withheld or reduced and the Secretary of State then recovers any money from the employer, that money is to be paid into the Maternity Fund.
Although it is not part of this Amendment, I should like to say that there is proper provision for appeal by the employer against any decision of the Secretary of State with which he does not agree.
Lord DRUMALBYN: This is a highly technical Amendment, and I should like to ask the noble Lord to explain a little more exactly what is meant by it. Subsection (1) says that the provisions of the section shall apply where the Secretary of State makes a payment to an employee direct. If the employer has not made the payment and the Secretary of State has, obviously the Secretary of State is not going to reimburse the employer. The wording is a little difficult to understand and perhaps the noble Lord would clarify the matter for us if he explained what the rebate is a rebate of. Is it a rebate of the total amounts for that week in respect of maternity pay contributions? You cannot rebate something if you have not had a payment. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether it is intended merely that payments that otherwise would have been made to the employer if he had paid the amount are to be withheld—although it seems to be a very curious way to express this—or whether there is some element of penalty for unreasonably not having made the payment involved? I find this clause very difficult to understand.
Lord JACQUES: May I point out that by an earlier clause if the Secretary of State makes a direct payment he is then put in the position of the employee. He has the same rights that an employee has against the employer. Therefore, the Secretary of State can insist upon the employer paying him, since he has taken the place of the employee. The subsequent question which arises is whether or not there should be a rebate of the amount that has been paid by the employer. Then the Secretary of State can decide to withhold part of that rebate on the ground that the employer has acted unlawfully in not making the payment in a proper way and then claiming a rebate. We all know that a scheme which covers a large number of people, as this will do, will result in some silly asses and that there must be means of dealing with those silly asses. This is one of the means that we shall have of dealing with them. If

843
somebody in an objectionable way refuses to pay and consequently the Secretary of State is put to the trouble and inconvenience of making a payment direct, then he has the power to withhold part of the rebate, if need be. However, as noble Lords will see later, the employer has the right of appeal and the tribunal can direct that the rebate shall be made by the Secretary of State.
Lord DRUMALBYN: That the Secretary of State should pay what the employer ought to have paid, that the employer should then pay in the ordinary way to the Secretary of State what he ought to have paid to the woman and that the Secretary of State should then consider whether or not he will make the rebate seems to be a very curious way of settling the matter. In the case of a scheme of this kind, I am not quite certain that it is satisfactory to use the rebate as a form of penalty. It is only likely to give rise to ill will. The noble Lord says that there will be some silly asses but they will not necessarily be mischievous silly asses; they may have failed to make the payment for some totally different reason. I think that this is not a sensible way of dealing with the matter. If you want to do this kind of thing it is very much better to lay an obligation and ascribe a definite penalty than simply to say, "You can't have a rebate of the money which I have paid on your behalf". This does not seem to be sensible.
Lord JACQUES: This is a long stop and is modelled upon the redundancy scheme. I believe I am right in saying that until now the Secretary of State has not inflicted what the noble Lord has described as a penalty.
Baroness ELLES: With regard to subsection (1) of the new clause, may I ask the noble Lord what is meant by
"… it appears to the Secretary of State that the employer's default in payment was without reasonable excuse".
It is this loose wording that concerns us. The Secretary of State will have the power to withhold rebate from an employer and possibly make the employer pay quite a heavy penalty without, so far as I can see, any judicial process of any kind. It seems to be entirely based on the discretion of the Secretary of State. Therefore, we on
844
this side of the Chamber would like some kind of reassurance that this discretion will be used very sparingly when it comes to withholding the rebate. As my noble friend has said, we should also like to know a little more about the right of appeal of an employer against this, so-to-speak, Ministerial decision which is taken in private without any official process of any kind. That the Secretary of State should have such powers to impose penalties without any publicity, without any judicial administration and without, so far in the Bill, any rights of the employer to appeal or to question either as to fact or as to statements possibly made by the employee, is what concerns us. May we have some kind of assurance from the noble Lord on this matter?
Lord JACQUES: It is exactly the same wording as is used in the Redundancy Fund. It has worked very satisfactorily there, and there is no doubt that it will work very satisfactorily here. On the question of payments from a State fund and whether or not payment should be made from that fund, in the first place it is an administrative and not a judicial matter. That would apply, no matter which Party was in Office. In the first place, payment from a State fund is purely an administrative matter, but there must be judicial precautions. There must be ways of preventing any abuse of power. Consequently, there have to be proper appeal procedures. In a short while we shall come to the Amendment which deals with appeals.
Viscount MONCK: With his usual good humour and clarity, I wonder whether the noble Lord could explain something to me? Subsection (3) of the new clause speaks about the Secretary of State exercising a right or pursuing a remedy. I can understand "exercising a right", but the expression "pursuing a remedy" rather smacks of the medicinal. What does it mean? Is the noble Lord going to end the maternity, or what?
Lord JACQUES: A right would mean a right to claim from an employer the amount that is due. A remedy would mean a right to appeal to the industrial tribunal if the employer failed to pay what was due.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I quite understand that the Government have been

845
following the redundancy payments legislation in this case, but am I not right in thinking that the redundancy payment is made in the form of a lump sum, whereas here we are talking by definition of emergency payments on a weekly basis being made to the beneficiary. This seems to me to be a totally different thing. In this case perhaps the noble Lord has modelled himself a little too closely on the Redundancy Fund and should do some fresh thinking on this clause. Perhaps the noble Lord will look at it again to see whether it requires more closely adapting to the needs of the maternity payment.
If we may go back to the case where difficulties will arise, we are again up against this question of giving information as to pregnancy. As things now stand, when the local office asks, "Why have you not paid this amount? Have you a reasonable excuse?" the answer by the employer will be, "I do not think it is due, because I was not given information about the pregnancy." I think this needs to be looked at much more closely, because it then becomes a contentious matter which ought to go straight to the tribunal.
If the Secretary of State pays out money, I do not see why he should recover it from the employer until the tribunal has decided whether or not there is reasonable cause. Like my noble friend, I do not see any reason why the Secretary of State should first decide as an administrative matter whether or not it was a reasonable case. If there is a dispute of this kind, it should go to the tribunal and not be settled by the Secretary of State, with the right of subsequent appeal to the tribunal. That is the difference.
Lord JACQUES: We prefer to be in a position to deal with hardship, and we can deal with it if we have the kind of provision that we have now. But if we insist that the woman must go through all the processes and go to the industrial tribunal before she gets any payment at all, we shall be creating hardship at a time when it is least desirable to do so.
Lord DRUMALBYN: With all respect to the noble Lord, I never suggested that. I agree that the Secretary of State could make the payments; all I am concerned about is whether he should then recover them from the employer
846
before he knows whether they are recoverable. The employer may have been quite right not to make the payment. We object to the Secretary of State being put in the position of deciding that the employer was wrong not to make the payment and recovering the money from the employer. The amount can be paid by the Secretary of State if the local office thinks fit, but then it should go to the tribunal to decide whether the Secretary of State was right in making the payment, and per contra the employer in withholding it, or whether the employer was right and the Secretary of State was wrong.
Lord JACQUES: We appear to be back on the question of what the noble Lord has been describing as "penalty". As I said earlier, there must be some long-stop against people who—
Lord DRUMALBYN: That is not the point.
Lord JACQUES: Then what is the point?
Lord DRUMALBYN: The long-stop is that the tribunal will decide, if the employer has been wrong in not paying, that the employer should pay and at that point the Secretary of State may, if he likes, withhold rebate in some form or another.
Lord JACQUES: I will just intervene here in order to get this clear. Is the noble Lord now saying that it should go to the tribunal before any payment is made?
Lord DRUMALBYN: No. I said specifically that as I understand it, in a case like this, the person who thinks she is entitled to maternity pay, not having got it from the employer, will go to the local office. The local office can pay it, but the office does so at its own risk. The employer may have been quite right in withholding the payment. This clause says that the Secretary of State can then decide that the employer was not right and recover the payments from him, and then it will be for the employer to take the matter to the tribunal which will ultimately decide. The only residual question is this. If there is to be a penalty imposed, what is it to be imposed against? That is a matter which we must leave to the Government. All we are saying is

847
that it is not right that the Government should decide as an administrative act to fine the employer in this way, especially before they know whether or not it is right to do so.
Lord JACQUES: May I say that the Secretary of State cannot really claim unless it is well founded? The claimant must have taken all reasonable steps, including the industrial tribunal proceedings, before claiming upon the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State wants every other avenue to have been explored before any payment is made, but he wants also to be in a position to step in if there will be hardship.
Baroness ELLES: May I intervene and ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, whether he would consider this clause once again, in the light of our worry that an employer might be penalised by not receiving the rebate from the Secretary of State before his own case has been heard. This is what worries us. We should like the Secretary of State to be able to go to a tribunal and say, "We do not think the employer is entitled to his rebate for such-and-such a reason". The money will already have been paid to the woman and she does not enter into it. Her hardship is recognised and she will have been paid through the local office, or by whatever machinery is set up. But we are concerned that the employer will be penalised before he can put his case. It will be only after he has been penalised that he is able to appeal to a tribunal and we feel that this is an administrative abuse. I ask the noble Lord whether he could reconsider this clause, in the light of what has been said and perhaps we could have a word about it on Report, if he would be so good.
Lord JACQUES: I see the point made by the noble Baroness. I think she is saying that if the employer fails to pay the Secretary of State will pay, but let the tribunal decide whether the employer has then to pay the Secretary of State. We will certainly have a look at this to see just what, if anything, can be done.
Baroness ELLES: I thank the noble Lord very much.
6.27 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: This clause contains technical provisions to ensure that in the event of an employer becoming insolvent any unpaid maternity benefit is met from the Maternity Pay Fund and not from the Redundancy Fund. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
Supplementary provisions in relation to employer's insolvency.
".—(1) Where the Secretary of State makes a payment to an employee under section 55 below (which provides for payments out of the Redundancy Fund in respect of certain debts where an employer is insolvent) and that payment, in whole or in part, represents arrears of pay, then, in ascertaining for the purpose of section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund) above the amount of any unpaid maternity pay, section 37(4) above shall apply as if the arrears of pay in question had been duly paid by the employer to the employee in accordance with the contract of employment.
(2) Where the Secretary of State makes a payment to an employee out of the Maternity Pay Fund in respect of unpaid maternity pay in a case to which section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund) (1)(b) above applies, then, in ascertaining for the purpose of section 55 below the amount of any arrears of pay owing to the employee from his employer, section 37(4) above shall apply as if the maternity pay in question had been duly paid by the employer to the employee.
(3) Where the Secretary of State makes a payment to an employee out of the Redundancy Fund under section 55 below which, if it had been made by the employer to the employee, woud (apart from section (Reduction of rebate in certain cases) above) have attracted a rebate from the Maternity Pay Fund in accordance with Becton (Maternity pay rebate) above, then, the Secretary of State shall make a payment out of the Maternity Pay Fund into the Redundancy Fund of an amount corresponding to the amount of rebate which would have been so payable."—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
Complaint and appeals to industrial tribunal
".—(1) A person who has—

(a) made a claim for a rebate under section (Maternity pay rebate) above, in a case to which subsection (1) of that section applies; or

(b) applied for a payment under section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund) above,

849
may, subject to subsection (5) below, present a complaint to an industrial tribunal that—

(i) the Secretary of State has failed to make any such payment; or

(ii) any such payment made by the Secretary of State is less than the amount which should have been paid.

(2) Where an industrial tribunal finds that the Secretary of State ought to make any such payment or further payment, it shall make a declaration to that effect and shall also declare the amount of any such payment which it finds the Secretary of State ought to make.
(3) An employer who has made a claim for a rebate under section (Maternity pay rebate) above, in a case to which subsection (2) of that section applies, may, subject to subsection (5) below, appeal to an industrial tribunal on the ground that—

(a) the Secretary of State has refused to pay a rebate; or

(b) any rebate paid by the Secretary of State is less than the amount which should have been paid,

and if on any such appeal the tribunal is satisfied that it is just and equitable having regard to all the relevant circumstances that a rebate should be paid or, as the case may be, finds that a further payment by way of rebate should be made, the tribunal shall determine accordingly, and the Secretary of State shall comply with the determination.
(4) Where the Secretary of State withholds or reduces the amount of a rebate in pursuance of section (Reduction of rebate in certain cases) above, the employer may, subject to subsection (5) below, appeal to an industrial tribunal; and if on any such appeal the tribunal is satisfied—

(a) in a case where the rebate was withheld, that it should be paid in full, or should be reduced instead of being withheld; or

(b) in a case where the rebate was reduced, that it should not be reduced, or should be reduced by a smaller or larger proportion than that which the Secretary of State has applied,

the tribunal shall determine accordingly and the Secretary of State shall comply with the determination.
(5) An industrial tribunal shall not entertain a complaint or appeal under this section unless it is presented to the tribunal within the period of three months beginning with the date on which the relevant decision of the Secretary of State was communicated to the complainant or appellant or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint or appeal to be presented within the period of three months."
The noble Lord said: This is the clause in which the Opposition will be interested when they are out of Office. I do not know whether they will be so much interested when they are in Office. This deals with complaints to the industrial
850
tribunals against failure by the Secretary of State to make payments. Subsection (1) provides that an employer who has claimed rebate or an employee who has claimed a direct payment from the Maternity Pay Fund may complain to an industrial tribunal if the Secretary of State has failed to pay or has paid less than he should have done.
Subsection (2) provides that, if the tribunal finds that the complaint is justified, it shall make a declaration of the amount that the Secretary of State should pay. Subsection (3) provides for appeals where an employer has paid maternity, pay but was not technically liable to pay it. He may claim rebate and, if refused, may appeal to an industrial tribunal that the Secretary of State has refused payment or has underpaid. If the tribunal is satisfied that the payment of the rebate is just and equitable, it shall determine that payment should be made. Subsection (4) provides that an employer can appeal to a tribunal where a rebate has been reduced or withheld. The tribunal may determine that the rebate should be paid in full, or should be reduced, or instead of being withheld, reduced by a smaller amount. Subsection (5) requires complaints or appeals to be made within three months of the decision of the Secretary of State being communicated, and if this is not reasonably practicable, within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in the light of what has been said on Amendment No. 25—I am afraid at some length—whether he would consider the procedure of the new Amendment No. 27 in the light of any decision he may come to over Amendment No. 25? I would ask him to take both of these into account. I do not want to enter now into any long discussion, in view of the time.
Lord JACQUES: It would be consequential.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I say that I think this is a good clause, and a workable one. All I am saying is that it has been brought more into line with the clauses as a whole.
6.32 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 38 insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to information
".—(1) Where an application is made to the Secretary of State by an employee under section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund) above, the Secretary of State may require—

(a) the employer to provide him with such information as the Secretary of State may reasonably require for the purpose of determining whether the employee's application is well founded; and

(b) any person having the custody or control of any relevant records or other documents to produce for examination on behalf of the Secretary of State any such document in that person's custody or under his control which is of such a description as the Secretary of State may require.

(2) Any such requirement shall be made by a notice in writing given to the person on whom the requirement is imposed and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent notice so given.
(3) If a person refuses or wilfully neglects to furnish any information or produce any document which he has been required to furnish or produce by a notice under this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
(4) If any person in making a claim under section (Maternity pay rebate) above or an application under section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund) above or in purporting to comply with a requirement of a notice under this section knowingly or recklessly makes any false statement he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400."
The noble Lord said: This new clause provides a means by which the Secretary of State can verify the validity of an employee's claim for maternity pay. It gives him power to call for the sort of information likely to be required from the employer; that is, information as to the length of service of the employee, the date at which she finished work to start maternity absence, and the amount of her earnings. I beg to move.
Lord WIGODER: When the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has a moment of leisure, would he reconsider the precise wording of subsection (2) of this clause? This is a penal clause, as a result of which a person may be fined if he fails to comply with the notice. Subsection (2) states, very properly:
"Any such requirement shall be made by notice in writing"—
852
as obviously it should be—
"given to the person on whom the requirement is imposed …".
It then goes on to say that it
"may be varied or revoked by a subsequent notice so given."
Is it not arguable that the words "subsequent notice so given" will merely refer to the giving to the person on whom a requirement is imposed, and would not include the words "in writing"? For the avoidance of any possible doubt in the future, would it not be better that the last words should read, "by a subsequent notice in writing so given"?
Lord JACQUES: We will certainly look at that.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to consider whether there should be written into this new clause the criterion of reasonability. Subsection (1)(a) says:
"the employer to provide him with such information as the Secretary of State may reasonably require …".
Thereafter, nothing is said as to whether the information can be easily extracted or provided or whether it is going to be extremely expensive or, indeed, impossible. The only provision thereafter provided for, so to speak, is the requirement of notice, and then a person refuses or wilfully neglects to furnish any information. So we have the situation that before the notice is served the Secretary of State is determining that he requires the information and thereafter the unfortunate employer fetches up in the magistrates' court, and I assume is reduced to a plea of mitigation. Surely, in a Bill which talks the whole way through about conciliation, there ought to be some sort of stage between the serving of the notice and the magistrates' court.
Lord JACQUES: I may be wrong, but as I see this we are concerned with the checking of claims. Therefore, we are concerned with receiving information which will enable us to check the rebates before they are paid to employers. If the Secretary of State refuses to pay because he wants outrageous information from the employer, information which is completely irrelevant or unreasonable, then it will be the tribunal which will decide. The Secretary of State, by refusing to make the rebate, may be taken to the tribunal in

853
accordance with the last clause with which I dealt. The tribunal will decide whether or not the Secretary of State has acted reasonably, and whether he has been right in refusing to pay. There is a right of appeal against this.
I would suggest that the last clause dealing with the rights of appeal against actions by the Secretary of State amply covers the situation, even on the question of information, because inadequate information, or refusal to give information, will lead only to refusal to pay rebate, and therefore give the means to go to the tribunal.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: With great respect, I am not sure that the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is running with mine on this point. I can see no provision under Amendment No. 27 for an employer having the right or, indeed, the opportunity to go to a tribunal and argue the toss as to whether the information required by the Secretary of State is reasonable or anything else. Indeed, Clause 28 merely goes on to provide how the notice shall be served on the employer, and what happens if he refuses or wilfully neglects to furnish any information. The situation that I envisage is of a small, incompetent and probably impoverished employer who, in the eyes of the law, wilfully neglected to furnish the information, but who in fact probably is hardly in a position to supply it. I suggest there should be some sort of judicial body, or at any rate some kind of tribunal, put in between the employer and the Secretary of State.
Lord JACQUES: But there is a tribunal as between the employer and the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State asks for information—let us say, information that he really needs to check the claims for rebate—but the impoverished employer is not in a position to supply that information, then presumably the Secretary of State will refused pay. The impoverished employer then has a right for which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is asking, of going to the tribunal and insisting that payment shall be made. That automatically covers the question of information.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: With respect, I do not think that the noble Lord has taken my point. I think the best
854
thing would be to look at the Official Report and perhaps we can come back to the point again. There is a complete division between where the complaints and appeals process to do with a tribunal stops and the criminal law starts. That is what is worrying me. One may have an employer who is summoned before and convicted in a criminal court, and he is not in a position to argue the toss, to use my own inelegant phrase, because there is no right of appeal not as against withholding the information, but as to what the Secretary of State may require, and whether it is reasonable.
Lord JACQUES: There is provision in these new clauses that if the information called for is unreasonable, the employer can use that as a defence in the proceedings.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I wish I could see it.
Clause 39 [Right to return to work]:
Lord JACQUES: I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 10, leave out ("37, 38 and 40 to 43") and insert ("and 40 to 42").—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord JACQUES: I spoke to Amendment No. 30 on Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 10, leave out from ("of") to ("except") in line 11 and insert (", and Schedule 3 to, this Act").—(Lord Jacques.)
6.41 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 32, line 17, after ("redundancy") insert ("or the circumstances of the employer's business having required a permanent replacement to have been appointed on the employee's absence").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 31. In the previous debate on 22nd September I moved, at column 154, a similar Amendment to the one I am proposing now. I received a reply from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and I said at the time that I

855
was not very satisfied with it. Clause 36 and the following clauses make dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy unfair, provide for maternity pay for a limited period, and give the employee a right to be reinstated in her original job—this was my point on the previous Amendment—after her confinement. It has been suggested to me by more than one person that as the clause is at present drafted the total time off for confinement could be substantially in excess of 44 weeks. This could produce a major disruption; for example, a woman may have a number of children in quick succession. Local authorities are increasingly employing female labour, and so, I am glad to say, are private employers, in posts of responsibility—for example, assistant architects, solicitors and doctors. In such cases, I am told, it would not be practical to hold the employee's job vacant or to fill it by temporary staff. The Amendment I am suggesting would ensure that the employee would have gainful employment available to her on her return to work but would avoid the hardship and subsequent expenditure which would otherwise be incurred; the subsequent expenditure, of course, being in making somebody redundant if they had been there for 44 weeks. I understand that that would entitle them to redundancy pay.
In his reply to me, the noble Lord said that the definition of "job" in the clause already ensures that the clause would give effect to the intention behind my previous Amendment by stating that "job" means the nature of the work which the woman is employed to do. But this was not clear to me at the time and certainly is not clear to employers at the present time. I hope that to make things really clear, both to the employee and to the employer, the noble Lord will consider this Amendment, as it is extremely important that both sides should know exactly how they stand. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: May I first deal with the last point raised by the noble Baroness. It is, "the nature of the work"; for example, if the woman was a secretary then she could claim to go back to her job as a secretary, but not as secretary to Mr. X where she was
856
before. It is in the nature of the job that matters.
Baroness VICKERS: That, of course, does not answer my point at all, because a secretary can always get a job as a secretary. That is a very poor example, if the noble Lord does not mind my saying so. The woman who is an architect or a doctor is quite different, particularly an architect. She may be planning a very big building and it is not really possible for another woman to take that over—or probably a man in that case. I feel that this point has real substance. Employers are very worried about this because they consider that having to dismiss the other person is probably going to mean that they have to make redundancy payments, and also it would preclude their getting on with the work. If you take, for example, teachers, the same thing applies. A teacher might be able to take the same place again. On the other hand, it may be necessary, particularly for 44 weeks, to have a teacher in her place; she may be teaching a certain curriculum and it would not be easy to fill her place when the other teacher came back. I am thinking particularly of the professions. If the noble Lord cannot give an answer tonight, I hope he will consider it seriously, because it is causing great anxiety among employers.
Lord JACQUES: It is a mistake to think that there can be reinstatement without some frustration and difficulty to employers. It is unavoidable; you are bound to have it. I am not so sure that it will be more difficult in the professions. In point of fact, the professions already get much more liberal sick leave than would, say, manual workers; they already have contracts which allow them to come back for reinstatement after long periods of sickness, something which very often the manual worker does not enjoy. I am not at all happy with the proposition that it is going to be more serious in the professions than elsewhere.
However, let us consider the Amendment as it is. The effect of the Amendment is to provide that an employee would not be entitled to return to her old job if her employer has had to employ a permanent replacement in her absence, but could be offered an alternative job. But if there is no alternative job she has

857
no remedy, and I am advised that she would not even be able to claim redundancy pay because she is not redundant; she is simply replaced. The purpose of the return to work provisions in the Bill is to make it easier for a woman wishing to continue her job or career after childbirth. To make this possible the Bill has a basic provision giving the employee an absolute right to return to her original job except where the job no longer exists.
If the Amendment were accepted, it would create a substantial loophole in the Bill, because it would be comparatively easy for an employer to claim that it was essential for him to have a permanent replacement and that he had no suitable vacancy. In this situation the woman might be denied any right of reinstatement at all. In every case an employer will have had notice that the employee intends to return to work. Obviously there will be cases where it is difficult, but the Bill has gone a long way to simplify the reinstatement by the employer. He may postpone the employee's return for up to four weeks. He may offer her any alternative employment. This Amendment could in many cases effectively deny the employee her right to reinstatement, and is, therefore, not one the Government could accept.
Baroness SEEAR: While I do not rise to support this Amendment, I recognise that there is this real problem that the woman's right of reinstatement must be safeguarded. At the same time there is the very real problem here which has not been solved either by this Amendment or by the reply we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. With regard to the point about it being more difficult in the professions, I would say that in certain professions, and indeed in executive positions in industry, there are jobs in regard to which you are just not going to be able to get replacements. Nobody will come on the understanding that they will have to go out after a period of time. In jobs where there are a large number of employees of the same type and a high turnover you can very easily get someone to come on a temporary basis, or, if not on a temporary basis, it is very easy for the employer to move the person who has come as a temporary into what is, in effect, a permanent job. But no assistant architect, or a sales manager, or someone of this level, is going to take the job if
858
he is going to be put out again after six months. So while I do not support this Amendment, because we have to maintain the woman's right to reinstatement, I think we have here a big problem which has not been resolved.
6.49 p.m.
Lord WIGG: I am in a similar position to the noble Baroness. I am not at all convinced that the Amendment put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, does the job, but neither do I think the Government have faced up to the problem. It is no use arguing the case, as the Minister does, in terms of the woman coming back to a job and saying that in fact, if the Amendment was carried, she would not get anything at all. I want the Minister to be a little more imaginative and to look at industry as a whole, to look at industry in the constituency which I represented in the House of Commons for many years. There are large numbers of very small employers. You have the employer, the man who runs the business; he has a secretary and general staff doing many jobs, secretarial, a bit of bookkeeping, and so on and so forth.
If the Bill goes through unamended, employers are going to be very careful about employing women of child-bearing age. If the lady becomes pregnant and is going to have a child, he, poor man, has to carry on and find somebody else. The number of ladies who can do the kind of job he has in mind is limited. So he gets hold of somebody, and he can get them only if he promises them a permanent job. If he does that, then what is his position to be? The idea that I am putting forward is the one-man business. He will be ruined at the end of the day, because if he then sacks the person who is taken on as permanent and it has gone on long enough, she will have some claims against him. If he then takes the lady back and has met the expense of that, and one child is not sufficient, she then has a second child. I said on Second Reading that these provisions are classic examples of "people's bleeding hearts running away with their bloody heads". Of course, every civilised human being wants to do the best for a woman who is fulfilling her destiny in having a child, but this country has also to carry on its industry. Women in industry, particularly in the responsible, semi-executive

859
secretarial jobs, play a vital role, and are scarce human beings who are difficult to get hold of.
If the Minister rejects out of hand the noble Baroness's Amendment—and I quite agree, and perhaps he would, too, that it is not the last word in human wisdom—will the Minister be good enough kindly to recognise that there is a problem here which has to be tackled. It is no good leaving the words in the Bill unamended, because while he may therefore have discharged his responsibility to the Government he is leaving an enormous problem to grow like an ulcer to get worse and worse; and at the end of the day the victims will be the very women that he is seeking to help, because they will not be able to get a job comparable with the merits which their attributes demand. Therefore, we go full circle.
I am not suggesting that my own views here are the last word. I am out of touch. I have been in space for seven years. However, I know that when I was a Member of Parliament, I was in touch with industry in the West Midlands, the home of small industry, very often family affairs, and by putting this on the Statute Book unamended the Minister intellectually, if I may be paradoxical, would be cutting his own throat.
6.53 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: I would agree with the noble Lord that there is a problem. I think that we all recognise that. It is quite impossible to have reinstatement without some inconvenience to the employer. I disagree with him when he says that the problem will get worse and worse. All experience has shown that this kind of problem gets not worse and worse but easier and easier because of the experience which people have in handling the problem. In many of the professions arrangements are already made for relief. For example, in the medical profession there is a locum, and in the pharmacies there is a locum brought in because there has to be somebody there. Inevitably there is sickness and there has to be some replacement. Even among clerical staff we now have the agencies who supply the clerks, because in many cases it is important that the employer should have replacements for clerks due
860
to sickness, maternity, or anything else. Experience tends to contribute to the solution of these problems, and in time the problem will get better and not worse, and on that point I disagree with the noble Lord.
Lord WIGG: What is the good of the Minister coming along and arguing the case from the point of view of professions like the medical profession, the dentists, the lawyers, and the like? They are in a class apart. It is in their very nature that if a person cannot get a job in one town, town A, he gets it in town B, or in town C, transport being what it is. While there may be hardship, we are not dealing with that point. We are dealing with a girl who has a few "O" levels, has come into industry, is a skilled shorthand typist who understand the industry. She has the job, she is her boss's right-hand man, and becomes an integral part as much as his right hand. She is good looking, like the Minister; she marries—I cannot say like him she has a child, that would be asking too much—but in the fullness of time she has a child. Under the provisions of this Bill she goes away to have a baby, and he has to carry on his business. He has to find a replacement. The only way he can do it is to get somebody full-time. Then back comes the girl and out goes the full-time person. He has then to face up to the financial consequences. The people that he is looking for are not like the medical profession, where you can go to some agency and get a locum. He has to go looking around to find other ladies of comparable experience who understand his specialised business, and they do not exist. They are very rare specimens.
The Minister has blinkers on. He is not seeing the problem in the way that the noble Baroness below the gangway on the Liberal Benches sees it, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has expressed her views. I admit that I am completely out of date but at least I have the admission from the Minister that there is a problem. Why does not he go away between now and the stages in the other place and, having recognised that there is a problem, do something about it, and not turn the problem on its head and say, "After all, doctors and solicitors, can solve it, or the dentists can solve it"?

861
He admits there is a problem. It is his responsibility and that of the Government to solve the problem and not leave it.
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: I think that there is a problem, but the Amendment will not meet it. First, when a woman is in this condition the employer will have ample notice in which to make the necessary arrangements to replace her for the time being. The Bill itself is trying to ensure the reinstatement of a woman after pregnancy. The substitute will be taken on when the woman goes off, and she will be there for up to twenty-eight weeks after the birth of the child. The question therefore before us is which of the two women are you giving the guarantee to. The first woman who is pregnant might have been employed for eight years by this employer. The employer will know, if this is carried through, that he has to find someone to deputise for the time being for quite a long time. I know that this is difficult, but we are getting very near to saying that the Bill is wrong and you should not try to guarantee reinstatement for pregnancy. This is what we are getting near to. Reinstatement can be in any other position, and if this temporary woman needs accommodating then she should be the woman to have the temporary position or some other employment and make way for the other woman to be reinstated. I agree that it is difficult and that every case is different, but in the spirit of the Bill the Amendment ought to be rejected.
Lord SEGAL: I wonder whether we are not making somewhat heavy weather of this Amendment. I would ask the Minister whether it would not be a situation comparable to a woman having to give up work on account of pregnancy where a woman, who may be a key employee to a particular business, may be entitled to leave of absence to take a holiday for a period of four to six weeks? Six weeks should not necessarily be very much longer or shorter than the time of absence due to pregnancy. In those circumstances the employer would have to accept it as a regular thing to manage somehow to tide over the period of six weeks without having expert assistance from another employee whom he may have to engage temporarily. It is the experience of many small businesses that they are able where
862
a key worker is involved to tide over a period where pregnancy is concerned so that automatically people may be reinstated when they are fit to return to work.
Baroness ELLES: I must say from these Benches that we are not entirely in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, because, as several noble Lords have pointed out, this is not in the spirit of retaining the right of a woman to return to her former employment. Much has been said tonight about this poor pregnant woman and her rights to return, but I wonder whether noble Lords have considered the effect of Clause 29, covering suspension from work on medical grounds. I have not noticed here any grave concern for an employer who is deprived of his employee for six months on medical grounds; nobody has expressed concern about the fact that a man might be in difficulties because his employees are away on medical grounds. I really do not see that there is very much difference between that case and a woman being away, obviously for a different, and absolutely recognisable, reason—the fact that she is having a child; but perhaps the answer is easier in such a case because it is forecast able, whereas it is not forecast able in the case of a man being away on medical grounds. I realise that it may be difficult for employers. I realise also, as has happened in many other countries where they have the right to reinstatement, that the woman may in the end not exercise that option because she may prefer to remain at home and look after her child.
There are human factors in this matter which we have not touched on tonight—and at this hour I do not think noble Lords will want to go into them; but the Committee will be aware that there are many options open to a woman who stays at home with her child, for example doing alternative work or part-time work; she may have all sorts of other ways of earning a living and she may not in the end want to be reinstated. I feel rather with the noble Lord, Lord Segal, that we are perhaps making somewhat heavy weather with this provision and that, at any rate for the time being, we should be prepared to accept the clause as it stands.
Lord JACQUES: I want to repeat a point which I think I made on Second Reading. This is a problem which of

863
course we already have. Many employers pay sick pay to employees and guarantee them their place when they come back, and of course sickness is much more common than maternity and therefore is in some ways a much more formidable problem. I managed a business which had a staff of 5,000 and that firm gave sick pay up to 26 weeks and guaranteed replacement at the end of sickness. We had difficulties, but we overcame them, and the difficulties arising from this clause will be overcome in much the same way.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Is not the point here that the circumstances are so enormously varied that it is difficult to make a single rule without exception? I suggest that the Government look again at this provision with a view to seeing what those callings are where one must have a permanent replacement, and deal with those accordingly. There is not a very great deal of hardship in this case because this is something which a woman going into a profession would take into account. Professions have their advantages and disadvantages, but to make a single rule to cover everything is the trouble in this instance, and that is the problem on which my noble friend Lady Vickers has put her finger. There must be occasions when an employee is engaged to do a job and one cannot afford just to let that person go because that employee is fully acquainted with what is going on in that job. This is where the Government must consider the matter again. One comes up against problems of this kind which appear to be irreconcilable. They probably are irreconcilable in some cases, and the problem is to isolate those problems in those cases.
Baroness VICKERS: We have another stage through which the Bill has to pass and I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would be prepared to say that he is prepared to consider this matter again with the very able help of the people in his Department. They might be able to find a way out of the difficulty. If he will agree to do that I will withdraw the Amendment.
Lord JACQUES: I must be candid with the Committee. The Government know that there is a problem here but they feel that they have gone as far as they can to meet the employers' point of
864
view: for example, by the delay of four weeks on return, and so on. They do not know of any other way in which they could give relief without undermining the scheme.
Baroness VICKERS: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. I reserve my right to try to think of a way out of this difficulty before the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 32, line 34, leave out ("and Schedule 3 below") and insert ("below and Schedule 3 to this Act")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I will move at the same time Amendments Nos. 32 to 38 inclusive.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): We must abide by the Committee procedure; each clause must be moved into the Bill.
Lord JACQUES: I understand that Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are drafting Amendments and I spoke to them when moving Amendment No. 14.
Lord JACQUES: Amendment No. 33 is also a drafting Amendment and I spoke to it when moving Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 40, leave out ("and Schedule 3 below") and insert ("below and Schedule 3 to this Act")—(Lord Jacques.)
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Exercise of right to return.]:
Lord JACQUES: Amendment No. 34 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 15, leave out ("and Schedule 3 below") and insert ("below and Schedule 3 to this Act")—(Lord Jacques.)
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Failure to permit to return treated as dismissal.]:
Lord JACQUES: I spoke to Amendment No. 35 when moving Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—
("(a) the provisions of this Act and the 1974 Act relating to unfair dismissal; and") —(Lord Jacques.)
Lord JACQUES: I likewise spoke to Amendment No. 36 when speaking to Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 31, after ("3") insert ("to this Act")—(Lord Jacques.)
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Interpretation of ss.35 to 42]:
Lord JACQUES: I spoke to Amendment No. 37 when moving Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 6, leave out ("and this section") and insert (", this section and Schedule 3 to this Act")—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord JACQUES: I likewise spoke to Amendment No. 38 when moving Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 28, after ("40(1)") insert ("above")—(Lord Jacques.)
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Priority of certain debts on insolvency]:
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 45, leave out line 25.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, together with Amendment No. 48, is for the purpose of deleting references to maternity pay from the insolvency provisions of the Bill. This arises out of the funding of the Maternity Scheme.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 [Employee's rights on insolvency of employer]:
Lord JACQUES: This Amendment, No. 48, is consequential on Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 43, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 1 on page 46.—(Lord Jacques.)
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111 [Application to Crown]:
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 96, line 26, after ("21") insert ("(Provisions as to information)").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 73 are technical Amendments consequent on the new Maternity Fund clauses.
Lord JACQUES: Amendment No. 73 is consequential on Amendment No. 72. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 5, after ("sections") insert ("(Provisions as to information) (3) and (4)"). —(Lord Jacques.)
Clause 111, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113 [Financial provisions]:
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendments Nos. 74 to 78 en bloc:
Page 98, line 34, after ("include") insert—
("(a) any sums payable out of the National Loans Funds under section (Advances out of National Loans Fund) above;
(b)").
Page 98, line 35, leave out ("the National Loans") and insert ("that")
Page 98, line 38, after ("such") insert ("sums or")
Page 98, at end insert—
"(2A) There shall be paid out of the Maternity Pay Fund into the Consolidated Fund sums equal to the amount of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising his functions under the provisions of this Act relating to maternity pay."
Page 99, line 10, after ("into") insert ("the Maternity Pay Fund")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 74 to 78 inclusive are technical

867
Amendments consequent upon the introduction of the new Maternity Pay Fund clauses. I beg to move en bloc.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 117 [Northern Ireland]:
Lord JACQUES: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 84 and 85. These Amendments are consequential on the introduction of the new Maternity Pay Fund clauses.
Amendments moved—
Page 103, line 15, leave out from beginning to second ("the")
Page 103, line 17, after ("authority") insert—
"(a) where the arrangements relate to the provisions of this Act relating to maternity pay, to make any necessary financial adjustments between the Maternity Pay Fund and any fund established under Northern Irish legislation; and
(b) where the arrangements relate to the provisions of sections 55 to 59 above,"—(Lord Jacques.)
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

  ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES: WORKING GROUP
  ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES: WORKING GROUP
  MILK PRODUCTION
  MILK PRODUCTION
  LAW OF CONSPIRACY
  LAW OF CONSPIRACY