Sitting of 24 October 1975

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

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That the draft Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Pavitt.]
Ordered,
That the matter of Northern Region affairs be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  HARE COURSING BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  HARE COURSING BILL
    New Clause 3

      DURATION OF ACT
      'This Act shall continue in force until 31st July 1980 and shall then expire unless Parliament by affirmative resolutions of both Houses otherwise determines; and upon the expiration of this Act the law existing immediately prior to the coming into force of this Act shall again operate as though this Act had not been passed.'.—[Sir David Renton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      11.6 a.m.
      Sir David Renton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      May I take it that it would be convenient to the House, and that it has your approval, Mr. Speaker, for us to discuss at the same time new Clause 7—Application of section 1—and the following amendments:
      No. 1, in Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at beginning insert—
      'Subject to the provisions of section (Application of section 1) of this Act'.
      892
      No. 11, in Clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out from 'on' to end of line 15 and insert:
      'such day, not being earlier than six months from the date of the passing of this Act, as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed under this section for the coming into force of this Act in different areas.
      (4) The power of the Secretary of State to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
      No. 12, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'one month' and insert 'twelve months'.
      The three amendments stand together.
      Mr. Speaker: Yes.
      Sir David Renton: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
      The effect of new Clause 3 is plain from its terms. I should explain that new Clause 3, new Clause 7 and the three amendments are all based upon the assumption, whether a valid one or not, that the Bill will one day receive the Royal Assent. Of course, whether it does so depends upon economic and political circumstances which it would be out of order for me to invite the House to discuss. At any rate, for the purposes of these new clauses and amendments, that is the position.
      The effect of new Clause 3 would be to give the Act a clear run for five hare coursing seasons. Then, all that would be needed for it to continue in force indefinitely, if the House and another place considered that it should be continued indefinitely, would be the passing of an Affirmative Resolution in both Houses. I shall have more to say about new Clause 3 later.
      The effect of new Clause 7 would be to allow local option to operate on a district basis in much the same way as there is local option in Wales for the Sunday opening of pubs. It is not dissimilar from the way in which for many years we have had local option concerning Sunday cinemas.
      I find the suggestion of local option most attractive. I hope that the supporters and opponents of the Bill will also find it so, because it involves the exercise of local democracy, community politics and public participation which is just what we want. Let the people

      893
      decide for themselves in this controversial matter which is said to be socially divisive, not as between the upper and lower strata of society, but socially divisive in a vertical manner. Therefore, I believe that there is a great deal to commend new Clause 7. I shall say no more about the matter, but I understand that some of my hon. Friends will deploy the case for it more fully.
      I turn to the effects of Amendments Nos. 1, 11 and 12 which, as I have said, stand together. The first amendment is merely a paving one. These three amendments would postpone the coming into force of the Bill until six months after Royal Assent and then would enable the Home Secretary to appoint different days for the Bill to come into force in different areas. That introduces a measure of flexibility which I hope will commend itself to the House. However, again I shall leave my hon. Friends to deploy the case for that.
      I should like to revert to new Clause 3. In my view the supporters of the Bill are on the horns of a dilemma which I shall describe. Therefore, I hope that they will welcome the new clause. The dilemma seems to have been created for them by the introduction of the Bill against all really knowledgeable advice.
      On the one hand, the Bill is very controversial, unwanted by many thousands of country people of all classes, and makes into a crime a traditional sport which has been enjoyed since the advent of history. On the other hand, the Bill will not achieve its purpose of preventing cruelty, or alleged cruelty, and it will fail in its purpose, not because it will be unenforceable against small-scale coursing but because many hares which might have had a quick and certain death by being coursed will have a slow and lingering death in snares or after getting away from being shot at and wounded.
      That is the dilemma, and we want to lift the supporters of the Bill off the horns of it. New Clause 3 would do just that. Surely it would be wise to give this controversial Bill a trial run of five seasons to see whether the experiment of banning coursing and turning it into a crime was in every way justified and acceptable to the people. If it were justified and were found to be fully and reasonably enforceable, it could be extended indefinitely
      894
      merely by a resolution of both Houses, introduced perhaps by the Government. It might not be the same Government as we have today, and it would not be right for me to start speculating about that matter, but this is a fair approach. Five seasons is not a short time for a controversial experiment such as this.
      If the Bill were found to be justified and if it were wanted, all that would be needed would be an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. However, if public opinion, especially among country people, were that no good had come of the Bill, or if the police found that enforceability presented problems, the legislation could simply be allowed to become a sleeping dog—if that it not an inappropriate expression. If it became a sleeping dog, one would hope that it would be a permanently sleeping dog.
      Death has been described as
      "a dreamless sleep without an end."
      From it there is no awakening, and that is perhaps the best thing that could happen to the Bill.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that if the Government were to accept his proposal for a trial period of five years those who oppose the Bill would give it a Third Reading and we could all go home?
      Sir David Renton: It is not for me, a mere back bencher, to start making bargains of that sort with the Government. I am speaking for myself. I cannot speak for members of the Opposition Front Bench. I cannot speak for all my hon. Friends, although I know that many of them agree with me and, I hope, will vote with me on this proposal. It would be presumptuous, I think unseemly, for me to start entering into bargains with the Government.
      Mr. Stephen Hastings: Unreasonable.
      Sir David Renton: Yes, unreasonable. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) will not tempt me further along that course.
      I am not a coursing man, as I have previously told the House, but I have witnessed coursing events to see what coursing was like.
      Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), may I remind him that he has claimed to be speaking on behalf of many thousands of country people who are in favour of a form of hare coursing? I assure him that there are many thousands of country people who take the opposite view and are altogether against cruelty to animals.
      11.15 a.m.
      Sir David Renton: We should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to enable me, and I am sure other hon. Members, to see this controversy in its proper perspective. This is a matter of our own evidence and experience. All that I can say is that in my constituency, where, I suppose, there is as much coursing as there is anywhere else in England, the vast majority of country people seem to want me to oppose the Bill. I am opposing it partly for that reason and partly because I do not consider that it is necessary or right to have a self-defeating Bill which turns a traditional sport into a crime.
      The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) has suggested that I claim to be representing thousands of country people. I claim to represent only what I believe to be the feelings of most of my country-living constituents and, for what they are worth, my own views. I did not say, and I have not claimed, that I represent thousands of country people in other constituencies who are opposed to the Bill, indifferent towards it or in favour of it.
      Mr. Hastings: The intervention of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) sought to show that many country people were against cruelty. Nobody here is in favour of cruelty, but is it not part of the case against the Bill that its passing would increase cruelty?
      Sir David Renton: Yes. My hon. Friend's intervention brings me back to what I was about to say. I do not doubt the sincerity of hon. Members who wish to turn coursing into a crime, although some of them have never seen it. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has made a close study of it and has seen a number of courses, perhaps even more than I have. I have seen coursing only three times, but I have seen
      896
      rabbits and hares which have been snared. I have found them in snares, in which they have been suffering for many hours, perhaps days, and have despatched them. I have seen hares shot and I have hunted with harriers, and I must confess that coursing provides a quicker and more certain death or, as an alternative, a free escape.
      Therefore, in this vale of tears in which we and all our fellow creatures live, I do not believe that from the point of view of cruelty the case for the Bill has been established. That is why I think that after a five-season trial of the experiment it would be right for Parliament to take stock of the situation if the Bill were to receive the Royal Assent. I trust that none of the supporters of the Bill will be totally self-confident that they are right about this matter, but the vote on the new clause will give them a chance to prove their modesty and to prove that there is room for two honest views about this matter, however mistaken either of them may be. In a matter so uncertain and controversial as this, it would be much better for Parliament to take stock of the matter after five years, as was done with the Capital Punishment Act 1967. A five-year look was taken at it and then there was an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
      The case is perfectly plain and there is no need for me to elaborate upon it further.
      Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I have not intervened in debates on the subject of hare coursing hitherto. It is not a matter that I know much about and I have only once witnessed a coursing meeting. I was moved to postpone other engagements for today—indeed, also for tonight and tomorrow—because I was concerned that we should find ourselves dealing with this subject at this particular time, when there are so many more important things to deal with.
      Mr. Arnold Shaw: Does the hon. Member consider this Bill to be as important as, for example, the Community Land Bill? If so, would that be the reason for his presence here today and the fact that he was not present for the discussion we had the other night on the Community Land Bill?
      Mr. Ridley: I was here during the discussion on the Community Land Bill,

      897
      and I think the hon. Gentleman will find that I registered votes throughout that day, based upon a firm conviction that that was also a waste of time of the House. The Bills which we should be discussing are not being discussed, and the actions which should be taken are not being taken by the Government. That is what is so frustrating for people such as myself who are deeply worried by the economic crisis and find ourselves day after day presented with irrelevancies. Today is no exception.
      There comes to mind the miraculous escape yesterday of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser). That was a matter in which cruelty was involved. It is to me obnoxious that we should be discussing hare coursing when there are really serious crimes being perpetrated against human beings around the world.
      One of the worst vices of the British character is that the British are much more concerned about animals than about people. This is the only country which has an RSPCA, and probably does not need one, whereas the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children does not bear the affix Royal. It would seem that we get our priorities wrong, and this day is no exception.
      I do not think that hare coursing is more cruel than some other things, or cruel at all. It is not in any degree different from many other ways in which animals are killed, both by men and by other animals. What I dislike is the singling out of this particular prejudice in the minds of the supporters of the Bill, and their attempt to impose their will on the rest of the citizenry. This is why I am attracted to new Clause 7, which at least seeks to allow local option.
      One of the blind spots of the Labour Party is that it is so convinced in its prejudices that it believes it to be right to impose them upon others without consulting them or asking them. The whole history of this Government has been to single out something which in their opinion is wrong and to force their opinion, or ram it, down the throats of the rest of us.
      I recognise that there are strong opinions both ways on this matter of hare coursing. I agree with the country view that the traditional sports are sports
      898
      which are no business of those who do not engage in them, and are sports which should be allowed to continue. I cannot believe that the country people would be right if they were to impose on people who live in towns some sort of control over pets and the keeping of pets. There is very much cruelty involved in keeping pets. In 99 per cent. of cases they are properly kept but there are those who do not feed or look after pets properly. There are those who put birds in cages which are too small. There are many ways in which cats, dogs, birds, mice, tortoises, horses, and other animals can be treated cruelly. It would be possible to draw up regulations and legislation making it wrong to do so. I am not in favour of so doing.
      My prejudices in this matter may not be shared widely, and what I think is cruel may not be thought to be cruel by other people. It is this lack of humility in imposing one's own selective judgment on others that is offensive in this Bill.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: If I gather correctly what the hon. Gentleman is saying, it is that those who are particularly interested in something should have the right to decide about it. Would he be in favour of bringing back bear baiting, bareknuckle fighting, cock fighting, and so on? These seem to me to be similar, and that is the direction in which his argument appears to be going? Would he clear up this point?
      Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member has given me my point, when he says that "these seem to me" things which should be stopped.
      Throughout the whole of South America cock fighting is still practised, and people there do not think that it is cruel. I have no doubt that there are countries in which bear baiting is still practised. There are countries in which all sorts of things are still done. I am not an expert. It is not right to assume that this particular prejudice is shared by the whole House.
      Mr. Spriggs: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman quite honestly and sincerely believes that there is no cruelty whatever in hare coursing and that it is the best way of bringing a hare's life to an end. Would he try to appreciate the

      899
      suffering of an animal whose one important indication of pain and cruelty is its screaming when one, two or more dogs grab it and start to tear it to pieces while it is alive? Is not that a sign of pain and suffering?
      Mr. Ridley: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can be a very great naturalist. I remember as a young boy wandering about in the countryside and once witnessing a rabbit being attacked by a stoat. The stoat ran round the rabbit several times and the rabbit was petrified and paralysed. It sat shivering with fear. After a while it started to scream. The stoat continued to dance round it, delighting in the screams, until finally it delivered the mercy killing bite in the back of the rabbit's neck, putting the rabbit out of its pain. This is an example of one animal being cruel to another.
      It is nature's way that animals are cruel to each other. Every animal lives on another animal, except for those which are vegetarians. All animals which are insectivores or carnivorous are involved in some degree of cruelty to other animals. It is no exception when dogs are chasing hares. It is the natural function of the dog to chase the hare. Who am I to intervene in what nature has provided in this matter?
      In my opinion, hare coursing is less cruel—if cruel it is—than many other sports, because man himself is not involved. It is animal being cruel to animal. It is not possible, in my view, to weigh up whether it is more cruel to shoot a hare or to snare or course it or just to let a fox take a hare in the wild. It is impossible, in my opinion, to make any value judgment about it at all. If I were forced to make a value judgment it would be that where man is involved in doing a cruel act it is more likely that man himself will discipline himself than where it is one animal being cruel to another.
      11.30 a.m.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I apologise for intervening but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is the only point that I shall be making today because hon. Members opposite will be doing enough speaking anyway. The difference between the stoat taking and killing a rabbit or a dog chasing and
      900
      killing a hare or fox in the normal way and hare coursing is that in the latter human beings intervene and it is done for their enjoyment. There is a moral point here which I see the hon. Member does not understand. It is precisely on that point that there is a difference between hare coursing and the normal course of events of animal against animal.
      Mr. Marcus Kimball: What about fishing?
      Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member's intervention illustrates the difficulty that we now have with this new suggestion prefixed by the word "moral", which I always treat with the greatest respect. The moment that someone accuses another of morality or immorality I suspect that we are getting near a piece of shaky ground, and this is no exception. If it is immoral for man to get pleasure from something involving the death and suffering of animals, one has to start along the whole road of fishing and shooting and all the other activities in which man husbands-animals with a view to sport, pleasure or even food.
      Let me rehearse with the hon. Member, whose researches into this subject I am sure are very great, what happens on our farms and in our slaughterhouses. There, in order that the hon. Member may have his steak, there are the unpleasant processes of castration of young animals when they are born and the disgusting sights which take place in slaughterhouses. All of these are for the enjoyment of the hon. Member when he eats his roast beef. As he sticks his fork into his roast beef and licks his chops as he sets about the Yorkshire pudding, is he taking enjoyment in the cruel and unpleasant processes which have gone into producing that roast beef? Where are his morals? If he accuses the coursers of immorality, he should quickly turn vegetarian, because the chain is there throughout nature, that one animal eats another.
      The hon. Member is no exception in this unless he is a vegetarian. I remember that he once missed a vital debate on Report stage and came in just as the winding up speeches were concluding because, he said, he had had to have his supper. He was sorry that he had not been here. The debate—it will come to

      901
      me in a moment—was on worker participation.
      Mr. Heffer indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friends had to carry the day on that occasion in explaining the rights and wrongs—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Member come back to the new clause?
      Mr. Ridley: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I merely say that the hon. Member may not be so moral if he remains a carnivore.
      I will get back to the new clause, particularly new Clause 7. We do not have the right to impose our own fine judgment as to which way of killing hares or other animals is right and which is wrong. The least that we can do, seeing that we are now on Report and not on Second Reading, is give people the option in this matter on a local basis. I have no doubt that the country districts would vote, if given the opportunity, to continue this traditional sport. I am certain that the two district councils which I have the honour to represent, if a proper balance were arranged, would both produce a positive vote to continue coursing.
      I cannot see why those who live in London or Liverpool or the other big cities should be allowed to impose on my constituents the decision whether they may continue with what they think to be right.
      Sir David Renton: To avoid misunderstanding, it would help if my hon. Friend could make it plain that it is the local government electors for the area and not the councillors themselves who would exercise this local option.
      Mr. Ridley: That is very helpful. I should not be quite so certain if it were the councillors. But if it were the electors themselves, we could with confidence predict that the country districts would wish to retain coursing. That seems at the heart of this debate. Is it right that those who may not have full knowledge of these sports, those who do not have to live in country districts with the problems perhaps of too many hares—I know that the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) is over-run with hares, which can do great damage—should deprive country people
      902
      of the right to decide this matter for themselves?
      To put the case the other way, suppose that this were predominantly a rural country with a 75–25 per cent. rural industrial split, as many countries are, would it be right for the country people to decide to ban football because of the damage to trains and stadiums and the chaos which is caused in big cities by riots at football matches? No, emphatically no. I would advise the country people not to ban football because it is none of their business. So it would be wrong for those who live in towns to seek to impose their will on those who live in the countryside.
      I therefore commend to the House the new clause which gives the local people the right to decide. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, if we want to consult people more, to allow them to shape their own pleasures and pastimes rather than having them imposed from the centre, if we are to avoid value judgments which may seem right to hon. Members whose prejudices may be offended by such things as hare coursing, surely we must give them the right to decide.
      I should prefer the Bill to be withdrawn, but if the Government are not prepared to withdraw it, my hon. Friends should continue to urge strongly the case for local elections in this matter.
      I mean no discourtesy to my right hon. and learned Friend when I say that I prefer new Clause 7 to new Clause 3. The latter is one that I would certainly support but I would like it better if, during the five-year period, coursing could continue and we then decided whether to stop it. I think he has the onus the wrong way around. But if he would let me place the weight of my argument on the local option clause, I would be satisfied.
      Mr. James Lamond: I will speak for only a few minutes and only because I was enraged by the speech to which we have just listened. I have always regarded the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) as a mild-mannered man, but at the end he revealed the real reason for his speech when he said that he would prefer the Bill to be withdrawn. I think that he has been trying to defeat the

      903
      Bill by means of two new clauses and has tried, rather inadequately in my opinion, to justify them.
      For example, he told us at some length that it is wrong to impose our will on people who do not agree with the Bill. But every Bill that we consider imposes something against the will of some section of the community, as any MP must realise from his mail. I suppose that a large number of burglars, for example, object to our passing laws to make burglary an offence. But we do not hesitate on that account to pass them, because we believe that what we are doing—and what we owe the electorate is our judgment—is for the benefit of the community as a whole. That is why I support the Bill.
      To give a catalogue of other sports which the hon. Gentleman imagines are even more-cruel is no reason for withdrawing the Bill or modifying it. If there are other sports which the hon. Gentle man regards as cruel, he ought to do something about them and not come here and attack those who have had the good sense to tackle the problem which they see as a first priority. If the hon. Gentleman has other priorities, let him do something about it. If he can demonstrate to me that those other sports are as cruel as or more-cruel than hare coursing, he will have my full support for his Bill.
      As for the suggestion that there should be a five-year period during which this matter should be tested, this again is a strategy by which the Opposition hope that the Bill will be defeated in the end, because they know that if there is no record for five years of cruelty in this sport they are likely to get support if they pursue the argument that the sport should be permitted again.
      Those who object to the Bill should vote against it and demonstrate to those who have made representations that they wholeheartedly support the petitions and letters that have been sent in. There is nothing to be ashamed of in doing that. There is no need to try to conceal things by means of specious amendments and new clauses. Let hon. Members make quite plain where they stand on the Bill. They should do that so that they reflect the feelings of all those who, they claim, have written to them. I shall vote in the way which I think is best and which I
      904
      am confident will reflect the feelings of many people in my constituency.
      Mr. Hastings: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond). I think he said he was satisfied that the Bill was in the interests of the community. If that is his conviction, I cannot see why he should oppose new Clause 7, which would give people in all districts affected—indeed, throughout the country—an opportunity to express their view. If that is the interest that he is putting forward, his place today is with us in the Lobby should we divided on the new clause.
      There are many other aspects to this complicated matter. We who had the good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee are aware of them but they have not been aired all that widely in the debate today. It is not solely the welfare of the community as a whole or the benefit of the community as a whole with which we are concerned. We are also concerned with the benefit of the hare population.
      That brings me to the main purpose, as I conceive it, behind the amendments and new clauses refered to so eloquently by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). They all have one aspect in common, although they ask for slightly different things, and that is delay of some kind. As my right hon. and learned Friend put it, the Bill should be stopped and should go to sleep after five years. The purport of the amendments is to have the delay first so that a further inquiry can be carried out.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I prefer the latter rather than the former approach to this problem—that is to say, we have manifestly not had the time to conduct anything like as deep an inquiry as we should into the welfare of this species, into its way of life and into the possible effects of this legislation. Therefore, by some method or another—and I am not particularly choosey as to how it should be done—delay should be imposed, whatever the merits of the Bill in the long run, so that a further inquiry can be undertaken.
      11.45 a.m.
      During the last century we had a most unfortunate experience of legislation over

      905
      ground game—that is to say, hares and rabbits. The effect of that legislation turned out to be near disastrous. That Act was the result of the disastrous harvest of 1879, as any student of these matters will know, when the farmers, who were in an appalling condition, protested that amongst the causes for that disaster were the activities of rabbits and hares. That Act, which was known also as the rabbits and hares Act, was brought in with catastrophic results for the hare population in a short time.
      To emphasise what happened, I do not think I can do better than quote from the able and deep study of aspects of this matter by Stable and Stuttard, although they admit that not enough is known about the hare population. I quote from their quotation of what the Rev. H. A. Macpherson said shortly after that Act came into force:
      "A great change has taken place in the number of hares that are annually bred in England. Go where you may, one meets almost universally with the same lament, that where you would formerly have seen 20 or 30 hares feeding in the fields on a summer evening you will now hardly see a single animal."
      As his colleague Richardson said at the same time,
      "In the South of England big and important coursing meetings have ceased to exist, except at Newmarket in Essex. All those magnificent downlands in Berkshire, Wiltshire and Dorsetshire furnish possibly one course for every score that used to be run less than a quarter of a century ago. At Ashdown, Amesbury and a few other places in the same district"—
      I hope that hon. Members who represent these places have the good fortune to be with us this morning—
      "where the conditions were one simply perfect, occasional small and unimportant meetings are held; but the fact is that the disappearance of the hares has caused the greyhounds to disappear in like manner, and in disgust."
      There is no need to emphasise it any further. That was the result of legislating for hares without sufficient knowledge of the hare's life, the dangers that it faces or the likely results of what was being done, and we are engaged in doing much the same thing now.
      An inquiry is necessary, and I should like to suggest the form that the inquiry should take. We had inadequate time to deal with this in Committee. We did our
      906
      best but there were a limited number of sittings and we never got round in a serious way to the matter of conservation. We are discussing the welfare of animals, yet nobody has bothered to look in any depth into conservation of the hare. What dangers does it face? It faces many threats as it is. Very little work has been done into diseases affecting hares. A lot more is known about this in France and the Scandinavian countries, but we were not able to go there to find out more about it.
      Mr. David James: My hon. Friend has talked about diseases affecting hares. Does he agree that far more cruelty was perpetrated by the introduction of myxomatosis than will ever be perpetrated by hare coursing?
      Mr. Hastings: My hon. Friend has taken the words out of my mouth. I was coming to deal with myxomatosis, but there are other and important diseases affecting the hare. In particular, there is one that has been identified as a form of tuberculosis which is contracted from the parasite known as strongylus commutatus which attacks both forms of hare in this country, both lepidus timidus and the common brown hare. Once myxomatosis was let loose in this country we would have expected the hare populalation to increase rapidly because the competition of the rabbit would have been removed. For a short time in certain areas that was the case.
      This points indisputably to the fact that this creature faces a great many other threats about which we are relatively ignorant, one of which is crop spraying. The weedkiller Paraquat, which is manufactured by ICI, is used fairly widely in down land districts. I do not know what it contains. It has been established and admitted by the manufactureres that hares have been found dead, sometimes in large numbers, as a result of its use. I understand that ICI is conducting an analysis or inquiry to determine the extent of the danger. It is a pity that it did not do so earlier.
      Anyone who is familiar with the countryside in East Anglia will know of the enormous increase in traffic to the East Coast. If one drives in that direction, at any time of the year one will find the road literally littered with dead hares and

      907
      leverets. This trend must be on the increase.
      However, without doubt the greatest danger is that of shooting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury pointed out, in many respects the hare is a menace to farming. That cannot be denied. Not every farmer is guilty of shooting, because many farmers prefer to see hares in the wild as well as having economic efficiency on the farm. However, there are those who do not view the matter that way, who have no use for animals and who regard them with suspicion even if their detrimental activities cannot be proved. Shooting takes place on a large scale and has recently increased. It will continue to do so whenever there is no counter force at work. This is an old story.
      In no sense am I exaggerating. I commend to the House "The Leaping Hare" by George Ewart Evans and David Thomson. It says:
      "A Norfolk farmer of the old school estimated that"
      —this is as recent as the 1950s—
      "in the farming year one hare would cost him two sacks of corn. Consequently, if there were forty hares on the farm his yield would suffer by eighty combs—a loss that no farmer could afford to stand. He said that hares work during the day; and they eat the 'knots' out of the wheat-stems thus preventing the plants coming to maturity. Moreover, they work out in the middle of the field, unlike the rabbits which keep to the edge where damage is immediately visible. But as the hare likes to live in the open where it can use its speed to best advantage, the farmer will suddenly come across huge, ruined patches in the centre of his corn, perhaps the first indication he has that hares have been at work."
      The book continues:
      "In recent years, too, hares in East Anglia have done extensive damage to sugar-beet crops. This happened particularly in the 1954 season when hares were unusually plentiful. At that time West Suffolk farmers estimated that in some areas hares had reduced the crop of sugar-beet by as much as two tons an acre."
      As long as that continues, the shooting of hares will continue to increase and the species will be in danger and will continue to be in danger.
      The evidence taken by Stable and Stuttard shows that five years ago in some places in Lincolnshire 150 to 200 hares were shot in an afternoon, but now only 20 to 30 are shot. It is indisputable that
      908
      if co-operation exists between coursing clubs and farmers, the hare population keeps steady. Hare coursing conserves. The evidence adduced by Stable and Stuttard and by other studies in this matter proves it. The species may have to face dangers in other respects, but there is no doubt whatever that, regardless of its other merits or demerits, hare coursing tends to conserve.
      The cases I have adduced so far have been confined to the brown hare. I would admit, if I were to give a complete picture of the state of affairs, that the blue hare, the mountain hare or Arctic hare—lepidus timidus—is in a different category because it does not compete with man in the food which it pursues and eats—lichen, cotton grass and coarse grasses on the mountain. The numbers of these hares are very large and they do not live below about 1,000 ft. It could not be said that the menaces that the Arctic hare faces are the same as those which the brown hare faces, except that more predators menace it on the mountain than at sea level. For instance, among the predators there are the eagle, the buzzard and the hen harrier, which take a large number of hares.
      If we conducted a full and deep inquiry of the kind I have in mind, a case could be made for coursing the lepidus timidus instead of the brown hare, which those who have been to coursing meetings know is the normal quarry. I hope we shall be told today whether that is a feasible proposition. Deer hounds have been used, but I do not want to go too deeply into that matter in the context of these amendments. Perhaps later during the debate there may be a chance to do so.
      Threats to this species are different for the mountain hare than for the brown hare. Without question, shooting not only by farmers but by syndicates will continue and is the biggest menace. Hon. Members who have experience of these matters—I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) agreeing—will know that there is a vast difference between syndicates and syndicates. There are those which for the best reasons enjoy sport in the open air but which, perhaps because they are town bred and have an urban background, do not have sufficient

      909
      knowledge of the balance of life in game in the countryside always to judge effectively whether they are overshooting. This is an additional reason for shooting probably being the greatest menace.
      There is no doubt that the hare population is menaced. Equally there is no doubt that we do not know by what or how. When coursing takes place regularly and is properly regulated there is no doubt that it tends to conserve, as do all field sports. We would need a separate inquiry from the one I have in mind to settle this matter once and for all and to demonstrate to those who, for their misfortunes, have always lived in towns or in an urban atmosphere that field sports conserve and that in the long run the disappearance of such sports would mean the end of all the game involved.
      Sir David Renton: And foxes too.
      Mr. Hastings: And foxes too, as has happened elsewhere. I have been to France and seen what has happened there.
      However, be that as it may, all that we can ask for in this context is a full inquiry into the hare species itself. Coursing tends to conserve. Its abolition will add to the threat to the hare population, not reduce it. Thus, anyone who supports the Bill as it stands and is not prepared to accept these amendments must face that inevitable consequence of his action, if it should succeed.
      Since the effect of the Bill, therefore, is adverse to hares in the various ways I have described, some moratorium or delay should be imposed. The proposals now before us give the answer, and I earnestly hope that the House will support them.
      12 noon.
      Mr. Spriggs: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) has just asserted that hare coursing tends to conserve. I have never in my life heard such an extraordinary interpretation put on the term "conservation". The hon. Gentleman tells us that his object is to conserve, and I gather that his reason for supporting hare coursing is that the hare is responsible for taking many tons of farmers' produce every year. Thus, in supporting his idea of conservation, the hon. Member supports the loss of food which the farmers produce. That must follow from the meaning which he applies to conservation
      910
      when he speaks of conserving the life of the hare.
      The most important matter before us, in my view, is new Clause 7. We ought strongly to oppose any effort to take from Parliament the responsibility of enacting measures on behalf of animals which cannot speak for themselves. We can only take evidence from what we see and hear at hare coursing. I have myself witnessed hare coursing, and I am arguing the case today only after having gathered firsthand evidence for myself.
      It is not possible to deal with this matter on a national basis, applying to it the strength of law, without putting a Bill on the statute book to protect hares—the same applies to other animals—against cruelty. We cannot leave it to certain local authorities which, as we well know from what has been said this morning, would favour the retention of hare coursing.
      Sir David Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to draw his attention to the fact that new Clause 7 places power not in the hands of local authorities but in the hands of the local government electors?
      Mr. Spriggs: Yes, it would be the responsibility of local authorities to hold a local poll. I acknowledge what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn to my attention, and I correct what I said. The electors in a local poll would decide. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That interpretation is quite correct, but the point here is that we must deal with this matter on a national, not a local, basis.
      The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) described the antics of the stoat when seeking its natural food, when encircling the rabbit or hare, after which the creature becomes virtually paralysed and is an easy victim to the stoat. We can all understand that story. It is a story of natural life in the countryside. But that is entirely different from the hare coursing with which we are here dealing, in which man makes a special job of training dogs to chase and catch hares. I remind the House that it is when the hare has been caught by the dogs that we see and hear some of the most-cruel aspects of hare coursing.
      I wish that those who have had nothing to do with hare coursing, the general

      911
      public who have not seen it for themselves, would take the opportunity to do so. Invitations are openly sent out by those responsible for organising hare coursing, and it has been and remains for the moment quite possible for people to go and see for themselves what happens.
      Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech against hare coursing. With great respect, I must remind him that the Bill is directed to hare coursing matches. He will not abolish hare coursing under the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. Spriggs: I understand the intention of the Bill. If it is enacted, it will on a national legal basis remove hare coursing matches. It will remove organised hare coursing. Most of us realise that there is hardly a law in this country which is not broken at some time by someone. I do not imagine that the Minister or his Department believes that it will be possible to eradicate hare coursing completely, even on an organised basis. We know the history of cock fighting. In some parts of the world cock fighting still goes on, though outside the law, because there are small groups of people who are still prepared to organise it illegally. I could discuss other forms of law breaking too, but I know that the Chair would not allow me to stray from the Hare Coursing Bill.
      Mr. Michael Mates: Will the hon. Gentleman go back to what he said a minute ago, with which I very much agreed? He wishes that the vast majority of people who know nothing about hare coursing would take the opportunity to go and see it for themselves. If the hon. Gentleman will support the amendments now before us, people will be able to do just that, because an opportunity for delay and for consideration will be imposed.
      Mr. Spriggs: What the hon. Gentleman calls for has been possible already for a long time. It has been possible for people to look into the matter for themselves, and these clauses and amendments are not necessary for that purpose. For 10 or 20 years this matter has been brought to public notice, publicity has been given to it by the media at various times and most of those interested to do
      912
      so have been able to witness hare coursing at first hand.
      I ask the House carefully to consider the difference between what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury told us about the natural habit of the stoat and the true character of this man-controlled so-called sport. Hare coursing on an organised basis is done for the entertainment of a comparatively small minority, and I deeply regret that there are still those who enjoy watching dogs chase a hare until it is caught and who stand watching with relish the tearing to pieces of a living animal.
      Mr. David James: What justification does the hon. Member have for saying that people watch hare coursing with relish? The relish for a fisherman lies not in knocking a fish on the head with a priest, but in pitching a fly one foot in front of its nose. It is not the kill but the art which is interesting.
      Mr. Spriggs: We find the same group of people attending and supporting organised hare coursing meets. It is obvious that they have enjoyed watching previous matches. That is why I appeal with all my passion and moral feeling for the House to reject the new clauses and amendments.
      Mr. Carol Mather: Before winding up on this group of amendments, I must say that we deplore the absence of the Home Secretary today. If the Government believe this is an important enough Bill to announce in advance that the rule will be suspended at four o'clock, the Home Secretary should be here, at least for the start of our proceedings. If he and the Home Office are right behind the Bill, he ought to be here.
      Sir David Renton: Does not my hon. Friend also find it rather surprising that there is only one person on the Treasury Bench—the Under-Secretary, who has always been diligent in her attendance—and only three hon. Members of the Government back benches for what has been presented as a necessary Government Bill?
      Mr. Mather: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He is absolutely right. The House has been put to considerable inconvenience over this Bill. A lot of time and effort have been spent on it at a time when the

      913
      House had better things to consider than a Bill of this nature.
      Mr. Spriggs: The hon. Member should realise that there are many meetings taking place this morning. In particular, there is one to which the Home Secretary is having to give special attention. It is wrong for any back bencher to criticise the Home Secretary when he has such important matters to deal with.
      Mr. Mather: The hon. Member might be more specific about those meetings. He seems to speak with some authority. It is certainly the right and privilege of any Privy Councillor on the Opposition benches to criticise the Home Secretary.
      This is perhaps the most important group of clauses and amendments that we shall be discussing today. We have put them down because we believe that this is bad legislation founded on misconceptions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was right when he said that the prejudice involved in the Bill could be boiled down to the fact that those who wished to ram this process down the throats of other people are showing a lack of humility. This is bad because the Home Office is repudiating its own inquiry set up several years ago and it is bad from the point of view of democracy because it victimises a tiny minority.
      12.15 p.m.
      The object of the new clauses and amendments is to give time for second thoughts. If the Government are determined to get this Bill, despite our efforts to bring wiser counsel to prevail, it is our job to see that the legislation is soundly based. There have been too many examples of poor legislation passed in a great hurry and repented at leisure. We have only to look at the abortion law to see an example of that. There have been numerous Private Members' Bills trying to change it and Select Committees have been set up and have absorbed and wasted the time of the House. The onus is very much on the Opposition to see that legislation is soundly based.
      I freely admit that this is a subject which stirs up emotions, and we have already heard several emotional speeches. But emotion is not a good parliamentary draftsman, and legislation must be based not on emotion but on common sense.
      914
      The purpose of the new clauses and amendments is not simply to delay, though that may appear to be so at a casual reading. Each has an element of delay in it, but we want to allow time for the Government to set up an inquiry Amendment No. 11, which provides for the Bill to come into operation at different times in different areas, has precedents in legislation, the main one being the 1968 Town and Country Planning Act. A similar provision has also been allowed for in the Community Land Bill.
      Under Amendment No. 11 the Home Secretary could draw up a code of rules and send his inspectors to each coursing area where meetings were held. If the coursing club did not abide by the strict and stringent code, which could improve provision for muzzling, the Home Secretary could bring the Act into operation by order. Amendment No. 11 is really consequential on new Clause 7, which would allow for polls to take place in each local government district. My hon. Friends have already explained very well the merits of this proposal, which would be good for local democracy.
      We hear a lot about local democracy these days. The place in which this arrangement is allowed from time to time is in Wales in connection with licensing. I have a recent Press cutting about a referendum which we all forget. It states:
      "The Welsh seven-year itch is upon us again. How many dry areas will vote for Sunday drinking? How many wet areas will go dry? How many people care?"
      People care about these local government polls. This particular poll causes great excitement in Wales. That is local democracy. I therefore advise the Under-Secretary to look with some care and interest at the amendment.
      Mr. Kimball: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House that, from a coursing point of view anyhow, we should prefer new Clause 7 with its safeguards to the new clause moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton)?
      Mr. Mather: I tend to agree with my hon. Friend that new Clause 7 is a more satisfactory method and should be regarded as the main clause of the group.
      Apart from local government polls, there are other examples. There was the Northern Ireland border poll which

      915
      dealt with a somewhat different situation, but it was nevertheless an adventure into local democracy. It set a precedent. Although there were those of us who argued that it was not good for Parliament and parliamentary democracy to have such polls, I willingly concede that the Conservative Government created the border poll in Northern Ireland. Although I believe that the EEC referendum should not have taken place and that Parliament should have decided, it nevertheless set another precedent.
      I understand from the advice of the learned Clerks that if we had put down our amendments and new clauses before the EEC referendum became law they would automatically have been ruled out of order, but the referendum breached the old principle and, therefore, we may discuss them today.
      We have to consider whether polls have come to stay. Local polls would be very popular on other issues such as capital punishment, nationalisation and even fluoridation, on which people feel passionately.
      Mr. Hastings: Since my hon. Friend has raised the point, may I ask whether it would not be very much better if this House were today discussing capital punishment for terrorists rather than this Bill?
      Mr. Mather: I had intended to touch on that aspect during Third Reading, because after what we have been through this week we should bear in mind why we are in this place. We have to decide which are the real issues of the day, whether they are terrorism, the economic crisis, unemployment or anything else. In a way it is somewhat embarrassing for us to have to be here on a Friday discussing matters of this sort when we should be discussing really important issues.
      Although I do not favour the new clause moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire as strongly as the other proposals, it would, if accepted, nevertheless give time for an inquiry to be held. The origins of the Bill are to be found in the Stable Report and in the late Mr. Chuter Ede's statement. Page 101 of my reference book shows why the original proposal to bring in a hare
      916
      coursing Bill was rejected by the Labour Government of the day. It was because
      "(i) the Bill was based on the false premise that its provisions would lessen cruelty;
      (ii) the suppression of hunting and coursing, without effective and efficient alternatives would lead to much less satisfactory activities."
      It was as a result of that that the Government agreed to set up the inquiry by Mr. Scott Henderson.
      In her Second Reading speech the Under-Secretary made great play about the Scott Henderson Report and its so-called obscurities and what she called its classical text. Of course, it is a classical text because it is the only authentic inquiry ever held on field sports and coursing. The most surprising comment on the report was the hon. Lady's remark that it was too neutral. I have never heard of a Government setting up a committee of inquiry and then complaining because it was too impartial or too neutral.
      If I had time, I should like to go on to explain how unbiased that report is and how unbiased were its authors. It was published 24 years ago. I do not think that there has been an advance in the standards of morality, if this is a moral question, in those 24 years. In fact, several backward steps have been taken and, therefore, one cannot argue that-times, and certainly not moral attitudes, have changed. If the report is so obscure and worthless, why not bring it up to date and provide something on which to base sound legislation. That is part of the object of our amendments.
      There was the Stable and Stuttard Report to which the Under-Secretary objects. If she objects to it, why not ensure that there is a soundly-based, up-to-date report to take its place? I guess that she does not want an objective report because it would not serve her purpose or the purpose of those who are behind the Bill. That is why we shall divide on this group of new clauses and amendments.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): For the convenience of the House, I shall deal with each new clause and amendment in turn.
      New Clause 3 would have the effect of restricting the prohibition of hare coursing to five years in the first instance,

      917
      after which time it would become legal again unless Parliament decided otherwise. I listened to the brief explanation given by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), but it did not include an answer to the Government's objection to hare coursing: that it is a cruel sport. If it is cruel in 1975 it will be cruel in 1980, and the same argument will apply at any later date.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) is passionately concerned to ensure conservation of the hare. He exhibits a very worthy motive. If it is so uppermost in his mind, I suggest that we find some other method of promoting its conservation and do not rely on a brutal and cowardly sport.
      12.30 p.m.
      The suggestion of an inquiry into the hare population sounds academically interesting. I am surprised that it has not been done before by those interested in the welfare of the hare. There is nothing to stop us from carrying out an inquiry into the hare population, but meanwhile we do not wish the sport of hare coursing to be continued.
      I turn to new Clause 7 and Amendment No. 1, which seek to introduce a system of local options. Hare coursing would continue to be legal unless in any particular area not less than 500 electors requisitioned a poll on the question and the poll was decided in favour of banning hare coursing. The new clause, as I understand it, would also give the Secretary of State power to make regulations by statutory instrument for the purpose of arranging such a poll.
      The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) seemed to feel that the whole issue of hare coursing was a matter of town versus country, and that in some way London would vote against hare coursing and that some remote part of Britain where it was carried out would vote in favour. I believe that there is no such clear delineation of opinion.
      There are a few precedents for local polls, but the circumstances to which they relate are wholly different from the subject of the Bill. The best known example is probably Sunday licensing in Wales, where every seven years the population has an opportunity of deciding whether
      918
      alcohol should be sold on that day. That provision recognises the deeply-held conscientious and religious objections of a substantial minority of the community in Wales. It has been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire that the similar precedent of Sunday cinema opening has been brought to an end. However, those precedents are of no relevance to the creation of what is a new criminal offence, the justification for which has nothing to do with legal circumstances.
      The justification for the Bill is that hare coursing is a barbaric sport wherever and whenever it occurs. It is the Government's view that hare coursing is cruel per se and should be made illegal irrespective of whether in particular areas some people take a different view. It would be indefensible to have a situation in which, because of local feeling, hare coursing was permitted to take place in some areas but not in others.
      Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are similar in intention and effect. Amendment No. 11 would provide for the Act to be brought into effect by order not earlier than six months after its enactment. The order could provide for its coming into operation to date from different days in different areas.
      The substitution of a six-month minimum period before the Act may be brought into effect in place of the one month in the Bill as drafted would have the effect of allowing the coursing season which has just begun, including the Waterloo Cup, to be completed. It may be argued that this would allow the coursing fraternity to make arrangements for the disposal of staff and dogs. This argument has been raised before. It has been pointed out that the coursing world has had notice of the Government's intention for a considerable time and cannot possibly claim to have been taken unawares.
      There is no justification for bringing the Act into effect by order as there is no administrative machinery to be set up or preparatory work to be completed to enable the Act to function effectively. The Bill provides for its provisions to come into force one month after its passage. That is the normal interval for criminal law. It would also be most unusual for a commencement order procedure to be made subject, as the amendment would

      919
      make this one, to further parliamentary proceedings.
      Similarly, there is no reason for the Act to be brought into effect at different times for different areas. If coursing is unacceptable in Yorkshire, it is unacceptable in Essex. The Government's objection to coursing is that it is cruel wherever it is practised.
      Amendment No. 12 provides for the Act to come into force 12 months after its enactment instead of after one month. The same general arguments apply.
      For those reasons, I invite the House to oppose all the new clauses and amendments before it.
      Sir David Renton: I seek leave to withdraw new Clause 3. It seems that the weight of support that we have heard is in favour of new Clause 7, the local option clause, which I also commended to the House. So that we may make progress, I suggest that we do not take time on a Division on new Clause 3. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave withdrawn.

    New Clause 7

      APPLICATION OF SECTION 1
      '().—(1) Section 1 of this Act shall not apply in any local government area unless the
      local government electors for that area have determined by a majority, on a poll held in accordance with the provisions of this section and regulations made thereunder, that it should apply.
      (2) There shall be no poll under this section for any local government area unless it is requisitioned by not less than five hundred local government electors for the area and a requisition shall not be effective unless it is made in accordance with regulations made under this section.
      (3)(a) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purposes of this section and without prejudice to the foregoing generality such regulations may prescribe the form and manner in which requisitions may be made and the manner in which polls shall be conducted and notice given of the result thereof.
      (b) The power to make regulations conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament.
      (4) For the purposes of this section the expression "local government area" means, in relation to England or Wales a district as provided by the Local Government Act 1972 and in relation to Scotland, and Islands Area or a district as provided by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973'—[Mr. Jasper More.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—[Mr. Jasper More.]
      The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 89
      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 9

      INTERPRETATION
      'In this Act—
      "coursing" means hunting hares with greyhounds;
      "dogs" means greyhounds;
      "place" means any naturally or artificially enclosed area of land;
      "competition" means the act of striving against others to win something'.—[Mr. Farr.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. John Farr: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With the new clause we are to take the following amendments:
      No. 5, in Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from 'for' to 'he' in line 8 and insert 'hare coursing matches'.
      No. 8, in Clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
      (2) For the purpose of the foregoing subsection a hare coursing match is a competition between two greyhounds as to their ability to course hares, being a competition—

      (a) for which entries are invited before the day of the competition;

      (b) for a prize for money or money's worth;

      (c) for which official judges are appointed; and

      (d) of which the results are announced publicly.'

      Mr. Farr: I believe that it would be helpful to have an interpretation clause to guide those who will seek to implement the Bill in the months and years ahead if it should reach the statute book. With that in mind, I have selected what are probably the four most significant words in the Bill and have suggested their interpretations. These words are "coursing", "dogs", "place" and "competition", all of which are highly significant and highly loaded in respect of the Bill.
      Before giving my reasons for the suggested interpretations, I shall give my reasons for thinking that we should have an interpretation clause. Most major Acts of the past 30 or 40 years have had interpretation clauses. In some cases some of the simplest words, with the most obvious meanings, are included in the interpretation clause. Let me give an idea of what I have in mind. If we look at the Public General Acts and Measures of 1973 we shall find some guidance to past procedure. I have chosen many short Acts because this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will be a two-section Act. I draw attention first to the Concorde Aircraft Act which is a two-section Act. There is no interpretation section in that.
      On the other hand, if we turn the page, to the Coal Industry Act—a public Act of great significance and importance but only a short Act—it will be seen that there is a comprehensive interpretation section, Section 12. That Act has only 14 sections.
      Mr. Hastings: I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend say that here was no

      923
      interpretation section in the Concorde Aircraft Act. I would have thought that this was an excellent example to reinforce the case for the new clause since, if we had had such an interpretation section in that Act, we might have been spared all the trouble we have had with this aeroplane.
      Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It would not be right for me to refer to the Concorde Aircraft Act in detail. One would think that with a Bill of the type we are discussing today, "coursing" should be defined, just as one would have expected that in the Concorde Aircraft Act the word "Concorde" would have been defined. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the aircraft has caused a great deal of discussion.
      Section 12 of the Coal Industry Act takes up half a page in defining, for instance, that
      "'the Act of 1946' means the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946;
      'the Act of 1965' means the Coal Industry Act 1965."
      There are other examples when obvious interpretations of this nature appear in what is a relatively short Act. In view of that it would seem that this Bill ought to have an interpretation clause.
      If we skip through the Public General Act and Measures of 1973 a little further we come to the Matrimonial Causes Act which is a long and substantial Act. I remember it going through the House. It amounted to over 50 sections. Section 52 is the interpretation section. My point is that the most-simple words imaginable are defined here. It even defines what "child" means.
      The Bill we are discussing today has such complex words as "coursing" but there is no interpretation. Yet in the Matrimonial Causes Act there are such words as "the court", "education" and many other simple words, of which even the densest person knows the meaning. There are several lines of closely printed type in Section 52. The Matrimonial Causes Act even defines what is meant by the word "adopted". Most of us have a ready recognition of adoption and its meaning. The Act refers to the Adoption Act 1958 and deals with what an adopted child is.
      924
      Probably a more relevant Act for our help and benefit today is the London Cab Act 1973. This was a three-section Act. This Bill has only two clauses. In the London Cab Act, nearly as short as this Bill, there is an interpretation section. It defines for instance the meaning of "private hire-car". It was defined as having
      "the same meaning as in section 4 of this Act."
      Two further examples are the Rate Rebate Act, which had only four sections and contained an interpretation section, and the Bahamas Independence Act. That was a short Act of seven or eight sections including an interpretation section.
      It puzzles me why the Government have failed to take the same precaution today. Section 6 of the Bahamas Independence Act actually defines the meaning of "the Bahamas". It seems odd that, while most of us have a good knowledge of what is meant by that phrase, there should be no references in this Bill to the definitions I have mentioned. It has to be remembered that it is the practice for our parliamentary draftsmen—when words are in question or meanings in doubt or when there is more than one interpretation of a significant word, sentence or phrase—to act most carefully to avoid any doubt.
      I turn to the interpretations which I suggest to the House. In the first I refer to "coursing". I have extracted from several dictionaries the interpretations of that word. My amendment says that
      "'coursing' means hunting hares with greyhounds."
      That corresponds with the definition of coursing in Collins English Dictionary, which says that "coursing" means hunting with greyhounds. It comes from the Latin word "cursus", which means running.
      1.0 p.m.
      The short version of the Oxford English Dictionary gives a similar definition of the word "coursing". It refers to "coursing" as the sport of "chasing hares, etc." with greyhounds. The Bible of the English language, the full edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, gives the same meaning to the word "coursing". The full edition refers to coursing as running, racing and pursuing, and as the sport

      925
      of chasing hares and other game with greyhounds, by sight.
      It is important that there should be a definition of the word "coursing". The Under-Secretary, who is well known for her patience, forbearing and understanding, will appreciate that a definition will assist the House. If my definition is wrong—I accept that it may need amendment in some respects—perhaps the Government will say what kind of interpretation clause they would like to include in the Bill.
      Mr. Kimball: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he checked the definition in Collins English Dictionary?
      Mr. Farr: I referred to the 1959 edition of Collins English Dictionary, page 120. It is smaller than the Oxford English Dictionary but it refers to the word "coursing", in terms which cannot be confused, by saying that it means hunting hares with greyhounds. The word comes from the Latin "cursus".
      I now refer to dogs. I have referred to the shortened and full-length versions of the Oxford English Dictionary. The amendment states that "'dogs' means greyhounds". I gave much thought to that definition.
      The purpose of those promulgating this measure is the banning of hare coursing. In Britain the sport of coursing is almost entirely confined to coursing with greyhounds. All the dictionaries refer to coursing as the sport of chasing hares with greyhounds. "Dogs" must therefore be interpreted to mean greyhounds.
      The full version of the Oxford English Dictionary says that the origin of the word "dog" is unknown. It refers to Hunting Dogs as being a Northern constellation near the Great Bear, although that has nothing to do with the amendment. Reference is made to the burrowing dog, which is a kind of hyena. Again we are not concerned with that. Another section refers to a dog used for hunting, or a hound. A book published in Britain in 1475, which must be one of our oldest printed books, refers to a person taking "greyhounds" to chase the hare. The shorter version of the Oxford English Dictionary defines a dog used for sporting purposes as a dog used for hunting, which is often a greyhound.
      926
      I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. There were, I understand, long and detailed discussions about the meaning of the word "dog" and whether hunting and sporting hounds in Britain would come under the Bill. As practically all hare coursing in Britain and the rest of the world is carried out with greyhounds, it would be sensible to define the word "dog" as meaning "greyhound", as I suggest in the amendment.
      The definition of the word "place" should be included in the Bill. I have not extracted this definition from a dictionary. This is a suggestion. The amendment reads,
      "'place' means any naturally or artificially enclosed area of land".
      The shorter version of the Oxford English Dictionary devotes one page to the meanings of the word "place". It says that "place" means a particular part or spot in a body or surface, or a particular part or page in a book. That is not an appropriate meaning. It also refers to a place as being an open space in a city—a square or a market place. That definition is less appropriate. It goes on to say that it can form a group of houses in a town or city.
      In view of these silly dictionary definitions, I strongly urge the hon. Lady to accept the clarification of the meaning of "place" contained in the amendment. The amendment suggests that "place" means
      "any naturally or artificially enclosed area of land".
      By a naturally enclosed area of land I mean a valley with a river or stream at one end—
      Mr. David James: Does my hon. Friend regard the Isle of Wight as being a naturally enclosed area of land?
      Mr. Farr: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is not present today. If he were here he would no doubt tell us all about that. I would say that it is a naturally enclosed area of land, as it is, to the best of my knowledge, surrounded by sea water.
      A valley with a river at one end and rocky escarpments or impenetrable brushland on two sides which prevents the escape of a quarry is a naturally enclosed area of land. An artificially

      927
      enclosed area of land can be simply defined as any place which is fenced in, wired in or entirely walled in. The definition of "place" suggested in the amendment would be a valuable clarification.
      The last of my interpretations is of "competition". I only wish that I had been a member of the Standing Committee because I understand that discussions took place on the meaning of "competition". If the Bill is to be readily understandable when it reaches the statute book it must give the meaning of "competition". "Competition" is perhaps the easiest word of all to interpret. Clear definitions are given in the three major dictionaries which are available to us for reference here. The 1959 edition of Collins English Dictionary defines "competition" exactly as I have defined it in the amendment, as
      "striving against others to win something".
      The unabbreviated Oxford English Dictionary refers to "competition" at considerable length but in the first five lines it gives the meaning as
      "The action of endeavouring to gain what another endeavours to gain at the same time; the striving of two or more for the same object; rivalry".
      It goes on:
      "Now largely used in connection with competitive examinations".
      That perhaps is not appropriate. The Collins English Dictionary interpretation and the interpretation given in the first four lines of the unabbreviated Oxford English Dictionary are synonymous.
      1.15 p.m.
      The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary interprets "competition" in much the same way, as
      "The action of endeavouring to gain what another endeavours to gain at the same time; the striving of two or more for the same object; rivalry".
      The interpretation mentions various types of rivalry. It does not mention sporting rivalry but deals with rivalry in commerce and allied forms of rivalry.
      Those three dictionary interpretations of "competition" are helpful to the House. From what I have said it will be obvious to all that the interpretation of "competition" contained in the amendment
      "the act of striving against others to win something"
      928
      is a condensation of the meaning of that word given by the three dictionaries I have mentioned.
      The Children Bill, which we are to discuss on Tuesday, was produced by the same Government as were in power when the Hare Coursing Bill was introduced and it contains a whole clause which is devoted to interpretation—Clause 89. It interprets simple words, not complicated words which are capable of a double or treble meaning. "Child" is defined as
      "a person who has not attained the age of 18 years".
      The clause contains 20 lines on the interpretation of "guardian". It even defines the meaning of "home". Every simple, non-controversial word is spelt out with meticulous care, including the meaning of "United Kingdom national" and "voluntary organisation". The Under-Secretary of State and those who sponsor the Bill have made a grave error in omitting an interpretation clause.
      Mr. David Weitzman: I cannot resist the temptation to express my admiration for the speech made by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and the research he has done in a valiant effort to prolong discussion on the Bill. I wonder why he did not define the terms by saying that reference should be made to the Oxford Dictionary or another dictionary, or that "place" means "place", "dogs" means "dogs" and "competition" means "competition". Every lawyer knows that the amendment is not a definition clause but a restrictive clause and that its whole object is to defeat the purpose of the Bill.
      Mr. David James: I must declare a non-interest in the Bill. I have not been hare coursing and I do not believe that I ever shall because, although I have indulged in every other field sport, to the best of my knowledge coursing is a spectator sport and I am not a born spectator.
      It has been suggested to me that I should bring the Loch Ness monster into the ambit of the Bill, but I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I did so you would rule me out of order, and rightly so. In any case, I have no evidence to believe that greyhounds are very skilful at swimming. Nevertheless, it is with great regret that I oppose the motion of my

      929
      hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) because, although it seeks to clarify a bad Bill, it can only make it worse. In my submission, the Bill is essentially an attempt by ignorant townsmen to legislate against the interests of country folk. [Laughter.] The Under-Secretary of State is laughing. I hope that she will soon laugh on the other side of her face.
      The one failing of people who live in towns is that they do not realise that there are no geriatric wards in nature. Animals do not go to sick berths and die surrounded by attendant nurses. To all intents and purposes the fate of every animal is to be eaten, sooner or later, in the predator chain. The only animals which achieve old age are domestic pets such as dogs. It is significant that most of us, sooner or later, no matter how valued a family dog may be—mine is now 14½—have to take it to the vet to be put down because it is clear that it would be incapable of supporting itself, even in a domestic situation, let alone in wild life.
      It is to the extent to which the clause attempts to clarify a bad Bill that I object. I have referred to predators. I have been through the list of British birds and mammals. The hare and leveret are subject to the attention of 17 different sorts of birds and three mammals; namely, the fox, the stoat and the weasel. In the past the hare's main enemy was the wolf. The wolves were finally exterminated in Scotland, the last one being shot in Kirkcudbright in 1775. However, for many centuries the wolf was the main container of the hare population.
      Labour Members wax angry and become upset about hare coursing, but I wonder, from the hare's point of view, whether it makes all that much difference whether it is chased by a pack of wolves or by a couple of greyhounds.
      Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend right in his definition of the numbers of predators which prey on the hare? I understood him to mention three mammals in Britain. Is he not forgetting the Golden Eagle? I think he will find that the latest research shows that the staple diet of the Golden Eagle is the Scottish hare. The Bill applies to Scotland. I suggest that my hon. Friend bears that matter in mind.
      Mr. James: I am sorry. Possibly I missed out a sentence in my speech. I thought I said that there were 17 birds on the British list which took hares—all the raptores, two owls and one skua. It may interest the House to know that I saw an eagle take a full-grown hare from a hill in Scotland just over a fortnight ago.
      Therefore, the hare is at risk from many quarters. It has developed a technique for survival. It has developed great speed, and a capacity to twist and turn. That is how a hare defends itself.
      It is not surprising that with the extermination of the wolf men have bred greyhounds specifically with the aim of making them come to terms with the hare—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James) but I should be grateful if he would relate his argument to the question of interpretation rather than the question of the mechanics of hare coursing.
      Mr. James: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will appreciate that the speech I am trying to make was designed for the previous amendment and not for this one. I am doing my best to keep myself within order by pointing out that any interpretation clause makes a bad Bill even worse.
      With your warning in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not deal with the nature of hares, which are stupid creatures, which cannot anticipate death and which have virtually no sense of pain. Therefore, it is a great mistake to impose on wildlife animals the sort of sentiments which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I feel. This is a thoroughly bad Bill and any attempt to improve its interpretation merely makes it worse.
      Sir David Renton: I believe that we owe a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Hackney North, and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman).
      Mr. Weitzman: Surely it would be more honest for those hon. Members who move or support the new clause to say plainly that this is a restrictive clause and not a definition clause.
      Sir David Renton: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is good enough to hear me out in the very short speech that I propose to make I am sure that I shall be able to help him.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has remined us how very difficult legislation is. It is often assumed that if a majority in Parliament wants something done one just introduces a law, pushes it through, votes it through with one's feet and somehow it will produce the desired effect. However, my hon. Friend has illustrated that doubts can arise. Sometimes doubts arise because there is an interpretation clause and sometimes because there is not one. In my opinion we must first try to avoid having unnecessary detail in the Bill. I fear that I do not go the whole of the way with my hon. Friend in the wording of this clause, much though I admire the motive behind it.
      Secondly, we must try to avoid doubt. If we are not careful in that respect we shall leave doubts which will have to be resolved by the courts, which are sometimes given an almost impossible task of interpretation. Such a situation can arise because we put in unnecessary detail or, because, with or without detail, we have created doubts.
      Therefore, my view about interpretation clauses in general is that necessarily they may add to the detail and to that extent they are unwelcome. However, to the extent that they remove doubts they should be put into a Bill. One has to consider each case in the light of its own terms and decide what should be done.
      I see that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has just left the Chamber, but I invite the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office to a matter that arises out of my hon. Friend's attempt to give clarity and to remove doubt. Clause 1, line 7, refers to "a competition". However, in the side note we see, not "competitions", but "matches".
      1.30 p.m.
      In my opinion, those two words are not synonymous but they do to some extent overlap. In other words, every match is a competition but not every competition is a match. The courts are not entitled to use the side notes for interpreting the
      932
      wording of the sections of an Act, but when different words are used in the side note, as with this instance, it throws doubt on the words used in the section. To the extent that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough may, by his proposal, remove that doubt, we should be grateful to him. This is the sort of matter that will be discussed in the House on Monday week, I hope, and other hon. Members may wish to follow up the point.
      Mr. John Cope: My right hon. and learned Friend has referred to the use in the marginal note of the word "matches" as opposed to the use of "competition" in the clause but the difficulty also relates to the Long Title to the Bill. The Long Title is capable of being used. Certainly it affects our debates. It can also be used and referred to in the courts and it may therefore affect the question of definition.
      Sir David Renton: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend because, through an oversight, of which I should not have been guilty, I had failed to read the Long Title. As the Long Title uses the word "matches" and Clause 1 uses the word "competition", we must assume that the two words are intended to have different meanings. If so, there should be a definition clause in the Bill to describe at least one of the meanings, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has done.
      Mr. Mather: May I try to clarify the matter? Originally we tabled an amendment to amend the Long Title. We were led to believe that it would be ineffective. Therefore, we changed the amendment and tabled a fresh amendment dealing with the point about "matches".
      Sir David Renton: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, but the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) and with which I am dealing remains valid in the context of the new clause.
      We should not knowingly, now that we have been alerted to the matter, pass legislation which presents the courts with a doubt. It is far better that we should strive, not necessarily in precisely the way proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, to remove that

      933
      doubt so that the people affected by the Bill when it becomes law need not have recourse to the courts, and, incidentally, so that the police, acting on behalf of the public, know the position when they prosecute people for infringements of the legislation, as they may occasionally have to do. I hope that the Bill will give clear guidance to the police as well as to the courts.
      It will be interesting to hear what the Under-Secretary of State says about the new clause. I did not expect the Bill to be dealt with today, because I assumed that, as this is a Government Bill, it would be taken at a more usual time for Government legislation. Therefore, I arranged a long-standing invitation in my constituency a number of weeks ago. I shall not be able to stay indefinitely for the rest of the discussion, and I am sorry about that.
      Mr. Anthony Fell: My right hon. and learned Friend is vastly experienced in legal matters and legal phraseology. I am not sure—perhaps because I am stupid or because I did not hear him say it—whether he is saying that the Long Title containing the word "matches" would be taken by the courts as meaning that it overrode the clause.
      Sir David Renton: That is the difficulty. It would be for the court to decide whether the word "matches" in the Long Title meant anything different from the word "competition" in Clause 1 and, if so, whether the word "matches" or the word "competition" should have precedence. I cannot answer that question. I do not think that anyone could. It would be for the court to decide. That shows that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has done a service by alerting the Government and the House to the use of different words which, I agree, overlap to some extent. The problem could be resolved only by taking it to court or by a definition clause which dealt effectively with it to prevent the necessity of going to court.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. and learned Friend is a great expert on legal matters and will be speaking in the House at a later date on the question of the preparation of parliamentary legislation. Is he indicating that the confusion to which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough
      934
      (Mr. Farr) have rightly drawn attention could place the courts in a difficulty if the matter needed to be decided on the basis of the Bill as drafted?
      Sir David Renton: Let us suppose that somone was charged with
      "the coursing of a hare by two or more dogs in a competition"
      and that that was the wording of the charge or indictment. If the defence argued that the word "competition" did not carry out the intention of Parliament as expressed in the Long Title but meant something different from it, the answer to my hon. Friend's question would be "Yes".
      Mr. Charles Morrison: Although I understood precisely why my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) sought to withdraw new Clause 3, the fact that that happened, coupled with the fact that the House decided in the Division not to include new Clause 7 in the Bill, has emphasised the importance of putting an interpretation clause in the Bill. If either or both of those new clauses had been included in the Bill, there would have been further opportunity to reconsider the question of the interpretation of certain aspects of it. However, they have not been included. That emphasises still more how important it is that an interpretation clause should be included at this stage or perhaps in another place.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has spoken eloquently of the need for an interpretation provision. It is worth pointing out to the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) that this is not the first occasion on which a request for an interpretation clause has been made in discussions on the Bill. I said during the Second Reading debate:
      "It is important to know what we are talking about. It is not good enough to produce a Bill as short as this with no interpretation or clarification".—[Official Report, 13th June, 1975; Vol. 893, c. 851.]
      I expanded on that theme a little later in the debate.
      I was not lucky enough to be a member of the Committee on the Hare Coursing Bill, but I am extremely disappointed that, for one reason or another, no such clause was included in the Bill at that

      935
      stage. I can only believe that this was because of the generosity of my hon. Friends towards the Government. I can only suspect that they were desirous of helping the Government with their programme and in consequence did not indulge at that stage in a lengthy debate on an amendment aimed at introducing an interpretation of many of the important aspects of the Bill. But I am convinced that, if no interpretation clause is included, the danger to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire referred will come about.
      Why should it be right to leave the interpretation of the Bill almost entirely, as will be the case, to the courts? If this Bill ultimately receives Royal Assent, I am afraid that yet again Parliament will only have produced a lawyers' field day. I have nothing against increasing the income of the legal profession—although I suspect that very often their needs are rather less than those of some other sections of society—but in practice, unless there is an interpretation clause in the Bill, we shall be doing no more than legislating to increase the income of the legal profession.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire has described this in much greater detail than I intend to do, and it was perhaps as an act of self-denial on his part, as an eminent lawyer, that he should have expanded on what will happen if the Bill gets on to the statute book as at present drawn.
      I do not want to cover the ground already covered so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, but while I agree in principle with the need for an interpretation clause, as I have already emphasised, I do not think that the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough is necessarily fully adequate. For that reason I hope that the Under-Secretary, when she sums up, will give an undertaking that the Government at a later stage will introduce a more comprehensive interpretation clause.
      I am concerned about the meaning of a number of aspects of the Bill as at present drawn, but I fear that if I were to
      936
      enlarge in any detail on these aspects I might be going outside the rules of order. I therefore express the hope once again that the hon. Lady will give an undertaking of the type I have requested when she replies.
      1.45 p.m.
      Mr. Fell: I am astonished at the fact that the House of Commons is apparently, with the lead of the Government, ready to acquiesce—I say this with respect to my hon. Friends who are not ready to do this—in the passing through this legislature of a Bill which, as stated by one of the leading legal authorities in this country, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir. D. Renton), will simply be left for interpretation to the courts and to the judges. Nobody has yet challenged my right hon. and learned Friend—who has unfortunately had to leave—on his assertion.
      What nonsense is this that we are doing? What have we come to in the House of Commons? What are the Government thinking about in bringing in these stupid little measures, which have no sort of validity or general support amongst people who know anything about the subject in this country? What is the matter with them? We are like people who have gone mad and berserk. Here we are asked to accept shoddy legislation from a shoddy Government. It is legislation which, as we have been told, will not be understood until our judges, brilliant as they are—better than the judges in any other country in the world—have been called upon to decide what the Government had in mind.
      This is monstrous. But it is all of a part and no different from the Government's action in many of the measures that they are putting before the House these days. What a sorry farce this great assembly of a great nation has come to when the hon. Lady is willing to sit there and cannot get off her seat for a moment in order to deny the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire. She was. I believe, present when the statement was made. It was a statement which must have proved to her that the Government do not know what they are talking about, and that the judges will be left to decide what is meant by this legislation. It is tragic.

      937
      I only wish to ask the hon. Lady, in conclusion, whether, with her experience and her mother's experience in the work of this House over many years, it does not irk her slightly to be the leading party in telling the judges that this monstrous Bill has nothing to do with Parliament and that it is their job to decide what we mean.
      Mr. Cope: I should like, if I may, to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) in one small particular. He was a little carried away at one stage when, in referring to the shoddiness of the Bill and of the Government, he seemed to be including the Minister. Whatever else one may say, whatever else those who served on the Committee may say, the Minister is not shoddy. On the contrary, it was a delight to have her sitting opposite us in Committee.
      Mr. Fell: The Minister, of course, of herself is not shoddy, except that she runs herself down and makes herself a miserable person by being party to this sort of rubbish.
      Mr. Cope: I entirely support that and am glad to have given my hon. Friend the opportunity to correct the impression he might otherwise have left.
      The Standing Committee, contrary to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), spent some time discussing some of these questions. It is true that some of our debates were a little rushed and that we were not able to discuss the point which was discussed earlier by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) about the difference between matches and competitions as deeply as we would like to have done. In fact, I tabled an amendment to the Long Title but the Chair in its infinite wisdom decided that it was out of order.
      One hon. Member complained earlier that the new clause was not solely interpretative but was also restrictive. I agree. It is in part restrictive, but that is not necessarily an argument against it. On the contrary, that is part of its charm. But it is also interpretative.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire, as he explained, has had to leave, and probably he did not speak as fully as he would
      938
      otherwise have done, but we have the benefit of some more of his thoughts and those of some distinguished colleagues who served on the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation. We are to discuss the whole of that report a week on Monday, but certain of its passages deal with the desirability of definition clauses and are relevant to this clause. Unfortunately, the passages in the report do not come down firmly on one side or the other.
      The alternative arguments are put and it might be helpful to refer to them. One side was put in the early evidence by Professor Reed Dickerson of Indiana University. The Committee drew widely in its choice of witnesses and experts.
      Professor Reed Dickerson thought that definitions should be used sparingly, which may surprise hon. Members. He thought that the word "includes" in a definition could be helpful and was often preferable. That way, of course, one gets a definition which does not of itself limit the matter being defined. It includes certain things but does not say that something is all that is defined. He went on to say:
      "Occasionally, you need a full-blown definition, but most of the time definitions need only to stipulate the meaning in the area of marginal uncertainty."
      Mr. Ridley: That is what we have here—marginal uncertainty.
      Mr. Cope: "Marginal uncertainty" is an American expression which I would not have chosen. As my hon. Friend says, we are certainly in such an area at the moment.
      The contrary view was put by Professor Driedger of Ottawa University, who advocated the use of definitions not only for extending or fixing the boundaries of meaning but also as a drafting technique to remove from complex Bills some of their lack of clarity. This Bill hardly comes into that category and on that basis probably does not need a definition clause. Nevertheless, the Renton Committee was able to agree fully with Professor Driedger in relation to complex Bills. So we do not get from the Committee clear guidance on whether or not, in principle, interpretation clauses should be inserted in Bills.

      939
      But the clause that we are discussing is in part restrictive as well as interpretative. It is also, in my view, wrong. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) will not take it amiss if I say that at least one of his definitions is clearly wrong and some of the others are less than desirable. The one which is wrong is his definition of coursing. I do not believe that it means hunting hares with greyhounds. I understand from him that that definition is from Collins Dictionary, but he used others from other dictionaries which I think were more accurate.
      Hunting essentially means pursuit by means of smell, whereas coursing is pursuit by means of sight. Those of us who have been able to go to coursing matches, as I have although I am not what would be called a coursing man, have seen this to be so. When, as frequently, indeed normally, happens, the hare gets through the hedge or fence at the edge of the ground after a minute or so of pursuit, as soon as the greyhounds lose sight of it they give up. Although they may be only a few yards behind and most dogs would be able to use their sense of smell to continue the pursuit, the greyhounds as a rule do not follow.
      Mr. Farr: I can probably satisfy my hon. Friend's curiosity. The definition in the amendment is that of Collins National Dictionary but it was a 1959 edition, whereas the other two versions to which I referred were from pre-war editions of the Oxford English Dictionary which are available in the Library and one of which went back to the beginning of this century. Over a period, the meaning given to words varies. I would respectfully suggest that the 1959 Collins edition meaning is more up-to-date and appropriate now. To give a simple example—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already spoken for 30 minutes. He is now going beyond the length of time appropriate for an intervention.
      Mr. Cope: What my hon. Friend says concerns me. If he is correct and the courts hold him to be correct, the Bill will deal not only with coursing as it is generally understood but with other forms of chasing hares. It might cover such
      940
      forms of hunting as beagling if his interpretation were held to be correct.
      There is another point about this, namely, that it very much strengthens the idea that we need a definition clause. If there is this uncertainty between the compilers of dictionaries about what the word means, it needs definition if the courts are to understand what we, the House of Commons and the legislators, intend the Bill to mean.
      2.0 p.m.
      The second definition is of "dogs", and this is said to mean greyhounds. That is one example of a restrictive rather than an interpretive definition, but I do not quarrel with it for that reason.
      The next definition is of "place". I think that in some respects this goes to the heart of the basic argument about hare coursing and whether it should continue. I have found in my constituency that those who have written to me or approached me on the subject of hare coursing have been divided in the first instance roughly speaking half and half between those who are in favour of the sport continuing and those who are against it. When I have discussed the matter in more detail with those in favour of the Bill and against hare coursing, however, I have found that many of them have a false impression of the way in which hare coursing is conducted.
      What is involved is summed up in the definition in the new clause which defines "place" as an enclosed area of land. In so far as this is a restrictive element in the new clause I regard it as desirable, though I realise that not all Members would take the same view. Many members of the public who are against hare coursing on the basis of limited knowledge would accept that this is a sufficient restriction to put on the conduct of hare coursing. If the definition were included, the only coursing that could take place would be in an open field where the hare was able to escape. That is the form of coursing that takes place for the most part in this country, though I understand that the position is different in Ireland, and in Northern Ireland to a certain extent, but I cannot speak for that. But the definition seems to be restrictive but desirable.
      Then we come to the fourth definition, that of "competition". I dislike the definition used here, though it is difficult to

      941
      quarrel deeply with it. It seems to me that in the context in which they appear the last three words of the phrase
      "act of striving against others to win something"
      has the implication of a kill. This again is part of the misunderstanding in the public mind about hare coursing, or at least in the minds of many people who do not know much about the sport. They think that hare coursing necessarily involves the killing of all the hares that are coursed, whereas I am sure hon Members who have studied the matter know that that is not the case. I should prefer a definition that did not carry the implication of killing that this definition seems to have, because it is a little misleading.
      Perhaps I might conclude by referring briefly to the definition of "match" because it arises a little in the context of Amendments Nos. 5 and 8. The point that I was trying to put to the Committee upstairs was that a match is essentially a competition between two individuals or two teams of individuals. The definition of "match" in the racing fraternity is exactly that. A horse race may have any number of horses in it—quite often there are 10, 20 or more horses in a race—but if there is a horse race between two horses it is described as a match. I am sorry that the hon Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) is not here, because not long ago he took part in a notable horseracing match.
      There is another element to "match" as opposed to "competition" which has entered into the word in the course of its life, and that is the element of formality. If one plays football, one may kick a ball about in an informal manner on a piece of waste ground or grassland or in the park, but if there is a football match more formalities enter into it. There are rules and a referee, and in general the whole thing becomes a more formalised arrangement.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If someone was out exercising two of his greyhounds—whippet or saluki—and they put up a hare, would he be liable under the Bill? He would be a person out exercising his animals. They put up a hare and perhaps pursue and kill it. Would he, with his two dogs, be liable under the Bill?
      Mr. Cope: That is an interesting question. My own opinion, for what it is
      942
      worth—I am not a lawyer, and I cannot interpret the Bill in a legal sense—is that he might be liable in such circumstances if it were thought that the purpose of releasing the two dogs at the same moment to course the hare was to compare the abilities of the two dogs. In a peculiar way, however, if it were thought that the purpose of releasing the dogs was to kill that hare, or hares in general, he would not be liable. As far as I can see, he would have a perfect defence against an action under the Bill.
      That seems to be a peculiarity of the Bill, because many people who have not followed the debates on this subject might feel that the Bill was about stopping people from killing hares, but if someone sets out to kill a hare in this way that will be a defence under the Bill. It is only if someone is setting out not to kill but, instead, to judge the ability of two or more dogs that it becomes an offence. If someone can say that he was doing it to kill, he would get off scot free.
      I turn to what I was saying about the definition of a match. This is an important definition that should be included in any definition clause that is inserted into the Bill. The definition in Amendment No. 8 has an essential element. It refers to two greyhounds, which to my mind, as I explained earlier, seems to be an essential feature of a match. That is certainly so on my old-fashioned definition of it. However, more importantly, it demonstrates that what is attempted to be legislated against in the Bill is a formal competition set up with prizes and with the public able to attend in a formal manner.
      The sort of informal occasion to which reference has been made is not the occasion against which legislation should be attempted. If that is the occasion on which hares are chased by two or more greyhounds, or whatever sort of dog is involved, and against which the supporters of the Bill are trying to legislate, they are not doing what many people who might otherwise be sympathetic towards them believe they are and should be doing.
      Mr. Robert Boscawen: I have not intervened in discussion on the Bill because I recognised that many others know a great deal more about this subject than I ever shall. Some matters

      943
      cause me considerable concern, in particular the justification of the Bill as it stands without close definition, which has some unsavoury implications.
      Many of my constituents have written asking me to oppose the Bill. The Under-Secretary gave as the justification for the Bill that it was a cruel, barbaric and cowardly sport. By implication she is saying that many of those who have written to me are supporting a brutally cruel and cowardly sport. If that is the case, it behoves Labour Members who support the Bill to define it carefully.
      In this country we tolerate a great deal of cruelty to animals as well as to human beings. The hon. Lady's great Department tolerates some revolting experiments on animals. They are done under careful control with, as she assured me in a letter the other day, the minimum of cruelty. However, they are done because the ends justify the means and for the better enjoyment of human life. I suggest to Labour Members that that is cruel all the same.
      At present in certain areas of my constituency the Department of Agriculture is engaged in exterminating the badger on the ground that it is the carrier of bovine tuberculosis. The Department is doing so in a particularly repulsive and dangerous way—gassing these enchanting animals in their own homes. It is said that the end justifies the means and that it is necessary for the better enjoyment of human life. However, I suggest to those hon. Members who are against cruelty to animals that it is cruel all the same.
      The Department of Trade imports films into this country on which horses, for the sake of glorious spectacles, are brought down by trip-wires. Their limbs are broken and afterwards they have to be shot and put out of misery. That is for the better enjoyment and entertainment of our people. We tolerate and allow it to happen but it is cruel all the same.
      Unfortunately and regretfully, there are many examples in this country of individuals maltreating domestic animals, especially dogs. I happen to be very fond of dogs. I hate to see the condition of some of the dogs that are wandering about our city streets. One can see that
      944
      they are suffering, in pain, badly fed and not properly looked after. However, we tolerate it because it would be highly unpopular and expensive to bring in the restrictive measures that are necessary to prevent that happening.
      Mr. Spriggs: The hon. Gentleman has given a list of items that come under the heading of cruelty. He should not forget the pig farmers who harness down the sow while she has a litter of 20 or so piglets feeding off her. She cannot protect herself because she is fastened down by a steel harness. Is not that cruelty for the sake of profit?
      2.15 p.m.
      Mr. Boscawen: I do not want to enter into the controversy over factory farming. It is a closely argued controversy whether it is more-cruel for the animal to step on a piglet. We could argue about that for a long time.
      Mr. Spriggs: People want cheap food.
      Mr. Boscawen: I am trying to impress on the hon. Gentleman that we tolerate a great deal of cruelty to animals when it suits us. It ill behoves Labour Members to tell me that many of my constituents are brutally and cowardly inclined because they support this blood sport, when Labour Members close their eyes to other cruelty that is taking place because the end justifies the means.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): That is totally untrue.
      Mr. Boscawen: It is not totally untrue. It takes place and the hon. Gentleman knows it. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Price: I have been challenged by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues to say why I regard that as totally untrue. I speak only for myself and as a vegetarian who regards all killing as equally immoral. I draw no difference, as many Conservative Members know, between live hare coursing and any other form of killing. As it applies to me, what the hon. Gentleman has said is quite untrue.
      Mr. Boscawen: I accept absolutely the hon. Gentleman's explanation and his high morality in this matter. I am not attacking any individual. It ill behoves

      945
      me or anyone else to attack others for cruelty to animals in this country when we tolerate it officially as well as unofficially. It behoves those who want to stop hare coursing to define what is and what is not cruelty. The Bill is loosely defined. I should like Amendment No. 8 to be agreed so that those who are called cruel in my constituency know what is and what is not cruel. We have to get away from humbug and cant on this subject, and from pretending that one or another of us is holier than thou. We are not.
      In the main we are quite a cruel nation, despite the fact that we pretend we are not. We were cruel in the war—I know, because I saw it. We are still cruel in some areas in peace time. That is why I resent the attack on a rural section of the community which does not believe that it is any more-cruel than those who live in cities and who allow their dogs to run about unfed and medically unfit. I resent this attack on one side as opposed to another. If hon. Members want to tackle cruelty and to put a stop to it, let them do so as a whole and not in the partisan way in which they have approached this Bill.
      Mr. Kimball: I am in some difficulty on these amendments and the new clause. While agreeing entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) that we need a definition, and while at the same time not wishing to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I cannot accept that new Clause 9 which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has put to us gives the definitions which we need in this instance.
      Definitions of words are included in many Acts of Parliament. As hon. Members know, full lists of such words may be found in the volumes of "Halsbury". In Room A of our Library there are over 43 volumes giving definitions of terms used in Acts of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough made much of his search of two of our principal dictionaries, but I do not know whether he had time to search the third edition of definitions of words and phrases under Halsbury's name. I strongly suspect that had he done so he would have been able to find better definitions than appear in his new Clause 9. For that reason,
      946
      should we come to a vote, I do not feel that I could support my hon. Friend in adding the new clause to the Bill.
      My main objection to the definitions proposed in the new clause lies in the certainty that, if such definitions were added, they would restrict the number of activities in the countryside which could be carried on if the Bill were ever to become law.
      It is significant that Messrs. Stable and Stuttard carefully considered what would be the consequence if the House of Commons were ever to pass the present Bill, which is precisely the same Bill as has been trotted out before us some 13 times during the last 11 years. Thus, in forecasting what the position would be, Messrs. Stable and Stuttard were not talking about a hypothetical situation but were directing themselves to something which they could properly forecast. As I say, my reason for opposing the proposed definition clause as it stands is that it would be more restrictive than the Bill as drafted.
      As Messrs. Stable and Stuttard saw it—this must be right—if the Bill were to be passed in its present form and without a better definition clause than new Clause 9, both the coursing rules and the field officials associated with the present conduct of coursing would no longer be there. The organisation of matches and the systems of cup, plate and purse would no longer be there. But coursing would still continue.
      It is significant that in recent times the owners of Scottish deerhounds have adapted their practices to keep them in line with the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959. That Act made it an offence to set two dogs on a stag, a red deer or a hind, but now the owners of Scottish deerhounds wishing to test their dogs in their natural surroundings go on to the hills and course blue, mountain or Arctic hares with their dogs. We shall never change the genuine desire of enthusiastic breeders of dogs always to test their dogs' natural abilities—and not necessarily their natural abilities one against the other.
      What happens today if one runs a fox to ground? Out of every corner of the countryside men appear with their terriers, hoping to be given a chance to see whether their dogs will go to ground and whether they will work. One of the greatest

      947
      problems at any dig which a master of foxhounds encounters nowadays is to get his own well-trained and experienced foxhounds into the earth and tactfully keep out the mass of enthusiasts who bring their own dogs because they want to test them in doing the job they are bred to do.
      The House has no doubt about my interest in this matter. I want to see coursing survive in some form or other, in any possible legal way, even if the Bill becomes law. But, having studied the new clause, I fear that if its definitions were added to the Bill they would make it more difficult for those who own any one of the five coursing breeds to be given an opportunity not necessarily to match one dog against another but to be certain that their dogs still retain the natural characteristics of the breed.
      Messrs. Stable and Stuttard predicted what the position would be if the Bill ever became law without a definition clause. We should have to dispense with the judge in a coursing match, the judge who is a symbol and the arbiter in a test of merit and ability. One would no longer be able to test the merit and ability of two dogs one against the other.
      I cannot accept that the definition of "competition" in new Clause 9 is sufficiently closely drawn that some form of testing of one dog against another in some other form would still be possible. As I understand it at present, we should find coursing continuing on people's farms and for the control of hares, but without the judge.
      We should have to dispense also with the field officials. There would no longer be the slipper. In a greyhound match, the slip is an extremely skilled job. I do not believe that Labour Members realise what they are doing in wanting to remove the slipper from coursing. The slipper is the man who stands where the hares come on to the coursing ground and who decides whether a particular hare is fit to be coursed. If hon. Members have ever stood in the slip, they will understand what a skilled job this is. Is the hare coming forward a wormy ill-bred poor creature on which it is not fair to slip the dogs? Is the hare coming forward an animal which has been balled up on its feet from coming across a lot of plough? It is the slipper who decides whether it is
      948
      a suitable hare on which the powers of two dogs shall be tested. If hon. Members remove the slipper, they will be removing one of the most important officials from the field.
      Moreover, their proposals would remove the pickers-up. We hear a lot of talk from hon. Members opposite about hares being torn to pieces. I have never seen a hare torn to pieces at any coursing match.
      Mr. Mates: Nor have they.
      Mr. Kimball: I agree.
      Mr. Mates: Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to invite any hon. Member opposite to stand up and say whether he has seen a hare torn to pieces.
      Mr. William Price: I have.
      Mr. Kimball: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Price) and I differ greatly—
      Mr. Flannery: I respond to the hon. Gentleman's intervention in this way. I have never seen a woman raped. I have never seen torture. I have never seen a public execution. Yet I abhor them all, and I should expect the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to share that abhorrence with me.
      2.30 p.m.
      Mr. Kimball: I cannot follow the hon. Member. I would like to keep to my argument. I am against the new clause, which seeks to add certain definitions, because it would not be helpful to coursing.
      Even if the Bill goes through, certain forms of coursing will take place quite legally, but they will not be helped by this definition clause. This coursing, although legal, will be carried on without the present safeguards. We shall be going back to the seventeenth century form of coursing when people went out with their greyhounds to catch hares solely in order to eat them or as an amusing way of controlling hares. There will be nothing illegal in that. If people go coursing with these motives, they will want to make sure that they kill the hare. The hounds will be slipped at short range, at the moment the hare is sprung or at the moment it appears through a hedge.
      The National Coursing Club rules lay down that, in competition, dogs must be slipped from at least 80 yards. This

      949
      makes coursing a fair match and gives the hare a chance. It is not difficult to kill a hare if one does not give it much of a start. The first hare I ever killed with a greyhound died purely by accident. It knocked itself out on the bottom bar of a gate. It had suddenly been sprung in an unsual position and dashed through the first hole it could see.
      If Labour Members are worried about hares, they should realise that the best way to reduce the number of hares that are killed by greyhounds is to see that all chasing of hares is carried out under the rules of the National Coursing Club.
      Messrs. Stable and Stuttard looked most carefully for a definition of the word "coursing". I have survived various examinations in the peculiar language of Latin and become dependent on Kelly's "Keys to the Classics", but that does not cover the definition of coursing. In trying to define coursing, Messrs. Stable and Stuttard found that it was derived from the Latin "currere". I am rather apprehensive about using Latin words in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), whose pronunciation is slightly different from mine. He was at school earlier than I was.
      Mr. Jasper More: I was brought up on the classical pronunciation. One pronounces Latin exactly as one does English.
      Mr. Kimball: The particular versatility of the words descended from "currere" is seen in such words as " current", "currency", "curriculum" and "corsair", which is a hit-and-run sea raider upon coastal settlements. A courser may be either a runner, a swift-running horse or charger, a dog used in coursing or the dog's owner. This shows the difficulties we get into in trying to define "coursing". Scientists have also got hold of the word, and the scientific word "cursorial" is a term used by zoologists for certain types of insects, birds and mammals whose legs are specially adapted for running. Cursorial mammals are dogs of the greyhound type. In the excellent report by Messrs. Stable and Stuttard there is a very good appendix which gives in more detail the qualities of dogs of the greyhound type.
      950
      When one looks at the problems that Messrs. Stable and Stuttard had in defining the word "coursing", I cannot accept the definition in the new clause that "coursing" means hunting hares with greyhounds.
      Mr. Hastings: It is important that the House should be clear on this matter. The definition in the new clause includes only greyhounds, and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, a number of other dogs are often involved in coursing. As this subject was inadequately dealt with in Committee, and as Labour Members have shown today that their ignorance is profound, could my hon. Friend tell us a little more about the subject?
      Mr. Kimball: My hon. Friend pre-empts the argument I was about to develop. This is not the only point to be cleared up if we are to accept, as the new clause does, that "dogs" means greyhounds. We also find ourselves in considerable difficulty about dogs used for hunting purposes being considered as greyhounds.
      First, I should like to clear up the definition of "coursing". We have heard that the word means not only swift running or the owner of a swift-running dog but also a hound which hunts by sight. Greyhounds hunt by sight, and one can unsight them very easily. This is why so much coursing takes place in the North-West in the fens, where the Waterloo Cup is held. It is possible to go for miles without being able to unsight a greyhound Whippets can also be unsighted and they, too, will cease to pursue their quarry.
      A definition of coursing limited to hunting by sight would exclude lurchers, salukis and Scottish deerhounds, all of which are coursing dogs. They hunt not only by sight but by scent. I do not know whether any hon. Members have been to a saluki meeting, but the moment they become unsighted they set off in pursuit of the hare on its ground scent. One can see owners disappearing into the far distant countryside to collect their dogs after they have chased off after a hare. They may hunt it very slowly, or they may do so quickly according to the scenting conditions on that day. If hon. Members opposite had seen the coursing of the Arctic hares in Scotland—
      Mr. David Stoddart rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Mr. Speaker: I shall accept that motion in five minutes. If the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) wishes to hear a Government reply he must conclude his remarks almost at once.
      Mr. Kimball: On a point of order. If I were to conclude now, Mr. Speaker, to give the Government a chance to reply to these arguments, and the closure were then not carried, would I be allowed afterwards to develop the rest of my argument? I have five other points connected with the amendment with which I have not yet been able to deal. If I sit down now I shall cut myself out of the debate which will follow if the closure is not carried, and I shall be unable to continue with my argument, which is vital to the debate.
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is well known for his reasonableness. He has been speaking now for 21 minutes.
      Mr. Mates: But it is all good stuff.
      Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who is seeking to intervene in this debate may I suggest, first, that points of order should not count towards the five minutes—
      Mr. Speaker: I can help the hon. Gentleman on that point straight away. They will count.
      Mr. Ridley: Is there a precedent for your saying, Mr. Speaker, that you will accept a closure in five minutes' time? It might be that no hon. Member will seek to move such a motion in five minutes. Surely it will greatly truncate the debate if hon. Members have notice that they have only five more minutes to speak. I believe that the precedents are that either you accept the closure when it is moved or you do not. If you do not accept the closure when it is moved, it is usual for hon. Members to delay for another two hours before seeking to move it again. The closure having been moved by the Assistant Whip and having been refused by you, surely it would be within the precedents that no hon. Member should seek to move another closure for another hour or two. For you to announce in advance that yon will accept it in five minutes'
      952
      time is something which has never before come to my ears in my short experience in this honourable House. Of course, I may have missed it. Is it not unusual to say what you have said, Mr. Speaker?
      Mr. Speaker: There is no question of accepting it in five minutes. I shall now accept it in two minutes.
      Mr. Mather: I am in difficulty, Mr. Speaker. I have been unable to speak to my amendment and I do not know whether it is usual practice for the closure to be moved so suddenly without warning the Opposition Front Bench so that we may adust our timing and arrange for a proper conclusion to the debate.
      Mr. Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has made a fairly fundamental point. There are other implications to giving five minutes' notice of a closure. While I appreciate that probably in your charity it would seem advisable to give that notice, may I suggest that on reflection you might reconsider whether you are setting a wise precedent? I can see that in the future it could cause infinite procedural difficulties to give notice of the time when a closure will be accepted.
      Mr. Speaker: I think I took a commonsense line. I thought it was conceivable that Conservative Members would want to hear what the Minister had to say on the debate which, after all, has been going on already for nearly two hours.
      Mr. Adam Butler: Just so that the House may fully understand your ruling, Mr. Speaker, are you saying that there is a delayed agreement to the Question being put five minutes from when the Government Whip moved it, or are you saying that you would accept it if he were to move it again within five minutes of the time when he originally moved it?
      Mr. Speaker: Of course, the Whip will have to move it again. I think the time has come when he should do so.
      Mr. Stoddart rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 1

      Division No. 361.]

      AYES

      [12.37 p.m.

      Alison, Michael

      Fell, Anthony

      Nelson, Anthony

      Arnold, Tom

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Banks, Robert

      Freud, Clement

      Raison, Timothy

      Beith, A. J.

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Bell, Ronald

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Biffen, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Body, Richard

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hawkins, Paul

      Shersby, Michael

      Brittan, Leon

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Brotherton, Michael

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hurd, Douglas

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Buck, Antony

      James, David

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Jopling, Michael

      Wakeham, John

      Cockcroft, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Walters, Dennis

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Wells, John

      Costain, A. P.

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Marten, Neil

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Mates, Michael

      Emery, Peter

      Mather, Carol

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Maude, Angus

      Mr. Jasper More and

      Farr, John

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Mr. John Cope

      NOES

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Booth, Albert

      Cant, R. B.

      Bates, Alf

      Bottomley, Peter

      Cartwright, John

      Bean, R. E.

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Judd, Frank

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Kerr, Russell

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lamond, James

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Deakins, Eric

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Lipton, Marcus

      Skinner, Dennis

      Eadie, Alex

      Luard, Evan

      Spearing, Nigel

      Edge, Geoff

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      English, Michael

      Marks, Kenneth

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Flannery, Martin

      Mikardo, Ian

      Tomlinson, John

      Forrester, John

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Tuck, Raphael

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

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Molloy, William

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Gould, Bryan

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Ward, Michael

      Graham, Ted

      Newens, Stanley

      Weitzman, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Noble, Mike

      Wellbeloved, James

      Harper, Joseph

      Ovenden, John

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Owen, Dr David

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hatton, Frank

      Parker, John

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Perry, Ernest

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Mr. Laurie Pavitt and

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Mr. David Stoddart

      Division No. 362.]

      AYES

      [2.44 p.m

      Abse, Leo

      Graham, Ted

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Radice, Giles

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Bates, Alf

      Hatton, Frank

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Bean, R. E.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Rooker, J. W.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Booth, Albert

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Cant, R. B.

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Cartwright, John

      Judd, Frank

      Silverman, Julius

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Kerr, Russell

      Skinner, Dennis

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Lamborn, Harry

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cohen, Stanley

      Lipton, Marcus

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Cryer, Bob

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marks, Kenneth

      Tomlinson, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Tuck, Raphael

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Deakins, Eric

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Ward, Michael

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Molloy, William

      Watkinson, John

      Eadie, Alex

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Weitzman, David

      Edge, Geoff

      Moyle, Roland

      Wellbeloved, James

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Newens, Stanley

      Whitehead, Phillip

      English, Michael

      Noble, Mike

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Ovenden, John

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Owen, Dr David

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Parker, John

      Flannery, Martin

      Pavitt, Laurie

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Forrester, John

      Perry, Ernest

      Miss Margaret Jackson and

      Gould, Bryan

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Mr. David Stoddart

      NOES

      Buck, Antony

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mr. Stephen Hastings and

      Mr. Jasper More

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

    Clause 1

      HARE COURSING MATCHES TO BE ILLEGAL
      Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), on Amendment No. 4.
      Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you announce in advance, Mr. Speaker, whether and when you will move the closure on this amendment? On the previous new clause some of my hon. Friends were put to considerable disadvantage. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) did not have
      954
      a chance to speak on the clause and we did not have a chance to hear the complete speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). Indeed, many of my hon. Friends wished to speak. We did not have a chance to hear the Minister's reply. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the five minutes which you suggested was not long enough for all those contributions to be made. We are in some difficulty because my hon. Friends did not vote on the substantive matter. We did not vote because we were not in a position to hear the Government's attitude to the points that were made in favour of the clause.
      Mr. Speaker: This is a hypothetical point. I call in aid a very distinguished predecessor of mine, Mr. Speaker Shaw-Lefevre, who said something like this:
      "I have so ruled, and it is now an established practice of the House."
      Mr. Farr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that we may

      955
      have some guidance whether it is likely to be your practice in the ensuing debates to accept a closure after a fairly short time. The amendment that we are now to discuss—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow an irregular debate on this matter. Anyone who has been a Member of the House as long as the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that Members approach Mr. Speaker to know whether he will accept the closure. In this instance I told the House that I would accept it in five minutes. I thought it only fair to those who had spoken in favour of the clause that they should have the chance to hear what the Minister had to say. If they did not want to do so, that is a matter for them. Perhaps we may now get on.
      Mr. Mather: Before moving Amendment No. 4, in view of what went on in Committee perhaps it would be appropriate for me to establish the basis of the debate by means of a point of order. I speak on a point of order to explain to all hon. Members what happened in Committee on this amendment and why we are discussing it again. We had a full discussion on the amendment in Committee but we are now having a further discussion. Therefore, it is right that we should say this, on a point of order, to establish the basis on which we are having this debate.
      Mr. Speaker: I do not see what this has to do with the Chair.
      3.0 p.m.
      Mr. Mather: I was going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether my understanding of the position in which we find ourselves was correct, because we have already debated the words "assists at" upstairs, and are now debating them again. Perhaps I should continue with my point of order, or as part of my speech establish what happened in Committee.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman. He has his name to an amendment on the Order Paper, in page 1, line 5, leave out "or assist at". I have selected that amendment. It is now for him to continue to move it.
      Mr. Mather: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to ask as an
      956
      introduction, on the point of order, the basis on which we were discussing the amendment. But I shall continue with my speech in the normal way.
      Mr. Jasper More: Before we leave the point of order—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We have left what was not in fact a point of order. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) is now moving his amendment.
      Mr. More: I have very much a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may put his point of order if it is a new one.
      Mr. More: It concerns the way in which the amendment has come to the House, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether your attention has been drawn to the proceedings in Committee—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the time of the House to be taken up in this way. What happened in a Committee is not a matter for me on Report. I have selected the amendment, and if it is not moved we may have to go on to the next one.
      Mr. More: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Something happened in Committee which should be brought to your attention.
      Mr. Speaker: That is entirely appropriate for a speech. It is not a point of order.
      Mr. Mather: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 5 leave out 'or assists at'.
      Perhaps I should begin by saying that there was some confusion in Committee when we discussed the same amendment. It arose because at the opening of our debate there the Minister said that she was willing to accept the amendment and the one before, which was to leave out "procures". The hon. Lady said:
      "I was going to announce to the Committee that I would be pleased to accept Amendments 3 and 4."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8th July 1975; c. 149.]
      Our amendment then was Amendment No. 4. The Committee agreed to Amendment No. 3 and we went on to debate Amendment No. 4. We had a Division, because my hon. Friend the Member for

      957
      Gloucesteshire, South (Mr. Cope) disagreed with the amendment, and the hon. Lady voted against it. Therefore, vote did not follow voice, and hence we are now debating the same amendment again.
      There are precedents of vote not following voice. There was a famous person involved in 1970—as it happens, on a previous Bill to abolish hare coursing—when Mr. Speaker ruled that it was the practice of the House that a Member's vote must agree with his voice.
      Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have spent the last two or three minutes considering what you told us a few minutes ago. The more I have thought about the matter, the more I have felt that it would be right for me to raise this point of order while you are still in the Chair rather than to wait for your deputy to take your place.
      We are in the odd situation that we are having a debate on an amendment that has been correctly moved and we cannot know when the debate will end. It may be that only two or three hon. Members on the Opposition benches will speak and perhaps one or two Labour Members. Of course, we hope that our side will be allowed to answer any speeches from the Labour benches. We shall wait with ears hanging open to hear the Government's reply to the debate. Therefore, it must be relevant to the discussion which has just started that we should have some idea whether it is likely that you will accept a closure motion in a short time, otherwise we cannot—
      Mr. Speaker: I have already ruled. This is a purely hypothetical matter. It is one of the discretions left to the Chair by the House. The Chair may decide to accept the closure motion after five minutes or five hours. It is a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Mather: We obviously do not want to go over ground that we went over in Committee. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) had to curtail his classic speech in Committee, and would perhaps welcome an opportunity to expand it at some length, it might be unfair to the House if we went through the whole debate again. We had a reasonably full debate in Committee. Although it may seem that the leaving out
      958
      or keeping in of two small words, such as "assists at", is of minor importance, it is a matter of considerable moment because the Bill is very short. The authors were no doubt at some pains to keep it short because they wish to see it go through the House in as short a time as possible. That was entirely up to them.
      Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have given a little more thought to what Mr. Speaker ruled. I accept that ruling completely, but may I ask one further question? If there is to be acceptance in advance of a request for the closure, may we at least be assured that the Minister will be given sufficient time to make even the most cursory of answers to the debate?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): This is entirely a matter for the discretion of the Chair and should not be pursued any further.
      Mr. Jasper More: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are in the difficulty that the Government have decided to move the lifting of the four o'clock rule. If they had adopted the other device of giving us a timetable, we should have known how to moderate speeches so that we might be assured of a winding-up speech from our Front Bench and a reply by the Minister. It would be of great assistance, because all the forthcoming debates are important, if we could have an indication of what the Chair has in mind for the provisional allocation of time for the separate debates.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is entirely a matter for the discretion of the Chair.
      Mr. Mather: Both this debate and the debate which has recently been the subject of a closure motion deal with very much the same topic. We were talking about words, definitions and interpretations and how important it was that the courts should know exactly what the words in the Bill mean. We have had the benefit of most expert advice dealing with the interpretation of words from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). We shall be discussing his report dealing with the preparation of legislation in a week's time. The opinion he gave was that some of the words in the Bill were in great need of interpretation.

      959
      He felt that the courts would have difficulty in deciding exactly what the words meant.
      This explains our emphasis in Committee upon the importance of the phrase "assists at". We would like to know why the Under-Secretary agreed at the beginning of our debate in Committee that these words were superfluous, together with the words "or procures" and then, when it came to the end of the debate, voted against the amendment.
      We deserve an explanation about the Minister's change of mind. The hon. Lady had plenty of time before the debate to take the expert advice of her officials. Presumably it was their advice that these words were superfluous and should be omitted. We should know how it was that she came to vote against her own expression of judgment—whether there was an error or whether she had second thoughts or last-minute advice.
      Mr. Cope: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he is doing me less than justice. I must point out that I spoke after the hon. Lady and before the vote was taken. I spoke against the amendment and I assumed that she was convinced by my speech. Certainly she had spoken one way, but after hearing my speech she had second thoughts and voted in the way I suggested that the whole of the Committee should vote. It is for the hon. Lady to explain, but I do not think my hon. Friend should imply that it was a bolt from the blue or a mistake.
      Mr. Mather: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I have gone into the previous debate in some detail. While I had taken due note of the fact that his words had carried great weight, I am afraid that in the confusion of the moment today I omitted to mention this. A strong speech was made by my hon. Friend. Perhaps when the hon. Lady replies we shall learn whether it was my hon. Friend's words which made her change her mind, whether it was a mistake in the heat of the moment or whether she had last-minute advice from her officials.
      Mr. Jasper More: I reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. The events in Committee were a great personal humiliation to me since I had moved this amendment, I thought, most persuasively. I thought
      960
      that the hon. Lady was entirely in agreement with me. After the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), she appears to have been completely swayed the other way, with the result that her vote did not follow her voice. That was true of at least one other Member on the Government side of the Committee.
      3.15 p.m.
      This raises the point whether public notice ought to be taken in the Chamber that such a thing happened in Committee. "Erskine May" says in Chapter XXIV, dealing with the system of committees:
      "A member's vote in a standing committee must agree with his voice."
      In the interests of proper debate in Committee and in this Chamber, I feel that this is a matter that should not be overlooked.
      I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we ought, perhaps, to ask Mr. Speaker to come back to the Chair and publicly admonish the hon. Lady. Much as we respect her and much as we recognise that there was a genuine change of view after the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, the hon. Lady's action is surely a precedent that will bring our proceedings into confusion and contempt if no notice is taken of it. I know from the good spirit that prevailed in Committee that the hon. Lady will know that there is no personal—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman, because the ruling in "Erskine May" on page 606 dealing with the procedure in Standing Committees specifically states that
      "no appeal can be made to the Speaker regarding the decisions and rulings of a chairman of a standing committee."
      Mr. Jasper More: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think our difficulty arises from the fact that we had no ruling from the Chairman of our Committee.
      Mr. E. Fernyhough: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we know whether hon. Members who were on the Committee and who are now filibustering raised this issue decisively when it took place, what ruling they received from the Chair and

      961
      why they are not prepared to accept the ruling?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can make the comment, which is well known in this House, that whatever may have taken place in Standing Committee can have no effect upon proceedings in this Chamber.
      Mr. Mather: It is not in our gift to filibuster. We were told that the debate would proceed until four o'clock and that the Government intended that the rule should be suspended. This was announced several days ago.
      Mr. Fell: My hon. Friend will also note that it is quite apparent that we now have a guillotine.
      Mr. Mather: Can I remind—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know whether I heard the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) aright when he referred to a guillotine motion. I hope that there was no suggestion of a criticism of Mr. Speaker or the Chair.
      Mr. Fell: I do not see how there could be a criticism of Mr. Speaker. I am reminding my hon. Friend, because he has a lot to say and wants to say it as briefly as he can, in spite of the points of order raised by Labour members, that it looks now as though we are working to a timetable. If I should have used the word "timetable", I apologise and substitute that word.
      Mr. Mather: This part of the debate is of an important technical nature. In Committee the hon. Lady said this about these words:
      "In the light of the precedent of the 1911 Act it is difficult to believe that the inclusion of 'or assists at' in the Bill would create any difficulties of interpretation for the courts, but the amendment brings out the fact that the inclusion of 'or assists at' adds nothing to the substance of the Bill. The principal offence is adequately covered.
      Procuring someone else to undertake the coursing of hares by dogs or to assist in it is covered by the provisions of Section 35 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1952 which provides that a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence.
      "'Assists at' has the same source as 'procures', but it cannot be construed as synonymous with the principal offence. It only relates to the part played by people present in an
      962
      ancillary capacity, such as stewards or attendants.
      The 1952 Act will clearly apply to any person aiding or abetting a principal offence and, to this extent, the inclusion of 'assists at' can be said to be superfluous. There is authority for the proposition that people whose presence is found to be an encouragement to an offence are guilty of aiding and abetting. This description is readily applied to some spectators, although it is not our intention to catch innocent passersby, but the inclusion of 'or assists at' will make it easier successfully to prosecute some spectators. The Bill will only apply to people who have knowingly taken part or offered encouragement.
      It seems unnecessary to strengthen the provisions of the 1952 Act and once the 1911 precedent for 'causes, procures or assists at' has been altered by the omission of 'procures' as the Committee has already agreed, there seems to be no good reason to retain 'assists at'. There are still ample powers to proceed against any person with real complicity in an offence."—[Official Report, Standing Commtitee B, 8th July 1975; c. 170–171.]
      That was the hon. Lady's opinion, which had been arrived at after consultation with her advisers and officials. We are now owed an explanation of what happened and what the hon. Lady's intentions are. If she opposes the amendment we would like to know why she changed her mind.
      Many hon. Members of the Opposition are unhappy about the situation, and I hope that the hon. Lady will answer our points at a later stage.
      Dr. Summerskill rose—
      Mr. Jasper More: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that this is not the conclusion of the debate on the amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is the custom of the House, when a Minister rises, for the Minister to be called.
      Dr. Summerskill: I hope that by speaking so early on this amendment I shall not be accused of anticipating the debate, but as there seemed to be a desire for me to speak I thought it best to do so at this stage.
      The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) quoted what I said in Committee. Anyone reading that will see that my words were moderate and did not come down violently on one side or the other. I said that the inclusion of the words "or assists at" would make it easier successfully to prosecute spectators. That was the reason why they were put in the

      963
      Bill in the first place. It is likely to make it easier to prosecute successfully some spectators whose presence might be sufficiently ambiguous in character to make it difficult to prosecute them as aiders and abetters.
      When I indicated at the outset of the sitting that I was prepared to accept the amendments on "procures" and "assists", I assumed that that would find favour with the Committee. However, the mover of the amendments was unwilling to accept my acceptance. He proceeded to speak for nearly one and a quarter hours in moving the amendment, with which I had found favour on the assumption that the Committee would also find favour with it.
      Mr. Jasper More: In the event I was proved wise in having moved the amendment. Not only has the hon. Lady changed her mind, but almost all the Government supporters in Committee voted with her against the amendment. In addition, there was disagreement amongst the Opposition in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) made such an eloquent speech that he may have been responsible for swaying the Committee and securing the rejection of the amendment. As there was that atmosphere and feeling in the Committee, I do not think that I can be taxed with having been wrong or unwise in developing my case, although I seem to have developed it so badly that it was swept away as a result of the brilliant eloquence of my hon. Friend. All the Government supporters were swayed in his direction, not in mine.
      Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) has taken the words out of my mouth. He spent an hour and a quarter trying to persuade the Committee of the validity of his amendment, but the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) took three and a quarter columns in the Official Report of the Committee proceedings finding difficulties with the amendment, and doing so in a speech of some merit.
      We are not discussing a world-shattering matter. As I indicated in Committee, these words slightly enlarge the offence created by the Bill so as to make it possible to catch some spectators more easily.
      964
      The arguments are fairly evenly balanced in support of the omission of the words in question. It can be argued that persons who are innocent bystanders should not be put at risk. However, it can be argued, in favour of the inclusion of these words, that anyone who stands around at an unlawful hare coursing and subsequently finds himself prosecuted has only himself to blame. He would be convicted only if the court were satisfied that he had assisted the coursing. As the Committee spent a great deal of time deliberating the matter, and we now have this amendment before us again, I have had a great deal of time in which to consider it. The Government's original intention was to include these words in the Bill. My decision is that we should include the words in the Bill as originally introduced and resist their deletion.
      Mr. Fell: The hon. Lady is cool, collected and pleasant, as always. I wish that I had had the good fortune to have been a member of the Committee which discussed this matter.
      We are in trouble, whether the hon. Lady says so or not. The hon. Lady said that we were not discussing a world-shattering matter. It is only world-shattering to someone who may be brought up before the courts, who may not know with what he is to be charged or what the fine will be. It is only world-shattering for the judges and magistrates who consider the matter.
      At one stage the Lady did not know whether it was necessary to include the words "or assists at". She now tells us that she knows. Whom did she consult? Are there hon. Members present who are great experts in the use of the words "or assists at"? What is she on about? How does she know that this is not a world-shattering matter for those who may be charged under a law, the implications of which the House does not know?
      3.30 p.m.
      The Government are besotted with power, forcing themselves to take decisions which they know perfectly well are taken for no other reason in the wide world than political aggrandisement and to ob-obtain votes for their marvellous ideas on how to run country districts, about which they know little. The hon. Lady,

      965
      kind and gentle with the House as always, tells us that this is not a world-shattering matter. Is she in the same breath saying that it does not matter? Why does she not accept the amendment? Who has told her not to? Have the highest legal advisers to Her Majesty's Government been brought in, and have they told her to leave in "or assist at"? Did she get a wigging and a ticking off from her right hon. and learned Friends, the highest legal advisers?
      I imagine them reading her speech and saying "We find that what you said was rubbish. We have discovered that you have agreed to something which is enormously important. We are sorry; you are charming and wise, with a wisdom beyond your age, but we think that you are an idiot. We think that you do not understand that there is a difference between including and leaving out 'or assist at'"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. There is some confusion whether the hon. Gentleman is addressing the Chair or addressing the Minister.
      Mr. Fell: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that I had cleared up earlier my slight question with the Chair. If I used the word "you" to the hon. Lady I apologise, but I hope that I did not.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was using it with great frequency. I understood it to be in the form of a quotation, but I was not quite certain.
      Mr. Fell: I said earlier that I was not fortunate enough to be a member of the Committee, so I was not using the word as a quotation. I cannot remember my exact words. I think that I was using the word as a quotation of what might be said in future by a judge talking to a Minister. I shall do my utmost to incur your pleasure rather than displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by bringing my remarks to an end as quickly as possible.
      I should be greatly assisted in doing that if some great and notable legal figure were present. I cannot see one on the Labour benches. If I could see a notable legal figure on the Labour benches who might have had the temerity to tell his Minister the facts of life about "or
      966
      assist at" I would of course readily give way, sit down and ask the distinguished legal gentleman, who had perhaps advised the hon. Lady and who might advise me and the House, what to do about these enormously important words. I should be delighted to hear why the hon. Lady had such a wigging because she had the temerity in Committee to agree to leave out the words.
      What a nonsense it all is. The further we get on Report—and we are now dealing with Amendment No. 4, in case you might think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am attempting to discuss matters outside the amendment—the more ridiculous does the situation become.
      Mr. Jasper More: We were sad not to have my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) with us in Committee. Had he been a member he would have known that we were frequently in the difficulty of needing high legal advice. Now that the Bill is back in the House that legal advice is perhaps even more necessary. Would my hon. Friend think it right formally to request the presence of the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General or the Lord Advocate to advise us on this difficult question?
      Mr. Fernyhough: And the Leader of the Opposition and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all!
      Mr. Fell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I hesitate to follow his request for I know that the Government are in such case that were they to ask any of these distinguished legal advisers to be present they would probably make an even bigger mess of another Bill that they are studying before it is presented in the middle of next month. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who promised not to intervene again—a promise that I am certain he much regrets. It would not be going wide of the amendment if I said to him that if he recants I shall understand and give way immediately. A man more likely to recant I do not know. If he recants I shall listen with great respect to any legal view he may have on "or assists at".
      On the other hand, there may be other legal minds of great repute who could give advice. There are one or two legal

      967
      minds on the Labour benches—no official ones but, after all, one never knows what may happen in the future. If one of those legal minds could advise us and the Minister at the same time of the reasons for including or leaving out "or assists at", he could so enhance his future position as to come into the enormous treasures of office sooner than he expects. If one of those legal minds would like to enter into the fray and tell us that the Minister; was right in Committee and wrong now, that legal gentleman would make clear that he disagrees with the senior and important Minister who told the hon. Lady she was talking nonsense. He might in that way enhance his repution and secure an appointment when the more senior Minister concerned gets his come-uppance, which is probably likely in the not too far distant future.
      I ask the hon. Lady to think well before she hands to those who have to interpret her miserable Bill the problem of what to do about it, because she has left it in such a mess.
      Mr. Hastings: In his usual way, my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has succeeded yet again in focusing the attention of the House. I listened to him with great interest. I certainly second what my other hon. Friends said earlier, namely, that we regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth was not with us in Standing Committee to bring the power of his oratory and conviction to bear at an earlier stage of this important debate.
      After a great deal of thought and in spite of the oratory of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), who, unhappily, is not with us at present, but who made a most impressive speech in Committee, I have come to the conclusion that I must support the amendment. There are two themes in my thoughts on the amendment. The first concerns precision and language. The Under-Secretary briefly told us in her intervention a few moments ago—perhaps we shall have the benefit of her views again on this matter, as it is as complicated as my hon. Friends have continually pointed out—that the phrase, "or assists at" will make it easier to catch spectators. If it will make it easier,
      968
      we must assume that she is setting out a precise phrase.
      Dr. Summerskill: I said "some spectators". Let us get it accurate. I did not say "all spectators".
      Mr. Hastings: Even if it concerns only some spectators, it is a serious matter for them. If they are to be hauled before the courts and accused of this hypothetical misdemeanour, they have a right to know where they stand. What lies behind the amendment is an attempt to point out that these words are wholly unacceptable because they are wholly imprecise.
      The burden of the remarkable speech that we were privileged to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) took some time because of the interruptions and uncertainties caused by the absence of any legal advisers or Law Officers. The burden of his speech concerned imprecision. We should be delighted if he could confirm the position if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at a later stage.
      Mr. Ridley: I was not a member of the Committee and I have not had time to read all the debates. Can my hon. Friend tell me why spectators should be caught at all? Will it now be an offence even to be a spectator? Can my hon. Friend advise me why the Committee did not throw this out completely?
      Mr. Hastings: My hon. Friend has referred to a most germane aspect of the argument and one to which I was coming. He has put his finger on the nub of the matter. Who are spectators? Why should spectators be hauled before the beak? I shall come to that matter later.
      First, let me deal with the imprecision of language. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was unfortunate enough to miss the debates in Committee I commend him to read the record of the proceedings.
      Mr. Ridley: Which is the relevant column?
      Mr. Hastings: Column 151 of the Committee Official Report for 8th July. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow quoted liberally from Fowler's "Modern English Usage". He discovered to the

      969
      entire satisfaction of all Opposition Members in the Committee that the phrase "assist or assists at" was not Anglo-Saxon at all. If it is anything, according to Fowler, it is a Gallicism. It comes from the French verb "assister". There is, therefore, no certainty in Fowler's mind, to judge from what my hon. Friend said, about what it means in English.
      Not only is it a Gallicism, but worse than that, it is a genteelism. I refer hon. Members to column 151 of Hansard. It would be wrong for me to go over the speech, but my hon. Friend adduced a long list of genteelisms. They are remarkable explanations of how our language has degenerated. A clear example of this degeneration happens to be the phrase "assists at". In Fowler's view we do not know what we are talking about when we say "assists at". From what my hon. and learned Friend has said, Fowler is an authority whom we disregard at our peril.
      3.45 p.m.
      Since that time I have sought to confirm from any other sources whether there is any adequate certainty about the phrase. I should like to turn to the Oxford English Dictionary, which is neither so informative nor entertaining as Fowler. Nevertheless, I think the House should have some idea about how the phrase is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary. I turn to page 511 which deals with the word "assist" and the phrase "assists at". The following quotations occur:
      "1626 C. POTTER Father Paul's Hist. 1. 32 The Counsellors assembled to assist at a solemn Masse."
      I am quoting these examples to illustrate how the thinking in the dictionary clearly advances:
      "1705 ADDISON Italy (1767) 29 The Duke of Lorrain used often to assist at their midnight devotions. 1765 WILKES Corr."—
      this must mean in correspondence—
      Mr. John Wells: It is John Wilkes, a former Member of this House.
      Mr. Hastings: Yes. The quotation continues:
      "(1805) II. 163 Last Saturday I assisted at the great festival. 1837 J. H. NEWMAN…"—
      I do not believe that anyone would deny the validity of his view on English—
      970
      "I quote the words of Cornelius Mussus…who assisted at the Council of Trent. 1849 Macaulay Hist. Eng. I. 53. The congregation may be said to assist as spectators rather than as auditors. 1854 Thackeray Newcomes II. 103. The dinner at which we have just assisted. 18…Dickens Seven Poor Trav. 12 And assisted—in the French sense—at the performance of two waltzes."
      At this point the Oxford English Dictionary and Fowler are beginning to talk in unison. How one assists at waltzes in the French sense is a fascinating basis of inquiry. However, I am sure it lies without the bounds of order, so I shall leave that matter. "1873…The sane and sober must simply 'assist', in the French sense, i.e. stand by and say nothing."
      There is one other quotation which is worth while and germane:
      "1603 FLORIO Montaigne (1634) 392 Having all day long assisted to the ceremonies, and publike banket."
      It is difficult to discover from the Oxford English Dictionary what is meant by this phrase except that at a certain stage it looks as though it is simply borrowed from the French. It is also made fairly clear that it indicates somebody standing by and doing nothing.
      Mr. Ridley: Does my hon. Friend consider that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) "assists" at our debates?
      Mr. Hastings: That is a most interesting point. I personally regret in view of his well known, deep, profound and firm interest in this matter the efforts he has made to galvanise his hon. Friends to come here on a Friday afternoon. Time and again he has played his part in bringing this miserable little Bill before the House, but we have had only one small intervention from him about a sentence long. We always enjoy listening to him and we are well aware of his sincerity in these matters. I hope that before the end of the day we shall know to what extent he is "assisting" at our debates.
      Mr. Adam Butler: May I suggest that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is "assisting" by sitting in the Chamber because he is a man of considerable distinction and fame in his own right? He is on the executive of his party. Therefore, his very presence suggests some form of assistance, although he is sitting dumb.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) has been giving various definitions in connection with banqueting and waltzing matters. Will they be related to the amendment? Is it in order for hon. Members opposite to invite my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to participate in the debate?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that has been said has been in order. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) does not wish to intervene, that is perfectly all right.
      Mr. Adam Butler: Let us suppose that it is said that a man, because of his position and distinction, is assisting at a function. Let us suppose that the local high sheriff and an ordinary person with no status whatsoever are watching a coursing match. If it is said that one is assisting but not the other, one of them will be guilty of the offence but not the other.
      Mr. Hastings: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has anticipated the second theme of my speech.
      Mr. Jasper More: My hon. Friend has gone into the question of definition of the phrase "assists at". I do not know whether he is acquainted with the phrase "stand by". I was for a short time a very inefficient soldier. My recollection is that all my time in the Army was spent standing up, standing down, standing to, or standing by. When I was told to "stand by", I was not sure what it meant. Does my hon. Friend think that somebody who was "standing by" would come within the scope of the provision which the Under-Secretary of State is trying to put in the criminal law?
      Mr. Hastings rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues his speech, I remind the House that it would be helpful for the progress of business if interventions were kept as short as possible.
      Mr. Hastings: May I reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, whose experience in the Army equates strangely with mine. I always associated the phrase "stand by" with getting up in the middle of the night and shivering for a long time to no pur-
      972
      pose. Whether "stand by" and "assists at" mean the same, I am not sure. That was why I deployed at some length the extract from the Oxford English Dictionary. It might well be construed from what is printed in the Bill that they mean the same.
      I pass from the matter of the imprecision of the phrase to the results, misunderstandings and muddles which are almost certain to ensue if prosecutions are to be conducted on the basis of anything like the wording of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Walton were sitting behind a hedge and were spotted in suspicious circumstances near greyhounds, would he be "assisting at"?
      Let us picture the scene conjured up by the phraseology of this extraordinary Bill. Out in open country in perhaps East Anglia are a number of people walking about with greyhounds on leashes, with perhaps somebody on a horse and a number of people without horses or greyhounds standing about or walking about; some eager arm of the law lurking in a country lane espies the scene from afar. What is he to do? Who is "assisting" and who is not? I think that we have established that illegal coursing is bound to continue should the Bill reach the statute book. Nothing that the Under-Secretary of State has said seeks to persuade us otherwise.
      Mr. Ridley: Let us suppose that the hon. Member for Walton heavily disguises himself, as he is wont to do, in order to see what is happening, goes to the meeting in East Anglia, and is arrested for assisting because the very presence of his power and the dignity of his personality made him someone who must have been assisting—otherwise why would he have been there; is not that a likely possibility, although we all know that he is violently opposed to the sport?
      Mr. Hastings: I wonder what disguise the hon. Member for Walton would be using, or for what purpose and whether he would be on the side of the police. I do not know whether that was what was in my hon. Friend's mind. Perhaps it was, in which case the hon. Gentleman would disguise himself as a policeman. Plainly the peril in which anybody stands in such circumstances, either dressed as himself or as some other entity, is considerable.

      973
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), to whom we owe a great deal, has satisfactorily defined the officers and people who have a part to play in regular coursing. Irregular or illegal coursing is the same basic activity and there is no reason to suppose that these same people will not play a role. Let us suppose that a policeman says to a man on a horse, "What are you doing on that horse?", and the man says, "I am going from A to B because I have to exercise the horse". Is the man to be taken in for "assisting"?
      Let us suppose that the horse had been lent to him. What about the girl who straps the horse? What about the farrier who shoes the horse? All these people are involved in some degree or are "assisting". We have heard a great deal about slippers. Let us assume that a man with two greyhounds on a leash says, when spoken to by a policeman, "The hares are in my sugar beet and so I am here to get rid of the hares". What would be wrong with that?
      There are even more equivocal ex-examples of people "assisting" or not "assisting" illegal hare coursing. People may be standing about in a hedgerow. A number of us have—surprise, surprise—taken the trouble to go to coursing meeting to learn what happens. It is
      extraordinary that its opponents should have overlooked this elementary qualification to speak, but there it is. We know that a large number of people are required to guide the hares into the general area of the coursing ground. When I was coursing in Huntingdonshire, a number of people who were not stoppers or beaters were standing about in the hedgerows. I met a constituent who is a barman—a very good barman—and he had gone to watch the coursing because he was interested. Sometimes he stands at a stop and sometimes he just stands and watches. What is his crime and how is it to be defined? How is he assisting at this performance?
      On the day that I was coursing it was very cold. It generally is at coursing meetings. The people who undertake this sport are a hardy group. After I had stood about, learning—
      It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put,
      That the Hare Coursing Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
      The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 0.

      Division No. 363.]

      AYES

      [4.00 p.m.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Gould, Bryan

      Noble, Mike

      Atkinson, Norman

      Graham, Ted

      Orbach, Maurice

      Bates, All

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Ovenden, John

      Bean, R. E.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Owen, Dr David

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Parker, John

      Booth, Albert

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Hatton, Frank

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Perry, Ernest

      Cant, R. B.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Cartwright, John

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Prescott, John

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Hunt, John

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Radice, Giles

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cryer, Bob

      Judd, Frank

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Kerr, Russell

      Rooker, J. W.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lamborn, Harry

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davidson, Arthur

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Lee, John

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lipton, Marcus

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Loyden, Eddie

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Eadie, Alex

      Luard, Evan

      Silverman, Julius

      Edge, Geoff

      McCartney, Hugh

      Skinner, Dennis

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Spearing, Nigel

      English, Michael

      Marks, Kenneth

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ennals, David

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Flannery, Martin

      Molloy, William

      Tomlinson, John

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Tuck, Raphael

      Freeson, Reginald

      Newens, Stanley

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Ward, Michael

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Watkinson, John

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Weitzman, David

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Miss Margaret Jackson and

      Wellbeloved, James

      Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

      Mr. Thomas Cox

      NOES

      NIL

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mr. Jasper More and

      Mr. Michael Mates

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Hastings: Now that the House, rightly or wrongly, has decided to continue this debate, it is my duty to return to the categories of person who may be seen in the future as attending a hypothetical illegal coursing meeting and to what extent they are assisting at such a proceeding. But before I do so it is right to recall that it is not so long ago that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) pointed out to the Minister the deep difficulty into which we were plunged in Standing Committee because we had no adequate senior legal advice about what this phrase meant
      Since none of us is blind, it must be clear that the House is now filled with senior Ministers, including the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. They all seem to have time to spare to come to the House this afternoon to vote on the Hare Coursing Bill. Some newspaper people seem to regard our state of affairs in this country as ruinous.
      Mr. Charles Morrison: My hon. Friend has listed all these important right hon. Members. Is it not all the more extraordinary that the Home Secretary should not be here?
      Mr. Hastings: Exactly. My hon. Friend has taken the words out of my mouth. I was going to say that if the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection can spare time in this crisis of our country to vote on Friday afternoon for the Hare Coursing Bill, why not the Home Secretary or the Lord Advocate or one of the other Law Officers?
      Mr. Mates: May I correct my hon. Friend? Going through the Lobby was
      976
      the Attorney-General. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can come here and cast his vote, would not my hon. Friend agree that he could come here and explain to us, clearly and probably briefly and acceptably, what is meant by the phrase which we are struggling to define?
      Mr. Hastings: Now that we have the benefit of the keen eyes of my hon. Friend and we know that the Home Secretary is somewhere in the House—
      Mr. Mates: No, the Attorney-General.
      Mr. Hastings: Better still, the Attorney-General is in the House. The very least that we have a right to expect is that he should help us in this matter. This is probably the most tricky point that we shall have to face throughout these proceedings. Perhaps the Minister could give us her view on this point. Since her right hon. and learned Friend cannot be far away, if she could send a PPS or someone speeding after him, it might be possible to get his assistance. Would she be prepared to do any such thing?
      Dr. Summerskill: Conservative Members seem to find the amendment extremely complicated. It was put down by Conservative Members and it is therefore for them to clarify it for the rest of the House and not for us to try to explain it to them.
      Mr. Hastings: That is the most extraordinary doctrine that I have heard from the Dispatch Box in 15 years in this place. If the hon. Lady would do us the favour of reading the amendment, she would see that we are seeking to remove these words from the Bill because we cannot understand what they mean. The longer we go on explaining why they are so imprecise, the clearer it should be to Labour Members that there is something wrong with them. We want the Attorney-General here to explain what he thinks they mean.
      Mr. Charles Morrison: Is it not extraordinary that the Minister should have said what she did, given that the selection was made by the Chair? Mr. Speaker decided that the amendment was important enough to warrant a debate, but the hon. Lady apparently does not agree. Would my hon. Friend agree that that is surprising?
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. Hastings: Indeed. My hon. Friend has made an important point. The Minister's remarks could be interpreted as a reflection on the Chair. That is, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a matter for you and not for me, although it would be entirely understandable to many of us if you called the House to order on just that point.
      Mr. Mather: It is because of the lack of understanding by the Minister of these words in Committee that we are brought to this pretty pass. We have to spend a late afternoon on Friday debating these matters when, if she had made clear in the first place the meaning of these words, we would not have to go through this palaver.
      Mr. Hastings: My hon. Friend puts the matter succinctly. That is what is in all our minds. However, if the Minister is not prepared to send out after the Attorney-General, we must do the best we can without his advice. That is where we were before the Division.
      I do not want to take up the time of the House any longer than is strictly necessary to deploy the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not much."] However, if it is difficult, because of the noise from Labour Members, for my hon. Friends to hear me, I shall have to repeat what I am saying.
      When I found it necessary to observe that on a Friday afternoon when the nation is in a state of crisis half the Cabinet were down here voting on the Hare Coursing Bill, I was trying to describe the different categories of people who might be engaged in the hypothetical activity of illegal hare coursing, which everybody, including by implication the Minister, admits is bound to occur if the Bill is put on the statute book, and who are likely to get into trouble. I was asking which of them would be assisting or assisting at a hare coursing meeting, illegal and hypothetical.
      978
      I got as far as recounting my own experiences during last season's coursing when I went to a meeting in Huntingdon. I said that it was a very cold day. This is by no means unusual, as anyone with the benefit of some experience of coursing will confirm. There was a time when I spent at least two hours standing in the bitter cold doing my best to learn about the fairness or otherwise of coursing and how it was regulated.
      I felt it necessary to retire from the scene to a small tent which had been thoughtfully provided by the amiable and jolly crowd of people engaged that day at the meeting. If some Labour Members could only meet some of these people, I wonder what they would think. A nicer band of people one could not wish to be with.
      In the tent they had taken the sensible precaution of providing suitable beverages to assist people like myself who by that time had been standing for a considerable period and were very cold. I spent some time talking to them and drinking my beverage. I wonder to what extent they were assisting at the hare coursing. Suppose, which is perfectly likely, that at the illegal coursing meetings which will certainly continue after the Bill is enacted people provide refreshments of this kind, which are necessary in those climatic conditions. Are they to be hauled up and prosecuted for assisting at hare coursing?
      Mr. Flannery: Yes.
      Mr. Hastings: The hon. Gentleman is convinced that they should be because he thinks that a man having a drink in a hedge on a Saturday afternoon is automatically guilty of some criminal offence. That is the kind of attitude about which we are concerned. Government supporters have their prejudiced minds made up. They understand nothing about the small minority of decent people who will be made to suffer as a result of the Bill. That is what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are here to do but some of us are not prepared to put up with that and that is why we want these matters deeply and properly debated.
      I hope that I have said enough to convince the House—I can always begin again if something is not clear—that there is real merit in the amendment. I may have been uncertain about it in Committee, mostly perhaps because of the

      979
      oratory of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South who, unhappily, has not been able to stay with us, but on this occasion, having listened carefully to what has been said, I have no doubt that we should support the amendment.
      Mr. Adam Butler: I assisted at the Second Reading by voting, and I have assisted in the proceedings today by voting. Apart from one intervention earlier on I have sat quietly on this bench, but I feel that there are still a number of queries about the Bill that need answering.
      One of the main queries arises in relation to the amendment. I have studied the Committee proceedings when the amendment was put before the Committee. I note that the right hon. Lady said at the beginning that she was going to accept the amendment, presumably recognising what it stood for, but then, as we have learned, she decided to vote the other way and now she is leading her hon. Friends in opposition to it.
      I owe some responsibility to my constituents who, by a considerable majority, have expressed their views in favour of hare coursing. As many hon. Members know, I sit not for a country constituency but for one which has a large element of industry in it, and in particular coal mining. My slender majority in the 1970 election was increased because of my support for field sports.
      Members of the mining fraternity in my constituency of Bosworth in Leicestershire came to me on a number of occasions and asked for my views about field sports. I admit that the first time it happened I was somewhat concerned because I thought that I was going to give an answer that would not meet with their approval. For a split second, on the first occasion I hesitated whether to prevaricate a little, but then I thought that honesty was the best policy and I said that I was firmly in favour of field sports. The first man who asked me the question grasped me by the hand and said, "You have my vote", and off he went. I swear that that is the truth, and that was to happen on other occasions.
      Mr. William Price: I should not dispute what the hon. Gentleman has said, but what I find a little odd is that I have not found that to be so in my
      980
      constituency, which is on the other side of the A5. There has been no more staunch supporter of the Bill in this House than myself, and during the last election I increased my majority.
      Mr. Butler: I do not want to swop majorities or experiences in this respect with the hon. Gentleman. We all respect the sincerity with which he pursues his point of view in this matter. One may disagree with him, but he has been consistent throughout and one must respect that. We welcome him back on the Front Bench, though I know that he has been in and out of the Chamber during our proceedings.
      In the election to which I referred the swing in my constituency was the second largest in the country. I do not owe it to my support for field sports, but the circumstances that I have described are true, and on the two or three occasions that the Bill has come up for consideration during the past five years or so the representations that I have received from my constituents have been in favour of hare coursing. Apart from my own feelings in this matter, which are strong. I must respect those views.
      Because I respect my constituents views, and because of the publicity given to the debate today and to previous debates, I must be able to answer questions that are put to me. There are some questions that remain unanswered after many hours of debate in Committee and after the debate on the last group of amendments. I tried to take part in that debate because there were some important points of definition that I wished to make clear.
      I am now confronted with an amendment which seeks to delete the words "or assists at". My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) has gone back into the history of language and the derivation of this expression "assist", and it would be wrong for me to cover the same ground. I say only that the example he gave of the words "assist at" to show the French origin was rather apt. One French expression which always amuses me is assister au marriage, because one wonders about the help that might be given. I shall not say any more about that or I might get rather involved, but it means only "to be present at". Is that the meaning in this case?
      Mr. Jasper More: It was frequently the practice at French marriages in the Royal family for the audience to go to the marriage bed. They saw the whole thing through.
      Mr. Butler: Perhaps we ought to speak French more frequently. I do not want to be diverted from the case that I am making. We have dealt with this at length and you, Mr. Speaker, may feel a little concerned if I take up time unnecessarily.
      I come to what the hon. Lady said about spectators. She said—and I think she was repeating what she said in Committee—that this phrase made it easier to prosecute spectators. This is where we get the shades of meaning. She repeated her view in an intervention, saying "This phrase will allow us to catch more spectators more easily".
      The hon. Lady then said "We do not want to catch the innocent passer-by or spectator." I was not sure whether she was using her own words or quoting a legal authority when she said that the man who stands around has only himself to blame, but that on the other hand the court would have to show that that person had assised in some way. We have returned to the question of "assists at".
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Farr: I am shocked to hear this definition. Does it mean that if a farm-worker who is engaged in his employment in a field holds open a gate for a car to pass through, he can be charged with assisting at and possibly partaking in the performance? If so, it is utterly intolerable.
      Mr. Butler: I was about to deal with this matter. There must be further guidance on it, and I am sure that by leave of the House the Minister could speak again on it. My constituents would then be able to say "There are two choices. Either we shall be helping at the meeting or we shall be present at it as spectators, innocent or otherwise." The question is what they are able to be at, if anything.
      Like most hon. Members, I received an invitation to attend a coursing meeting, but through lack of time I could not go. However, I am fairly well aware of some of the phrases used. Let us suppose that, for example, a slipper is assisting at and
      982
      that, if he has an assistant, the assistant is assisting the slipper. If the phrase means "to help to be an assistant in some way", that man would be guilty if prosecuted and he would be subject to these fines.
      At this stage I do not know whether it is permissible for two of my mining constituents to take their whippets out on a Saturday afternoon and release them after a hare, because those dogs would be in competition with each other. One miner might say to the other "I bet that my dog can catch that hare". Are they allowed to do that without the passing of money? Had I spoken to the last group of amendments, I hope that I would have received an answer which distinguished a match from a competition. If one miner says "I bet you a fiver that my dog can beat yours" and money passes, what advice should I give them? They will be taking part and it must be made clear whether what they are doing constitutes a competition within the meaning of the Bill.
      I revert to the question of "assists at". What happens if another person is brought into the exercise? For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said, a farm worker on a tractor might see the chase pass by and join in because it looks good fun. He has, therefore, intentionally joined in. Is he assisting at the competition between two dogs, which we do not know is a competition? Without going outside the rules of order, I hope that the hon. Lady will enlighten me on this matter.
      The question arises of the type of dog used. If persons are not allowed to assist at a greyhound meeting, can they assist at a whippet meeting, a Saluki competition or a lurcher competition?
      Mr. Farr: There are also deerhounds.
      Mr. Butler: I doubt that deerhounds would hunt hares. New Clause 9 would have been invaluable in this respect because it sought to define what a dog was. I ask the hon. Lady to intervene again—I hope that her Whips will not make it impossible for her to do so—so that I shall be in a better position to understand this problem. If she does not reply, my constituents will risk not insubstantial fines—for example, £200—for watching on a Saturday afternoon what turns out to be, in their ignorance, an illegal entertainment. I assume that

      983
      once a person has been fined £200, he will be unlikely to be so foolish again. Nevertheless there is the risk of the far greater fine, which is still a substantial sum for anyone nowadays.
      I make those points and ask those questions in serious vein at the first opportunity I have had to intervene in this debate, and I hope that the hon. Lady will give helpful answers.
      Dr. Summerskill: May I have leave to speak again?
      First, I take up the question raised by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) about two farmers out in a field with their dogs. Clause 1 prohibits
      "the coursing of a hare by two or more dogs in a competition"
      where the basic object is to compare the relative coursing abilities of the dogs, but, as I said both on Second Reading and in Committee, that will not interfere with the right of a farmer to set his dog or dogs after a hare to catch and kill it for control purposes. Nor will it create a criminal offence if two people are taking a country walk with their dogs and the dogs put up and pursue a hare. What we are concerned to do is to prohibit competitive coursing as it is now organised.
      To revert to the amendment itself, I remind the House that we have a precedent here. That precedent is the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which made it an offence
      "to cause, procure, or assist at the fighting or baiting of any animal".
      The interpretation of that provision has never given rise to any difficulty on the part of the police or the courts.
      Mr. Jasper More rose—
      Dr. Summerskill: As the hon. Gentleman spoke for an hour and a quarter in Committee on this matter, perhaps I could continue now. As I said in Committee, in the light of the precedent of the 1911 Act, it is difficult to believe that the inclusion of these words would create difficulties of interpretation for the courts. Moreover, apart from the precedent to which I have just referred, to "assist" in the coursing of hares by dogs is covered by the provisions of Section 35 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, which provides that a person who
      "aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence".
      Therefore, "assists at" cannot be construed as synonymous with the principal offence. It relates only to the part played by people present in an ancillary capacity, such as stewards or attendants. It will apply only to people who knowingly take part or offer encouragement.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Thomas Cox rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 0.

      Division No. 364.]

      AYES

      [4.38 p.m.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Ennals, David

      Lipton, Marcus

      Atkinson, Norman

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Bates, Alf

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Booth, Albert

      Flannery, Martin

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mitchell, R. C (Soton, Itchen)

      Cant, R. B.

      Gould, Bryan

      Molloy, William

      Cartwright, John

      Graham, Ted

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Newens, Stanley

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Grocott, Bruce

      Noble, Mike

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hatton, Frank

      Ovenden, John

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Owen, Dr David

      Cryer, Bob

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Parker, John

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Perry, Ernest

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hunt, John

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Deakins, Eric

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Radice, Giles

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Eadie, Alex

      Kerr, Russell

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Edge, Geoff

      Lamborn, Harry

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Sandelson, Neville

      English, Michael

      Lee, John

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Tomlinson, John

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Silverman, Julius

      Tuck, Raphael

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Ward, Michael

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Watkinson, John

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Weitzman, David

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Mr. Arnold Shaw and

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mr. Thomas Cox.

      NOES

      NIL

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mr. Michael Mates and

      Mr. Jasper More.

      Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 31 (Majority for Closure).
      Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
      Motion made, and Question proposed That the debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. Mellish.]
      Mr. Ridley: This has been a remarkable day. It seems that all 95 hon. Members were missing their important constituency meetings. They have missed the opportunity to address their constituents. It seems that they decided to stay in London for the purpose of pursuing this shoddy little measure to try to push it through, using the procedures of the House. They have decided to spend the evening in London in the House. I am sure that they would like to have the debate continued.
      I invite them to join in the debate on whether we should continue. It has been a most remarkable scene. We have found that the Government cannot even keep more than 95 of their supporters in the House. Although I am personally in favour of the motion now before the House, I do not think that the occasion should pass without remarking that this rather sordid little manoeuvre on the part of the Government has effectively been defeated by their failure to get their supporters to turn up to support a closure motion.
      Mr. Fell: I wonder whether we may be told where the strongest proponent of this measure has been this afternoon. It may be that he has been through the Division Lobby, but I have not seen him. I am referring, of course, to the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has always been the strongest proponent of this measure. Where is he?
      Mr. William Price: Is my right hon. Friend the strongest proponent?
      Mr. Fell: I forgive the hon. Gentleman if he thinks that he is the stronger. The right hon. Gentleman's language has been much more immoderate than that of the Parliamentary Secretary.
      Mr. Mather: It should be added that it has been monstrous that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has not been present during any of today's proceedings. If the Bill has his support at least he should have shown his face during today's debate. The Bill has been mismanaged. It is a bad Bill. It has been ill-handled and we wish it no luck from now on.
      Dr. Alan Glyn: I cannot let this occasion pass without saying that the Government spend their time, and quite rightly, saying how important is our economic situation, yet we stay here until nearly five o'clock to discuss a Bill which has no constitutional importance. We have had no assistance from the Under-Secretary of State. If the hon. Lady looks at an encyclopaedia, she will find that her definition of "assistance" is not capable of interpretation in the courts. I believe that the House has wasted a considerable amount of time discussing this Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

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

  HOSPITALS (BROMLEY)
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The National Health Service is currently undergoing many difficulties. Those difficulties are mostly connected with its financing and the size and nature of the private sector. In my constituency of Orpington we also suffer from the handicap of atrociously antiquated hospital buildings, about which I have previously spoken. However, these problems pale into insignificance beside the desperate need for a proper standard of medical skill in our hospitals.
  It is painful to have to raise this matter publicly. I do so knowing of the dangers of undermining public confidence in a vital service which has hitherto served my constituents well, and which still includes many practitioners of immense skill and devotion to their patients' welfare. I regret to say that the standard of medical skill in at least one department of the Bromley area hospitals has fallen alarmingly in recent months. My constituents are particularly worried about two tragedies involving anaesthetics which have received the maximum of local publicity recently but the minimum of action to allay public anxiety.
  Adam Grier was nine when on 19th August last year he went into Orpington Hospital for what his parents were assured was a routine operation for appendicitis. During the operation the surgeon noticed something wrong with his colour, but, tragically, did nothing about it until it was too late. What was wrong was the tube inserted into the boy's throat by the anaesthetist, a locum trained abroad and secured that very day from an agency run by an overseas-trained doctor. It was the wrong tube for the purpose, made of the wrong material and inserted in the wrong way, with the result that it kinked, interrupting the passage of oxygen to the brain.
  In its Annual Report for 1975, at page 41, the Medical Protection Society speaks of "The Vital Airway" as follows:
  "It is the prime responsibility of the practioner who administers a general anaesthetic to maintain a satisfactory airway. This responsibility can only be discharged by a clinical and appropriate monitoring of the patient and a considerable degree of self-discipline may be required to maintain critical
  988
  observation of both patient and anaesthetic apparatus during the course of a long surgical procedure. Even in the most skilled hands a crisis may supervene during an operation, yet tragedy is averted because appropriate signs are recognised at once and the situation rectified. It is this degree of constant alterness that is the hallmark of the good anaesthetist. Failure to note immediately inadequate ventilation and resultant hypoxia comprises the largest group of successful claims against anaesthetists."
  By the time the surgeon realised what was wrong, little Adam had suffered serious and irreversible brain damage. His parents were hastily summoned. One can imagine their shock and anguish as, despite the devoted efforts of the doctors spread over six days, their litle boy died.
  There was no doubt an immediate inquiry at the hospital. The use of the agency was suspended. At the inquest the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against the anaesthetist after hearing the medical evidence, which was reported fully in the Press. After a full hearing of the evidence at the Bromley magistrates court, the anaesthetist was committed for trial at the Old Bailey on that charge.
  Then, to the surprise of almost everyone, at the opening of the trial on 14th March prosecuting counsel offered no evidence, and the case was dropped. It transpired that he had previously spent some hours at Orpington Hospital, where doctors persuaded him that a criminal charge, as opposed to simple negligence, was not maintainable. I make no comment about that professional legal opinion, but this was a matter of acute public anxiety aroused by two hearings before public tribunals, each of which had decided in a contrary sense. So the words used by Mr. Justice Chapman in acceding to the prosecution's decision were particularly significant. He said:
  "There is no doubt that the cause of death of the child was for some reason due to the supply of oxygen, and there was resultant damage as a result of it not getting into his brain. How and why that occurred is very mysterious, and whose fault it was we do not really know."
  We still do not really know Despite acute anxiety felt locally by all who have read and know of this case, the reassurance offered by the local and regional health authority has been minimal.
  There was obviously a failure of the system at Orpington General Hospital

  989
  which enabled an incompetent anaesthetist to take up the wrong instrument and use it in the wrong way. All that we have had so far from the regional authority is the announcement of an inquiry, in effect into how the anaesthetist came to be appointed as a locum. One of the four members of the committee of inquiry into this case is a consultant who, before reorganisation, was in the Bromley Group. The scope of the inquiry appears to be almost wholly internal and professional. It therefore seems to be intended more to allay the fears of the professionals than those of the public.
  This is the main point of my appeal today, that cases of this kind demand public reassurance. For the parents of Adam Grier, nothing can console them for the loss of their little son. They are, however, anxious, as I am, that their experience is used to help prevent any similar tragedy recurring. Unfortunately it already has. Robert Quickenden aged 18, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), went into Farnborough Hospital, also in my constituency, and also in the Bromley Health Authority district, for an appendicitis operation last July.
  There was an error on the part of the anaesthetist, whose name we do not know. We do not know what the error was because the regional health authority has not seen fit to give those particulars. As a result of the error, Robert suffered brain damage of an apparently irreversible kind. He is still under treatment. No one knows what his future will be. In that case the anaesthetist was trained abroad. But it was not a locum and so her capabilities should have been well known. The health authority has accepted responsibility but refused an inquiry. Once again the need for public reassurance has been ignored.
  It is true that we have been told that the anaesthetist had an ECG and an X-ray of the chest taken to try to find out what was wrong with the patient. But by the time these were taken the brain damage was apparently irreversible. Any similarity with the case of Adam Grier has been denied by the regional health authority. Yet in both cases the anaesthetists were foreign-trained, the nature of the operation was the same, the injury done to the patient was the same and the cause—incompetent anaesthetists
  990
  —was the same. Small wonder that statements issued by the health authority about these cases are generally disbelieved.
  Recently I have been told of another case of comparative failure in the anaesthetics department of Farnborough Hospital, the details of which I have already given to the Minister of State. A constituent, in the hospital for a post-natal operation last December, recovered consciousness twice during the operation because of a failure in the anaesthesia. She suffered some internal injury and was taken to the intensive care unit where, fortunately, she eventually recovered. She now lives a normal life and I suspect that that is only because, unlike a child, she possessed great strength and stamina. In her case there has been no inquiry and so far no repercussions beyond a private apology. Cases of this kind should never occur in a well-run hospital, in so far as they can be humanly prevented.
  My constituents are right to demand that these incidents should not recur. They want to know what went wrong and above all what has been done to prevent a recurrence. Reluctance to give information about such cases only breeds a suspicion that matters are being hushed up.
  If the National Health Service is to enjoy the confidence of the public, it must not try to conceal its failures. If those failures are due to the incompetence of inadequately trained foreign doctors, those doctors should not be allowed to practise in Britain. The standard of British-trained doctors is as high as any in the world. We should pay them properly and give them the conditions appropriate to their excellence rather than drive them abroad and rely on imported substitutes, who are often of inferior quality, on inferior pay. Above all, matters must be brought out into the open and explained.
  I therefore ask for an inquiry into the standards of anaesthesia practised in the Bromley area in the light of these cases. Whether it is held in public or private does not matter as long as it is independent and publishes its report. If the Health Service Commissioner is able and willing to undertake such an inquiry, I should welcome that. In any event we must have an assurance, as far as

  991
  humanly possible, that tragedies such as this will never recur.
  5.8 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) for bringing this matter to my attention, since the subject of the standards of medical care must be of concern to anybody occupying my position with responsibility for the day-to-day running of the health service.
  The hon. Gentleman said that concern had been especially expressed in Bromley as a result of the two tragic incidents in local hospitals. Adam Grier was admitted to Orpington Hospital in August 1974 for an emergency operation but an interruption of the oxygen supply during the operation caused his death. Various theories have been put forward for the interruption of the oxygen supply—probably that the tube used was of the wrong type and kinked, or possibly that the tube used was in error installed in the oesophagus instead of the trachea. Despite variations, the theories all centred on a mistake by the anaesthetist. He was a locum who had been engaged from an agency. The facts of the case pointed to deficiencies in the area health authority procedures for the engagement of locum staff, and an inquiry, which is expected to report in December, has been set up to look at these procedures.
  There appears to be a misunderstanding about the exact terms of reference of the inquiry, because it will not only look into the procedures involved. It will investigate the procedures by which locum medical staff are appointed, with special reference to those engaged through medical agencies. More particularly, it will examine the circumstances of the case which gave rise to the inquiry. The committee of inquiry will look into the specific aspects of the Grier case as well as the much wider aspects of the situation of the locum service and medical staff agencies. I hope that that case is already being investigated fully.
  The question of Robert Quickenden is different. He was admitted to Farnborough Hospital for an emergency operation on 11th July 1975 but an interruption of the oxygen supply led to brain damage, although the patient is still alive. It
  992
  seems fairly certain that the interruption was caused by a mistake in the installation of the oxygen tube. Again it would seem that the tube was passed down the oesophagus instead of the trachea, but in this instance the anaesthetist was a full-time employee engaged through normal procedures. There has been a full admission of responsibility by the area health authority.
  At first glance I understand why both cases may appear to the hon. Gentleman's constituents to be similar. Both involve anaesthetic incidents with young patients at neighbouring hospitals in the same area health authority, and can be traced to mistakes by doctors in the installation of an oxygen tube. It may even be that the same mistake was involved in each case. On the other hand, the coincidence of the hospitals involved should be seen as no more than that, as entirely separate consultants and medical staff were involved in both cases. The Grier case involved a locum, but in the Quickenden case the anaesthetist was a senior house officer who had been engaged in the normal way and had, in fact, already worked four months of a six-month contract before the incident happened.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned a third case, involving a constituent, which occurred a year ago, but it would appear that the issues here, involving as they do a matter of fine clinical judgment on the part of the doctor concerned and to some extent of the anaesthetist, are not really comparable with the other two cases. I also understand that the constituent has never made any approach to the area health authority, and that is why there has been no inquiry. The authority assures me, however, that it will investigate any complaint which is brought to its attention.
  I shall deal with the wider issues raised. The hon. Gentleman said that reluctance to give information breeds suspicion that matters are being hushed up. I very much agree with that. He went on to say that for the National Health Service to have the confidence of the public it must not try to conceal its failures. The fact is that failures occur. Doctors, like any other part of the human race, are capable of error, but I agree that, when an error is made, public confidence is restored by frankness and by what the public consider to be an impartial investigation.

  993
  The type of investigations that are available to us are not fully adequate. The tendency is to hold only the formal inquiry, in which individuals are often legally represented which takes a long time. In many cases that is an inappropriate mechanism to deal with an indivdual case. The House in its wisdom has tried to introduce a different mechanism in the rôle of the Health Service Commissioner. He holds an independent office, established under Act of Parliament, for the carrying out of investigations into complaints concerned with hospitals and other health services.
  The commissioner has a team which is sent out and visits the complainant as well as the health authority, talks to anyone who may be able to shed light on the matter and examines all the relevant documents. The commissioner is, therefore, uniquely well placed to get all the facts and form an independent judgment. He has the same powers as the High Court to examine all relevant documents and to take written and oral evidence from anyone who may be able to give useful information.
  However, it is necessary to point out that the commissioner is excluded from investigation of action taken in connection with the diagnosis of illness or the care or treatment of a patient if, in the opinion of the Commissioner, it was taken solely in consequence of the exercise of clinical judgment. There is this interface between maladministration, which lies within the terms of reference of the Health Service Commissioner, and the problem of identifying whether the matter arises solely in consequence of the exercise of clinical judgment.
  The House in future years may well wish to examine the exact terms of reference of the Commissioner. I do not disguise from the hon. Gentleman that I believe that the Health Service Commissioner offers a valuable and flexible form of inquiry, but if he were to be used as the main vehicle for inquiry into the health service the question would arise whether the restrictions and exclusions currently applied would satisfy the House as giving him sufficient scope for inquiry.
  There is a Select Committee of the House which keeps under review the operations of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Health Service Commissioner. The Government are studying
  994
  this issue carefully at the moment in the light of many other reports, including the Davies Report on Hospital Complaints Procedure.
  In my judgment, both the Quickenden case and the other case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent would possibly fall within the terms of reference of the Commissioner. It is not for me to determine whether they do. The Commissioner alone decides whether he can investigate a complaint. He cannot normally investigate a complaint unless the responsible health authority has already had an opportunity to do so. If the Commissioner investigates a case, he can and does interview the area health authority.
  In some cases there is statutory provision for a health authority to ask the Commissioner to investigate a complaint. Health authorities may avail themselves of this opportunity in cases where they feel that a fully independent inquiry is the best course or that the person making the complaint is unlikely to be satisfied with anything less than a completely independent inquiry.
  There have been occasions when as Minister I have sought, either through encouraging the Member of Parliament concerned or through talking to the area health authority, to invoke the services of the Health Service Commissioner, because I believe he has already proved that he has a valuable rôle to play.
  The Commissioner began work in 1973. Since then I have been fully convinced of the value of having an ombudsman for the health service. He provides a completely independent means of investigating complaints about failures in the service. His reputation in the House of Commons and the way in which he has dealt with cases in his other rôle as a Parliamentary Commissioner has shown this. He makes an independent report, which is published for Members of Parliament, on matters of complaint.
  In his last report covering the 12 months up to the end of March this year, the Commissioner records issuing over 100 reports on complaints referred to him which came within his scope. The complaint was upheld in half these cases. In many cases the Commissioner has invited

  995
  the health authority to review its practices and procedures. The complaints covered such matters as failure of communication between patients or their relatives and hospital staff, delays in admission to hospital, and failure to provide an adequate service, which covers a large number of areas.
  It is, of course, the job of management in the first place to look into things that go wrong in hospitals or other parts of the health services and only they can put matters right in many cases. The great majority of complaints about health services are dealt with satisfactorily in this way. However, there will inevitably be occasions when those who complain remain dissatisfied with the explanations given by the health authority and who may from the outset make it clear that they want an independent inquiry to be held. In those cases an independent inquiry by the Commissioner may often be conceded late when sometimes it would have been better to concede an inquiry earlier.
  The area health authority, following discussions which the hon. Gentleman and I had about the possibility of using the Health Commissioner, has expressed interest about whether the Quickenden case should be referred to the Commissioner. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman discusses this either with his constituents to see whether that is what they wish or with the area health authority chairman. The result of such a meeting with the area health authority might be that it would decide to look into the matter.
  There are problems in this case because there is a possibility of litigation, although an admission has been made, about the matter of compensation. The Health Commissioner, in his terms of reference—I quote from his leaflet:
  "cannot investigate any matter in respect of which the aggrieved person has appealed to a tribunal or has taken proceedings in a court of law. Nor can he normally investigate the matter if the person has, or had such a right of appeal or of recourse to the courts, but has not used it; but he may nevertheless decide to investigate in an individual case if he is satisfied that it is not reasonable in the particular circumstances to expect the person to use or have used it".
  It would be possible to take either course, but it is for the Commissioner to decide.
  996
  In the other case which the hon. Gentleman raised perhaps there is more evidence of a purely clinical judgment having been made. I have not seen evidence of any maladministration. I am less certain that that would fall within the terms of reference. If either the hon. Gentleman or his constituents wished to take up this matter with the regional or area medical officer, they would be able to do so.
  In summary, I point out that mistakes are made in the National Health Service. Mistakes will be made in any health service. We need a flexible, independent mechanism for investigating complaints which is sympathetic to the problems of doctors who often work extremely long hours, and to the possibility of human error, which can occur in any profession, but which satisfies people outside that the investigation is not a cover-up or hush-up or is not held internally within one profession. The appointment of the Health Service Commissioner was an important start in ensuring that sort of independence and it might well be something on which we can build in the light of experience.
  The hon. Gentleman said that many of the people concerned were foreign doctors. That was certainly so in one case: the doctors were trained abroad. It is right that we should tighten up on the procedures in respect of the question of language, but do not let us forget the invaluable debt which the National Health Service owes and will owe for many years to doctors who have been trained overseas and whose standards in the vast majority of cases are of the highest. English-trained doctors who have worked alongside foreign doctors would pay tribute to the work which they have done.
  I have noticed a tendency in recent months to highlight cases of error, which have perhaps occurred with foreign-trained doctors. We must ensure that we have the highest standards and that no doctor is able to practise in this country unless he satisfies the regulations of the General Medical Council, which is an independent professional body. But we must recognise that the standards of foreign doctors have been very high.
  I thought that the hon. Gentleman implied that the foreign doctors in question received a lower rate of pay. That

  997
  might be so under the agency arrangements. However, the doctors in this case were paid at the normal rates.
  The House has a great sympathy with the problems of the junior hospital doctors. They work extremely long hours. However, the present dispute, which I very much regret, is not of the Government's making. It is purely and simply a question of the need to counter inflation. The Government have never had any intention of singling out the junior hospital doctors in counter-inflation policies which did not apply to the whole population—far from it. We have considerable sympathy with their case and wish a contract structure to be agreed with them which will reduce the number of hours they work. The longer the hours they work, the greater the possibility of human error.
  998
  I hope that what I have said will have reassured the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I am sorry that the coincidence of cases has caused concern. I understand the concern. I believe that it is a question more of coincidence than of anything else, but we should not be afraid to try to ensure, whether by tightening the procedures or by making changes in practice, that tragic errors of this sort are reduced or, as I hope, totally eliminated.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and look forward to co-operating with him in securing adequate inquiries into both the cases I have raised.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Five o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Wakefield Prison
  Wakefield Prison
  Departmental Circulars
  Departmental Circulars
CIVIL SERVICE
  Management Services Division
  Management Services Division
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Multinational Companies
  Multinational Companies
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
SCOTLAND
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
ENVIRONMENT
  House Demolitions
  House Demolitions
  Housing Co-operatives
  Housing Co-operatives
  Community Land
  Community Land
  Roads (Crash Barriers)
  Roads (Crash Barriers)
  Central Lancashire New Town
  Central Lancashire New Town
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Pelican Crossing (Southampton)
  Pelican Crossing (Southampton)
  Vacant Dwellings
  Vacant Dwellings
  Departmental Circulars
  Departmental Circulars
  Vehicle Regulations
  Vehicle Regulations
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Badgers
  Badgers
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Departmental Circulars
  Departmental Circulars
  University Buildings
  University Buildings
  School Transport
  School Transport
EMPLOYMENT
  Thanet
  Thanet
  Young Persons (Wales)
  Young Persons (Wales)
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
  Essex
  Essex
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  "Key Worker" (Definition)
  "Key Worker" (Definition)
  New Towns
  New Towns
INDUSTRY
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Kearney and Trecker Marwin Ltd.
  Kearney and Trecker Marwin Ltd.
  Internal Combustion Engine
  Internal Combustion Engine
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Postcodes
  Postcodes
  Norton Villiers Triumph
  Norton Villiers Triumph
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Population
  Population
  Departmental Circulars
  Departmental Circulars
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Local Price Surveys
  Local Price Surveys
TRADE
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Motor Cycles
  Motor Cycles
  Companies Registration Office
  Companies Registration Office
  Terms of Trade
  Terms of Trade
  Livestock
  Livestock
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Desertions and Absence Without Leave
  Desertions and Absence Without Leave
  Discharge Purchases
  Discharge Purchases
  Research and Development Contracts
  Research and Development Contracts
  Royal Air Force (Discharged Personnel)
  Royal Air Force (Discharged Personnel)
  Commonwealth War Graves Commission (Exhibition)
  Commonwealth War Graves Commission (Exhibition)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nuclear Technology Negotiations
  Nuclear Technology Negotiations
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
ENERGY
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Research
  Research
LEGAL AID
  Tribunals
  Tribunals
  European Community Ministers' Meeting
  European Community Ministers' Meeting
  Prices
  Prices
  SOLICITORS
  SOLICITORS

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

PORTUGAL AND BRITISH SUBJECTS
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are proposing to take for the protection of lives and property of British subjects in Portugal.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the protection of lives and property of British subjects in Portugal is the responsibility of the Portuguese Government. They have assured us, on a number of occasions, in the past and recently, that they are fully aware of their responsibility and will do everything in their power to give British subjects and their property proper protection. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State made clear in another place on 21st October, Her Majesty's Government have made representations at a high level to the Portuguese Government about the difficulties currently being encountered by some British subjects farming in Portugal, and will continue to press the Portuguese Government for a satisfactory outcome.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, am I to understand the noble Lord the Minister as saying that it is the responsibility of the Portuguese Government to protect the lives and property of British citizens? I should have thought that was the responsibility of the British Government. May I ask what the British Government are doing to see that the Portuguese carry out this responsibility to British citizens and their property? May I also draw
1722
the noble Lord's attention to a report in The Times of the policy of the Institute of Agrarian Reform, which says that it does not differentiate between Portuguese and foreign owned land rights? Would the Minister comment on this policy of what is a parastatal organisation?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I should have thought that the axiom that the receiving Government were responsible for the lives and property of any other nationals going into that country to live or work was accepted internationally. On the second point, I could not comment on any report which I have not yet seen; but I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having drawn it to my attention.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, but may I say to him that I regret to have to differ with him on this point? Would he not agree that it is surely a matter of international law that a Government are always responsible for the lives of their citizens, wherever those citizens may be? Perhaps the Minister would care to reconsider this matter? Also, may I ask him whether he will see that, where it is due, compensation is given as a matter of priority to British citizens for their property losses, as opposed to giving economic aid to a very unstable Government, which may shortly be put in an even more unstable position than they are in now?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises questions of far-reaching importance. I cannot add to what I have already said about the duties of home Governments to protect the lives and property of incoming nationals. On the second point as to whether we should extend aid to this country and Government, I should have thought that the sixth Provisional Government, showing as they do a determination to move towards pluralistic democracy, deserve all the aid we can give to them.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that many British nationals who have gone to live in Portugal, and have bought houses and estates there, have done so in order to dodge paying British income tax?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us exactly what the relevance of that might be?
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, while appreciating the difficulty of the British Government, may I ask the noble Lord to say what value he places on the assurances from the sixth Provisional Government, since it is apparent that their writ does not run throughout the whole of Portugal?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are all aware of the difficulties which are being encountered by the sixth Provisional Government in the disturbed situation which confronts them in many parts of Portugal. However, the present Government are a marked improvement on anything which preceded them. They have said that they will move as quickly as possible to a pluralistic democracy, with freedom of the Press and everything that democracy means. I should have thought that we should, by speech and action, do everything we can to sustain the present Government of Portugal.
Lord HALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he recalls the tributes that were paid to the dictatorship Government in Portugal about two years ago, when we had a national celebration of the marriage of Catherine of Braganza, and were talking of Portugal as our oldest ally? Does my noble friend agree, since our oldest ally is in temporary political distress at the sudden termination of 40 years of repressive dictatorship and poverty, that we should now try to consider their problems with our Common Market colleagues with the most sympathetic understanding and interest?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Community have indicated to the Portuguese Government that they are anxious to help Portugal in this time of
1724
economic and constitutional difficulty—the two are linked. The Community, have, I think, made their views clear to the Portuguese Government. As to the historical references drawn on by my noble friend, I find them very interesting and probably apposite.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, while accepting, of course, that the sixth Provisional Government have to be supported in every way, may we on this side of the House ask for unreserved Government support for those centre Parties such as the CDS and the PPD, which are struggling to keep the Government on their course towards a pluralistic democracy, as opposed to a form of totalitarian régime?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Of course, my Lords not simply the centre Parties, but also the left of centre Parties which are committed to democracy. My noble friend referred to 40 years of dictatorship. It is not our purpose to assist in any way the substitution of a new form of dictatorship, from either the left or right in place of the old one.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, would the noble Lord add to his commendation Parties which may be a little right of centre and which are still committed to democracy?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would not define the deserving recipients of our support and commendation as being left or right. I would define them as being genuinely democratic in policy and purpose.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
11.13 a.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Schedule 4 [Acquisition and appropriation of land]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 49B:
Page 55, line 41, after ("Act") insert ("for the purposes of designated relevant development").
The noble Baroness said: Now that we have reached Schedule 4we have, I think, reached what is the most important and in many ways the most contentious part of this Bill. I am moving Amendment No. 49B because I should like, first, to find out what are the intentions of the Government in their use of the special procedures on compulsory purchase order inquiries. I am aware of course that in our deliberations at the last meeting of the Committee the Government undertook to look at the wording of Clause 15(1) again, and to an extent this Amendment will depend on the definitions that are given in that clause; in particular, whether it applies only to relevant development.
However, the purpose of this Amendment is to limit the operation of the Schedule 4 procedures to acquisitions, under the powers of the Community Land Bill, of land which is defined as designated relevant development; that is land which local authorities will have a duty to acquire. If the land was acquired under some other Acts that conferred compulsory purchase powers, the authority, as I understand, might be able to use the procedures in Schedule 4. I should
1726
like to know whether I am correct in thinking that this is how Schedule 4 would work, and I should like an answer to my question and to know whether indeed we shall find that the Schedule 4 procedures are therefore used not only because of the duties under this Bill but under other Acts as well. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, we are getting on to an extremely important part of the Bill dealing with procedures. I would make one or two general points about this before dealing with the specific Amendment she has now moved. On Wednesday we discussed the new power of acquisition in Clause 15, and with this Amendment we come to the procedures that apply when the new power is used. Before we discuss the detailed provisions, it may be useful for me to restate a very simple point. This is relevant not only to our contention that a new and wider acquisition power is needed but also to the proposed changes in procedure that we are about to discuss.
There is really no point in pretending that this is a consensus Bill. There is a very strong difference of view between the two sides of your Lordships' House. My right honourable friend the Minister pointed out on Third Reading in another place that he did not wish to blur the clear differences in philosophy that exists between the two sides of the House; neither do I. This is what has been underlying all the debates so far, and no doubt it will continue to underlie them, so even when we are discussing quite precise and small Amendments which are concerned with minor procedural matters, or even drafting, the basic philosophy and principles keep on raising their heads. I therefore do not want to pretend that this is not an extremely radical measure. We do not want to give authorities wider powers of acquisition. We do want to make changes in compulsory purchase procedure in order to speed up public acquisition; and, as will be seen when we come to later provisions of the Bill, we do want in time to arrive at a situation in which virtually all significant development takes place on publicly-owned land and all betterment accrues to the community.
This, of course, is fundamentally where there is such a strong difference of

1727
opinion, and with most of the Amendments, whatever appears to be the top layer, it comes down to these principles upon which we have based this Bill and which the Opposition, despite some of the remarks that have been made on Second Reading, totally disagree. It is obvious that a radical scheme of this kind must involve some considerable shift in some areas in the balance between public and private interests. If there were no argument about how to strike the right balance here we should, I am sure, be able to adjourn much earlier than we frequently do these days and perhaps there would not be such a constant flood of Amendments coming in all the time.
Of course, there is room for argument and that argument is, I believe, the Parliamentary guts of our political life. But the argument takes place within an agreed framework of democratic institutions in a mixed economy. Therefore, what I utterly repudiate are the suggestions that have been made by some noble Lords opposite, particularly in the rather abortive Second Reading we had the other night, that the principle behind the Bill goes outside this democratic framework and is inspired by Marxist thinking, by Communism, by authoritarianism, or by whatever word is chosen by the Peer at the time he thinks it suitable to make the point. Noble Lords opposite are probably not convinced by this argument. However, may I remind them of a point that I made in August on the Second Reading of the No. 2 Bill. I pointed out then that the basic principles of this Bill—that all development land should come into public ownership and that all betterment should accrue to the community—derive basically from the Report of the famous Uthwatt Committee on Compensation and Betterment in 1942.
I go back to that because it seems to me that in the discussions which have taken place since this point has been lost, or wandered away from, or conveniently forgotten. Are noble Lords opposite seriously suggesting that the experienced and distinguished members of that Committee were politically motivated? Of course they were not. They were taking a rational look at the subject and were doing so—this is an important point—at a time when people were thinking about how to reconstruct
1728
this country after the war and when Party political divisions were subjugated to national unity. They concluded that public ownership of development land was the rational solution to the problem of achieving a lasting solution to the linked problems of planning, compensation and betterment. Now 33 years later, we are bringing forward another land plan that is based on the concept of community ownership of land. It is no new "pie in the sky" or highly revolutionary idea. It is part of the establishment so far as recommendations and reports are concerned.
In view of a great deal that has been said, it is therefore timely to warn noble Lords opposite that when we discuss their Amendments, however much they may go on about it and however many speakers from their Front Bench they may put up, we shall not necessarily see eye to eye with them. We want to change the procedure and believe that as a result of the modifications which have been made since the Bill was introduced we have got the balance right.
Something that both amazes and shocks me is that there does not seem to be any acceptance or acknowledgment by noble Lords opposite that between the Committee and Report stages in another place considerable changes have been made to this Bill which are due entirely to recommendations and suggestions made by the Opposition there and also to proposals which were put forward by outside organisations. Quite frankly, from so many of the points to which we have been listening patiently on this side of the House, one would think that there had been no changes, that no consultations had taken place and that nothing had been done. My noble friends and I will be quite happy to debate the proposals and to consider very seriously—we are doing so all the way through—any constructive points which are made in debate, but I think we should start the day by recognising that at the end of it there will still be strong differences of principle between us.
The Earl of KINNOULL: May I interrupt the noble Baroness. I have listened most carefully to what she has said and have followed most carefully her arguments on Amendment No. 49B, but may I ask the noble Baroness whether

1729
she is making a Second Reading or Third Reading speech?
Baroness BIRK: I feel I am doing something which may be helpful to the House. As the noble Baroness opposite has pointed out, we are coming to the procedural part of the Bill which is extremely important. Judging by the Amendments which were still flooding in last night from noble Lords opposite it seems that they are taking a very keen interest in this part. Since the noble Earl has raised the Third Reading point, I must point out that some of those Amendments are so corrosive that they are almost wrecking Amendments. The noble Baroness opposite said that she considered that this was a key Amendment and I feel that it is my duty to state at the beginning of today's debate how we feel about this part of the Bill. Frank speaking cannot be wrong in this House. It is right here, just as it is right anywhere else. May I say—we are now down to two again—that I have not drawn the attention of the House to the number of Second Reading or Third Reading speeches which have been made by the Front Bench opposite and would not have mentioned this point if the question had not been raised by the noble Earl.
Let me turn now to the Amendment of the noble Baroness. It would limit the proposed changes in the compulsory purchase procedure in Part I of Schedule 4 to acquisitions for designated relevant development. The noble Baroness put tome a direct question. The procedures in Schedule 4 apply only to acquisitions, and then only to relevant development. We feel that there is not very much logic in this Amendment. If it is considered right that there should be a power to dispense with a further public inquiry when the issues have already been adequately considered at a previous inquiry, this power should apply to all acquisitions for relevant development under the land scheme, not simply to cases of designated relevant development; that is, where the full duty under Clause 21 is in operation.
Although it may be argued that this should await the full duty, in practice the publication of the authorities' five-year rolling programmes of land acquisition will indicate the areas where authorities intend to operate. They will thus indicate to landowners the areas in which
1730
land is likely to be acquired. There is no practical difference between an area where the full duty is in operation and an area where an authority are acquiring all land that is needed for relevant development under the general duty. This is a rolling, phased programme. It is not that anyone is suddenly being jumped into anything by surprise. As noble Lords opposite see it, the effect of the Amendment of the noble Baroness would be to put off the so-called evil day. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, it is not an Amendment which we could accept.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: The noble Baroness has, I am afraid, chosen a particularly unfortunate moment to start making, as she did at the beginning of her speech, her major political thesis. May I say why? The noble Baroness will no doubt have read the chapter in the Uthwatt Report as recently and as carefully as I and will, I am sure, be fully versed in the background of that Report; namely, the system which used to operate under the Town and Country Planning Act 1932, with which I am sure she is completely familiar, and also in the background of the bombed cities of Britain, the beginning of whose reconstruction was then in hand, probably starting with Plymouth. She will, I am sure, have recognised the context in which that Report was written and may possibly have shared some of my feeling, that it was not quite the same background as that which we now have in this country some 33 years later.
The noble Baroness will remember that parts of the Uthwatt Committee Report were first put into an Act of Parliament in 1947. That Act did not work because of the reaction of ordinary people all over the country who did not like it and who thought that it was unfair. Therefore, parts of it had to be repealed. The Party opposite introduced the Land Commission Scheme in 1967. That did not work, either, because people up and down the country did not like it and thought that it was unfair. Those of us who are concerned with Schedule 4— and I beg the noble Baroness to pay attention to this—are putting forward Amendments to try to deal with procedure, not necessarily because we wish to assault the basic principles of the Bill, but because we wish to try to ensure that

1731
unfairness and injustice are, so far as possible, taken out of these provisions.
The noble Baroness and the Party opposite must be aware that, if people find their land is being compulsorily acquired in circumstances where they think they are being unfairly deprived of a chance to protest, nothing will bring this legislation into disrepute more quickly. We believe that even the Party opposite, for the sake of the good name of their own legislation, ought to be prepared to listen, and listen carefully, to those of us who are putting forward Amendments to Schedule 4 which are constructively aimed at improving the machinery and ensuring that people do not think that their land is being taken unjustly, or that the land next door to them is taken for use in relation to which they have never had any chance to protest.
Some of us on this side of the Committee are not being quite as ultra-partisan as the noble Baroness has suggested, and I very much hope that she has not quite closed her mind. At the end of her speech, she said something about being prepared to listen to constructive suggestions and I beg her to consider, even for the wellbeing of her own creature—this legislation—some of the procedural points which we shall make on this Schedule, because I believe that if she does not get it right, that is where the whole thing will fail. That is where the front line will come, and that is where people will become disenchanted more quickly than anywhere else with this legislation, and I beg of her not to take an intransigent view at this point.
Lord FOOT: I should like to take the opportunity of making one or two general observations about the position which we on these Benches are adopting towards this Bill. We have been criticised, especially from the Tory Benches, for the fact that we have not tabled any Amendments to this Bill. I should like to explain to the Committee why that is the case. As a matter of fact, we have tabled one or two minor Amendments but the general reason why we have not tabled a whole list of Amendments, as the Tory Party has done, is that we have accepted that, although we have serious reservations about the workability of this Bill and about some of the general principles behind it, we disposed of them at
1732
Second Reading and we are now proceeding to consider the Bill in Committee. So it is really quite pointless to fill up the Marshalled List with Amendments which are either trivial—of which, I may say, we have had our full measure up till now—or strike at the root principle of the Bill. We are wasting the time of this Committee, and indeed everybody's time, if we are to be faced with Amendments of that sort.
I have been reading through the Amendments in the names of the Opposition with which we shall be concerned here today, and many of them are quite obviously wrecking Amendments which would destroy the whole principle of the Bill. I think we are wasting our time. I should like to say that I exclude from those remarks the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, because I have read his Amendments and I believe they are constructive and useful. But that does not go for many of the other Amendments which are in the names of his colleagues and which we shall be discussing today. Therefore, if we are to be engaged, as apparently we are, in a prolonged debate and perhaps on Monday or Tuesday going into the early hours of the morning, the responsibility for that does not rest with the Government; it rests with the Opposition.
Lord HYLTON: I should like to ask two rather brief questions. First, if this Amendment were accepted would it be possible to recover betterment by any means other than taxation? May I also ask my noble friend Lady Young what is the meaning in her Amendment of the word "designated"?
Baroness YOUNG: The answer to that question is that it is the term that is used in the Part of the Bill where, after the second appointed day, local authorities have a duty to acquire.
11.32 a.m.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: Since some of the earlier remarks made by the noble Baroness appeared in part to refer to what I said on Second Reading, I should like to make a few comments. First, she said that there is a strong difference of opinion between the two sides of your Lordships' House; of course there is, because there is a serious principle involved in this matter. That is why

1733
we on this side take such strong exception to some of the proposals that are being mooted. The principal one would seem to be the use of the word "community" as an all-embracing term to cover the requirement to give benefit to the national community. It takes no account of the rights of individuals of which the community consists, and this seems to me to be where clauses such as the one we are discussing now infringe so greatly on the rights of the individual.
Perhaps I may quote from what Mr. David Widdicombe, QC, said in the Estates Gazette on 17th May of this year:
"I can deal with these powers quite shortly, for they are absolute. The authority does not have to state any purpose for the acquisition; the rights of objection are nominal only; there is no right to a hearing, and there is not even any right to have a decision on the compulsory purchase order as a whole."
Referring to another point made by the noble Baroness, about the Bill stating that some areas will be required for development, Mr. Widdicombe said:
"As regards the decision, it is provided that the Secretary of State can confirm the order as to part of the land and postpone a decision on the remainder 'until such time as may be specified'. It appears that planning law has borrowed from the criminal law the idea of the suspended sentence!"
This is the sort of problem that we are trying to deal with.
It seems to me that noble Lords opposite are more interested in ensuring that no individual makes a profit, rather than in trying to ensure that the community benefits, for later we shall be coming to issues as to how the Bill is to be administered. Under the plans raised here, I cannot see that it will be anything other than an extremely expensive operation which will erode the notional profit that Her Majesty's Government hope to obtain for the benefit of the community.
Lord SANDFORD: I should like to respond to the general remarks made by the noble Baroness. It is perfectly true that we do not like this Bill, but three years ago I was in the position that she is in now when I introduced the Housing Finance Bill which the then Opposition did not like either, and I should like to make a few comparisons. I did not find it necessary to advise the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as to how he should conduct his Opposition. In fact, after the
1734
First Reading of that Bill, we provided 11 days for him and his colleagues to consider how to deal with it. We have been given one day. After the Second Reading we gave the Party opposite 17 days to prepare their Amendments. We have been given four days. How can the noble Baroness possibly expect all our Amendments to be prepared and tabled before the Committee stage begins?
When the Committee stage began, we gave the party opposite nine days of debate, spread over 21 days; we are being given four days and nights spread over eight days. That is the reason why there is some difficulty about the Bill, but we will bear with that. What we are doing now we are doing because we do not want the rights of individuals eroded; we do not want the independence of the local authorities abrogated; we do not want the sovereignty of Parliament diminished; we want the tyranny of the Secretary of State checked and curbed. We shall work hard on that to the last clause of the last stage of the Bill.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I should like to add a few words to what my noble friend Lord Sandford has just said. The speed with which we have been asked to deal with this Bill is really unfair, and at the end of the day I think it will be to the disadvantage of the Bill. There is a number of points where I consider this piece of legislation defective. I am not being destructive; I mean defective from the point of view of working in law. I regret to say, because of the rush. I have not yet managed to complete reading all the reports on the Report stage of this Bill in another place. This is pressing us almost beyond our capabilities, and it will be to the disadvantage of the working of the Bill at the end of the day.
Baroness YOUNG: When I introduced the first Amendment this morning, I did not realise we were to have a major debate on the principle of Schedule 4 and, indeed, of the Bill. I should very much like to thank by noble friends who have spoken up so forcibly in defence of what we regard as the fundamental principles of individual rights. I think I should make it absolutely clear to the Government that although they feel very strongly about the principle of the nationalisation of land—because that is

1735
what we are talking about—we feel equally strongly about the rights of the individuals who are involved. I have been sent some of the correspondence that passes between Socialist councils out to acquire individuals' property, which is now a most astonishing procedure. Once this Bill becomes law, of course, this kind of procedure will be increased. The rights of the individuals will be diminished; noble Lords opposite need not think they will escape from it, because their properties will be included in it as well and they, too, could be on the receiving end of some of the disadvantages of this Bill.
We feel these are such fundamental principles that we would be failing in our duty if we did not stand by them at this stage, and if we did not seek a full debate. I must say I was astonished by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I take it now that the Liberals are in favour of this Bill, although their Chief Whip in another place seemed to indicate that they were against it. But perhaps that is a Liberal attitude; you really do not know where you stand on anything. We in the Opposition are quite clear where we stand on a number of points on individual rights, and I will say this for the Government: they are quite clear where they stand. So we can debate what are the real points at issue and I make no apology for the Amendments we have put down.
My colleagues and I have worked every night, well into the small hours, trying to master the material that lies behind the Bill, in order to put down Amendments as quickly as we can. If one or two have been duplicated, I would say that, as everybody knows who has been in Opposition, it is very difficult to manage this amount of work within a week on an immensely technical and complicated subject, and then, at the end of the day, to be told that Amendments are still flooding in; I do not know what the Government expect us to be doing. Whether or not they think we are just amusing ourselves working like this, I can assure the Government and the speakers that we take this very seriously and have been working extremely hard. I can assure them that we shall speak on all the points we believe to be important, of
1736
which, in fact, my Amendment No. 49B is the first.
It is not an Amendment that I intend to press this morning. I know now what the view of the Government is about this. As I understand it, we can draw the conclusion that they believe it is right that they should dispense with public inquiries on a great deal of compulsory purchase. Of course, we shall be debating these issues in later Amendments. They believe the shift in balance should be towards the State and against the individual. An attitude of "the State is right" creeps in under every single remark we hear from them. On this Amendment, it is now perfectly clear that they intend to apply the procedures in Schedule 4; that is, to do without a public inquiry wherever they can, on this Bill and on others. We know now where we stand. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness GAITSKELL: May I add a very few words in support of my noble friend Baroness Birk and also in support of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. Listening to this debate, it seems to me that it has been very healthy to underline the great divide which exists on this Bill between the Parties. It is no good fudging this issue. I remember 30 years ago going around with my husband Hugh Gaitskell who was 100 per cent. in favour of a Bill such as this, so it cannot come as a shock to noble Lords opposite that we believe in this Bill. There are many things, perhaps, that could be done to improve it, but we believe in the principle and we on our side will fight to obtain it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.47 a.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 55, line 45, leave out ("the land") and insert ("there are no material interests").
The noble Lord said: I hope I may take advantage of the lull after the squall has passed to move Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. In essence these are tidying-up Amendments. In bringing forward on the Report stage in another place the Amendment now to be found at paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 4, we overlooked the fact that this would create a difference between cases where exclusion from the duty was

1737
achieved by the excepted development mechanism and those where the non-outstanding interest definition applies. The two approaches are needed because in the one case—that is, the type of development—it is the excepted development case, for example up to 10,000 square feet floor-space that has been excluded. In the other approach, the other exclusion depends on the status of a person or body owning the land; for example, land owned by a charity. The Amendment ensures simply that this potential anomaly is removed. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: We are not going to have a lengthy debate on these points. I entirely agree that they are matters of clarification, and it is as well to have them in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 51.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 45, leave out ("is") and insert ("other than outstanding material interests in").— [Lord Melchett.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 51B, I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Manuscript Amendment No. 51C.
11.50 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 51B:
Page 55, line 46, leave out from ("land") to end of line 2 on page 56.
The noble Baroness said: This is an Amendment which, I hope, despite what the Government have already said, they will consider. It raises an important point. It certainly is an important point so far as the rights of the individual citizen are concerned. If I have understood Schedule 4 correctly, paragraph 1 enables an acquiring authority to certify whether the land is development land and consquently, if it is, whether or not the Schedule applies. It enables the authority to issue a certificate and, as I understand it, provides that such a certificate cannot be challenged at an inquiry. It seems to me difficult to see the justification for this, but perhaps there is a reason that has escaped me, and if so I shall be glad to hear what it is.
The kind of problem that I see arising on this issue is, for example, whether the development land is exempted or excepted development; and if that is the case, surely the acquiring authority ought not to be allowed to issue a certificate. In many cases this will be absolutely clear, but it is easy to foresee cases, particularly of excepted developments, where a dispute arises as to whether or not something fell within 10,000 square feet, in which case the authority could issue a certificate; there would be no inquiry and the individual affected would have no right of appeal. My Amendment seeks to provide that, where an individual feels that he has been unjustly treated by this procedure, he will be able to apply to the court to have the certificate quashed. It seems to me that this raises a very important matter of principle. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULL: It may be helpful if I spoke to my manuscript Amendment at this stage, as the Chairman of Committees said, quite rightly, that it is concerned with this point. Perhaps it would be helpful if I read out the manuscript Amendment:
"Page 55, line 47, after ("certificate") insert ("which the Secretary of State after giving any owner of a material interest in the land who maintains that the land is not development land an opportunity of being heard may, if he is satisfied that it is development land, issue").
The purpose of this Amendment is similar to my noble friend's, which I very much support.
Many people outside this House are worried as to the real significance of this certificate procedure. As I understand it, it is simply the local authority who will issue the certificate, and as we see in sub-paragraph (3):
"A certificate under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it."
The concern which has been expressed—and I know it was also expressed in another place—is that at no stage will the owner of the land be able to challenge the words, "development land". At no stage will he be able to say that it is, in fact, excepted development. My Amendment would have the effect of allowing the owner to appeal to the Secretary of State, who could consider the arguments and then say whether or not

1739
he was satisfied that the certificate should be approved.
In another place, when this matter came up on Report (col. 1057) the Minister was asked who, in fact, can question the certificate, and the reply the Minister gave was that he can—I assume the Minister and not the local authority—because he has to confirm the certificate. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to clarify this whole issue, because it is a worry not only inside the House but very much outside the House. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As I understand it, the noble Earl has not actually moved his manuscript Amendment but has spoken to it. I agree that this is the time to speak to that Amendment, and I hope I will be able to clarify why the certificates are needed and why we think the provisions in the Bill which apply to them at the moment are the right ones. I accept that there have been doubts expressed. I think they are based on misunderstandings and I hope we can clear them up.
A certificate is needed because the fact whether or not land is development land depends on the opinion of the particular authority. That is because of the definition of development land which we will come to later. Only the authority can say, therefore, whether it is development land. The objections to the certificate procedure are mainly on two grounds. The first is that the authorities might deliberately misuse the procedure and declare all land development land. I am delighted to say that that particular issue has not been raised today, and I do not think it would be worthy for your Lordships' Committee to consider at all. The second objection is that in some borderline cases authorities might get the answer wrong. In practice, in our view, this is likely to be a rare situation, because the excepted development proposals have been constructed in such a way as to make the dividing line between excepted and exempted development a clear one. The noble Baroness said that there might be a question as to whether something was 10,000 square feet, but that is surely a matter of fact, and one can go along with a tape measure if necessary.
I should have thought that the room for dispute was limited. Nevertheless, I
1740
accept that there could conceivably be room for dispute. If this occurs, there is a simple answer. There is nothing to stop the owner objecting to a compulsory purchase order on the grounds that, in spite of the certificate, the land is not development land. I think this contradicts something which the noble Baroness indicated was her understanding. If the owner does this, the Secretary of State would then consider this, and if he took the view that the authority had got it wrong, he would simply not exercise his discretion to use the modified compulsory purchase procedure. Even if the land is unquestionably development land, only the Secretary of State can dispense with an inquiry. So the certificate does no more than enable the Secretary of State to have a discretion.
If there were no certificate the result would be, in our view, complete chaos. Any owner would be able to attempt to take the issue to the courts to be decided, but the courts would be in some difficulty in trying to reach this decision, given that they could not substitute their opinion for that of the authority. It has in any case been accepted for many years in other contexts—for example, in enforcement proceedings—that planning issues should be dealt with by those concerned with planning; in other words, local authorities and the planning Minister, and not by the courts.
Turning to the noble Earl's manuscript Amendment, which, of course, does not raise the issue of having to leave the matter to the courts to decide, to start with there are two points I should like to make. First of all, whether or not land is development land is to be decided in the opinion of the local authority. It would be wrong, in our view, merely to substitute the opinion of the Secretary of State for that. But having said that, of course, the Secretary of State always has a discretion. Even if the local authority gives a certificate, anyone who thought the certificate (which would be in the compulsory purchase order itself) was wrong could object to the compulsory purchase order and include representations to that effect. As I have said, the Secretary of State would take these into account in deciding whether or not to dispense with an inquiry. If I may say so, under the noble Earl's manuscript Amendment, we should have a slightly

1741
odd procedure, whereby, first, there would have to be a hearing to decide whether or not the Secretary of State has power to dispense with an inquiry; secondly, the Secretary of State would have to decide whether to exercise his discretion; and, thirdly, the Secretary of State may decide that there should be an inquiry. So there would, in fact, be two hearings or inquiries on virtually the same point.
I think the point to emphasise is that the issue of the certificate may be conclusive as to whether or not the Secretary of State has a discretion, but it has no effect at all on how the Secretary of State exercises that discretion.
12 noon.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said in reply, because I am concerned about how this will work in practice. I wonder whether he could answer some questions about this. As he very rightly says, the certificate accompanies the compulsory purchase order itself, and it presumably says, "the land which is the subject of this order is, in the opinion of the authority, development land …"which is needed for the development they propose within 10 years. If you look over the page at sub-paragraph (3), it says that the certificate "shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it". Expressed in that way, I suggest that that is conclusive against the Secretary of State as well as against anybody else. If the noble Lord wants the Secretary of State to be able to consider that before he decides whether or not, if the other circumstances are correct, he will dispense with a public inquiry, ought not sub-paragraph (3) to say that for the purposes of any proceedings in the courts the certificate will be conclusive? Otherwise, the present drafting of the Bill precludes the Secretary of State from considering the matter at all. It is certainly conclusive against the other parties. It is certainly conclusive against the courts. Why is it not conclusive against the Secretary of State as well? If there is a defect here, would it not be right to get it corrected in the Bill so that we can be quite certain that the Secretary of State is not debarred from doing what the Government evidently wish him to be able to do?
Secondly, the noble Lord said that when the owner of the land which is being
1742
acquired, or anybody with a material interest in it gets the compulsory purchase order and the certificate that goes with it, he is allowed to object if he considers that the land is not development land. Some of us will have to deal with this in practice, so would the noble Lord be very kind, and tell us exactly what form this objection is to take? Are we allowed, if we are drafting objections for this purpose, to look at all the development land that has already been decided upon by that particular local authority? Are we allowed to go into enormous detail about their housing programme; their industrial development programme; the employment situation; the length of the waiting list; the state of private development in that area, the state of development promoted by local authorities? And is the objection intended to be, as it were, a trial on paper of the whole of the development land proposals and projects for the next 10 years of the inquiry? Unless it is, I am not sure that I understand how it is that the Secretary of State is supposed to decide this question.
If that is the sort of thing that is to happen, it would be only right for the acquiring authority to give their side of the picture. If the objection is going to contain masses of detail of this sort, obviously it would be fair that the local authority should be allowed to contradict and put its side of the case. The result of this is that we shall have a massive preliminary procedure which will have to be gone through and dealt with by the Department—it will be no small job—before we can even get to the stage of having a public inquiry.
That is one way in which I think the noble Lord's suggestion could practically be worked out. The other way is one which, with all my cynicism about this, I would not think that noble Lords opposite were suggesting: where the unfortunate land owner should put in his objection, "I object on these grounds: first of all, that this is not development land; and secondly", any other grounds that he can think of. But the Secretary of State is not going to have any grounds whatever, either by way of argument from the person whose land it is, or from the acquiring authority, upon which he can in fact make the decision that the noble Lord has just been saying he would make. I cannot think of any course between

1743
those two which will provide the Secretary of State with the necessary facts upon which he can make the necessary decision. I am genuinely puzzled how this is to work. So that we can consider the effect of this Amendment, and my noble friend's manuscript Amendment, I should be grateful for some practical guidance, to see whether the noble Lord is making a very sensible proposition.
12.5 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: As to the first point, I hesitate to take issue on legal drafting points with the noble Viscount, but I am advised that, while the certificate is conclusive that the land is development land, the Secretary of State still has an absolute discretion as to whether or not to dispense with an inquiry. I hesitate to take issue with the noble Viscount, and if I am wrong and he is right no doubt we shall look at the matter again. However, this is a part of the Bill which has been looked at with great care by the draftsmen and my advice is clear on the point. I am afraid I cannot take it any further than that.
As to the second point raised by the noble Viscount, as I understand it there is nothing to stop the objection being in any form the objector wants it to be. If there was a need for the local authority to put their case, the Secretary of State would simply have an inquiry into the order, and that would be that, because the Secretary of State has a discretion. I think the noble Viscount is right that, although it may be against his professional interests to say so, we do not want a long preliminary inquiry, but in practice it would be open to an objector to raise anything he wanted to.
The noble Viscount raised the question of the local authority's general plans for development over the next period of years, and so on. These will be submitted to the Secretary of State in their five-year rolling programmes which will be submitted to the Secretary of State annually. Therefore, the Secretary of State, in a sense, will be continually judging the authority's side of the position. That might dispense with some of the paper work.
Lord FOOT: I think that the point made by the noble Viscount has force, and we have not had a satisfactory
1744
answer to it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will get advice from his legal advisers on this. There are two points I should like to make. The criticisms that the noble Viscount made go to sub-paragraph (3), that there will have to be some Amendment there and not the Amendment with which we are now confronted—that is to strike out altogether the requirement of a certificate.
On that general matter, as to the authority being required, when they formulate a compulsory purchase order, to issue this certificate that it is development land, I sugest that this is a useful safeguard for the individual and the public, because it specifically directs the mind of the authority, when they are proposing to make a compulsory purchase order, to the consideration, "Are we dealing with development land". Every authority, before they make a compulsory purchase order, will have their minds directed to that because they have to put a certificate at the end of the compulsory purchase order, saying, "Yes, this is indeed development land."
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Perhaps this is something I ought to know, but is the rolling programme that is submitted to the Secretary of State by all the local authorities, first of all also submitted and available to the public in the area of the local authority which makes it, and is it specific as to the pieces of land that this is to be development land? Or does it take the form of an acreage, or whatever you have to call it now, a hectareage, of the land which they want for the various purposes that they will be requiring for development over that five years? Can the public also form some judgment, as the noble Lords says the Secretary of State can, as to whether or not what is in the order could be development land?
Lord MELCHETT: The answer to the first point is, Yes, it will be available for public inspection. That is our intention. We dealt with that earlier in the Committee stage. On the second point, as I understand it would not be specific as to particular parcels of land, plot A or plot B. As I understood it, the point that the noble Viscount made to me, and in response to which I used the rolling programme, was when he asked whether the objector would be able to put to the Secretary of State objections to the local

1745
authority's general programme, and I was saying that that general programme will be in front of the Secretary of State in the form of a rolling programme.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: If it is not specific as to plots, will it give an indication of the amounts, perhaps in overall terms of acreage?
Lord MELCHETT: It would certainly be specific in terms of amount of acreage as against the amount of money likely to be expended. In the normal course of events, the general amount of land which the local authority was wanting to acquire would certainly be ascertainable from the rolling programme.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I want to be quite clear about this. If it is simply a matter of how much money they have got to spend, then it is exceedingly difficult for members of the public to know what that represents in terms of land. If they are to give some indication of the amounts of land in terms of area, even if it is only approximate, there will be something which members of the public can go on. But if it is simply that they are to announce that they have £10 million, or whatever it is, to spend, then that is not readily translatable—particularlyduring the transitional period and, I should think, for quite some time afterwards—into anything that makes sense in the case of an individual owner or person who has his land assaulted by a compulsory purchase order. We should get this correct, otherwise we shall again be in danger of creating a situation in which people will consider that an injustice is being done.
Lord MELCHETT: As I understand it, the rolling programme will give an indication of the amount of land which the local authority expects to acquire.
The Earl of KINNOULL: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, two questions arising out of my manuscript Amendment? Does he intend to take back, consider and consult on the point which my noble friend raised, which particularly comes under this provision; namely, the question whether or not the Minister is precluded from taking objections from the owner? Secondly—and this is the point which I am particularly trying to make to the noble Lord—where does the Bill state that the owner may
1746
object to the Minister, and that the Minister may consider his objections under the certificate procedure?
Lord MELCHETT: I do not know whether the noble Earl has already received advice on his second question. I think that the answer is probably that nowhere in the Bill does it say that the owner may not. Therefore, it is open to anybody to object under the normal procedures and the Bill does nothing to stop that. The answer to his first question, as I have said, is that my legal advice on this point, which has received a great deal of attention and consideration, is perfectly clear, and I do not think I can go any further than that.
Lord SANDFORD: It may be clear in that it does not have any provisos attached to it, but it would be enormously helpful to know, if development land is defined, as it is, in Clause 17(4), namely:
"In this Act 'development land' means land which, in the opinion of the authority concerned, is needed for relevant development within ten years from the time at which they are acting."
how a certificate that that is the opinion of the authority can be anything other than conclusive in relation to everybody, including the Secretary of State. There must be some sort of saving there which would have the effect of making it read:
"In this Act 'development land' means land which, in the opinion of the authority concerned … and also that of the Secretary of State …".
Without some such insertion as that I do not see how the noble Lord can possibly be right. I pass to another point; namely, that it will indeed be necessary—and the noble Lord has indicated how necessary it is—for this rolling programme to be published. That is not in the Bill at the moment, and we shall be coming to an Amendment of mine on Clause 18 to make it so.
Lord MELCHETT: I look forward to Clause 18 with eager anticipation, hopefully later this morning. It may be helpful if I give a little background to my legal advice, although I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has left us temporarily. As I understand it, the Secretary of State can dispense with an inquiry, and I must be firm on that point. This is because it is the Secretary of State and not the local authority who may dispense

1747
with an inquiry if it is expedient, and the phrase "it is expedient" appears in Schedule 4(3). That may be of some help to the noble Lord.
Baroness YOUNG: We have had a full debate on this issue, but before pursuing my argument I should like to get one point clear from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Did he say at one stage that he is prepared to look at this matter again, or did I misunderstand what he said?
Lord MELCHETT: I am afraid that, not for the first time in the proceedings on this Bill, the noble Baroness misunderstood what I said.
Baroness YOUNG: If I have misunderstood, then that is not really surprising when one considers how complicated a subject this is. After all, the noble Lord has the benefit of a great many legal advisers and I, like the non-lawyers, am struggling through it and trying to understand it. I do not feel that I received an answer to the question I asked. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, himself admitted that although it would be a rare situation, it would be possible for there to be examples where development might or might not be excepted development or exempted development, and over which there could be a dispute between the individual and the authority issuing the certificate. So to that extent, even if it is a rare occasion, it seems to me that the rights of the individual should be safeguarded, even if, as we hope, this will only very rarely occur.
The noble Lord's second argument was that the individual would have the right to object as to whether or not land is development land, but in the exchange between him and my noble friend Lord Colville I think it has become perfectly clear that it will be very difficult indeed for the individual to object at that stage, because he will not know in detail whether or not he will be affected, or at least that could be the case. So that although he may have a right to object, it will be such a general inquiry that it will not be specific enough to help him. In these circumstances, and because I do not feel we have had a satisfactory answer, I do not feel inclined to withdraw my Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: Before the noble Baroness presses the Amendment, may I tell her that her remarks were quite extraordinary? I accepted, as she said, that there could possibly be some ground for dispute but I went on to say—and this has not been challenged by any noble Lord opposite—that a member of the public would have the right to object under the normal CPO procedures and that nothing in the Bill altered that. The noble Baroness said that, because there might on very rare occasions be some room for doubt, the rights of the individual must be protected. Those rights are not affected by the Bill. She then said it would be difficult for the person concerned to know in detail whether he was affected. Considering that the person is having his land bought by compulsory purchase order, he must know whether or not he is affected. The discussion I was having with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was about the sort of evidence a person would be able to bring forward to the Secretary of State and I said there was nothing in the Bill to limit the evidence which could be brought forward. There is nothing in the Bill which limits that. I really do not think the noble Baroness listened to a word I said on the subject.
The Earl of KINNOULL: The noble Lord referred to the normal procedures, but I do not think, with respect, that we are dealing with the normal procedures. Could the noble Lord look at the matter again? It is not the normal procedures with which we are dealing, but the special procedures.
Lord FOOT: We are in an extraordinary situation, are we not, because the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was in criticism of paragraph 3, and he was wondering whether that was all right. On the other hand, the Amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is not at present willing to withdraw does not go to the point which the noble Viscount was making. Are we to have a Division to leave in something which the noble Viscount thinks is entirely satisfactory, but which the noble Baroness still thinks is unsatisfactory?
Baroness YOUNG: We are in very considerable difficulty over this. As I

1749
said, it is easy for lawyers to be absolutely certain about this matter. I should be the first to admit that, on these very complex points I may not always have understood correctly. I feel that the whole of this is very unsatisfactory but under the circumstances I shall look and see what appears on the Record and shall study it and, if necessary, we can return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.21 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 51A:
Page 56, line 7, leave nut from ("shall") to end of line 9 and insert ("apply").
The noble Earl said: We now turn to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4. To many people both outside and in your Lordships' House this gives rise to one of the major procedural problems which arise on Schedule 4. The reason is that, in the past, when a compulsory purchase order has been served on an owner, it has been a fundamental principle of compulsory purchase that a purpose should be stated by the local authority for the making of the order. We see that all this is now to be modified within Schedule 4 and one now recalls that this change affects only development land. It does not affect exempt land or excepted land, so that there will now be two procedures to look at when any compulsory purchase order is made. Therefore, the first criticism that I would make of this provision is that it makes the procedure so complicated for private individuals to understand, as indeed it does for professional people.
When the Bill was first drafted, this was an immediate criticism. The criticism is basically the following: instead of stating the purpose for which the land is being compulsorily purchased, the local authority may simply give its general reason and need not state any specific purpose. It may help the Committee if I quote from a brief which I have received from one of the professional bodies on this point. It says:
"We consider that it needs to be made clear that it will not be that the land is required for development nor even, as appears to be implied by the note circulated in Standing Committee G by the Minister, for an authority to refer to policies or proposals set out in the various plans. It is essential that
1750
the authority's reason for acquisition be stated in sufficient detail to allow a potential objector to decide whether to object to the acquisition and, if so, on what grounds. In this connection, it must be borne in mind that a landowner may in future be unable effectively to object to acquisition on the grounds that acquisition itself is unnecessary or inexpedient. It is therefore specially important that he should be able to formulate objections having regard to reasons which have been adequately expressed."
That summarises the purposes for which the Amendment has been put down. It is intended to allow the owner of the land to object on reasonable grounds to an order. The Amendment recognises that, under the new procedure which is to be adopted, the owner will be given very insubstantial grounds on which to object. When the noble Baroness replies to this point, can she say on what grounds an owner will in future be able to object under this procedure?
The second point which I should like to raise with the noble Baroness is one that was raised at about four minutes to midnight two days ago. It relates to the question of compensation, which is very important. Up to now, the basis of market value compensation in compulsory purchase procedures has always been the purpose for which the land was being bought. If the local authority will only give broad reasons, the valuer will be unable to identify the purpose on which to base his valuation. I feel that this is extremely important when the White Paper clearly states that, until the second appointed day, the basis of valuation shall be market value unchanged at present. I believe that this special procedure affects that and I hope that the noble Baroness will take the point into account in her reply. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: As the noble Earl has explained the effect of this Amendment would be to restore the requirements of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Acts, that notices relating to compulsory purchase orders, or the orders themselves, should state the purpose for which the land is required—instead of, as paragraph 2 now stands, the reasons for which the authority propose to acquire the land.
When this Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, the provisions in question disapplied any requirement to state the purpose for which the land is

1751
required. The reason for this was that, since the land scheme is concerned with comprehensive acquisition of land in order to achieve the aim of positive planning, the acquiring authority could not always be in a position to say precisely for what form of development the land would be made available. A distinction was drawn between the powers of the Bill and other land acquisition powers under which land purchase is limited to specific purposes.
In the subsequent proceedings on the Bill the provision has been changed so that purposes must be stated in any case where the land is being acquired for "excepted development", but previous to that change the Government had accepted an Opposition Amendment in the other place to the effect that acquiring authorities should be required to give some indication of the type of development they envisaged for the land. So the introduction of the word "reasons" was the result of an Opposition Amendment. This would be covered by the requirement to state reasons—which would not preclude the authority from describing the particular form of development they had in mind for the land if they were in a position to do so—and, as I understand that, "reasons" would in this instance embrace "purposes", but would not saddle them with the impossibility of stating the exact form of relevant development when this will not be known until the detailed planning has been worked out.
I do not really feel that I can go along with the noble Earl's point that it makes it very complicated to have purposes for excepted development because excepted development will be spelt out in regulations under Clause 3(1)(c); so this is very much more specific. This is really in order to cover both points—both purposes and reasons. So, for the type of development to which the modified procedures apply in which a comprehensive approach is envisaged as against a more specific approach, a requirement to state purposes would therefore be too restrictive. Indeed, this was what the Opposition was arguing in the Committee stage in another place. That is the reason for our standing by paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 in its present form.
Viscount COLVILLE of CLTLROSS: Can the noble Baroness deal with the practical point made by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull on the valuation? It will apply not only to the private valuer but to the district valuer as well, so I feel that she must have given her mind to this point. I should be very grateful if she can answer this question for me. When land is acquired, the rule under the Land Compensation Act 1973, which will of course be applied under this Bill, is that, unless the amount of compensation is agreed, the claimant—that is, the person from whom the land is being acquired—can ask to be paid 90 per cent. of what the district valuer says is the amount of compensation he believes to be due.
Therefore, in the case of every one of these compulsory acquisitions under this procedure, the district valuer himself will have to make up his mind on what basis of compensation—that is to say, until the second appointed day—he will have to say the land should be valued. He will have to say that there is a different value for land for residential purposes from that for shopping, industrial or other form of development. He will have to say what is to be the basis of his computation. How will he do that? The Inland Revenue must have given some thought to this, because it will be a duty which will fall upon it in large measure every day, all over the country. If we can be told how the district valuer will do it, then we shall have the answer for my noble friend, because private valuers will be able to do the same.
Baroness BIRK: Before answering the noble Viscount, I wish to deal with a point which the noble Earl raised earlier regarding the question of when an owner can object. I apologise for the fact that I did not deal with this earlier. An owner can object on any grounds and there is nothing in the Bill to stop him doing so; this is quite specific. With regard to the basis of compensation, I understand that the basis now will be the value on the open market between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser. If the purposes cannot be discovered from the compulsory purchase, and there are no other planning assumptions relevant, then the vendor can apply for a certificate under Section 17 of the Land

1753
Compensation Act. I hope that that answers the noble Viscount's point.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I do not think it does, because the Section 17 certificate procedure is a procedure which allows one to ask for a certificate to say—or, as amended by this Bill, to suggest—what would be alternative types of development which would be suitable on the land if it was not to be developed for the purposes for which the acquiring authority was acquiring it. If it is not known for what purpose the acquiring authority is acquiring the land then, for the life of me, I do not see how any alternatives can be suggested. Or is one expected to put forward all the possible alternatives, entirely regardless of whether or not they cover the purposes for which the acquiring authority are to develop the land? Is that what it will be necessary to do? I am afraid that the noble Baroness's answer does not quite fulfil the practicalities of the situation, and we still will not know what we are supposed to do.
Baroness BIRK: As I understand this—and my legal knowledge on this matter has its limitations—the reasons relate to the much larger acquisition. Once the matter becomes more specific, the purposes would then be stated. What I said earlier would then operate. If the purposes cannot be discovered from the compulsory purchase order, and there are no other planning assumptions relevant, then that is the point where the application for a certificate comes in. But as we are still on this Amendment dealing with reasons and purposes, possibly the point which the noble Viscount is making could be raised more appropriately when we deal with compensation. The question of reasons and purposes does not quite cover this other matter.
It may help him to know that we are again looking at the provisions in this paragraph only on the basis that it is not clear. I repeat that this was changed in response to an Opposition Amendment. The whole object of changing from "purposes" to "reasons" was that it might be more helpful to the local authorities. I wish to return for a moment to the valuation question and to point out that the 90 per cent. rule will continue to apply. I am advised that it should be remembered that the purpose
1754
for which an authority is to use the land is only one of the planning assumptions used on a compulsory acquisition. One can also rely on a designation in a development plan, or any planning permission, which is in existence on a Section 17 certificate. But how can it be known what to apply for if the land is being bought for open space? Therefore, the matter must be left open; otherwise, it would completely cut out the possibility of an authority buying the land for open space.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: That is not really right, but the noble Baroness is doing her best on a very difficult subject and I do not want to be tiresome. I believe that both I and my noble friend have a point here. The noble Baroness has not answered it, but I do not blame her for that in any way. But this is an appropriate point at which to raise the matter, because as the situation stands under the Acts covering acquisition of land, as they are, this problem does not arise. I am well aware that the change has been made in response to what the Opposition said, and I welcome that. I am simply drawing attention to a further practical difficulty which will actually happen.
Would the noble Baroness be so kind as to get down to the nuts and bolts of this matter with her advisers? Would she be so kind as to let me have a note on how this will actually happen, after conversation in which she can deal with all the details. Clearly, we cannot do that here in the Committee. Will she let my noble friend and myself have a look at the note, so that we can see whether it will really work in practice? That is all we want.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, I am quite prepared to do that. As I have said, we are looking into this matter again. I did not want to prolong what was earlier developing into a very general debate, but I should now like to take the opportunity to say—and I hope that he does not blemish his record; and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foot—that most of the points raised by the noble Viscount have been very constructive and helpful ones, upon which we are trying very hard to give answers and information. I shall make sure that the noble Viscount gets a note on this matter.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for some of her replies. It seemed that at the end of her last reply she said that the Government were simply trying to be more helpful to local authorities and that that is the reason why the word "purpose" has been changed to "reasons" —
Baroness BIRK: I said that the idea was put to us that this would be more helpful, and I stated that I did not think it was clear that the change had made the matter any more helpful. It has probably not made it any worse or any better. That is why I was saying that we were looking at this again, to see whether we had it right.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful for that assurance. I was going on to say that the noble Baroness said that any objector could—to use her words—"use any grounds". This point spills over to a further Amendment which we shall be discussing later. When the noble Baroness looks at this matter again, will she consider the possibility of the Minister issuing a circular defining what the reasons must include? This is really the burden of the objections outside the House: reasons may be far too wide and woolly for any objector to specify his objections. Will she consider that, please?
Baroness BIRK: We must first consider the basic point raised by the noble Earl. From there, once it has been sorted out what should go into the Bill, we get to the next point, which will certainly not be written into the Bill, on the whole general question of information, explanation and so on. That must be considered at later stages, not now. But I will certainly take notice of what the noble Earl said.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful for that assurance and for the fact that the noble Baroness will look at this whole matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.39 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 56, line 13, after ("occupier") insert ("(except tenants for a month or any period less than a month)").
The noble Earl said: I hope that we can be quite brief here. This expression,
1756
"except tenants for a month or any period less than a month",
appears in the Scotitsh Act of 1947 and in various other pieces of legislation. I presume that this Schedule is intended to apply to Scotland, and therefore, I consider that these words should be inserted. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: As the noble Earl is aware, these Amendments attempt to modify the existing procedure under the Acquisition of Land Acts which apply to compulsory purchase orders where no objections are made. The noble Earl seeks to insert the words:
"except tenants for a month or any period less than a month",
but I do not quite understand the purpose underlying this. If it is because he feels that the words were omitted in error, which can sometimes happen—and no other reason has been detected—then I must say that this is not so, because subparagraph (1) is identical with sub-paragraph (1)of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Acts, and is to be read with the preceding paragraphs of that Schedule. I must say hastily that if the noble Earl has overlooked that I do not blame him at all.
Paragraph 3(1)(b) requires the authority to serve notice of the effect of the order on:
"… every owner, lessee and occupier (except tenants for a month or any period less than a month)".
Since notice does not have to be served on such tenants, they are not,
"any such owner, lessee or occupier as aforesaid",
and paragraph 3 of the original Schedule explains this. The words that the Amendment would insert are therefore quite unnecessary. I hope the noble Earl will accept this point and will not, therefore, press his first Amendment.
As to his second Amendment, if this were accepted the Secretary of State would be in a position of either having to confirm an order to which there were no objections by owners, lessees or occupiers, or reject it. As I see it, he would be faced with a completely straight choice. But it cannot be ruled out that the Secretary of State, when he considers the order, may decide that it is not justified in relation to a particular property; or the authority may well ask him to exclude

1757
a part of the land which they are satisfied, or have been persuaded by the owner, they no longer need to acquire. Without the power to confirm an order with modifications, the acquiring authority would be obliged to start all over again with a fresh order, which would mean unnecessary delay and wasted effort. It would also take away the flexibility, and would in fact in many ways be doing the sort of thing which, on other occasions during the Committee stage, the noble Earl and other noble Lords have been trying to prevent. They have not wanted it all to be restricted: they have wanted to be able to open it up so that there could be modification, so that there would not be a straight, "Yes" or, "No". I therefore hope that the noble Earl will agree that this is perhaps the result of a slight misunderstanding in this very complicated part of the Bill.
The Earl of BALFOUR: If I may first go back to Amendment No. 52, I am sorry I have not got the Act beside me but I am fairly certain that words identical to these appear in the Scottish Act of 1947. At this stage, however, I will not press it. Perhaps somebody could check up, and if I am right I shall come back on Report.
Baroness BIRK: On that point, perhaps I may say that the noble Earl is quite right. It does come in the Scottish Act of 1947, but it also comes in the English Act of 1946, and this, perhaps, is where it has been slightly overlooked. So that really is covered, I can assure the noble Earl.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I think this has strengthened my point a little, but this is not something on which I would divide the Committee. The point is that these are objections which are made by an owner, lessee or occupier, and I think that, for the sake of the local authority, what one does not want to happen is for there to be objections made by an occupier whose tenancy is going to be of such a temporary sort that it may be a terrible nuisance to the authority. That is the point I was trying to make. The other point, in respect of Amendment No. 53, is this. If, leaving out the irrelevant words, I may read the substituted paragraph 4, it says:
"If no objection is duly made … or if all objections … are withdrawn, the confirming
1758
authority … may … confirm the order with or without modifications".
With very great respect—and I am sorry I have not got all the legislation in front of me, but I have about enough as it is—I would think that this is a case where perhaps the Secretary of State could not come in. This is a case where I did not want the confirming authority to confirm the order with modifications when nobody had objected to the original order. What I am trying to do is to make quite certain that the authority cannot alter the order after it has been published when there have been no objections to it or when, if there have been objections raised, they have been withdrawn. I felt that, having published it, they could then bring in a modification, and I wanted to make quite certain that they could not do that rather as an afterthought. That is the point I am making, and perhaps I could ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to have a look at it again.
Baroness BIRK: I think that situation is perfectly well covered, but perhaps may add another word. On the noble Earl's first point, the words I was referring to are in the previous paragraph (I am afraid I fell into the same trap and got my paragraphs mixed up) so I think he will find, if he looks at that now, that it is quite all right. As to his second Amendment, it is not a case of the Secretary of State intervening, as it were, when something is settled. If I may give an instance, if a local authority manages to reach agreement with objectors an order may become unopposed because all the objections are withdrawn. But, supposing the withdrawal was conditional on the understanding that the authority would ask the Secretary of State to modify the order in some way—and this is the way things have been going in other areas today—then it would be a pity, I would have thought, to take away this flexibility, because sometimes agreement can be reached on condition that there is some form of modification. This is the point that this covers.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I did not realise that if there was no objection to the order, or if the objections were all withdrawn, the confirming authority still needed to get approval from the Secretary of State, and that it might be the Secretary of State who wanted to alter it. I thought the Secretary of State came in

1759
only where there were objections, under subparagraph (2). I hope that the Secretary of State is able to come in at the first instance and that the authority cannot change its mind after an order has been made.
Baroness BIRK: No, but there may be negotiations going on as a result of which objections which have been strongly made are, by agreement, withdrawn, but the objections may be withdrawn on condition that there should be some form of modification of the order. It may be that the agreement is that something should be given up, or the objectors may say, "If you let us retain this or that then we will agree". But in this case—and I think we are perhaps getting a little into a lost area—the confirming authority is the Secretary of State and not the local authority. When one comes to the confirming authority, this is the Secretary of State, and I think the noble Earl will agree that in those circumstances, which obviously will not arise every day or all the time, there must be this element of flexibility.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I think we really have absolutely hit the nail on the head here, and I hope this may have been of benefit to other noble Lords. Perhaps I had not fully appreciated that the confirming authority in this case was none less than the Secretary of State. That really does make a difference. I feel that we now have so many authorities that I am beginning to wonder which one is which.
But let me leave it at that; and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 52 and not move Amendment No. 53.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.49 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 56, line 19, leave out ("may if it considers it expedient to do so") and insert ("shall having regard to all the circumstances").
The noble Earl said: Once again very briefly, what I am thinking about here is this. Where an objection has been made and not withdrawn, then I feel that the confirming authority "shall having regard to all the circumstances, and if
1760
sub-paragraph (3) below applies", either hold a public local inquiry or at least afford the person by whom an objection has been made and not withdrawn an opportunity to appear before and to be heard by the person appointed. I feel that where a case for objection has definitely been made the words, "may if it considers it expedient to do so" are not quite as strong as I should like. At least here you do not necessarily have to hold a local inquiry. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I am sure the noble Earl will agree that it would be better to deal with both his Amendments. They are tied together. I am not quite clear what he is trying to achieve. In spite of the insertion of the word "shall", the addition of the words, "having regard to all the circumstances" suggests that it is intended to leave some discretion with the confirming authority. Legally, there are a great many problems about the use of the word "shall". What seems to be intended—and this is the legal point—is that "shall" is being used in the sense of "may" and the Amendments are trying to convey a presumption that there should be a public inquiry unless the circumstances indicate to the contrary; rather than leave the matter to the discretion of the Secretary of State. It is not very clear.
However, the issues raised by the Amendments go to the basic philosophy behind the power to dispense with a public inquiry in certain circumstances, which is that it is absolutely right for the owner of a site to be able to raise at a public inquiry all the issues related to the development of his land, and the fact that the proposed development may carry with it the likelihood of acquisition by an authority. But once these issues have been threshed out in this way, they should be regarded as settled, and it should not be possible for an individual to go over all the same ground again at a second public inquiry. The Government absolutely accept that if this power is not to be oppressive to the individual—and, in spite of some of the things that were said at the beginning of this debate, they are very anxious about this, and conscious of the basic necessity of seeing that they are not oppressive to the individual—then the circumstances in which it may be used must be carefully framed.

1761
That is why it has been threshed out in discussion both in Commons Committee and with the Council on Tribunals. The formulation now contained in the Bill was inserted at Commons Report stage, and this is acceptable to the Council on Tribunals apart from a minor reservation on the status of structure plans. As the noble Earl is aware, the Council is the statutory guardian of the interests of individuals on all matters concerned with inquiries and related procedures, and it would therefore need to be a very strong case to overturn their judgment. Therefore, I think the noble Earl should rest on that. There is a perfectly good precedent in paragraph 4(4) of Schedule 3 to the New Towns Act 1965, which allows the Secretary of State to dispense with a public inquiry where he is satisfied that he is sufficiently informed as to the matters to which the objection relates; and that is still operative.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am grateful for that explanation and I am glad the matter has been gone into. This answer should help us all. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.55 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 55B:
Page 56, line 27, leave out ("either").
The noble Lord said: This is my first contribution to the Committee procedure this morning and I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I felt that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in his statement this morning were particularly offensive because they tended to suggest that a large number of the Opposition Amendments are rather vexatious or mischievous and not tending towards helpful amendment of the Bill. He did, however, place in a quite separate category—and one may or may not agree—the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I heartily approve of my noble friend's Amendment.
Lord FOOT: May I say that if I was offensive about any of the Amendments moved, I regret it; but it certainly does not apply to the Amendment which the noble Lord is about to move.
Lord SANDYS: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for what he has
1762
said. Here are two series of Amendments: notably Nos. 55B and 56A to which I shall speak and the two Amendments, Nos. 55A and 56C to which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is going to speak.
We are dealing here with the heartland of the Bill; namely, the acquisition of land under Schedule 4. I should like to say quite a lot about this and about the philosophy behind it because I believe it to be very important. Firstly, what measure of consolidation has taken place in this vital area since 1946? The answer is: comparatively little—because we are still relating in Schedule 4 most of the clauses and subsections relating to that basic 1946 Act. We have to consider the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Land Compensation Act 1973 to which my noble friend Lord Colville has referred. It is here, in my submission, that much of the difficulty arises. I wish to be helpful to the noble Baroness and would suggest that if it is possible that following the discussions she has suggested should take place on Schedule 4, a measure of consolidation can take place on these various Acts, real benefit will he derived.
I shall address myself to another aspect of this matter, the philosophical aspect. I think that the language of the discussions during the earlier part of this morning very clearly indicated the divide between the two sides. I should like to remind the noble Baroness of the language of the discussions which took place in 1968—because I think this is fundamental to our approach—when her noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale introduced in another place the Town and Country Planning Bill of that year.
This is a quotation from the Official Report of the House of Commons of 31st January 1968 when the noble Lord—he was then the right honourable Anthony Greenwood—said (at col. 1361 of Vol. 757):
"The problem now is not to establish a new system of control, but to make it more relevant to current needs and techniques, and more sensitive to modern thought and current pressures for change."
A little further on (in col. 1362) he said:
"Above all I am determined that there shall be more real public participation in planning. I want people to have a much better chance of

1763
being involved in the planning of the area they live in and of influencing it."
A little further on (in col. 1367) he said:
"There must, of course, be proper precautions against unfair pressures in the exceptional case, so the Bill provides an elaborate safety net.… The Bill keeps all the normal rights of objection and hearing."
This is quite different language from the much more totalitarian language that we have observed to fall from noble Lords opposite this morning.
To come to the Amendment itself, we have all experienced difficulty with the modifications of the Acquisition of Land Acts. The Amendment seeks the removal of heads (b) and (c) from sub-paragraph (3) on page 56 of the Bill. If these are removed, it means that the right to a public inquiry under the Act of 1946 is restored. We believe that in both cases this would be a valuable addition and therefore I beg to move the Amendment.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, on page 56, paragraph (3) mentions the development plan. Could this mean a structure plan? If so, I think I am right in saying that there will be no public inquiry except a limited examination in public—that is, when discussing the structure plan—and I emphasise that the individual has no right to participate. He has to be invited by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the noble Baroness could help me on that point.
Lord HENLEY: Perhaps I could help the noble Lord. I mentioned this subject on Second Reading. It means a structure plan, as the noble Lord will see if he turns to page 57 sub-paragraph (9), which explains what a development plan means. What I said at Second Reading, and it still holds, was that a structure plan is too broad a brush for an individual to base the reasons for wanting an inquiry. Not only is the structure plan too broad a brush for him to work on, but the old style development plans, many of which are out of date, render it difficult for individuals and third parties, such as amenity societies, who may wish to force an inquiry on an acquisition. Head (b) is also the subject of the noble Lord's Amendment. There are perhaps stronger reasons for removing head (c) from the Bill than there are for removing head (b). But on the whole, I prefer to see only head (a), with heads (b) and (c) deleted.
1764
I said this in our Second Reading debate on the No. 2 Bill. On the Second Reading of this Bill, I congratulated the Government on having improved this paragraph by adding the words,… "after having a public local inquiry" to to head (a). I thought at that time that the Government had overcome all my objections. But, when I looked at it more closely, I saw they had not. I am still worried, particularly about head (c), and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to satisfy me that I have no cause for alarm.
Lord FOOT: May I make an inquiry about this? As I understand it, we are discussing Amendments Nos. 55B and 56A together. Regarding Amendment No. 56C the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I imagine that would not be called if the present Amendments were carried, because they would be deleting the heads. This is a quite serious inquiry: I should like to know whether the noble Viscount thinks that head (b) would be satisfactory if his Amendment were subsequently adopted, or does he share the view of his Front Bench that the proper course is to cut out heads (b) and (c) altogether?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about this, and it may be as well to "feed" my Amendment in as well. The Amendment I have down to sub-paragraph (3)(b) is probably a restrictive one. The number of occasions when a local plan will be subjected to a public inquiry by the Secretary of State rather than by somebody appointed, who simply reports back to the local authority which made the local plan in the first place, is rather limited. However, what I am trying to do is find a midway position, whereby the public inquiry which has previously occurred will be of such adequate nature as to preclude the necessity for another one later when it comes to an acquisition under this Bill.
I do not think all public inquiries will necessarily come into that category as they relate just to the local plan system as it is. We want it more restrictive as to those which will preclude any further necessity for a compulsory acquisition. I should like to reserve this point for argument later. If we are slightly more

1765
restrictive on the public inquiries which we choose for this purpose as to local plans, and also so long as we make certain that local plans continue to be kept up-to-date and the whole thing does not fall into complete decay—as did the development plan system—it is possible that I would prefer my own Amendment to the total deletion of head (b).
1.7 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: We are aware of this difficulty because there is an overlap between different Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I will deal with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and my noble friend Lord Melchett will deal with the later Amendment. Amendment No. 55B is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 56A, which is the substantive Amendment we are discussing. As it is at the moment, it will require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the provisions of the local plan covered relevant development as defined, or else, unless case (a) applied, he would have to hold an inquiry. Since there will have been an inquiry into the local plan it would be wasteful to have a further inquiry into the CPO solely for the purpose of going over the planning ground again. It should therefore be for the Secretary of State to decide on the basis of other considerations whether it is expedient to hold an inquiry.
Similarly in case (c), where the existing old-style development plan is Ordnance Survey based, and gives detailed proposals for the use of land, there is an expectation, until such time as it may be superseded by a local plan covering the land in question, that the land would be developed according to the allocations in the plan. If relevant development would clearly be consistent with the allocation for the particular land, and these allocations will have been decided after an inquiry, it is inappropriate that the CPO inquiry should be used as an occasion for debate of planning policies for the area. For these reasons, having looked at it very carefully, it is unacceptable that heads (b) and (c) should be omitted. The Amendments should therefore be resisted.
There can be objection that a structure plan will generally be too vague to form the basis for acquisition—this is stated in the note on the planning framework. But there would be technical difficulty
1766
in attempting to depart from the Planning Act definition of what is the development plan before a local plan is in existence. You have to have the saving provision. The Secretary of State would certainly take into account the nature of the structure plan in deciding whether to exercise his discretion, and would hold an inquiry if this were necessary. The new sub-paragraph (3)(c) automatically brings in an approved structure plan. The structure plan was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and I will seek to say something about it. This is because until there is an approved local plan the development plan for an area is the old-style plan overlaid by the structure plan, when that is approved.
We accept that the structure plan will rarely be sufficiently precise to provide a basis for land acquisition, as most structure plans would not deal with land uses in enough detail to enable it to be said that a development was in accordance with the structure plan. But if the Secretary of State proposed to rely on the structure plan as a basis for dispensing with an inquiry into a compulsory purchase order he would need—and this is really the important point—to satisfy himself that the structure plan contained sufficient detail to enable a potential objector to identify how his interests were affected and also to consider whether such a person has been given an effective opportunity to challenge the proposal for the development of the land, on the basis that there should be no objection to letting the definition of development plan in sub-paragraph (c) cover an approved structure plan. Therefore, with the present state of the planning laws, making this Schedule to the Bill work effectively and providing as many safeguards as possible, it seems to us that no good purpose would be served by the omission of those two paragraphs.
Perhaps I might say a brief word about public participation. There is nothing in the Bill—and certainly nothing so far as these sub-paragraphs are concerned—that effects public participation on planning issues. We can dispense with an inquiry at the compulsory stage only where there has been an inquiry on the planning issues. Even where, under paragraph 4 of the Schedule, we rely on an unapproved plan, there must have been public participation, as provided for

1767
in the 1971 Act, which derives from the 1968 Act, to which the noble Lord drew our attention.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I wonder whether the noble Baroness could be a little more precise on one point? She was talking about the structure plan and she said words to the effect that the Secretary of State would probably not consider that that process had been sufficiently centred upon a piece of land to deprive the owner subsequently, subject to compulsory purchase, of a public inquiry for the second time. The noble Baroness referred to the difficulty of definition and said, if I may paraphrase, that the Secretary of State would weigh up whether or not there had been an effective opportunity of objecting to the development of that land. Perhaps the noble Baroness would clarify that, because at the structure plan stage one cannot have an effective opportunity to object given to the development of land.
What I think is meant is: did the person who is now asking for a second public inquiry into a compulsory purchase order under this Bill have an effective opportunity to challenge the provisions of the structure plan, so that he covered the ground now to be the subject of a second compulsory purchase order, if there is one? I should like to remind the noble Baroness that, if you try to get down to too much detail when you seek to make yourself heard at the structure plan public hearing, you are always told by the Secretary of State: "Don't bring this forward now. This is a point for a local plan and I shall not give you an opportunity of being heard at the round table conference." I think that if the noble Baroness looks at the practice of this she will find that there have been very few occasions indeed where at a structure plan hearing anybody would have been given an effective opportunity of objecting to any sort of development or to any proposals for the allocation of land. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness could clear up this point, because it would be very helpful for those of us who will have to handle this matter in practice.
Baroness BIRK: I accept what the noble Viscount has said. Perhaps I might
1768
clear up two points. If the Secretary of State proposed to rely on a structure plan as a basis for dispensing with an inquiry, he would have to do two things. First, he would satisfy himself that the plan gave sufficient detail to enable the prospective objector to identify how his interests were affected. Secondly, he would have to consider whether such a person had been given an effective opportunity to challenge the proposal for the development of the land. Those are the two points involved. In answer to the direct question put by the noble Viscount, the answer is, "Yes". There are a few structure plans containing sufficient detail to justify using them for this purpose. There have been, I am told, examples in the West Midlands. However, the noble Viscount is right in saying it is not very often they are called into operation.
Lord HENLEY: It is equally almost impossible for a situation to arise where the structure plan will be detailed enough. Therefore I hope that this will not be used as a device to allow the Secretary of State to escape from the necessity of holding a public inquiry. I feel there are very grave dangers in this.
Baroness BIRK: No, it will not be used as a device. I should like to clear that up. I said there were examples in the West Midlands; they have involved cases where there has been sufficient detail, which has been looked at and been taken into account. We are fully aware of these points, and I can assure your Lordships that this will not be used in any, shall I say?, improper way.
Lord SANDYS: As I said earlier, we are in a particularly difficult area. I am much obliged to my noble friends who have supported me and also to the noble Baroness for having elucidated some of the dark areas in which we have found ourselves. It appears that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I ask leave to withdraw Amendments Nos. 55B and 56A. We shall then have, as has been pointed out, the opportunity of discussing Nos. 55A and 56C, which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Colville. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 55B.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 55A
Page 56, line 28, after ("development") insert ("of a kind consistent with the reasons specified by the authority for their proposal to acquire the land").
The noble Viscount said: We are concerned here with the first of the three paragraphs, where the circumstances are such, in the view of the Secretary of State, that it is not necessary to have a second public inquiry. I want to make sure that we shall have a situation whereby we can avoid an outcry in the locality if on the second occasion a public inquiry is disallowed. I am concerned because the test whereby the Secretary of State may dispense with a public inquiry on the subsequent compulsory purchase under this Bill in paragraph (a) is that planning permission for relevant development is in force. "Relevant development" is extremely wide. We know it is defined in the Bill and it is everything which is not dealt with in (a), (b) or (c) of Clause 3. That means there are a broad collection of things which could be relevant development.
Perhaps I may give a specific example of what might happen. Supposing there is a piece of land about which we have just come back from a public inquiry. There are 50 acres for housing on the edge of a town, largely surrounded by other housing and immediately fronting, on the other side of a quite small road on to a large area of National Trust or common land. It has for some time been the policy of the local authority that this should be developed for housing. Therefore, say this was a called-in inquiry because there were other matters that had to be dealt with, but the Secretary of State eventually gave planning permission after a public inquiry for it to be developed for housing.
Along comes the local authority and says: "We wish compulsorily to acquire this land for industry." Nobody would suggest for a moment that the planning authority in the first place would have given permission for that land to be used for industry. Nor in any circumstances would the people who came as interested parties, or possibly as amenity societies, to take part in the first public inquiry have taken the same view of that occasion or been the same people as would have emerged had the proposition been that the
1770
land should be developed for industry. Quite different points would have arisen; quite different people would have been concerned, and the whole matter would have been a different kind of public inquiry altogether.
One can think of many points, but among other things one of the major differences would have been the question of the traffic that would have emerged, because one would probably have been dealing with heavy traffic involving quite different road problems from those a residential development would have given rise to. Therefore, one cannot necessarily assume that, because there has been a public inquiry into a development of one kind which has led to planning permission, this necessarily means that a public inquiry can be dispensed with on a subsequent compulsory purchase order if the land is going to be used for something totally different. There may be quite different considerations and the land may be wholly unsuitable for the second purpose for which the acquiring authority then comes along, and which I suppose it may specify in its reasons under paragraph 2 of this Schedule.
In those circumstances I am sure that noble Lords opposite would be quite certain, and would be in entire agreement with me, that it would be wholly wrong to dispense with a second public inquiry. But unfortunately under the Bill as it is drafted that could be so. I do not suppose for a moment it would be done, but I would think that if their intention is the same as mine—and I hope that both of them are intentions of good sense—it would be as well to see whether we could devise some form of wording in the Bill which will make it perfectly clear to everybody that nobody will be deprived of a second public inquiry if there is a compulsory purchase order in the kind of circumstances I have spoken about.
People are incredibly worried about being deprived of a public inquiry when a compulsory purchase order is in the air. They are genuinely dismayed at having their land taken away without an opportunity to express themselves upon the subject, and so are their neighbours and so are many other interested people. I believe that if this Bill is going to achieve any kind of acceptance at all we must be particularly careful to ensure that people do not get it into their heads that they will

1771
be deprived of a public inquiry on a compulsory purchase order in circumstances where, in practice, this will not be the case. Will noble Lords opposite see whether they can help us on this matter? My drafting may not be the best. It is what I have been able to do by attracting the Amendment that was inserted by the Government in another place. It may not be specific enough even now, but at least it goes along with the way the Bill is now drafted, and I believe it would go along some way towards meeting the kind of fears I have attempted to outline. I beg to move.
1.24 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: I rise to support my noble friend and to suggest that it might be for the convenience of the Committee, and I believe for the convenience of the Government, to discuss with his two Amendments the Amendment standing in my name, Amendment No. 56, and that standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley and myself, Amendment No. 57. The Committee will see that Amendments Nos. 55A and 56 are broadly similar. I am quite convinced, however, that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is the better of the two and so I shall not be moving No. 56. The purpose of it is identical to the one my noble friend has just explained.
On the other hand, I think that even when his Amendments have been imported into the Bill No. 57 is also needed to apply the same principle to sub-paragraphs (3)(b) and (3)(c) where, although it is already provided that the relevant development should be in accordance with the provisions of that plan in each case, I think the arguments which he has just adduced in putting forward his own Amendment No. 56A nevertheless still apply; that is so particularly in the case of the old development plans, many of which are now very out of date and where approval may have been given, after an inquiry, in quite different circumstances and for quite different things from those for which the local authority now propose to acquire the land for relevant development. Those are my general points which bear strictly on the Amendment my noble friend has proposed, Amendment No. 55A.
1772
There are two more general points to be made. One is that there is some danger in the alternatives offered here, particularly the last one, in that there are a lot of very old development plans about and some of them have not yet been approved. If they are used by local authorities as a way of circumventing a planning inquiry the acquisition of land for the purposes of positive planning will be pressed into a somewhat outmoded mould of local plans. In many cases it would be very much better to go through the business of a public local inquiry and to get the acquisition plans in line with more up-to-date thinking about the area —even though that would involve a public local inquiry. The temptation to use out-of-date or unapproved development plans as a way of avoiding that trouble will be only too clear and only too strong. I should like the noble Baroness to comment on that point.
The use of one of these three devices to avoid a public local inquiry will deprive a number of people of a say in an important act by the local authority; namely, the act of acquisition of land for development. As my noble friend has pointed out, one group of people will have turned up at the planning inquiry for planning permission, or at some stage of public participation for the local plan when local plans come along—but, of course, in many cases they are a long way off yet, and a different group of people will want to have a say from those who were involved in the public local inquiry leading to approval of the old development plan. I hope that the Government are as much wedded to public participation now in the case of public acquisition of land as they were when they promoted the 1968 Act when public participation was a very strong theme in all their speeches on that subject.
Baroness BIRK: I just said so.
Lord SANDFORD: That is fine. That is all I want to say on those two general points, and on the specific one I am very happy to support my noble friend in his Amendment No. 55A.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am thinking of a case where perhaps the local authority has acquired, under a structure plan or whatever kind of plan one likes, in order to have a housing development perhaps

1773
with a full new secondary school being built in the area. Then, for some reason or other, it is decided to split the school. It can be done either horizontally—in other words, making two schools dealing with ages 11 to 13 and 14 to 16—or vertically, say to avoid a two-stream school becoming a four-stream school. Then the land is sold off or the purpose for which it is to be used is changed. The school is moved and the land is to be used for industrial purposes. I am certain there are many occasions where nobody would ever dream of objecting to a school going up but people might furiously object to an industry going there. Anybody who has local authority experience will be aware that plans may be drawn up for a local authority school and that then the Department of Education decides to raise the standards.
I can well remember how extremely annoyed I was with a local authority some years ago when, because of a change of standards (although it was an improvement for which we were all very grateful) our plans for the school, which had cost us about £20,000 had to be thrown into the waste-paper basket and re-drawn. In that case there was the further problem that the site which we had originally chosen for the school was no longer big enough and we had to re-site it. I am sure that we all sympathise with this kind of thing, but would we sympathise if that same piece of land were to be used for an industrial purpose? We may have liked to be given the opportunity to object to its being used for that purpose. Because circumstances change, cases of this kind are sometimes beyond the immediate imagination and planning of the local authority. I support my noble friends on this side of the Committee in this respect. Wherever circumstances have changed, let us give the local people a second opportunity to raise objections and to act as though the original inquiry had never taken place.
Lord PARGITER: Before my noble friend replies, may I deal with the points that have been raised? To suggest that a local authority will not proceed with a secondary school or any other kind of school, but will use for industrial development a site that is in the midst of a residential area, is stretching the imagination a little. At least, that has not come to my knowledge when I have been dealing
1774
with local planning authorities. It seems to me that we are getting into very deep water. As I see it, a local authority will designate an area for residential development and ancillary purposes and will designate another area for industrial purposes. It will not necessarily specify the type of industry, but it will specify the areas to be used for industry, for residential development and for ancillary developments such as schools, open space, shops and so on. If I were a member of a local authority, I should hesitate to look further ahead than 10 years when deciding how to designate land.
1.32 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I am grateful to my noble friend for those remarks, because they reinforce what I intend to say about this series of Amendments. It would be helpful if I began by saying something fairly general about the procedure and then dealt with the Amendments and the points which have been raised. The modifications to the compulsory purchase procedures to which the Amendments all relate apply only where the acquiring authority certify that the order is for the acquisition of outstanding interests in development land. This morning I have already touched on the point that "development land" means land which, in the opinion of the authority concerned, is needed for relevant development within 10 years. That will exclude exempt and excepted development. The modified procedures, including power to dispense with an inquiry, will therefore apply only to the kind of land which is at the core of the community land scheme, and which is to be brought into public ownership so that the positive planning objectives of the scheme are achieved.
As noble Lords will know, since the Bill was introduced the power to dispense with an inquiry has been amended in another place. It is now circumscribed by important conditions. These state that the planning status of the land as suitable for relevant development must previously have been established under planning procedures involving the holding of a public inquiry. In cases falling within paragraph 3(3)(a), the Secretary of State will need to have granted planning permission after a public inquiry for development falling within the definition of "relevant development". In that event, the principle that the land falls within the scope of the land

1775
scheme will have been settled. If there was any proposal to carry out relevant development of a kind not covered by the planning permission granted by the Secretary of State, a further planning inquiry would have to be held, if the planning procedure so required. This is probably an important point to stress, particularly in respect of what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said to me. Perhaps I could re-emphaise it. Eventually, it would be necessary to make a planning application for the industrial project which the noble Viscount had in mind, and if this were a departure from the plan there would be an inquiry.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: No, that is not right. The Department has just issued a new development plans direction—Circular 96/75—which has modified the old rules about departures. I hope that the noble Lord will apply his mind specifically to the terms of the new development plans direction. It greatly cuts down the areas where developments of this kind have to be submitted to the Secretary of State, and gives a great deal more freedom to local authorities to grant planning permission to themselves for something that they wish to do. They will be able to make a compulsory purchase order without a public inquiry, and afterwards to grant themselves planning permission. That is what will happen and that is the problem.
Lord MELCHETT: It might speed up the procedure if I were allowed to finish my remarks before points were raised. I am coming to that matter. When deciding whether or not to hold an inquiry the Secretary of State would, of course, bear in mind whether the reasons stated by the authority were justified by the previous inquiry. If an authority, having bought land on the basis of a plan, wants to grant permission for some other kind of development—this is why I said I was coming to this point—the proposal will be subject to public participation. The general regulations which the noble Viscount mentioned are dealt with in another Amendment, but this may be the time to say that at present, as the noble Viscount has said, local authorities can grant themselves planning permission. There is no requirement that they shall subject their proposals to public
1776
participation. However, as the noble Viscount no doubt knows, the Department encourages local authorities to put their proposals to public participation in cases where this would be necessary if the proposals were being carried out by a private person. We propose to amend the general regulations to make it an obligation on local authorities to do so in such circumstances. I think that that answers the point about which the noble Viscount intervened.
In short, the power to dispense with a compulsory purchase order inquiry hangs on the existence of a previous planning decision by the Secretary of State establishing that the land may be used for development other than exempt development or excepted development. It does not override the planning control machinery in so far as that controls the form of development for which the inquiry authority eventually decide the land should be made available. In paragraph 3(3)(b), which deals with local plans, the position is very much the same. The Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that the provisions of the local plan, which will have been the subject of public participation before adoption or approval, cover development other than exempt or excepted development. Normally, a local plan would indicate the kind of development that the planning authority propose should take place on the land. The Secretary of State would then have to consider whether this constituted or covered relevant development. The local plan would also give an indication of the kind of development for which the land would be used or made available after acquisition. The local plan could be amended, but only after the same publicity and the same public participation processes had been carried out as applied to the original local plan.
In sub-paragraph (3)(c), which deals with development plans, "relevant development" would have to be in accordance with the existing old style Ordnance Survey-based plans which allocate land to specific classes of development. These, as my noble friend said when we were discussing a previous Amendment, may be overlaid by the structure plans, but I hope we have dealt with that problem to the satisfaction of noble Lords opposite. Here, again, the provisions of the development plan would

1777
have created an expectation that land would be developed in accordance with the allocations in the plan. The relevant development would clearly be consistent with the allocation for the land. In our view, it is quite wrong that the Secretary of State should be obliged to hold an inquiry solely to allow arguments on the principle of public acquisition of development land.
Of course, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that some of these plans may be very old and out of date, but I think it would be difficult to write a provision into the Bill saying that where a plan is out of date the Secretary of State shall hold an inquiry. This is something which must be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State, and I can give the noble Lord the assurance that if the local plan is wildly out of date, and obviously not appropriate, then the Secretary of State would of course exercise his discretion and hold an inquiry.
Amendments Nos. 55A and 56, which propose that in sub-paragraph (3)(a) the relevant development should correspond with the reasons given by the authority for proposing to acquire the land, are, for the reasons I have set out at some length, not acceptable to us. The reasons given by the authority go to the merits of the order rather than whether the planning background is such that an inquiry or hearing may be dispensed with. But the reasons given by the authority would be taken into account in deciding whether it was expedient to hold an inquiry. There are technical defects in the Amendments, as I think the noble Viscount suspected, but probably it will not be necessary for me to go into those.
Amendment No. 57 is unacceptable for much the same reasons and, as the noble Lord has said, it covers much the same ground. In particular, it runs contrary to the concept of sub-paragraph (3). This concept is based on the prior establishment through the planning machinery that development falling within the definition of "relevant development" would be appropriate to that land. The only point which I should like to re-emphasise, as my noble friend said on an earlier Amendment, is that the proposals in these three sub-paragraphs, and indeed the whole of the new sub-paragraph (4), have been given careful consideration by the
1778
Council on Tribunals who are the statutory "watch dog", as it were, in this area, and apart from the minor reservations on structure plans, on which we spent some time on a previous Amendment, they are happy with the proposals now in the Bill.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Well, I am not. Until the noble Lord got almost to the end of his speech I thought he was going to accept this Amendment, and I am absolutely amazed that he came to the conclusion that he did. Before I decide what I should ask the Committee to do about my Amendment, can the noble Lord explain something he has said? He mentioned the reasons under paragraph 2 for which the authority proposed to acquire the land. He said something to the effect that these did not relate to planning. Can the noble Lord tell me what they are going to relate to? I thought the reasons they were going to state were the reasons why they wanted to propose that land, and in that would be included what they were going to do with it when they got it. If that is not to do with planning, I do not know what is. Can the noble Lord tell me what he meant by that remark, if I have remembered it accurately?
Lord MELCHETT: I am not sure that the noble Viscount did get it quite right if he was thinking of the same point in my remarks as I am. Perhaps it will help him if I say it again. The reasons given by the authorities go to the merits of the order rather than whether the planning background is such that an inquiry or hearing may be dispensed with.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Then, unless the noble Lord contradicts me, may I assume that the reasons which go to the merits would also go to the question of what they are going to use the land for? I entirely see that they do not necessarily go to the question of whether or not the inquiry should be dispensed with, but unless he interrupts me again I am going to assume that they do go into some detail about, at any rate, a range of things for which the land is going to be used if it is acquired.
Lord MELCHETT: As silence should always be taken as acquiescence, I think perhaps I ought to intervene and say that it all depends what the noble Viscount

1779
means by "reasons". The authority will decide whether the land is suitable for relevant development.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: If that is all we are going to get in the reasons I think everybody has been placing a great deal too much reliance upon the Amendment that was made at Report stage in another place and on which the noble Baroness placed so much emphasis this morning. If all we are going to be told is: "We, the—something—district council propose to acquire this land because we consider it to be suitable for relevant development", that is not going to satisfy anybody, and I do not believe that is what anybody expected to happen. However, I shall have to leave my noble friends to contemplate on that matter.
What I think is wrong with the argument adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is this: Let us just take the sequence of events which he specified and see whether they make sense. Remember that we are dealing with the context of the compulsory acquisition, by a body of local government nature, of land which belongs to a private individual which, whatever one may hold as one's political philosophy, is in this country a fairly severe step and one that we all accept is surrounded by safeguards. The situation is this: I have a piece of land, let us assume, upon which I have planning permission for houses. The local authority come along and say: "Now we would like it for commerce and trade". They say that there has been planning permission for relevant development: "Housing on the scale of your land is relevant development"—the heartland of the Bill. We therefore have a relevant development planning permission and there is no reason for the Secretary of State to have a further public inquiry into this compulsory acquisition; and Colville's land will be acquired without him having an opportunity, and without anybody else having an opportunity, to express their views on it.
The noble Lord then says that having got the land the local authority will have to obtain planning permission for themselves to develop the land for trade and commerce and, according to what happens under the general development regulations the Amendment which I have
1780
not yet seen and nobody else has, either, they may or may not have to submit their plan to the Secretary of State or to some form of public participation process before planning permission can be granted. We assume that that is so, but the cart is being put before the horse. They have just acquired the land for trade and commerce before they got planning permission, before there has been any public participation, before there has been any possibility of planning permission being given for it.
I am saying that the process should be taken in logical order. If you are going to acquire it for purposes which accord with the planning permission for relevant development which has already been granted, well and good. If you want to acquire it for some totally different relevant development, let it be thrashed out at a public inquiry at the time when the citizen is being deprived of his land and not at some time afterwards. I should have thought there could be no possible contravention of that particular piece of logic. When the local authority form their contradictory plans to what has been said before, that is the time when there should be a public inquiry; that is the time when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and his Society, and anybody else, should come in; that is the time when the neighbours should have their say: that is the time when—just in case anybody has forgotten —the private person who happens to own the land, should also be allowed to have the right to object to his land being taken off him for a different purpose.
The noble Lord really has got this into a most dreadful muddle, and even if there are technical defects in this Amendment I am afraid that unless he can do something to still the fears that have suddenly arisen in my mind on what I thought was a comparatively harmless and noncontroversial point, I shall have to do something about it.
Lord MELCHETT: I only have myself to blame for that because I made an error when I intervened in the noble Viscount's speech earlier on. The reasons given by the local authority will give more detail than merely saying that the land is being acquired for relevant development. They will, for example, specify housing, industrial development, mixed development or whatever it may be. The reason why I intervened—and I knew I

1781
was not entirely with the noble Viscount —was that the authority do not have to say precisely what every piece of land is needed for.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I understand that.
Lord FOOT:The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, speaks so fast and his mind moves so quickly that many of us have great difficulty in keeping up with him. What I fail to understand from the replies we have received from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is: what is the objection to inserting these words as proposed in this Amendment No. 55A? What harm does it do? In what way is it inconsistent with the intentions of the Government? It is a safeguard which does not seem to do any injury to this general amendment of Schedule 1 to the earlier Act. It seems only to improve it. The illustrations that the noble Viscount has given, as to the way in which one could have a planning permission given for some purpose, and then one could suddenly acquire it without a public inquiry for some entirely different purpose, seem to me to be almost overwhelming. I cannot see why the Government resist this. I should have thought they would welcome the opportunity of giving way on this Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: And so, indeed, should I. It seems to me that in deciding whether to dispense with a public local inquiry, there are two factors we have to bear in mind. One is the kind of development, and it is a great relief, I must say, to have got it on the Record, that the local authority involved has to give some sort of explanation about the kind of development they have in mind. We have got that right. It is also important—and this is the burden of our anxiety—before deciding that a public local inquiry into a compulsory purchase order can be dispensed with, that an appropriate and reasonably contemporary public local inquiry bearing on the same point should have been held; and if it has not already been held it must be held, and the Bill must so provide. I hope my noble friend will feel that he ought to press this Amendment, because I certainly think so myself.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: May I from this side express a mild view in favour of this proposal? It seems to me
1782
a little hard to say that because there has been a public local inquiry, therefore you need not have another if the previous public local inquiry had nothing to do with the issue now to be considered. I should have thought the Government ought to give rather careful consideration to this point. I do not know whether the words proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, precisely meet the case. I think this probably needs consideration from the drafting point of view, but I hope that the Front Bench will be reasonable enough on this issue to say that they will, at least, give this earnest consideration, and, unless they can justify in detail their resistance to this sort of proposal, either put these words in at some later stage, or put forward some alternative formula.
Lord MELCHETT:As I said the last time I was on my feet, I think I have only myself to blame for the misunderstanding. It might be helpful if I briefly set out what I see as the position. First, I should re-emphasise that we are talking about land suitable for relevant development, so it is land of that category which has already been decided, and the planning issues, which have been at the core of this scheme, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said.
The second point, contrary to what I said when I intervened when the noble Viscount was on his feet, is that the authority will give some indication of the general sort of development for which they wish to acquire the land. I am afraid I got that wrong, and I think that may have led to some of the misapprehensions expressed by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I must emphasise again that they will give some indication of general reasons. It is those reasons that they will give as an indication, and, for example, in the case of housing, that must have already been settled at a public inquiry into the planning issues if the Secretary of State is to dispense with an inqury. I hope that is clear.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: No, that is just not it. That is what would happen if my Amendment went in, and what will not happen if my Amendment does not go in.
Lord MELCHETT: I am afraid I disagree with the interpretation of the noble

1783
Viscount. I was going on to say that if the local authority subsequently decide to use the land for something else, and the planning permission granted for the land is not apposite for their new intention —for example, they have permission for housing, and decide to use the land for industrial development—normal planning procedures will apply. If the plannning procedures make it necessary, they will have to go to a public inquiry to justify the change in the planning permission on the land.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I have the solicitors' profession and the active lawyers with me, and I am myself a member of the Bar. I believe that everyone else in the Committee interprets these provisions in the way I have suggested. We now know there will be reasons given why the compulsory acquisition is to be made. There is no difficulty, therefore, in seeing whether they are consistent, as I have suggested, with the planning permission already granted. Only by putting something in this Bill shall we avoid the strange situation which I attempted to describe a moment ago. Something of this sort should go into this Bill and I am going to chance my arm on my one.
Lord PARGITER: Before the Question is put, I should like to be quite clear about what the proposal is, and what it will do. Let us assume that the local authority decides the land is relevant for the purpose of acquisition, and decides it on the basis of an existing planning consent for that area. The land is not to be developed immediately, because the whole intention of the Bill is to plan ahead for 10 years. But in five years' time, the circumstances are so changed that it is necessary for the land to be used for another purpose, in the general opinion of the public, if you like, who participated in this; that the land should be used for industrial purposes and another area should be used for residential development. How will this apply in this case? The local authority will say, "We require this land for housing and that is what the purpose already is." If in five years' time they find it necessary
1784
and in the public interest to change that, what would be the effect of this Amendment?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS:None, because they would have acquired the land in the first place, giving their reasons as being housing, which was the purpose for which the planning permission was at that time outstanding. There would be no necessity for a public inquiry. Everyone would be perfectly content, and if in five years they decided to appropriate the land from its original housing purpose to industrial purpose, then that would be an entirely different matter and outside the scope of the Amendment. It would be dealt with by the ordinary appropriation machinery and would, incidentally, require planning permission, which would be dealt with in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Therefore, those circumstances have nothing whatever at all to do with this Amendment and are in no way interfered with by it.
Lord PARGITER: To complete what I was saying, it seems to me that the statement of the Government is perfectly reasonable. They say, in the event of the local authority acquiring the land for a purpose other than for which planning consent already exists, a public inquiry would be held and it would be necessary for the necessary process of the law to be gone into. In the light of that, as I understand it, this is a clear statement—I see the noble Viscount shaking his head —and it seems to be pushing this a little unnecessarily to the extent that the noble Viscount proposes.
Lord HYLTON: None of the numerous replies of the Government covers the case where the local authority buys a site to which no planning permission attaches, and then subsequently grants planning permission for some purpose or other.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said, that does not arise under this Amendment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Quite right.
2.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 55A) shall be agreed to?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
2.7 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 56C:
Page 56, line 33, leave out ("adopted or approved") and insert ("approved by the Secretary of State after a public local inquiry").
The noble Viscount said: This is, as I indicated a moment ago when the noble Lord, Lord Foot, intervened on this subject, a difficult point. I do not know which of the noble Lords opposite is going to deal with it; I understand it is the noble Baroness; I am delighted. The noble Baroness will remember the very complicated provisions in the Planning Acts about the process of having a local plan approved. Of course, at the moment they are all theory, because there are not any local plans, or if there are they must be exceedingly rare. For the most part, none of us has experienced the process
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73 Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Newall, L.

Abinger, L.

Foot, L.

Northchurch, B.

Airedale, L.

Gainford, L.

Ogmore, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glasgow, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Amory, V.

Gridley, L.

Platt, L.

Auckland, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, E.

Hanworth, V.

Reigate, L.

Banks, L.

Hawke, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Salisbury, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hereford, V.

Sandford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hylton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Sherfield, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Loudoun, C.

Strathspey, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworlh, L.

Vickers, B.

de Clifford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mansfield, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Dundee, E.

Middleton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Eccles, V.

Monck, V.

Willingdon, M.

Effingham, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Elles, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Milford, L.

Beswick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pannell, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Brockway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Stow Hill, L.

Burntwood, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Chorley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Crook, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wigg, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Melchett, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

whereby they go through the public participation exercise and are then subjected to formal objection, inquiry and confirmation. As I said at the beginning of the proceedings today, one of the points that I feel sure noble Lords opposite would agree with—and I do not want to dissociate myself; if we have to have this legislation I would share this view—is that so far as possible the proceedings, the implementation of this Bill, should attract as much public confidence and as much public acceptance as can be achieved.
The local plan provision is a complicated one. There are a number of methods whereby a local plan can be approved. I do not want to go into the details, but of the two sorts of public inquiry that can be held, one of them is a public inquiry where the report goes back to the planning authority who made the plan in the first place and they decide

1787
whether or not they should give effect to any of the objections; therefore, they confirm the plan they produced in the first place, if they like without giving effect to any of the objections. There is, however, also a procedure whereby the public inquiry can be held and can report to the Secretary of State, who is then, naturally, the person who decides whether or not objections shall be given effect to.
We may have a situation where, after there has been a local plan with matters examined at a public inquiry, the local authority—very likely the same local authority—will come along later on with a compulsory purchase order to acquire the land for the purposes of this Bill as being relevant development. There would be no further public inquiry because the Secretary of State will say, "We don't need that because there has already been one". We would then have a situation where the following would have occurred: the local authority, the district council, will have prepared a local plan; it will have held a public inquiry into it, and the person concerned will have reported to the same local authority, the same district council. The district council will then come along and say, "We want to acquire compulsorily the land", and the Secretary of State will say, "No, I am not going to have a public inquiry, because there has already been one". At every stage the district council will have been the advocate for the prosecution, the jury, and it will have been the judge in its own cause, and there will never have been any scrutiny by anybody from outside that district council.
I think—it is a matter of judgment and I shall be interested to hear what views anybody else in the Committee has about this—that people will consider that in those circumstances there has not been an opportunity to have the impartial view of the Secretary of State brought to hear upon this issue at any time, and they will think that it is unfair and unjust. I am sure they would, as we have just seen, be prepared to abide by a decision that has already been made by the Secretary of State sitting quasi-judicially and deciding as between the citizen, on the one hand, and the local authority concerned, on the other; that is, a paragraph (a) situation; but I am suggesting that they would also be prepared to accept his
1788
arbitration and his previous decision in a paragraph (b) case where there was a local plan. But I do not believe that they would accept it where the only decision ever taken—and there was no outside intervention—was by the acquiring authority in the first place.
It is in order to give some substance of acceptability to the reliance upon the local plan and an inquiry held for its purposes that I move this Amendment. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the only way to do it, but I should like to see the reactions of the Government. I would ask them to consider this since I believe that it is a practical problem and one that will cause trouble if we do not get it right. I beg to move.
2.13 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: This is another facet of the same point we have been on in recent Amendments. What puzzles and worries me, apart from the specific legal implications, is that if this Amendment were put into the Bill, it would, in practice, mean that all local plans would have to come to the Secretary of State. If this was so, it would wreck the idea behind the local plans that they should be decided locally and not centrally; that is, if there were not an automatic inquiry. The Amendment is unnecessary because it is true that a local plan is adopted by a local authority rather than having to be approved by the Secretary of State, but there has to be a public inquiry before an inspector before a local plan can be adopted.
I should like to refer back to the discussion on Amendment No. 55B, and what I said there, and make the general point that what we are concerned with is whether there has been an inquiry. This condition is satisfied when a local plan has been adopted. And this is the point that I have just made; that the local plan should be decided locally and not centrally, unless there is any dispute over it. I should also stress that the Secretary of State will get a copy of the Inspector's report where the inspector has put in a report on the inquiry into a local plan. He will have the information, and the opportunity of knowing whether somebody who is objecting to a CPO had his case considered at local planning stage and what the inspector said. Listening carefully to all that has been said on the other Amendments to which

1789
my noble friend replied, I find that the noble Viscount seems to be implying all the time that the Secretary of State will automatically dispense with an inquiry. He has a discretion, and one is assuming—and one has to assume it through all manner of legislation—that this discretion will be exercised responsibly.
On other aspects in other parts of the Bill—we have heard it before and no doubt it will come up again—the Government are criticised on the grounds that in this Bill the Secretary of State has too much power; too much rests with him. We have been asked, "What do you mean by calling it a Community Bill?" But it is within the province of the local authorities. On the other hand, many people are arguing that we are taking too much away from the local authorities and giving that power to the Secretary of State. On occasions during Second Reading the word "authoritarian" was attached to that. Here we feel that we have the right balance, without completely over-egging the communal cake with inquiries, but at the same time having a discretionary long-stop to be exercised by the Secretary of State. Where the local authority goes against the local inspector and overrules the recommendation, then this would be a clear area in which the Secretary of State would no doubt step in.
To try to make it as cumbersome as it would be, apart from the sheer merits of it, so that really virtually all local plans would end up with the Secretary of State, seems to me to be the road along which we are progressing with this series of Amendments. We have to take great care over that. I have thought about this deeply, and I have listened carefully to what the noble Viscount said, but I find his Amendment is unacceptable.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: The noble Baroness is under two misapprehensions. All local plans would only have to go to the Secretary of State if the Secretary of State was determined to dispense with all public inquiries subsequently arising on compulsory purchase orders under this Bill which fall under paragraph (b). If he was prepared automatically to grant a public inquiry on the compulsory acquisition of land in the case of allocations in a local plan, except where that local plan happened to have
1790
already gone to him for confirmation, then I do not believe there would be anything cumbersome at all, and that is the effect of my Amendment. It does not mean all local plans would have to go there it would mean only that we should be able to dispense with a local inquiry in such cases only where they have. That is one misapprehension the noble Baroness is under, and I am glad to have the opportunity of explaining what I meant.
The other misapprehension is perhaps rather more profound and, if I may say so, it betrays a formidable misjudgment of the way in which the public look upon the role of the Secretary of State in these cases. It is not the same role that I am talking about. The criticisms that have arisen about the powers that the Secretary of State has under this Bill relate to his executive position—the powers he has to produce various regulations and to take executive decisions of one sort or another—and I entirely agree that in this respect he has been given exceedingly wide, probably too wide, powers. But I am not talking about that function of the Secretary of State at all. I am on an entirely different point, where his function is entirely benign; where he is looked upon by the citizen as a protector; that is, when he is sitting quasi judicially considering objections to compulsory purchase orders and deciding on the merits between an acquiring authority and the person from whom land is being taken. There is nothing on earth to do with executive power in that respect. If one looks at any of the practices one finds that the Secretary of State bends over backwards to be fair, to be seen to be fair and to go through all the necessary procedures for people to be allowed to have a chance to have their say. I am commending this process and I am saying that the Secretary of State should be allowed to do it more often, so the noble Baroness must not be under the misapprehension that I am talking about the same function that was being criticised in another context.
I should like to give the noble Baroness an opportunity to consider those two points. I will not press this Amendment today, because I believe there may be more difficulties in the drafting than may be thought. However, may I ask her to address her mind to one further point?

1791
She seemed to think that the only purpose of this Amendment was to deal with the public inquiry. If that is the case, she did not follow my argument. The public inquiry is one thing. It is the person who decides at the end of the public inquiry which is perhaps more important. I was drawing a distinction between the local authority making and deciding on the local plan and then implementing a compulsory purchase order itself, and the noble Baroness did not apply her mind to that and answer that argument. I am suggesting that if at no stage there has been any other quasi judicial intervention—if they have never been overseen by the Secretary of State at any stage in this process—people will consider themselves aggrieved and feel that an injustice may have been done. That is the point and not merely the fact that there has been a public inquiry.
Baroness BIRK: Frankly, I thought I had made the point several times, but obviously I had not made it clearly enough. I was making a distinction between having the local authority empowered over this or whether it should go to the Secretary of State, and I said, and I repeat, that when a local plan is adopted by a local authority there has to be a public inquiry before the local plan can be adopted.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Yes.
Baroness BIRK: Exactly; and what I was arguing was that rather than snatching away more power and removing, so to speak, more confidence from local authorities—and sewing it all up in a highly legalistic manner—there were enough safeguards and opportunities for the Secretary of State to come in. I do not agree with what the noble Viscount said at the outset of his remarks because looking again at the provision and rereading his Amendment, it is clear that what he is suggesting is that the Bill should read:
"… where a local plan for the district in which the land is situated has been approved by the Secretary of State after a public local inquiry."
I understood him to be arguing that it should not always go to the Secretary of State, but the words of his Amendment
1792
are that it should always be approved by the Secretary of State.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: That is not what I am arguing.
Baroness BIRK:If that is not what the noble Viscount means then his Amendment is incorrect because that is how it reads and I am dealing with the Amendment as tabled.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: The noble Baroness has clearly not understood my Amendment. However, I do not propose to waste the time of the Committee by explaining it further now. I would be happy to discuss the matter with her because she has genuinely not understood it. Perhaps she will be kind enough to allow me to explain it to her on some other occasion. It is clear that we are not talking about the same thing at all. I should be glad, in another forum, to discuss the matter further with her. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.27 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 56, line 42, at end insert—
("Provided that in each case the relevant development referred to shall be the development for which the authority propose to acquire the land.")
The noble Lord said: I said when we started with discussion on this topic, on Amendment No. 55A,that I would support my noble friend rather than move my Amendment No. 56. I am glad that we have now imported Amendment No. 55A into the Bill because that is certainly necessary and it deals with a particular and precise point. Nevertheless, there is a good deal of merit in Amendment No. 57, even with No. 55A imported into the Bill. I think I have said enough on the general point to indicate why I think it is necessary, and I move this Amendment in case any other Members of the Committee wish to comment on this more general issue.
Viscount AMORY: I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will pay great weight to what my noble friend Lord Sandford has said. As this is the first time that I have spoken on this Bill, I want to associate myself with noble Lords who have described it as unnecessary. I believe

1793
that everything it aims at achieving could much more simply be effected by a combination of existing planning measures supplemented by fiscal measures, and that would have resulted in a massive saving of manpower. But if we must have this Bill, then it seems essential that it should offer really adequate protection to the citizen against unfairness arising either by action of the Secretary of State or by action of the local authorities concerned. My humble opinion is that in this Bill, as with most other recent ones, far too many things are left to the discretion of the Secretary of State. I agreed entirely with the forceful observations made this morning by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on the general attitude of the Government to this Bill. I am not criticising in any way either the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, or the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—both of whom have dealt with us in these complicated matters all the time I have been listening with the greatest possible courtesy—when I say that running through it is a spirit of arrogance. The Government should show greater sensitivity to the legitimate interests of the individual citizen, otherwise the Bill will not work.
If these wide powers are to be justified, the citizen must be given the maximum information as to why they are required, otherwise there will be a general climate of inertia and inactivity which will result in much desirable development being frustrated because positive action will have become too difficult and frustrating for the individuals concerned. One reason why I feel it is absolutely essential to make abundantly clear the precise definitions of the circumstances in which action under this Bill is appropriate, is the risk of getting our planning procedures into greater confusion. The new local government structure, by splitting planning functions between counties and districts, has already created enough complications in the minds of ordinary people and I am by no means happy about what we have been told so far about the reasons which local authorities must give, when they must give reasons at all. It seems, from the descriptions we have been given so far, that they could be of such a very general nature as to be valueless.
I therefore urge the noble Baroness to give attention to these reasonable and constructive Amendments which have
1794
been proposed by my noble friends and which can in no sense be described as wrecking Amendments. They have the sole aim of clarifying the definitions and descriptions which are essential and which are in a state of some confusion. My noble friends really understand what they are talking about and I hope that full attention will be paid to what they have said.
Lord MELCHETT: I have listened with interest to what the noble Viscount has said. So far as the Amendment is concerned, I replied at some length when we dealt with Amendment No. 55A.The Amendment is unacceptable for all the reasons which I spelled out in great detail at that time, but of course it goes considerably wider than Amendment No. 55A which we have already divided on. I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord SANDFORD: I was hoping that the noble Lord would take the opposite view so that, the Committee having agreed that Amendment No. 55A should be in the Bill, we need not go to the bother of a Division on Amendment No. 57, which does precisely the same thing in that it applies the same principle to sub-paragraphs (b) and (c), though more widely because those sub-paragraphs are themselves wider. I believe that the issue is quite clear and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that we need not go into it again, but I am still convinced, as is my noble friend, Lord Amory, that, just as we needed Amendment No. 55A to get matters into the right balance on subparagraph (a), we need Amendment No. 57 to achieve the right balance in subparagraphs (b) and (c). This is in spite of the fact that each of them contains the words,
"the order would he in accordance with the provisions of the plan".
We need this in order to make sure that the "relevant development" referred to is the development which the local authority intends to carry out after the land is acquired. Otherwise, it might happen that, simply because any relevant development had been permitted by a confirming authority after a public inquiry or was in accord with the provisions of the local plan, no right to an inquiry on a compulsory purchase order would exist. I believe that the Committee will agree with me that that would be unfair. I hope

1795
the noble Lord will not put us to the trouble of going through the Division Lobbies again on precisely the point on which the Committee has already agreed to insert Amendment No. 55A into the Bill. However, if the noble Lord wants us to have a Division, we shall have to do so.
Lord FOOT: I am not at all sure that these words have precisely the same effect as the words we have already inserted in sub-paragraph (a) by means of Amendment No. 55A. On the point of drafting, I much prefer the way in which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, did it in Amendment No. 55A, using the words:
"of a kind consistent with the reasons specified by the authority …"
I invite the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to consider whether we cannot leave this here and whether he and his noble friend Lord Colville could not produce for Report stage something which would be strictly comparable with Amendment No. 55A, which I believe to be a better way of expressing this than the words which the noble Lord has used in the present Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT:It may perhaps be helpful if I say a brief word. I do not entirely agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said because I cannot accept that Amendment No. 55A is an improvement on the Bill as it stands. But, as I said before—and I dealt with it at some length when we debated Amendment No. 55A—the present Amendment goes considerably further. In particular, Amendment No. 55A would allow an inquiry to be dispensed with if the authority proposed to use the land for the same kind of development, whereas Amendment No. 57 says that the developments must be identical. This may be the drafting fault to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has drawn attention and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will, if he will not take it from me, look at what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said and not press the Amendment.
Lord PARGITER: A small point worries me. We are referring to the development plan as if it were the law of the Medes and the Persians which can never be altered. In other words, whatever development a plan proposes at any
1796
particular point in time cannot, if it is in accordance with the development plan at that time, be altered even in respect of a small part of it unless the procedures which are envisaged are gone through. This is quite unreal. If in five years' time the plan is altered, it will mean that the whole procedure will have to be gone through and every little piece of land which has been acquired for the purpose of a previous development plan will have to be looked at to see whether, under the compulsory powers, that continues. This would create a quite impossible situation.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said. It seems to me to be very undesirable to have this Amendment inserted into the Bill because we shall have something which is clearly actuated by the same idea, but expressed in quite different language in different parts of the Bill. That will lead to grave difficulties of interpretation, and I should have thought that, on that ground alone, it would be desirable for the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to take the Amendment away and if he wishes to restore it that could be done in an amended form at a later stage.
Lord SANDFORD: That is a good point. We are trying to do in relation to sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) what my noble friend has done for sub-paragraph (a) with Amendment No. 55A. When we drafted our respective Amendments, my noble friend and I were not in consultation and we have hardly had time to compare notes very closely. I agree that, in as much as we are seeking to do the same thing for two different parts of the same clause, it would be as well to have the wording consistent. In the light of the debate, it will be all the easier to do that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.38 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 57, line 12, after ("may") insert ("except in the case of an owner-occupier").
The noble Earl said: I should like very briefly to say that here I have tried to consider the owner-occupier who may not be familiar with the possible proceedings

1797
under the Bill. Paragraph 3(6) states that,
"the confirming authority may require any person who has made an objection … to state in writing the grounds thereof, and may disregard the objection for the purposes of this paragraph if satisfied that the objection".
I should like to say that this should be so except in the case of an owner-occupier. Many of the ordinary people about whom I am thinking are unlikely to have a lawyer to whom they can easily go, and perhaps cannot express themselves very well in writing in an objection, so I ask that they may be given special consideration. However, I must admit that I may have stretched this too widely and I should very much like to support the idea expressed in Amendment No. 59C. I beg to move.
Lord PARGITER: Could the noble Earl define "owner-occupier" for the purposes of this clause?
The Earl of BALFOUR: I was thinking very much of the householder. That is perhaps where the Amendment goes too wide, and it is for that reason that I said that I preferred Amendment No. 59C. I feel that it is very much better.
Baroness BIRK: Before we get further into this matter, I should like to suggest that if it is convenient to the Committee Amendments Nos. 58, 59C—to which the noble Earl wants to speak—and 59D be debated together, because they are so closely linked. I think that the noble Baroness has agreed in principle to this.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Perhaps I may speak at this stage, bearing in mind that my Amendment would come next in order. I wish to preface my brief remarks by saying that one of the great difficulties of Schedule 4 is that it is undoubtedly a lawyer's paradise, and for lesser mortals it is somewhat sheer purgatory. For that reason, I should like to add my condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on the fact that the legal wisdom of the noble and learned Lord could not be available today.
The Amendment which I have put down would leave out head (b). The Committee will recall that under this new procedure which we are discussing an objector would be called upon by a local authority to state his reasons within a period of time—28 days or more. These
1798
objections would then be lodged and considered by the Secretary of State. Under head (b) the Secretary of State may disregard objections made on the grounds that the acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient.
There are two major worries with this new compulsory purchase procedure. The first we briefly discussed under paragraph 2, as regards local authorities not having to specify the purpose for which land was being acquired, and the noble Baroness said that she would look at that. The second worry concerns the rights of objection. It seems to many people that inserting head (b)—that the Minister may disregard the grounds of objection as being unnecessary or inexpedient—is taking away one of the major planks that any individual objector may use. We must remember that when an objector seeks advice—whether from a chartered surveyor, a solicitor or, indeed, a barrister —it becomes progressively more expensive. It would be very unwise to insert into the Bill a provision which is not at all clear, with the result that the professional advisers, who are incurring large costs for the objector, are not themselves certain whether the objections which they would raise are simply disregarded.
We need to consider what are the usual main objections to a compulsory purchase order, and I hope that the noble Baroness may come to this a little later. In my experience, they are that the order is premature, that the local authority does not require the land because sufficient land is already available in its area for development, and that public services are not available, anyway. These are some of the major reasons, but they would all come within sub-paragraph (6)(b), and the Minister may disregard them. It is this worry that he would disregard them that we are now discussing.
In another place, the Government gave a detailed reply to the whole argument about sub-paragraph (6)(b). The first answer that the Government gave was that this is not a new procedure; it came within the new towns procedure of 1965. This was considered unsatisfactory, because consideration of a new town is very different from consideration of existing development within towns. The second reply from the Government, which was more obscure, was that an objector may indeed have his objections

1799
disregarded for the purposes of acquisition, but he may still object on the basis that the development is unnecessary. Again, this was considered to be a little confusing, because when we look at this Bill we see that the whole purpose of acquisition is indeed development.
The noble Baroness will have seen all the Amendments on the Marshalled List. My Amendment is designed simply to leave out sub-paragraph (6)(b). But in looking at the other Amendments, I see the arguments put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. I would certainly advise my noble friend Lady Young, who added her name to this Amendment, to consider those other Amendments which I have mentioned and not necessarily mine.
Baroness YOUNG: Before we proceed further, I wish to seek the guidance of the Chairman, and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is in agreement with me on this point. I understood that we were debating Amendment No. 58, with which we were to consider Amendment No. 59C. I think I have understood my noble friend correctly that he was speaking to Amendment No.59A, which is concerned with a rather different point. I should like to be clear exactly where we are, and then I think we could get our proceedings back on the right lines.
Baroness BIRK: I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. I have been puzzled about this, and I came to the conclusion that the noble Earl was speaking to Amendment No. 59A,which is rather out of the grouping which I suggested to the noble Baroness opposite. It would be better to keep to the grouping agreed, and so deal with Amendments Nos. 58, 59C and 59D. Perhaps the noble Earl would move his Amendment afterwards, if that would suit the Committee.
Baroness YOUNG: I must apologise to my noble friend for this intervention. To me, as one of the many non-lawyers present, the debate today has been so technical and so fast moving that one is inclined easily to lose one's way with regard to the Marshalled List. I have the advantage of having had notice from the noble Baroness about a proposed grouping of Amendments to which I
1800
had agreed. Therefore I was, as it were, speaking from the same brief as the noble Baroness.
I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 59C, which falls into the same category as Amendment No. 58 put forward by my noble friend Lord Balfour, and is concerned with the owner-occupier. At present the owner-occupier has an absolute right to object to a compulsory purchase order and to an inquiry or hearing, with all the safeguards afforded by the procedure governing inquiries dealing with compulsory purchase by local authorities. The owner-occupier can object not only to the proposed use of his land, subject to the restriction in Section 132(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, but also because he believes that the acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient to achieve the object or use. He may also object on personal reasons—if the house has been in his family for a long time, or if he has elderly relatives. There are all sorts of personal reasons why a person might wish to object at an inquiry.
We have had a very long discussion about paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, which was amended in another place on Report, and which takes away this fundamental right in three cases, which are set out in heads (a), (b) and (c). The reason given is the assumption in those three cases that the owner-occupier is entitled to a satisfactory hearing or inquiry at the planning stage, and should therefore have objected at that stage, and it would be duplicating the work to object again.
Sub-paragraph 3(b) of the Schedule enables the Secretary of State to disregard objection made on the grounds that acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient. The object of the Amendment to which I am now speaking is to negate the restrictions in sub-paragraphs (3) and (6) on the owner-occupiers' right of objection, and to restore his present absolute right under the Act of 1946, but subject to the existing restriction on duplicating an objection which might have been made at the planning stage, as contained in the 1971 Act. My intention is simply to maintain the present owner-occupier's rights and not to alter them in any particular. Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Amendment are precedented in subparagraphs (2), (3) and (4) of a Government Amendment that has now been

1801
incorporated into the Bill, and which appears as sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) on page 58. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be acceptable to the Government.
I hope, furthermore, that when the noble Baroness replies—and I hope she will consider this point very carefully—she will take into consideration what her right honourable friend Mr. Silkin said about owner-occupiers in another place on Wednesday, 25th June, in Standing Committee, at col. 1639 of Hansard. I will not read the entire column, but at the end he says:
"I hope that honourable gentlemen opposite and my honourable friends will be prepared to leave that with me"—
this was the issue of owner-occupiers—
"on my undertaking to use my best endeavours, in the fullest possible sense of those words, to see whether we can give the owner-occupier under the Bill the same protection that he has under the existing law."
It seems to me that my Amendment does precisely that. No one is taking away anything from the principle of the Bill; that remains intact. The whole principle of positive planning, the whole principle of returning betterment to the community, the whole principle of land acquisition by local authorities—all that remains intact. All that my Amendment does is to seek to restore to the owner-occupier the present rights that he enjoys at a public inquiry, and for that reason —because it would appear that the Minister, Mr. Silkin, was endeavouring to do that—I hope that the noble Baroness will look favourably on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord GRIDLEY: In rising to support my noble friend on this Amendment, perhaps I may say that I hope the remarks I propose to make on this issue will be considered constructively by the Government. I am quite sure that they wish, as we wish, to get as many houses built in this country in future years as possible. Obviously, there are inequalities; there is a desperate shortage of housing, and the noble Baroness, for her part, and the Government, for their part, obviously want to get houses built. I think that if they consider this Amendment carefully and sympathetically, it will remove a great fear among potential buyers of properties that the powers under this Bill may act in a detractory
1802
way in regard to the purchase of owner-occupied properties. It is on those grounds that I speak to Members of your Lordships' Committee, and I would ask whether the Government can on this occasion take these points into consideration, succeed in restoring confidence to people and would-be purchasers, and give that protection to the owner-occupier concerning those matters about which I feel there is fear in regard to this Bill.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Apparently, we still have before your Lordships' Committee Amendment No. 58, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. He suggests that this has some relevance to the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, Amendment No. 59C, but it is couched in different words. For instance, the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, seeks to give certain privileges, if I may put it like that, to an owner-occupier, whereas the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, talks about the owner-occupier of a dwelling-house. I wonder whether it might clear the issue, so that we can debate it straightforwardly, if the noble Earl were to withdraw his Amendment, which merely refers to owner-occupiers, because I am sure that that Amendment would go very considerably beyond the terms embodied in Lady Young's Amendment. The term "owner-occupier" not only refers to people, like myself, who own their own houses; it also refers to great property companies, great oil companies, great finance houses and great banks in the City of London who own and occupy these huge skyscraper blocks in the City. I am sure that the noble Earl merely wishes to get some privileges in the Bill for the owner-occupiers of dwelling-houses, and not for great capitalist or financial organisations such as those that I have mentioned.
Lord SANDFORD: I wonder whether I could apologise to the noble Baroness for not being quite quick enough off the mark in noticing, when she suggested our grouping, that there is an Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley, printed on the Supplementary List and numbered 59I, referring to this point on page 58, line 16. It would probably be useful if this additional Amendment were included in our discussion. But I have nothing more to say about it, because it speaks for itself.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am terribly sorry, but I do not have Amendment No. 59I. I do apologise. Does it concern my Amendment? May I ask that for a start?
Lord SANDFORD: No.
The Earl of BALFOUR:In view of what has been said up to now, I should like to withdraw my Amendment No. 58 for the sake of convenience so that we may have further study of Amendment 59C. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Airedale): I have to point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 59A were agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendments Nos. 59 or 59H.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 59A:
Page 57, leave out lines 17 and 18.
The noble Earl said: I have already made an impassioned plea concerning this Amendment, though it was made on the wrong Amendment, and I would not wish to weary your Lordships' Committee with further argument. I would hope, however, that other noble Lords who have other Amendments on this point will come in. I beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: It may possibly expedite the work of this Committee if, instead of moving my Amendment 59B, which is to do with recreation, I were to use the argument that I would have used in moving that Amendment merely as an illustration of the kind of unfairness which may very well arise owing to the prohibition against making an objection on the ground that an acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient. The reason why I put down Amendment No. 59B was because of the concern felt by the National Anglers' Council, which represents nearly 3 million anglers, that the Community Land Bill makes it possible for local authorities—
Baroness BIRK:I am sorry, but I think we are getting rather wide of the mark now. I think it is going to be confusing, not only to me (which may not worry noble Lords opposite) but to the Committee generally, if we now extend what we have tried to tailor into, so
1804
far as we can, a debate on the dwelling of an owner-occupier into one on recreation, because there is still one outstanding Amendment in the same group which has not yet been moved, and that is No. 59D. I think it would help the Committee and the noble Lord's own cause if he dealt with his Amendment separately.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: We are completely out of order. Surely we cannot discuss Amendment 59D at this stage. We have before the Committee Amendment No. 59A, which is on the subject of what sort of objection you can make to a compulsory purchase order. For one, I am not prepared to speak on my Amendment No. 59H if, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, I am going to get mixed up with fishermen. Can we not discuss one thing at a time, let alone include dwelling-houses as well?
Lord MIDDLETON: Certainly we can talk about fishermen later. I was trying to expedite matters, but I will certainly leave it until later.
Baroness YOUNG: If I may suggest it, we were, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said quite rightly, discussing the issue of owner-occupiers. I think my noble friend Lord Colville was out of the Committee just at that moment, so we had started to discuss Amendment 59C,which I had in fact moved.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: No. We are on No. 59A.
Baroness YOUNG: This was my understanding, but if I am out of order I will of course sit down.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): If I may help the Committee, as I understand it we are on Amendment 59A, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
The Earl of KINNOULL:Perhaps I can assist somewhat. The reason that there has been this muddle is that 59C should have been 59B. I do not wish to get mixed up between the owner-occupier argument which was put forward and an important argument that we wish to make under 59B. I am in the hands of the Committee. At the moment we are talking to Amendment No. 59A.
The Earl of BALFOUR: If we are on 59A, then the answer would be to move

1805
on to 59B in my own name and in that of Baroness Young and Lord Gridley. I feel that that is the way we should take it; but I will take the advice of the Committee.
Lord MELCHETT: We have had a chance to consider it, so perhaps we should stick with Amendment No. 59A for now. I think that Amendment No. 59B covers slightly similar ground, but it may be simpler to take that when it comes. When we reach Amendment No. 59C we can deal with owner-occupiers. If nobody wishes to say anything about 59A then I have a great deal to say about it; but before embarking upon that I should like to ask the noble Lord, Earl Kinnoull, whether he is moving Amendment 59A with the serious intention of eliciting a response from the Government.
The Earl of KINNOULL: One of the difficulties is that some of us do not yet know what arrangements the Government have made as to how we are going to discuss these Amendments. I had in mind that 59A, 59 and 59H really cover the same point. It would not make a great deal of difference to stick to that now since I have already moved this Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I am content to adopt that procedure.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): If it is to the convenience of the Committee to discuss all three together I shall propose the Amendment to page 57 to leave out lines 17 and 18.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: In that case I am happy to discuss Amendment 59H. The reason why I put down an Amendment which is rather narrower than that of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull is because I wanted to be as conciliatory as possible to noble Lords opposite. I know that they have had many battles on this subject and I did not wish to strike out altogether the words in their Bill to which they are obviously closely attached. Nevertheless, even as they now stand, the words have caused a great deal of confusion and, as I have done on many occasions on this Bill, I would ask for an explanation.
1806
I know that almost the first thing that any of us are going to be told is that there is a precedent for these words in the New Towns Act. Can I make it abundantly clear to noble Lords opposite not only that I know that but that I have looked at the New Towns Act to see what sort of precedent this produces. The New Towns Act says that an objection to a compulsory purchase order may be disregarded if the acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient in the way in which it is set out in this part of the paragraph. But the context is entirely different. In the New Towns Act the reason why the Secretary of State may disregard an objection to a compulsory acquisition made on the grounds that the acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient is that the whole of the area, including the land that is now sought to be compulsorily acquired, has already been designated as part of a new town. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, with her particular experience of Peterborough will know this well. The major decision has been taken; the area has been pegged out all the way round; a huge inquiry has been taking place; every possible objection in principle has been aired and re-aired in Peterborough itself and there is no possible doubt that the major decision has been made already that in principle there should be a new town.
For anyone to get up at an individual compulsory purchase order inquiry which relates to a single piece of land within that area and say that there is no necessity for this compulsory acquisition because acquisition for new town purposes is unnecessary and inexpedient should not be heard because they will have missed the bus. That is the reason why the New Towns Act contains that provision; and it contains it rightly.
What I fail to see is why this has anything to do with the provisions in this Bill where the circumstances are wholly different. There has been no previous decision in principle in the case of an individual piece of land which is now sought to be acquired under the provisions of this Bill for the purposes of relevant development by a local authority. There is no major, overwhelming decision of principle that has been taken after a public inquiry, after an airing of all possible views on one side or the other in the locality and a decision taken. The only

1807
decision of principle which has been taken is that there shall be this legislation, and that does not relate to any particular piece of land in any particular locality let alone has it been preceded by a public local inquiry in that area.
Therefore, I hope that we shall not be told that there is a relevant comparison with the New Towns Act because I trust that I have gone some way to destroy any possible parallel that may be relied upon by noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, shakes his head; so that I am sure that we shall have it all over again. I will await patiently the exegesis that we have read five times in the other place and perhaps in this House, too. There is my answer in advance.
The practical problem is that nobody knows on what grounds they may or may not object under these words so as to attract the favourable attention of the Secretary of State and cause him after all to hold a public inquiry whereby they may make objection to this compulsory purchase order. I envisage myself sitting down to draft an objection to a compulsory purchase made under Section 15 of the Community Land Act. I am not going to sit down and say that the grounds of this objection is that it is unnecessary and inexpedient. If I do that, first I know that it will be disregarded; secondly, it does not help because it does not give the true reasons for my objection. Nobody will use those exact words in an objection and it would be absurd to suppose they would. Therefore the words must relate to some other more illuminating objection which attempts to spell out what is the true objection of the owner of the land to this compulsory purchase.
At the moment, nobody, so far as I am aware, is clear what form of objection, spelt out in rather more explicit terms, is nevertheless going to be considered and counted by the Secretary of State as falling within the definition of an objection on the grounds that it is unnecessary or inexpedient to buy the land. This is a matter of burning concern up and down the country. I promise the noble Lord that, even if he has not had connections with people who are involved in this activity, his advisers will have done. There is a real concern about what is meant by this.
1808
Will the noble Lord give us some examples of objections phrased in a way which will be held, or might be held, by the Secretary of State to come within the category of unnecessary and inexpedient? Will he also give us some examples of some occasions where they will not be so held? In some of the literature I have seen, by people who have thought deeply on the matter, I have read that there will be only one objection left, and that is the ground of personal hardship. I believe that is as extreme a view in the wrong direction as is the over-simplistic view with which I started, that only objections phrased in the exact words now in the Schedule will be disregarded. Obviously there is a large area in between—an area which, so far as I am aware, has never been mapped out. For the purposes of dealing with this matter in practice, so that we may get a sensible approach which will be helpful in the Department, which will be helpful to those who are advising clients and which will lead to a sensible assimilation of people's true objections with the way in which the Government wish this to be dealt with, we need more explanation of what these words are going to mean in practice. I look forward to what the noble Lord can tell us on this matter.
3.10 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I still have not heard a great deal about Amendment No. 59A. I am not sure whether I heard that the noble Earl had spoken to this at a time when I was not in the Chamber. For that I sincerely apologise; but as I gather it was his mistake for speaking rather sooner than he should have done, I hope that he will forgive me for speaking to his Amendment without actually having heard what he said about it. I am going to say something about new towns, and I had the benefit of what the noble Viscount had to say in advance of my arguments, so perhaps not having heard the noble Earl on this may not affect me as much as it might have done.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I did speak on this matter, but all that my noble friend has said was put in a much better way.
Lord MELCHETT: I am very relieved that I am not in any position to pass judgment on the truth or otherwise of that statement. It is true to say that this

1809
provision of the Bill has caused considerable misunderstanding. I will try, if I can, to remove that, although I accept that I have a difficult job ahead of me in view of the determined views which are held about the provisions.
The Secretary of State is empowered under the Bill to disregard objections only on the ground that the acquisition of the land is unnecessary or inexpedient. It will still be open to the objector to argue that the development for which the land is required is unnecessary or inexpedient, and such an objection cannot be disregarded under this power in the Bill. This misunderstanding is shown clearly by Amendment No. 59B, to which we will come shortly and which it is better to leave until later. I merely use it as an example of this misunderstanding so that noble Lords opposite do not think that I am imagining things.
The reason for taking the power which Amendment 59A seeks to delete from the Bill is as follows. The passing of the Community Land Bill will constitute acceptance by Parliament that virtually all development land is to be taken into public ownership and that ultimately development (other than excepted or exempt development) is to take place only on land which is in, or has passed through, public ownership. This is an example of the point which my noble friend made at the start of the Committee proceedings. I accept that the noble Viscount is raising important matters of procedure in the way this is going to work. But it is vital that we do not lose sight of the underlying political principle which we assert will be accepted by Parliament when the Bill is passed.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Will the noble Lord accept that the way I have drafted Amendment No. 59H is intended to take account of that point?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes. I will deal with that at the end of my remarks. In our view, after the Bill is passed there will be analogies between the situation over the whole of the country and the situation in new towns. Despite what the noble Viscount has said about having heard this argument before. I would—particularly as he refuted it in advance—at least take this opportunity of setting it out again. In new towns, in accordance with the objectives of securing the
1810
laying out and development of the new town, any land in its area is liable to acquisition by the development corporation. In considering a compulsory purchase order relating to land within the area of a new town, the Secretary of State, if he is satisfied that an objection is made on the ground that the acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient, may treat the objection as irrelevant for the purpose of making a final decision.
In many ways we feel this Bill might be regarded as creating a nationwide new town. Sub-paragraph (6)(b) follows, as the noble Viscount mentioned, paragraph 4(3)(b) of Schedule 3 to the New Towns Act 1965. Thus it provides that the Secretary of State may disregard—that is to say, treat as irrelevant for the purpose of making a final decision—an objection if he is satisfied that it is made on the ground that the acquisition, as against the development, is unnecessary or inexpedient. The noble Viscount criticised this and said, if I understood him aright, the New Towns Act was not a valid precedent. He thought the New Towns Act was not a valid precedent because there is a prior designation procedure for new towns which affords an opportunity for objections to be heard to the inclusion of land in the new town area. But the Amendments already made to Clause 17 of the Bill, to tie the operation of the land scheme closely to the planning framework in an area, undermines this argument. Under the Bill as is now stands, there will in fact be a prior or simultaneous consideration of the planning case, just as there is when a new town area is designated.
The words "unnecessary and inexpedient" are not intended to rule out all objections. The objective is to rule out the argument that development of land can perfectly well take place without public acquisition. Once Parliament has decided the principle, it would clearly be wrong to allow objections on this ground. Amendment No. 59A would entirely delete the power to disregard such objections and is therefore unacceptable to the Government.
The noble Viscount asked what could be left to object to about acquisition. I accept, and the Government accept, that there will not be a very wide area. I think it is very difficult, and I hope that the noble Viscount will accept this, to say

1811
in advance what will be considered a valid objection; indeed, if I attempted to delineate it any further than is already done in the Bill, we could come across very great difficulties and I might be accused of pre-empting the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Hardship, which the noble Viscount mentioned, certainly would be one area in regard to which people could object to the acquisition itself. Possibly prematurity would be another area where somebody could say that they accepted the need for public acquisition of land but that they needed only 12 months to complete something that they were doing on the land, and they might ask whether it would be possible to delay the acquisition. I would hesitate to be drawn into establishing a number of precedents which might cause difficulties later. It could be said that the objector will not know very clearly what the local authority intend to do with the development. We touched on this earlier. There will be nothing to stop the Secretary of State considering an objection to any development. The Secretary of State could also consider an objection which raised the point that the objector did not know clearly enough what the local authority intended. Of course, as I said earlier, if the planning framework had been settled some time ago and was felt by the objectors to be out of date, once again the Secretary of State could consider that objection. There is nothing in the Bill, as I understand it, to stop this happening.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 59 and 59H, I think it is fair to say that both of them would not attack the principle I have outlined, but would substitute alternative wording for the power to disregard an objection to a compulsory purchase order which is made on the ground that the acquisition is "unnecessary or inexpedient". The two forms of wording are slightly different. In the Committee stage in another place, my right honourable friend indicated that he would be prepared to consider an alternative form of wording to that at present contained in the Bill, provided it contained the spirit of the Government's intention—and I hope that intention has been made clear by myself and my noble colleagues in dealing with all the Amendments put by noble Lords opposite.
1812
The problem in this particular case is to find a form of words which will express the Government's clear intention without leading to evasion. I am advised that this is much more easily said than done, and the present Amendments show this. Both Amendments are in terms of principles. The wording in one concerns the objection to the principle of public acquisition or that development land should not be brought into public ownership. The trouble with both formulations is that they leave it open to an objector to say that he or she is not objecting to the general principle but only to its application in his or her particular case. This is certainly not the spirit behind what is intended by the Government in the Bill. The new towns formulation has worked very well for nearly 30 years, and it is our view that, unless a better form of words can be produced, this is the form of words which should stay in the Bill.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: That is an extremely helpful answer and it will certainly enable us first of all to see whether we can improve on our present drafting. After all, we have an open invitation to try to produce a substitute form of words if they can be found. It will also go some way to deal with the difficulties that I have suggested may have occurred already in people's minds and practice. Could the noble Lord help me with one further situation which may not be altogether uncommon? The definition of "development land" includes land which has not any planning permission at all. We shall therefore have situations where there will not be a case like the new towns and there will not be a case where the compulsory acquisition has in fact already fitted into a preconceived or pre-determined planning network at all.
To put this into perfectly simple terms, there will be cases where a local authority will wish under this Bill compulsorily to acquire white land, land which is not the subject of any allocation for development purposes in an old type development plan or very probably even in a structure or a local plan. In those circumstances there will be no pre-determined planning network such as the noble Lord very likely relied on in a number of other circumstances. In that case, it will not be possible for a public inquiry to be forgone

1813
on the grounds that there is planning permission. But we shall still have the possibility that an objection wrongly phrased may be disregarded as irrelevant and therefore no inquiry need be held into it because it may be said to be one on the grounds that the acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient.
In those circumstances, I would expect the noble Lord to be able to reassure me on the grounds that there are substantially wider areas which it would be possible to raise by way of an objection and which the Secretary of State would be prepared to listen to. Would he not in those circumstances be happy to consider whether that land should be developed at all? It would have been put forward for compulsory acquisition only because it is the opinion of the local authority that it is suitable for development. Will not the Secretary of State be prepared to consider the merits of that? He will have, will he not, to decide whether that land should be developed at all? Therefore, since that is the basis of the matter, we shall have a much wider spectrum of matters that can be considered within the framework of a legitimate objection which will not be disregarded under the Bill. It would be helpful to have an answer to that.
3.23 p.m.
Lord HAWKE: May I reinforce what my noble friend has said. It occurs to me that in the circumstances he has spoken of there may well be many cases where there will be a conflict of interest or desire between the extension of a town, perhaps over agricultural land or perhaps over adjoining land of great amenity but no agricultural value. Will it be possible then for the appropriate interests, the farming interests and the nature interests, to call for a public inquiry and to decide whether this town should go into the scrub or whether it should go on the best agricultural land? If I recollect aright, when the town of Bracknell was being planned the site was moved appreciably in one direction because of a debate held in this House, as a result of which the Minister visited the site and decided to alter it. That was almost the equivalent of a public inquiry.
Lord MELCHETT: I think I am at one with the noble Viscount in what he
1814
said, because of course the contention throughout has been that acquisition is going to be planning based, and that the planning permission or the planning designation of the land to be acquired should be fixed at the time of acquisition if that is possible. The answer to his question in strict terms is of course that it would depend on the terms of the objection. For example, if the objector thought the land should be developed by him and not by the public authority, then of course it might be disregarded. The important thing is that if the authority want to develop the land they will have to obtain planning permission and at that stage there will be an inquiry.
Lord HAWKE: Will the noble Lord tell me whether the conflicting needs of agriculture and amenity may also be dealt with by a public inquiry?
Lord MELCHETT: I understand that those interests will be dealt with in the same way as any other interests are dealt with when there is a public inquiry.
Lord SANDFORD: If the noble Lord will look at the remarks of his right honourable friend at Report stage he will see that he went rather further than at Committee stage or Second Reading and described it as his view now that the acquisition must be planning led. We are in the difficulty that we are in now because that view has not been fully reflected in the Bill, and there are later Amendments to make that so. There will be very considerable difficulty if the acquisition of land continues without it being made clear in a properly approved and adopted plan what the land is to be used for when it is acquired.
The Earl of KINNOULL: This has been a useful general debate. It seems that the Government have left open the door for the consideration of this matter. However, I am not sure whether they themselves intend to move an Amendment at the next stage or whether they are looking to the Opposition, in the guise of my noble friend, to draft an Amendment. Alternatively, are they suggesting that there should be consultation before the next stage?
Lord MELCHETT: What I said was that the noble Earl's Amendment was totally unacceptable. What I said about

1815
the noble Viscount's Amendment—59—was that unless anybody else could suggest to us a form of words which would express the Government's intention and would not leave loopholes we would prefer to stick to the form of words which appears in the Bill since they have worked very well for many years.
The Earl of KINNOULL: That is not quite what the noble Lord said in reply to my noble friend. The argument of the noble Lord was that you cannot use the argument that you are against the acquisition of land as being inexpedient or unnecessary but that you can use the word "development". If we then look at the previous part of this clause, we find that we do not necessarily know what the development is.
Lord MELCHETT:I stated quite clearly that that would be a valid ground for objection and that I was perfectly certain that the Secretary of State would consider it sympathetically.
Lord SANDFORD: Yes, it will be a ground for objection but it is a very difficult objection to mount. If the local authority does not need to state the purpose for which the land is required but only the reason why it is being acquired, how can one mount an objection on the ground that the development is unsuitable or inexpedient?
Lord MELCHETT: I do not want to keep on popping up and down but the noble Lord has misunderstood what I said. I said that it would be a valid ground for objecting to the Secretary of State that the objector did not know what was the purpose for which the local authority intended to use the land.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: If I may speak as an ordinary, ignorant member of the public in this House, I think that the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, drives a coach and horses through this Bill. It seems to me that there is not a word to be said for it.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am not sure when the noble Baroness came in to this argument which has been going on for some time. Before I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment, may I make a final point to the noble Lord. It is one which I do not think he heard.
1816
When somebody receives a compulsory purchase order he goes for help to professional advisers, which costs a great deal of money. It costs quite a lot to employ a chartered surveyor, even more to employ a solicitor and a great deal more to employ a barrister. It is very unfair if somebody is obliged to waste money. This is a very serious point and I hope that the noble Lord will look at it again before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 59B:
Pace 57, line 18, at end insert:
"Provided that the confirming authority shall not disregard an objection on the ground that the acquisition is unnecessary or expedient where the use of the land is directed wholly or mainly to a use for sport, leisure or recreation and the proposal to acquire the land will involve a material change of use of that land."
The noble Lord said: We come now to the fishermen who tried to push in too early, and I apologise for that. They think that the prohibition against making an objection on the ground that the acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient will be unfair to them. The National Anglers' Council is concerned that this Bill makes it possible for local authorities to acquire recreational waters for development and allows very little redress to the tenant or owner. Many of these recreational waters are owned or leased by angling clubs which provide comparatively inexpensive fishing for their members. In the recent past there have been instances of local authorities taking over angling facilities and dispossessing local clubs. I understand that the development corporation to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred earlier had been unreasonable and particularly highhanded in this respect. The kind of thing one can visualise happening is a local authority coming along and saying that a piece of water which is owned or tenanted by a club for local anglers who would be dispossessed, is required for, perhaps, a marina. One would have thought that it would have been fair to allow the anglers to object on the grounds that that particular project was unnecessary or inexpedient. It may very well have been both. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: This provision of the Bill has obviously caused considerable

1817
misunderstanding which should, I feel, be removed right away. If there is something I can say for the Amendment it is that it gives the opportunity to clear up a genuine misunderstanding which has gone right through the Bill. The Secretary of State is empowered by the Bill to disregard objections only on the ground that the acquisition of the land is unnecessary or inexpedient. The Secretary of State is empowered under the Bill to disregard objections only on the ground that the acquisition of the land is unnecessary or inexpedient. It will still be open to the objector to argue that the development for which the land is required is unnecessary or inexpedient and such an objection cannot be disregarded under this power.
Therefore, there would be no power under the Bill to disregard an objection that the proposed development was undesirable and that the land should remain in its present recreational state, which means that under this there would be an absolute right to object if there was a proposed development which was going to take away the land from its recreational or other uses to which the noble Lord drew attention. It is understandable, but it is really a complete misunderstanding of the provision. The important point with which I suggest he must be concerned is the development—the use to which the land is put—and whether, as he pointed out, recreational land is then taken away and developed for some other use; and this is absolutely protected in the Bill.
Lord HAWKE: The noble Baroness has been speaking about land, whereas my noble friend is talking about water. In the light of her explanation, it seems perfectly possible for the local authority to come in and compulsorily acquire a lake belonging to the local angling society and continue to use it as a lake for angling but to confine membership to themselves and their friends.
Baroness BIRK:That is done in exactly the same way. It is probably one of these wretched corporeal hereditaments, but it applies in exactly the same way. You develop on water and that is a development, otherwise the acquisition is exactly the same as with land.
Lord MIDDLETON: The 3 million anglers who are mostly miners, railway men
1818
and factory workers will be relieved to hear the explanation given by the noble Baroness, and in view of what has been said and also the discussion on Amendment No. 59A, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.35 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 59C:
Page 57, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order consists of a dwelling-house and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall not rely on the foregoing modifications made by this paragraph.
( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order comprises a dwelling-house together with other land and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, then, if the Secretary of State relies on the foregoing modifications made by this paragraph, he shall not confirm the compulsory purchase order without excluding the dwelling-house from that order.
( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order consists of, or comprises with other land, a dwelling-house, the Secretary of State may disregard for the purpose of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1946 any objection made by the occupier of the dwelling-house which in the opinion of the Secretary of State amounts in substance to an objection to the provisions of the development plan defining the proposed use of the dwelling-house or any other land."
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this Amendment, so will not repeat the whole argument. The purpose of the Amendment is to maintain the present position of the right of an owner-occupier at a public inquiry. It does not in any way go against the principle of the Bill or any of the principles, so far as I can see, that have been enunciated this afternoon. It simply maintains at a public inquiry the status quo of an objector in an owner-occupied house. I beg to move.
Lord RIDLEY: I will not repeat what I said when speaking of this a short while ago.
The Earl of BALFOUR: May I intervene for a moment? I am a little confused with Amendment No. 59C, having had a little more time to study it. This Amendment carries exactly the same words as we find in sub-paragraph (2) on page 58. At the top of page 4 of

1819
the Marshalled List, that becomes (3). The second paragraph on the Marshalled List under Amendment No. 59C is not in the Bill. Amendment 59D becomes sub-paragraph (4) on page 58. Then I note that my noble friend wishes to leave out paragraph 4 in the Bill so that she is to some extent transposing. It would be of benefit to us if my noble friend could explain the reasons and the differences. I am sorry to ask her such a horridly awkward question.
Baroness YOUNG: As I explained when moving an earlier Amendment, the object of the Amendment is to negate the restrictions which are in paragraphs 3 and 6 of Schedule 4 at present on an owner-occupier's right of objection. The words are taken from this part of the Bill on the basis of an Amendment moved in another place on Report stage. Therefore, I hope that it will meet with what the Government intend over this matter. It is for that reason that I have drafted this in the way that it has been drafted.
Baroness BIRK: This Amendment has now become the principal Amendment on which we are discussing the question of the owner-occupier. There are one or two brief points that I feel I should make which are absolutely essential, because this thread has run through the stages of the two Second Reading debates and also the Committee stage of the Bill up to now.
First of all, it is emphatically no part of the Government's land proposals to seek to dispossess residential owner-occupiers. But it is recognised that there will be, as now—and I repeat, as now—circumstances where an owner-occupied house needs to be acquired. In such cases, the owner will continue to receive market value even after the change to current use value, because by definition the current use value of an owner-occupied house is its market value. Nor should the owner be required to pay development land tax on the development value of the house, plus one acre of garden. This exemption was extended from the original one-tenth of a hectare in the White Paper. The Bill will not affect the rate at which land is brought into development, so there is no reason whatever why there should be any more acquisition of owner-occupied housing than at present. There
1820
are already powers to acquire owner-occupied housing under existing legislation. This has been accepted by Governments of both Parties.
The acquisition powers in the Bill go no further in these cases than existing powers. The ultimate power of decision on acquisition opposed by the owner-occupier lies not with the authority, but with the Secretary of State who has to take his decisions on the merits of each case. The changes in the compulsory purchase procedure fall into two categories. First, the authority will have to state the reasons for acquisition rather than the purpose, so there is no question of the owner-occupier or anyone else not knowing why his property is being acquired. Secondly, there will be power for the Secretary of State to disregard certain objections, to dispense with the public inquiry in certain circumstances, and these changes have been, to some extent—and no doubt will be in future—discussed in detail in specified provisions.
But there is nothing to stop objections being considered on the grounds that the proposed development is unnecessary or inexpedient. The only power to disregard, the argument runs, is that public possession is unnecessary to carry out that development. Specific provisions have been included in the reserve powers, to ensure that there will always be a public inquiry where a residential owner is involved. The key point in all this is the powers and these are only powers; there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to use them. It is important to remember that the discussions on the use of these powers, and indeed upon the confirmation of the CPO, can be only on the individual circumstances in each case.
In considering any compulsory purchase order, the Secretary of State must act in a quasi-judicial capacity. He has the duty to consider the CPO scrupulously fairly, as members of the Opposition who have served in Government must be well aware. Thus the Secretary of State will have to consider in each case whether on the basis of the information before him—which would include the depth in which the issues were considered at the planning stage—it would be right for him to exercise his powers, whether to disregard or dispense, and each CPO will have to be considered on its merits. I felt it necessary to say this—and I do not

1821
want to prolong the Committee stage—because there has been so much said about this, and I repeat again, so many bogies spread around about the position of the owner-occupier. I wanted clearly on the record exactly what the position is.
I will go on to say that in case a Secretary of State were even tempted to stray from strict impartiality, not only are there the social pressures, but both Parties are highly committed to the extension of home ownership and have extended it during their periods in Office; under the Labor Government the amount of home ownership has gone up considerably. So it would be politically rather stupid, apart from anything else, deliberately to do anything in a way which would treat residential owner-occupiers harshly. In addition to the protections that there are in the Bill, we now have a Parliamentary Ombudsman who can be approached by an MP. Indeed, I sometimes think that in discussing some of the provisions of this Bill we are apt to look at it in complete isolation, and not take into account the many other safeguards and all the other structures acting in this way in our democracy.
If I may come to the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, No. 59c, now that the others have been withdrawn, this attempts to disapply the proposed modifications where there is an objection by a residential occupier, but only so far as his dwelling-house is concerned, and the Secretary of State may still disregard an objection which, in his opinion, amounts to an objection to the provisions of the development plan. It is important, first, to dispose of the myth that the Bill contains any new provisions for acquiring owner-occupied houses, or that it will lead to massive acquisition of such houses. I would point out that in very many instances, even before there is any need for a compulsory purchase order, there is a great deal of selling of houses by agreement. It is not always a case of one side wanting to buy and the other side completely refusing to sell; there is a great deal done by agreement. There is no intention for this to be a draconian measure, which it is not.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, apparently accepted in the Second Reading debate on 16th October (col. 1125 of
1822
Hansard), Governments have recognised that there can be circumstances in which owner-occupied housing should be acquired, and the present Bill simply follows suit. In the event of an authority making a compulsory purchase order for owner-occupied housing, the Government have recognised that some special treatment should be made to protect the residential occupier. So the reserve provisions in paragraph 4, which allow the Secretary of State by order to rely on draft or informal plans, have been specifically disapplied where there is an outstanding objection by a residential occupier. In other words, in such a case there will always have to be a public inquiry before a compulsory purchase order can be confirmed. But to go further would be contrary to the whole philosophy of the proposed compulsory purchase changes.
There is no reason why a residential occupier should be able to put the same case at two public inquiries rather than one. This is what the whole argument is about. There is no reason why he should be able to object on the grounds that the acquisition, as opposed to the development, is unnecessary or inexpedient. Once the basic philosophy behind the compulsory purchase changes is accepted, then the only special provision that should be made for residential occupiers is that made by the Government in respect of the reserve powers. The Government cannot accept the creation of a preferential situation for the owner-occupier which has never existed before, and which would mean that the whole scheme—and I discussed the philosophy and the basis of this scheme at the beginning of this Committee stage today—would be completely thrown.
We consider that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill. We consider it is completely fair. We also believe in positive planning, which was part of the purpose of this Bill, which otherwise perhaps could have achieved its objects by taxation as was pointed out. The whole point of the Uthwatt Committee recommendations was that the planning and the ownership should go together. If you accept that, as we do completely, then it would follow that there would be a far better system of planning in the future, there would be a better and more economical and better

1823
arranged dispersal of the way land is used. This, in its turn, should lead to a better support and better amount of housing for people generally.
One cannot defend the sort of system we have at the moment where we have so many people still not housed, and say that to continue a free market system would work. Nor can we accept the view that a development land tax alone will make this work. It is absolutely implicit to this whole scheme that the ownership and the planning should go together. I submit that the Government have done everything that is possible within the scheme to safeguard the position of the owner-occupier. I repeat finally that the idea that any change of property always has to come under a compulsory purchase order is certainly not borne out by the facts.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: The noble Baroness made a reference to the Parliamentary Commissioner, and that application in particular circumstances would have to be made through a Member of Parliament. Would it not be possible, and fairer, as she is really using the Parliamentary Commissioner system, which I am not complaining about, if an application could also be made through a Member of this Chamber? It seems to me, in all the complications which the noble Baroness has tried quite explicitly to explain, that it would take all the Commons and all the Lords to get the thing put straight. It would, therefore, be more helpful if we could also have representation to the Parliamentary Commissioner through a Member of the House of Lords, as well as through a Member of the House of Commons.
Lord HAWKE: The noble Baroness says that her Bill is not draconian, and I shall leave my noble friends to decide whether or not it is for people who own up to one acre of garden. So far as I can see, anybody who has more than one acre of garden taken from him will suffer very severely indeed, because in purchasing that extra acreage of garden he may have paid up to four figures per acre, and he will have it taken away from him at what may happen to be the agricultural value of the day, which will probably be a great deal lower.
Baroness YOUNG: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for the very full explanation she has given. This is, of course, a central point of disagreement on political philosophy between the two Parties, and it would be a mistake to pretend it is not. I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, talked about the privileged position of owner-occupiers, because I would have thought everybody agreed that this was a basic and fundamental right of British people; it has, in fact, formally been enshrined in law with their right to object at a public inquiry. I entirely accept what the noble Baroness said about local authorities compulsorily acquiring peoples' houses, but they do so only after the owner-occupier has always had the right to object at a public inquiry; and, of course, in a great many cases selling takes place by negotiation. After all, in a free country if one wishes to sell one's house to a council there is no reason why one should not do so. Nobody is going to object to that.
As for the noble Baroness's reference to the Ombudsman, the local government Commissioner is of course the longstop in all these matters. But as I understand the position, the local government Commissioner, like the national Commissioner, is there to investigate cases of maladministration. But what we are really talking about is the principle of the Bill, and if the principle is wrong somebody could not object, because he did not like it, on the ground that it was maladministration. So I do not know that the local Ombudsman is going to be able to help us in this position.
We come, therefore, to the noble Baroness's final point, which was that it would be quite wrong to take up the time of everybody with two public inquiries. We have been over the ground of sub-paragraph (3), and the three circumstances in which a public inquiry could be dispensed with, and I do not wish to weary the Committee by going over it again. But the fact is that in any of the three cases that are mentioned, the individual, in case (a) the occupier, unless he is the applicant, is not entitled to be heard at the inquiry, though doubtless he would be allowed to do so at the discretion of the inspector; in case (b) the occupier would have the right to be heard at the local planning inquiry if he objected, but the person who will

1825
decide the objection will normally be the local planning authority itself, as my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross pointed out at an earlier stage; and in case (c), in the case of a development plan without a relevant local plan, we are talking about a structure plan and, as everybody who knows about these things appreciates, a structure plan is simply a written statement of policy with only diagrammatic illustrations. Thus, the position is not really the same as that enjoyed by the owner-occupier today.
I have indicated that in seeking to preserve these rights I am not questioning the philosophy of the Bill, either on positive planning or on returning betterment to the community; or, indeed, on public acquisition. We are simply saying that in considering all these matters the rights of the individual should be maintained, and as the noble Baroness has said on more than one occasion, and as her right honourable friend has said in another place, that they, too, believe this is so, I cannot see why she cannot accept my Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Young, decides whether or not to press her Amendment, I think I should make a further point. I did not intend to delay the Committee by referring to the faults in the Amendment, because we are discussing the principle of the matter. But as the noble Baroness may be considering pressing it, I should perhaps point out that, although the first two paragraphs of the Amendment would disapply all the changes in compulsory purchase procedure where there is an objection by the residential occupiers concerned, the final paragraph would allow the Secretary of State to disregard an objection by a residential occupier. So this just would not work and it is interesting for two reasons.
The first is that it shows that the Opposition accept the precedent in Section 132 of the 1971 Act and the basic principle of disregarding objections and dispensing with an inquiry in certain circumstances; that is, where the planning issues have already been publicly resolved. This would apply not only to residential occupiers but in all cases. Indeed, the position as set out in the Amendment is so little different from what is in the Bill,
1826
which has been accepted by the Council on Tribunals, that frankly I really do not understand what all the fuss is about.
Secondly, the Amendment cuts across Amendment No. 56A which would remove the power to dispense with an inquiry in reliance on an approved local plan or the provisions of a development plan. I do not feel that the Opposition have really decided what they want. Indeed, paragraph 3 of Amendment No. 59C accepts the principle of having only one inquiry. I believe that if the noble Baroness reads through the Amendment again she will find that the points I have made are correct.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I do not know why the noble Baroness thought it desirable to scurge me for referring to the fact that house owners were in a privileged position. Of course they are and of course they should be. Otherwise, I should have had a grievance for the last 40 or 50 years. However, while we are talking about owner occupiers and compulsory purchase we should remember that compulsory purchase has been part of the law of this land for a century or so. I remember that when I was a local government officer just after the First World War we used to put compulsory purchase orders on owner-occupied houses; I remember when I was a member of an urban district council controlled by the Tories that we used to put compulsory purchase orders on privately occupied houses; I remember that when I was chairman of a county council we used to put compulsory purchase orders on owner-occupied houses. What we are doing is to carry on the law as it used to be and if an owner-occupied house stands in the way of essential development there should be a right for the local authority to put on a compulsory purchase order while giving the owner the right to object through the proper channels.
Baroness YOUNG: We have had a very full debate on this matter and I should like to test the feelings of the Committee upon it. I shall therefore not withdraw my Amendment.
Lord HENLEY: Before the Question is put, for my guidance and that of my noble friends because I must say that I

1827
am rather inclined to accept the arguments which have been put forward—can we know whether the co-operation between the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her noble friend Lord Colville has been quite as close as it ought to be in this respect? I should like guidance
Resolved in the affimative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Baroness BIRK: I think this may be a convenient moment at which to adjourn. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.
from both of them as to where I stand, for I am in difficulty on this point.
3.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 59C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 32

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone.

Rankeillour, L.

Amory, V.

Hanworth, V.

Reigate, L.

Balfour, E.

Hawke, L.

Salisbury, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hereford, V.

Sandford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Hylton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cowley, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Effingham, E.

Vivian, L.

Elles, B.

Northchurch, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Young, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Onslow, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Foot, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Balogh, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pannell, L.

Beswick, L.

Henley, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wigoder, L.

Crook, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.

Melchett, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Milford, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments the said Amendments to be printed.
House adjourned at seven minutes past four o'clock