Sitting of 28 October 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MALLAIG HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered: to be read the Third time tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are now registered as unemployed.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): On 9th October 1,114,211 people were unemployed in Great Britain.
    Mr. Jessel: Will the Secretary of State tell us what he expects the figure to be by the end of 1976? Will he deny that he believes that by then it will reach at least 1½ million? If he does not accept that figure, will he say what figure he does accept?
    Mr. Foot: No, I shall not make such a prediction. It would not be sensible. Indeed, I do not think that any Government have made predictions of the character suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Watkinson: One of the measures introduced by my right hon. Friend is the temporary employment subsidy scheme. Will he indicate how that scheme is going? Did he see reports that there have been only 7,000 applications and only 4,000 approvals? Is that in fact the case?
    Mr. Foot: There is a later Question about the details of the scheme, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be answering. We never claimed that the numbers involved would be large. We believe that the scheme has made a good start. We think that it can save the jobs of quite a large number of people. We do not believe that the conditions which have been laid down are preventing applications going through. We are prepared to examine the working of the scheme as it goes along. My hon. Friend will recall that we took steps a few weeks ago to extend the scheme to the whole country.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Does not the present record level of unemployment provide powerful evidence, in terms of human misery, of the misplaced faith of the right hon. Gentleman in the social contract? Does he now realise that his refusal to acknowledge the failure of the social contract has resulted in higher unemployment and worse rates of inflation?
    Mr. Foot: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. No words of mine will express any complacency about the present unemployment figures, which are appalling. Since the same level, proportionately, prevails in many other countries such as Germany and France—and there is a much bigger figure in the United States—and throughout the rest of the Western world, it would be much more sensible and logical for people to attribute it to common factors in all countries rather than to one policy in this country
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what additional measures are being taken to reduce the level of unemployment.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what further steps are being taken by his Department to combat unemployment generally and to assist school leavers in particular; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Foot: One essential measure in order to reduce the appallingly high level of unemployment is to reduce the rate of inflation, and I am confident that that goal will be achieved. The measures announced on 24th September can help to mitigate the situation, and their effect is

    1269
    being closely studied, particularly the assistance they provide to school leavers. Of course, we would all like to see much more far-reaching measures adopted, but their timing must depend partly on the success of the anti-inflation drive.
    Mr. Skinner: What is my right hon. Friend doing about the statement that was presented before the Labour Party conference, to which he replied, about unemployment levels? He said specifically that further action should be taken to bring down unemployment. It is all right for those who have never been in a dole queue to use all the rhetoric about facing the economic typhoon, but that is small comfort to those who join the ever-lengthening dole queues and cannot afford to buy even a sail to help them face this whirlwind. Is it not time that my right hon. Friend got down to the job of seeing that the present massive rate of unemployment is brought down to a reasonable level?
    Mr. Foot: I want to see the appalling rate of unemployment brought down as speedily as possible, by every means available to us. Some of the measures were announced a few weeks ago, and I think that further measures will be announced very soon, dealing with the construction industry, for example. One of the main measures—not the only one—to deal with the problem is to bring down the rate of inflation itself. I think that my hon. Friend must face the fact that inflation helps to cause unemployment.
    Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman unaware, or does he not wish to disclose, that it is the fall in the rate of inflation that necessarily causes transitional unemployment, and that therefore, since the rate of inflation has to fall, this transition must be experienced?
    Mr. Foot: We have debated this matter with the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions. He takes a purist, classical laissez-faire view of the situation. Most of us object to that. The right hon. Gentleman has not converted his own ex-party, and he need not think that he will convert us.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the report last week by the independent Price Commission makes the most heartening reading for years, apropos the inflation situation? At last
    1270
    there are signs of inflation being countered, which will mean a reduction in the level of unemployment. Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider the situation of young men and women entering apprenticeship schemes, and ensure that their prospects are not damaged during this difficult period, because their services will be needed later, when we and this Government have overcome inflation?
    Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend that the report of the Price Commission was a good sign in the right direction, but it has to go much further before we can see unemployment falling at anything like the rate that we would like to see. I hope that that will follow.
    I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said about apprenticeships. Although we face many difficulties, it is right that we should take some satisfaction from the fact that, despite all the difficulties, the number of apprenticeships is increasing. Many people feared that the recession would bring about what it has done on previous occasions, namely, a collapse in the number of apprenticeships, but the engineering industry, for example, has taken substantially more apprentices than it did in the early years of this decade. The construction industry, with the help of additional places made available by the Training Services Agency, is also operating above normal. I think that the work done by the Agency in this respect has been extremely valuable.
    Mr. Bulmer: Has the Minister read the report produced by the Training Services Agency entitled "Vocational Preparation for Young People"? Does he accept its conclusions, particularly about gateway courses? If so, what action does he propose to take?
    Mr. Foot: There are many valuable suggestions in that report. Some of them have already been put into operation. The Agency cannot have any criticism of this Government about the support which we have given to training in different forms. Certainly we regard it as a valuable report, on which we can build.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the likely trend and numbers

    1271
    of unemployed over the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what forecast he makes of unemployment trends in the United Kingdom and Scotland, respectively, over the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Foot: If present trends persist the calculation is that unemployment will be something under 1·2 million, seasonally adjusted, at the end of the year, and that it will then begin to level off. I doubt whether predictions beyond that can have much value, nor can I make a worthwhile separate estimate for Scotland. Of course, the total I have mentioned is not a tolerable one, and a main objective of Government policy is to get it down as soon as possible, by every intelligent means available to us.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We cannot hear what the Minister is saying. We can hear the questions but not the answers. Can something be done about the transmission?
    Mr. Speaker: There are some difficulties today, but we are trying to remedy them. It would help if Ministers would speak a little more loudly.
    Mr. Biffen: Why does the right hon. Gentleman persist with the cruel deception that a fall in the rate of inflation will cause a drop in the numbers employed? Is he aware that I am prepared to make a level bet with him that the year in prospect will see a fall in the rate of inflation and a rise in the rate of unemployment? Does he dissent from that forecast?
    Mr. Foot: I am not keen to engage in bets with the hon. Member, for a number of reasons. The last one that I had with him I won so resoundingly that it would be almost sadistic to have an-another. In any case, I am not prepared to assent to what he said. I know that he accepts the view of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on this subject, but we do not. We believe that it is possible to bring down inflation and to take measures also to guard against a rise in unemployment and eventually to bring it down, and that it can be done by planning measures rather than leaving these matters to be decided by the market.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I am most certainly grateful for the steps that have been taken by the Government to minimise the problems in Scotland? Is he aware that I believe that we should cease to be grudging in our appreciation of the steps taken by the Government? My hon. Friends and I are aware of the need to save the pound—although members of the SNP do not seem to be aware of this. May we have an assurance that this will not be accomplished at the expense of an inordinate number of persons unemployed in Scotland or throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary answered a question a minute or two ago giving percentages showing the situation in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. He illustrated the fact that the Scottish figure had not risen, proportionately, as much as it had done on previous occasions. Admittedly that is not a great satisfaction, because the total figure throughout the country has gone up sharply. The figure in Scotland has risen sharply but there are other parts of the country where unemployment has risen even more steeply. We need a combination of general measures as well as individual measures applied to the various parts of the country which have always been most heavily hit by unemployment. That applies to large parts of Scotland, whatever may have happened in some other parts of that country, such as Aberdeen.
    Sir John Hall: Is the figure of 1·2 million unemployed, which the right hon. Gentleman gave earlier, inclusive of school leavers? If it is not, what is the figure, including school leavers?
    Mr. Foot: That figure includes school leavers. Whether it makes an appreciable difference depends upon the stage at which the school leaver figure is taken. In the middle of this year there were 500,000 unemployed. For two or three months the figures were serious indeed. I do not seek to minimise them. The figure of 500,000 came down more slowly than it has done in previous years. It is now coming down much more rapidly, and about 9 out of 10 of those school leavers have secured jobs in the last few weeks. We believe that our recruitment subsidy has assisted. It depends when the figure

    1273
    is taken whether the number of school leavers adds greatly to the general total.
    Mr. Park: Could my right hon. Friend spare a few moments from examining the 5·1 per cent. unemployment figures in Scotland to consider the West Midlands, and Coventry in particular where the level of unemployment is now 7·1 per cent. and has doubled in the past 12 months?
    Mr. Foot: There are many other parts of the country more hard hit than Scotland as a whole. The West Midlands is one such area that has been hit harder in this recession than in any previous recession since the end of the war. Merseyside is harder hit now. No one can disguise the serious nature of the figures. There are many other parts of the country where male unemployment is 10 per cent. or more. I have said on every occasion that I have stood at this Dispatch Box that we regard the total as absolutely intolerable. We have to take a whole series of measures to try to deal with it. One of these measures, no matter what the right hon. Member for Down, South may say, is to beat inflation. If we are to reduce unemployment, we have to beat inflation.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman has twice referred to using every possible measure to combat unemployment. Will he not therefore condemn the actions of those who, in support of the closed shop at Ferrybridge, British Railways and British Leyland, add to unemployment by forcing some of their fellow workers to get the sack? Will he intervene to find a solution to this problem and reduce unemployment?
    Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question dealing with this situation, I shall be prepared to reply. What we have been seeking to do, and what our legislation has assisted in doing, is to bring down the number of days lost through industrial strikes. That is what we are having success in doing. The number of days lost owing to industrial action in the past year is lower now than at any time since a Labour Government was last in office.

    Wales
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many man-
    1274
    months of additional employment for the coming winter will be created in Wales as a result of the Government's recent announcements on this matter.
    Mr. Foot: I regret that it is not possible to make the estimate desired by the hon. Member. The answer must depend on whether those individuals, firms or other organisations eligible to benefit under, or make use of, the various schemes, choose to do so.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that deep regret will be felt that there is not enough appreciation of the progress of these schemes to estimate the effect in Wales? Does he accept that if Wales obtained 10 per cent. of the jobs created by the Manpower Services Commission, it would amount to 1,500 jobs, which would give work to only one out of every 50 unemployed persons in Wales? Is he not deeply concerned that other Government policies may be creating unemployment at a faster rate than jobs are being provided by the various schemes now going on?
    Mr. Foot: I do not accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. All the policies of the Government are directed towards bringing down unemployment; that includes the attack on inflation, which we believe to be an essential part of our policies. The measures to which the hon. Gentleman referred may not have a major effect on the level of unemployment, but the hon. Gentleman should not be so pessimistic as to say that they do not have any effect. The Gwynedd County Council is in contact with the Manpower Services Commission about participating in a job creation project. I am glad that the main contract for the dynamic hydro-electric scheme in the hon. Member's constituency is going forward. I am sure that he will welcome that development.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one problem facing Wales, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom, is the lack of investment in manufacturing industry? Will he discuss with his colleagues as soon as possible the setting up of the National Enterprise Board and the Welsh Development Agency?
    Mr. Foot: I agree that that is one factor which, over the years, has contributed to the difficulties of the present situation in Wales, as elsewhere. The sooner we can get the National Enterprise Board, planning agreements, and the Welsh Development Agency in full operation, the better.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: On the subject of youth employment, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Secretary of State for Education and Science to provide additional places and courses at technical colleges to cope with the extraordinary demand for technical college places—a demand which is not being met by the places which are available at the moment?
    Mr. Foot: Yes. I shall continue to have discussions with my right hon. Friend. Again, I am not complacent about the situation. However, the appallingly high figure of unemployment among school leavers has been considerably reduced during the last few months. Indeed, in the last few weeks the figure has come down faster still, due partly to measures introduced by the Government.

    Worker Participation
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has discussed his proposed legislation on worker participation in industry with the Transport and General Workers Union.
    Mr. Foot: Both the Minister of State and I have had informal discussions on industrial democracy with many unions and employers, and I hope that all interested parties will put their views to the Committee of Inquiry on Industrial Democracy in due course.
    Mr. Ridley: When the Secretary of State meets the Transport and General Workers Union—if he has not already done so—will he raise the case of Larry O'Donnell? He was a convener at Felixstowe Docks, He was asked by the Felixstowe Dock Company to join the board, and was sacked by the shop stewards. This clearly presents a great problem. What advice would the right hon. Gentleman give to employers? Should they put workers on the board at the risk of having them sacked by shop stewards, or should they not?
    Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a detailed answer on the question of the Felixstowe Dock Company Board he should put down a Question on that subject. In the meantime, I should like to say that his facts as presented today are about 90 per cent. wrong, and possibly 100 per cent. wrong.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Why is there such a lack of urgency about this matter? A committee of inquiry was announced by the Secretary of State for Trade before the Summer Recess, but we still do not know the names of its chairman or members. Will the right hon. Gentleman, who has an interest in the matter, put some zip behind this issue?
    Mr. Foot: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's impatience to ensure that the Government's measures are put into operation as speedily as possible. I share his indignation. I want to see this committee established as speedily as possible because we, as a Government, are committed to introducing legislation on industrial democracy not in this coming Session but in the Session after that. We want to fulfil our pledges, but developments in industrial democracy need not await the report of the inquiry. We hope that in the meantime we shall make progress in the public sector in improving the situation.

    Pay Settlements
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many pay settlements of less than £6 per week have been notified to his Department; and what proportion of pay settlements made since 1st August this represents.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): On the basis of information available to my Department about major settlements made since 1st August, I estimate that about 5 per cent. of the employees covered have received increases significantly less than £6. I regret that this cannot be meaningfully expressed in terms of numbers of settlements, of which there are very large numbers, mostly covering small groups.
    Mr. Madel: In view of the precarious situation in which many firms find themselves, and the increase in unemployment, does the hon. Gentleman feel that the next phase of the incomes policy will

    1277
    have to include pay settlements for less than £6 a week if we are to preserve existing jobs?
    Mr. Booth: No, Sir. I do not think that it is appropriate at this juncture to make forecasts about the next stage of the incomes policy. What we are principally concerned about is that the initial success of the policy and its general observance by negotiators and all involved in it should be maintained. We should use the time that is purchased for us to consider what form of development the policy should take beyond this stage, but it would militate against any such proper consideration if a Minister were to suggest that the increase under some future policy would have to be more or less than £6.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend give an interpretation of the way in which the £6 increase operates in cases where, for example, there is a trainee who, from the age of, say, 18 or 19, would normally get a £10 increase—a concrete example of this is in Dunlop's—but is now getting only £6? The firm says that this is because of Government policy, and it means that the individual is having to work for £4 less than is received by other workers who are doing the same job. This is an absurdity, and a ludicrous situation. Will my hon. Friend interpret the Government's view on this?
    Mr. Booth: I cannot comment on that specific case, but the view taken by those who originally framed this policy was that incremental scales should be regarded as the rate for the job and that where such scales applied they should continue to operate, subject to their not producing, together with the annual pay increase, an average increase of more than £6. Where they did that it would count against any future increases during the period of the policy. In all cases, incremental scales are subject to an upper limit of £8,500.

    Ladbroke's Scotland (Industrial Dispute)
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has offered the services of ACAS to resolve the industrial dispute between Ladbroke's and its West of Scotland workforce.
    Mr. Booth: The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is an indepen-
    1278
    dent organisation. I understand that the ACAS offered to assist the parties to this dispute when it began in June, and has remained in touch with both sides.
    Mr. Cook: Does the Minister accept that many of us find the employers' stubborn refusal to negotiate with the unions to be irresponsible and their refusal to reinstate the workers nothing short of punitive? Will he confirm that when the rights of recognition in the Employment Protection Bill are law the services of ACAS will be available to put an end to this dispute, which is now almost six months old?
    Mr. Booth: The refusal to negotiate with the TGWU on behalf of its members in particular betting shops in Scotland, and to take back those members into employment when they end the dispute, makes it particularly difficult to achieve proper conciliation in this case. When the Employment Protection Bill is law, trade unionists in this position will be able to apply for recognition through the machinery of that legislation. I trust that it will avert disputes like this in future and will provide a solution to recognition disputes when the provisions of the Bill come into effect.

    School Leavers
    Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce a period of youth community service for school leavers unable to secure employment.
    The Under Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): The job creation programme is providing temporary work for unemployed people through community projects. It is intended particularly for young people, including school leavers.
    Mr. Hannam: Is the Minister aware, however, that there is a serious lack of co-ordination among local authorities, community organisations and Government Departments? Will he not consider a one-year period of youth community service in environmental and social service work? Will he, also, consider a lowering of the retirement age to allow jobs to be opened up, particularly in the nationalised industries, for young people starting work?
    Mr. Fraser: First, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about lack of co-ordination. There has been cooperation recently between local authorities and Government services. The lowering of the retirement age could be very expensive. The steps that we are taking, such as the recruitment subsidy and the job creation programme, probably represent the right way to go about it.
    Mr. Brittan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the job creation programme is only scratching the surface of the problem, and that by insisting on operating a scheme of this kind, applying wages of the normal kind rather than a more imaginative scheme on a voluntary basis, he is depriving the country of the opportunity to see much more massive job creation than at present?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not accept that the provision of £30 million for 15,000 jobs is scratching the surface, along with all the other measures which have been taken. Nothing in that programme prevents organisations from forming voluntary programmes. After we have urgently taken this kind of step, the hon. Member's reaction is somewhat churlish.

    Scotland
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current unemployment situation in Scotland.
    Mr. John Fraser: The current unemployment rate for Scotland is 5·8 per cent., which is still significantly above the level for Great Britain as a whole. Although, over the last two years, there has been a considerable improvement in the unemployment position in Scotland relative to that of Great Britain, the present situation in Scotland continues to give cause for serious concern.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that the rate which he has mentioned is almost six times the rate in Norway—a country of comparable size and resources to Scotland? Since the Secretary of State for Scotland once gave a pledge that he would resign if the figure exceeded 100,000 in Scotland but is now not prepared to do so, will the Secretary of State for Employment resign in his place?
    Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Member wants to make a comparison, the right one is with other regions of the United Kingdom. Such a comparison shows that, from October 1974 to October 1975, unemployment rose in Scotland by 49·8 per cent., and in the South-East of England by 108·4 per cent. Although the vacancies have declined in Scotland by 38 per cent., that is much lower than the decline in the whole of Great Britain, of 58 per cent. Action which has been taken has benefited Scotland, proportionately, compared with other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend examine the investment policies of the Post Office? Is he aware that the Post Office has considerable investment potential, particularly in the development areas—not only Scotland but Merseyside and other areas? If he will consult the Post Office to ensure that its investment programmes are geared to helping to find a solution to unemployment in Fife and elsewhere, that will be very welcome.
    Mr. Fraser: My Department is not responsible for the Post Office, but I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about ordering policy and investment policy. I am sure that that point will be considered urgently by the Government as a whole.
    Mr. Sproat: When the Minister replies in future to idiotically misleading questions by members of the SNP, will he remind them that it is just as misleading to talk about Scotland as a whole, because in that part of Scotland represented by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) we have a shortage of labour, not unemployment, and that, tragic as are the unemployment figures in Scotland, there are four other parts of the United Kingdom where unemployment is clearly worse?
    Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member is right of course. In Aberdeen, the rate of unemployment is 2·1 per cent.
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the ratio of unemployed persons to notified job vacancies in Scotland at the most recent date for which figures are available; and what were the comparable ratios one and two years previously, respectively.
    Mr. John Fraser: My Department no longer calculates these ratios as a matter of course, because total vacancies are not known and the two figures collected for notified vacancies, respectively, for employment and careers offices, overlap and so cannot be added together. However, comparing the figure of unemployed registered at employment offices with vacancies notified to employment offices, the ratio for this October is 7·4 to 1, compared with 3·5 to 1 for October last year and 3·9 to 1 for October 1973.
    Mr. Taylor: Are not those figures most depressing, showing, as they do, that unemployment in Scotland is increasing at the rate of more than 1,000 a week? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of concern about unemployment in the motor industry? Will he give an assurance that the promise given by Chrysler Motors about its continued production in Britain also relates to production facilities in Scotland?
    Mr. Fraser: I said earlier that the unemployment situation in Scotland gave rise to serious concern. It is not much comfort to stress some evidence that Scotland has fared rather better than some other regions of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not in a position to give the assurance for which he has asked concerning Chrysler. I shall make sure that his remarks are directed to the proper quarters.
    Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity of reminding all Scottish local authorities that they can receive Government assistance for work creation schemes, particularly schemes involving young people? Does he realise that the unemployment situation in Scotland is leading to an emergency? Perhaps we need emergency action to deal with it. Will my hon. Friend ask the House for emergency powers to instruct local authorities to produce plans for such work creation schemes to ensure that young people, in particular, have the right to work?
    Mr. Fraser: I understand that, overall, there has been a good response to the job creation programme. I shall certainly be glad to hear about any local authority that is not responding. It is a little early to assess the response. I
    1282
    shall keep my hon. Friend in touch with the situation.
    Mr. Crawford: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Scotland are fed up with having their economy and their unemployment compared with that of bankrupt England? Is he aware that the comparison should be with Norway and other prosperous countries of Western Europe?
    Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member's allegation does not become any more true as a result of repetition. In the United Kingdom we have a system of development areas. These are given special help and incentives. Many of these have been to the benefit of Scotland. I believe that the people of Scotland are aware of this.

    Young Persons
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Employment what further steps he is taking to help unemployed young people to find jobs.
    Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced additional measures on 24th September, including a programme, of job creation and a recruitment subsidy. It is too early to say how exactly these measures are working or how they might be extended.
    Mr. Lane: Will the Secretary of State keep in mind the exceptionally high level of unemployment among young people in some inner city areas? Cannot his Department do more to get employers involved in the task of bringing new hope and jobs to these areas and bringing real drive and urgency to the Government's urban policy?
    Mr. Foot: One of the main purposes of the job creation scheme was to assist in urban areas. That was stated at the time the Government introduced the scheme. It is along these lines that we have given every encouragement we can—and quite a lot of money—to the Manpower Services Commission, which carries out the job. Many responses are coming forward in connection with the job creation scheme. We hope that these will have a direct effect in assisting young people. Our recruitment subsidy is also having some effect in that respect. The figures are improving. I am not in any

    1283
    way complacent about the matter, but I believe that our measures have helped significantly.
    Mr. Loyden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that youth unemployment is inextricably bound up with the general unemployment situation, and that no solution will be found to the former without resolving the latter? Will he, therefore, in considering positive steps to take, also consider activating the construction industry, which has tremendously high levels of unemployment, especially since there is an urgent need for housing?
    Mr. Foot: I entirely agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks about the connection between youth unemployment and the general employment situation. One of the ways in which a solution might be found could be in fresh assistance to the construction industry. The Chancellor announced on 24th September that he would be making further proposals on that subject, and that these would be announced soon.
    Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the best way to help unemployment would be to increase exports? Does he realise that we have failed to win exports because of our bad performance in connection with delivery dates? Will he use his great power of speech and persuasion to encourage the belief that if men strike they are acting as export saboteurs?
    Mr. Foot: I agree that an increase in exports could assist greatly with the unemployment problem. I agree also that the better the delivery dates the better our exports. It is, however, wrong to attribute failures in delivery dates to industrial disputes. Industrial disputes may have contributed in certain instances, but the hon. Member is wrong in his broad inference that they are the sole problem. We have had considerable success in overcoming a number of industrial disputes with the establishment, for example, of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which is already assisting the country. I had hoped that we would have a welcome from the Opposition for the service, which will help the country to overcome these disputes by trying to discover their true causes.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a large unemployed force in this country is itself a contribution to inflation, since it represents a large body of consumers who do not produce goods? Would it not therefore be better for the Government to abandon their deflationary measures, which create unemployment, and, instead, to release money for investment, especially for public works, to create jobs and so strengthen our industrial structure, so that it will be able to face the revival of trade and avoid the imbalance which has arisen in the past?
    Mr. Foot: I agree that the Government should, by every means available to them, whether through the operation of an old instrument or through the new instruments which are being created—the NEB and the others—do everything in their power to try to create jobs. I do not believe, however, that the Government would succeed in that purpose if the inflation rate continued at the rate of some months ago. If that had happened, far from creating jobs it would have done away with jobs, which is why action was needed to deal with it.

    Job Creation Programme
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been offered to young people, and in what regions of the country, since the announcement of the Government on 24th September of its £30 million work creation programme designed to create jobs for 15,000 people.
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the response to the Government's special measures to assist local authorities and other organisations to combat rising unemployment.
    Mr. John Fraser: Since the Manpower Services Commission announced details of its job creation programme on 9th October, it has received 103 applications, requesting a total of about £2·5 million. Projects so far approved provide 65 jobs in Ellesmere Port, 25 in Huddersfield and 27 in Sunderland.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that the action committees in the regions are

    1285
    under the impression that they should pay the maximum weekly rate of £50 to the young people who have had jobs created? Will he please advise them that they do not need to do this? Will he tell them that if they do, first, the money will run out quickly, and secondly, that when the young people get a job on the open market it will be at a much lower salary.
    Mr. Fraser: I should like to scotch that total misconception. The rate of pay for those getting jobs under the job creation programme is the rate for the job. That information is in all the literature distributed by the Manpower Services Commission. That should clear up any misunderstanding.
    Mr. Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the job creation programme is only scratching at the surface? Does he accept that the real solution to unemployment is a planned economy? Does he further accept that a planned economy includes also the planning of imports, and that selective control of imports is of absolute importance in order to preserve existing capacity and to avoid it being eroded, as it already has been in the motor cycle industry and part of the textile industry?
    Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend talks about scratching the surface. Let me remind him that we have provided a job creation programme, an unprecedented increase in the number of training places, the recruitment subsidy, and the temporary employment subsidy. I hope that he will recognise that this is an unpredecented package of measures to deal with an extremely difficult situation.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I tell the Prime Minister that the amplifying arrangements are not working very well, and will be therefore kindly speak up?

  ECONOMIC POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. David Steelasked the Prime Minister if the public speech given by the Secretary of State for Employment at Blackpool on Wednesday 1st October, on economic policy, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): My right hon. Friend did not speak from a prepared script, but in the light of the Press reports and television recordings of extracts from his speech which I have seen, the answer is clearly "Yes, Sir".
  Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that I had the advantage over him of being present at the Tribune rally on that occasion? I greatly enjoyed the speech in question, but I found it remarkable. The Secretary of State's message was that the Labour movement should rally behind the present Government until they have an adequate parliamentary majority to introduce public ownership on a vast and unimagined scale. If that is the Government's policy, how does he think it will affect their current appeals to private industry to invest? Is it not like saying to a man "We are going to shoot you, but will you please lay in good food supplies for the future?"
  The Prime Minister: I accept that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) had the advantage over me. I think that all parties welcomed his presence in Blackpool with the BBC on that occasion. All the reports I have seen justify the answer I have given. The Government are carrying out the manifestos on which we fought the last two elections. Anything beyond that is a question for the manifesto for the next election, which we shall win as well.
  Mr. Tomlinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the major deficiency in our economic policy has nothing to do with the Secretary of State for Employment, but with the failure of the Opposition to come clean and tell us what they are going to do by way of the public expenditure cuts they keep telling us about?
  The Prime Minister: Since the Opposition are concentrating mainly on public expenditure, I am still awaiting a message from the Leader of the Opposition to say what they would cut.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that under his Government we have had record inflation, record unemployment, record borrowing and record taxation? Why, then, does he

  1287
  display record complacency and record incompetence?
  The Prime Minister: It must have taken most of the morning to draft that—[Interruption.] I can answer these important questions only if I can be heard, in view of the mechanical defects which exist today. The right hon. Lady will know from the record of her Government, from which she dissociates herself on almost every question, that the decline in industrial production began under that Government—and she never complained about it then—and that her own newspapers were saying that they should go to the country in January last year because of an expectation of 18 per cent. inflation that year.

  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY
  Mr. Rifkindasked the Prime Minister whether he will make an official visit to the proposed site of the Scottish Assembly.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir. My right hon. Friends the Lord President of the Council and the Secretary of State for the Environment visited the site last month.
  Mr. Rifkind: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is deep concern in Scotland over the progress of the Government's devolution policy? Will he now give a categorical assurance, in the name of the whole Cabinet, that the Government will move to introduce the necessary legislation to establish the Assembly early in the next parliamentary Session? Will he give a further assurance that unless there is evidence of deliberate and continuing filibustering, there will be no suggestion of any guillotine being applied, bearing in mind that this is the most major constitutional legislation since the Act of Union of 1707?
  The Prime Minister: I give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks. I want to make it quite clear that the Government are resolved on proceeding in this matter and that the White Paper is at an advanced stage of preparation and will be introduced into the House in the next few weeks. While we shall, of course, be more than ready to listen to any public debate upon it and to have
  1288
  consultations upon it, we are already starting, and, indeed, have started, on the drafting of legislation.
  On the question of a guillotine, that matter does not arise, because the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party are in support of the White Paper that we have published. [Interruption.] The White Paper we are drafting is intended—[Interruption.] The White Paper, on which we fought and won the election last year, has been supported, I understand, in general terms by the Conservative Party. The White Paper on which we are working clothes that White Paper with a great deal of detailed proposals, on which we shall be glad to have the views of the House.
  I hope that there would not be any question of even having to consider a guillotine—though there is a very powerful precedent which I would not want to follow, namely, the application by the right hon. Lady's Government of a guillotine on the EEC legislation.
  Mr. Dalyell: If we have Edinburgh Government, how, in conscience or logic, do we deny Northern Ireland at least an extra 10 Members?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's views on this matter are well known and deeply respected, but they do not represent the view of the Labour Party, as stated in the manifesto on which we fought the election. I do not agree with him. The situation in Northern Ireland, which the whole House has deep regret in recognising, is entirely different from the situation on this side of the water. All of us hope that with good statesmanship in Northern Ireland we shall find a solution.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Royal High School referred to would be a picturesque ruin before any decision-making came back to Scotland if he listened to some of the reactionaries on his own benches and on the Conservative benches? Is he also aware that, contrary to what has been said, the Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party has given a guarantee that if the Government meet with any trouble from their own backwoodsmen, the Scottish Conservative Party will support them on a guillotine motion?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know what the Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party—for whom, I hasten to add, there is no ministerial responsibility—has said. I was not sure whether the hon. Member meant that the Government or the Opposition would introduce the guillotine motion. I do not accept the opening part of what the hon. Gentleman said. We are proceeding with all reasonable speed in this matter. We shall at all times, from now on, from the publication of the White Paper, be ready to listen to what is said in consultations. The White Paper represents the views of the Government. Subject to consultations or any comments made in public debate, we would propose to proceed on that basis.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Taylor.
  Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not to be an opportunity for an English Member to raise his voice?

  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY

    PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit the west of Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: As the House knows, I shall be in Scotland next Monday to attend the ceremony to mark the inauguration of BP's Forties Field, but I have at present no plans to visit the west of Scotland again this year.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of the west of Scotland would deplore the break-up of the United Kingdom, which, apart from other evils, would destroy thousands of jobs in the Glasgow area in Government offices such as the Post Office Savings Bank? In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the very worrying slippage in the agreed timetable for the transfer of 1,000 Foreign Office jobs and 7,000 defence jobs to Glasgow? Will he give an assurance that the go-slow is not because of fears of Ministers and others that the devolution plans, if badly constructed, might precipitate the break-up of Great Britain?
    The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's point, he will realise that there is no question in our proposals of any break-up of the United Kingdom. Indeed,
    1290
    the measures we are proposing—this has become clear from many debates in the House in the present Parliament—are for a devolution of areas of control over the national life and economy of Scotland, but not separatism. We are convinced that the people of Scotland do not want separatism. I hope that that is clear, and that the hon. Gentleman will support it.
    On the second part of the question, about Civil Service redeployment, I shall be glad to look into the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised and either to write to him about them or have the information conveyed to him.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: In view of the assurances on the second part of that answer, and leaving aside the matter of jobs, may I revert to the question of the timetable for devolution? Will my right hon. Friend confirm—in view of the reports in the Press in the past five days and the suggestion that it would take us 28 days on the Floor of the House to pass the Bill and, therefore, that it might run into the sands of time rather than be passed through the House—that the Bill will be introduced in January and not in March?
    The Prime Minister: There is no ministerial responsibility for the various comments that I have been reading, which bear no relation to the facts. We shall introduce the legislation at the earliest possible moment. It is complicated. [Interruption.] We shall introduce it at the earliest possible moment—or the day before. I cannot be more specific than that. The House will want to consider the White Paper. This will come within the next few weeks. The legislation, as I have said, is already in course of preparation. It will be introduced at the earliest possible moment. There will be no avoidable delay, and certainly none of the kind that I have seen foreshadowed in the Press in recent days, for whatever reason.

    EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
    Mr. Tom Ellisasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied that there is adequate co-ordination between the Foreign Office and the Welsh Office in respect of the European Regional Development Fund.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Ellis: In view of the relative failure of a succession of regional development policies over 40 years—it is relative failure if one considers the demographic trend—and in order to obtain a truly European regional development, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to mobilise and develop the political will which exists in the region and, therefore, that it is important not only to establish an elected Assembly—important though that is—but to ensure that existing institutions, such as local authorities, for example, have direct access to the European fund's administrators?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to mobilise all the resources of Wales—material, human and labour resources. He will be aware that several of my right hon. Friends and I had an important meeting with the Welsh TUC, in which were raised many of the questions which I know are in his mind. We have now sent the Welsh TUC further information, and discussions will be continued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I agree with my hon. Friend—as in Scotland, so in Wales. An important contribution to what he and all of us have in mind is not only pushing on with the White Paper but turning it into reality.
    Mr. Thorpe: In the context of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, do the Government regard money from the European Regional Development Fund as being in addition to the amount of money that the Government would have spent, or in substitution for it? Is the Prime Minister aware that a previous answer we have had on this matter is not clear?
    The Prime Minister: When European funds are used for projects which would otherwise have been supported by the Exchequer, funds are freed to enable us to support regional development in other ways; for example, through the advance factory programme recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Had it not been for the European contribution it would have been much more difficult for us to devote money to a project such as that.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the Prime Minister either confirm or deny a report in the Economist that, whereas Italy, Ireland and France were quick off the mark in applying to the Regional Development Fund, we were rather late in applying and, as a result. Italy received £36·2 million whereas the United Kingdom received only £8·8 million?
    The Prime Minister: I have no ministerial responsibility for reports in the Economist, but I would wish to comment on this. It is certainly not true that we were slow off the mark. I recall that during the referendum campaign many accusations were made, which have since been falsified, that there was a speeding up of regional aid from the Community until, it was suggested, 4th June. Those accusations have since been disproved by the substantial increases in regional disbursement, certainly to Wales—of which I gave figures to the Welsh TUC—and to other parts of the United Kingdom in need of regional development.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mendelson.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will not pursue her point of order. I intend to call her for a supplementary question after the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson).
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I want to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: By doing so the hon. Lady may lose her chance to ask a supplementary question. I deprecate points of order at Question Time. As I said, I shall call her for a supplementary question after the hon. Member for Penistone.
    Mr. Mendelson: With reference to the availability of funds for regional development, has the Prime Minister noticed a recent unfortunate development, in that certain members of the EEC have refused to make available additional sums on the ground, well-argued during the referendum campaign, that the excesses of the common agricultural policy demand larger and larger sums for useless policies, with the result that regional policies suffer? Will my right hon. Friend join forces with those Governments in putting a stop to

    1293
    the wasteful policies being pursued under the heading of the common agricultural policy?
    The Prime Minister: That does not arise out of a Question about Wales. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an important matter, but it raises wider issues, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has answered Questions. I go along with any proposal, from wherever it comes, to eliminate waste in the expenditure of EEC funds, as, I am sure, does the House. My hon. Friend will have seen the initiative I took and the proposals I made in the European Assembly on the introduction of a system approaching our own Public Accounts Committee in the financial mechanism of the EEC.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the Prime Minister aware that local authorities in England are concerned about the lack of information on the criteria used by the Government when submitting schemes to Europe for assistance from the Regional Development Fund? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Lancaster, which has an unemployment rate of 7·3 per cent. and an employment job vacancy ratio of 41·4 per cent., much help is required? Is he further aware that the answer he has just given to the House is inaccurate, in that the United Kingdom was behind Italy, Ireland and France in its application? That information was given to us in Europe last week, and we were told that we could use it.
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the hon. Lady's concern, not only for European questions but for the area which she represents. The Question relates to Welsh matters. If the matters raised by the hon. Lady are raised at Question Time with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, I am sure that she will be satisfied with the answer.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman's answer was wrong.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry about the acoustics. I seem to be able to hear everyone except the person who is speaking from the Treasury Bench. Whether or not that is an advantage, I do not know; it is not for me to say. I shall try to have the matter put right.
    Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If whoever is addressing the House from the Dispatch Box would move three yards to the left, everyone would hear. I am sure that the Prime Minister is sufficiently flexible to be able to address the House from that position.
    The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us learnt to speak in public in the days before microphones. I know how anxious are Opposition Members always to hear what I have to say. That is why they barrack so much. If this mechanical defect occurs again, I hope that I shall be in order in standing on this Bench and addressing the House.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the exchange of questions and answers on devolution, an Opposition Member made a plea that English Members should also be heard. May I draw your attention to the fact that devolution is not just a Scottish and Welsh issue? It is an issue about which we are all deeply concerned. If there are to be Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, many hon. Members would wish to see nothing less than that in the English regions. On that basis, I appeal to you to allow English voices to be heard in future when the issue of devolution is raised.
    Mr. Henderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be correct to say that it is the hon. Members who put down Questions who are normally called?
    Mr. Speaker: I am in sympathy with the point of view that English Members should be allowed to enter into devolution debates, but in calling hon. Members to ask supplementary questions I must have regard to the hon. Member who puts down the Question. If English Members put down Questions on devolution which are reached, they will be called first for supplementary questions. Today we have had difficulty in getting four Questions answered by the Prime Minister. I should have liked to call a great many other hon. Members, but I could not do so.

GUILDFORD AND WOOLWICH BOMBINGS (PRESS ALLEGATIONS)
Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General—Statement.
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer)The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer) rose—
Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General would move to the microphone two away from him, he would perhaps find that he could be heard. He cannot be heard through the microphone beneath which he is standing—and this is a very important statement.
The Solicitor-General: I am prepared to do anything for the convenience of the House, and if I can do it by moving to the left, I will do so.
With permission, I would like to make a statement on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, about allegations made in the Daily Express on 23rd October, to the effect that a politically-motivated veto was imposed on the intention of the Surrey police to charge a number of people with conspiracy, arising out of the Guildford and Woolwich bomb incidents, and that this veto resulted in the release of a number of suspects against whom there was a good case. Hon. Members will recall that this statement was promised by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Thursday.
I should begin by saying with the utmost emphasis that my right hon. and learned Friend is most disappointed at being unable to make this statement himself, but he is ill in bed.
The allegations appeared in an article on the front page of the Daily Express under the banner headline "Bomb Police Muzzled", and the words
"How Government veto let suspects go free".
The article alleged that, as a result of political pressure, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, decided that there should be no more conspiracy trials, and gave orders to that effect, that the Director of Public Prosecutions and my right hon. and learned
1296
Friend the Attorney-General accepted those orders, and that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions had issued written instructions to the Surrey police, who were compelled to drop what they regarded as a good case if conspiracy to murder could have been charged.
It would, of course, be wholly improper for the Government to interfere with the prosecution process, and in particular to impose a veto of this nature on the activities of the prosecuting authorities. It is also a very serious reflection on the prosecuting authorities themselves to suggest that either my right hon. and learned Friend, or the Director of Public Prosecutions, or the police, or by inference, counsel for the prosecution would accept such a veto. In these circumstances, the House may feel it right that I should state the history of this matter in a little detail.
Bombs exploded in Guildford and Woolwich on 5th October and 7th November last year. On 10th December, the Surrey police formally notified the Director of Public Prosecutions that they had arrested and charged six men and a woman with murder, four men with unlawful possession of explosives, another man with conspiracy to cause explosions—not conspiracy to murder—and another woman, with both murder and unlawful possession of explosives.
There was no intention on the part of the Surrey police to charge a number of people, or indeed anyone, with conspiracy to murder. Subsequently, on the advice of counsel, a charge of conspiracy to murder was introduced at the trial in respect of one accused, by reason of the particular facts relating to him, and proceeded with.
Investigations continued, and the police report and statement were received by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 17th January. He immediately sent them to counsel to advise in the matter. The team of counsel was led by the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers).
After very careful consideration of all the papers, the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon and his team came to the conclusion that the evidence against some of those arrested and charged was insufficient. This advice was accepted by the Surrey police and the Director of

1297
Public Prosecutions as the only possible decision in the circumstances.
Junior counsel appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions before the Guildford justices on 3rd February and offered no evidence against three of the men charged with murder, and against the one who had been charged with conspiracy to cause explosions. They were accordingly discharged. Up to this time, there had been no consultations of any kind with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, nor with the Law Officers' Department, except that, in accordance with normal practice, the Attorney-General had nominated counsel for the prosecution.
On 14th February, my right hon. and learned Friend received a request for his consent to proceedings under the Explosive Substances Act 1882 against the remaining accused, since for proceedings under this statute his consent is necessary. Having considered the papers and discussed the case with counsel and representatives of the Director of Public Prosecutions, he granted his consent to prosecutions for offences under the Act which could include conspiracies to cause explosions, and the charges were pursued. This was the first occasion that my right hon. and learned Friend had seen the papers, and this of course was after the decision to offer no evidence in respect of four of the accused had been taken and implemented.
Neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has issued any ruling that there shall be no more conspiracy trials, and no written or oral instructions were sent to the Surrey police relating to conspiracy charges in this case. The allegations made by the Daily Express in this regard are therefore totally without foundation and thoroughly mischievous.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly described the article by the Daily Express as one of the most false, irresponsible and malevolent Press reports he had ever seen, and the hon. and learned Members for Wimbledon, who, as I have said, led the team of counsel throughout the case, described the article as "totally false and irresponsible".
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary called upon the Daily Express to withdraw the grave and unfounded alle-
1298
gations which it had made. So far, however, from publishing any withdrawal, the Daily Express on the following day published a leading article the purpose of which could only be to divert attention from the very serious allegations of political interference, and which made no attempt to withdraw them.
Instead, the article put forward a new charge, that is to say that the policy followed by the Law Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions had been to refrain from charging persons with conspiracy alone, that is to say, not to charge them unless they were also charged with some substantive offence. This allegation is equally untrue. Conspiracy is charged where there is evidence to support such a charge, and where it is an appropriate charge to bring. It has in fact been charged on occasions, without at the same time charging a substantive offence.
The leading article ended by asking for
"confirmation of the authorities' determination to use every constitutional means to smash terrorism".
I can assure the House that all constitutional steps have been and will continue to be taken to bring to a halt what the Daily Express describes, rightly, as
"that terrorism which is everyone's foe".
It was hoped that the Daily Express might feel called upon to withdraw these allegations. It has chosen not to do so.
This failure of the Daily Express to make an immediate and specific withdrawal of patently false statements is keenly resented by those referred to in it, the Government, my right hon. and learned Friend, the Director of Public Prosecutions, counsel and the police. It also occasions grave and unnecessary anxiety to the public.
In the light of this statement, I am sure that the whole House will agree with me that the Daily Express should now totally withdraw the very serious allegations which it made, and do so without reservation.
Sir Michael Havers: The House will be grateful to the Solicitor-General for what he has said.
I can confirm the accuracy of the account from my own knowledge so far as it concerns the recent Guildford and

1299
Woolwich bombing trial, and I emphasis is such emphasis is still necessary, that no pressure of any kind was put upon myself and those responsible with me for deciding whom to charge and with what offences.
False allegations of this kind not only fail to recognise the independence of the Bar, which exists when engaged in prosecutions just as much as in other fields of the law, but also tend to cause a public loss of confidence in our prosecuting system, which I deplore.
In my view, no counsel would continue to act for the prosecution if he believed that he was being subjected to pressure by the executive for political reasons. I have never known this to happen during my 27 years' experience in prosecuting for Government Departments as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police, and I believe that this should be known and accepted by the public, and certainly by the Daily Express. I hope that we shall not hear this kind of allegation made again.
Mr. Hooson: I echo the words of the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers). In my 25 years' experience at the Bar, I have never known political pressure to be brought upon counsel. Had it been brought, I am sure that in this case the hon. and learned Gentleman would have returned his brief immediately and simply disclosed the fact. Is it not right that the procedure followed in this case was exactly the same as that followed in any other serious case and that there was no suggestion of impropriety at any time? The hon. and learned Gentleman having made his statement today, if the Daily Express does not withdraw these serious allegations, what steps do the Government intend to take?
The Solicitor-General: I thank the hon. and learned Gentlemen for what they have said. I do not believe that there is any division in the House on this. It is true that the normal process was followed in this case.
Concerning the last question, perhaps we should wait and see what the Daily Express now does in the light of the statement.
Mr. Strauss: In view of the great amount of talk about the threat to our
1300
democratic way of life in this country, would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the greatest threat is the publication in our newspapers of lies which frighten people to a considerable extent? When it is pointed out to the newspaper concerned and its editor that lies have been published and are likely to cause very considerable damage and public misgiving, and the newspaper refuses to publish the statement and persists in its attitude, is not that the greatest threat to our democracy in this country—greater than any other?
The Solicitor-General: I am sure that responsible sections of the Press will agree with what my right hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Corbett: Has my hon. and learned Friend taken any steps to try to find out the source of these totally baseless and misleading accusations, and has he any reason to believe that these may have come from within the police force?
The Solicitor-General: I have no power to do so.
Mr. Atkinson: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that he has raised a very interesting point in saying that it was prosecuting counsel who determined the charges to be laid? Does not that conflict with the position and the answers given in the Shrewsbury picketing case, where it was claimed that the police authorities themselves decided upon the charges of conspiracy? Is it not a fact that we are being told that in this matter the prosecuting solicitors decided against the use of conspiracy charges, thereby producing a situation which was quite contradictory to that in the Shrewsbury picketing case?
The Solicitor-General: What happened in the Shrewsbury case is not the responsibility of this Government. Perhaps the questions raised by my right hon. Friend should be directed elsewhere.

SCOTTISH LICENSING LAW (REPORT)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): With permission, I should like to make a statement to the House. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, at the end of the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee

1301
on 15th and 17th April this year, said that we would make a statement as soon as our consultations on the Clayson Report were completed. The Government have decided to prepare legislation to amend the licensing law in Scotland. However, my proposals differ in some important respects from the recommendations of the report.
First, on the major social recommendations on permitted hours, I have decided that the evening closing hour should be extended to 11 p.m. and that this should apply also to off sales from hotels and public houses. It should not, however, apply to off sales shops, which should close at 8 p.m.
I have decided that there should continue to be a statutory afternoon break.
I propose that the one-hour extension to 11 p.m. should also apply to hotels and restaurants on Sundays but I do not accept the recommendation that public houses should be permitted to open on Sundays.
The Clayson Report proposed the introduction of a "refreshment house" licence which would provide an opportunity to encourage the establishment of premises accessible to adults and children in which parents could have alcoholic drink and their children have soft drinks with or without food. I accept this recommendation. I have rejected, however, as inappropriate in Scotland at present the children's certificate proposal which would have allowed children under 14 to enter the part of a public house specified in the certificate.
I propose to implement the report's proposal for a new form of licence for cinemas and other premises providing entertainments which can be tailored more closely to the needs of the premises.
I agree that the legislation on temperance polls should be repealed. I propose, however, to introduce transitional arrangements which would continue for a period of five years the restrictions in areas at present "dry" or subject to limitation.
I accept the Clayson recommendation that police should have a right of entry to registered clubs as they do to licensed premises.
I have also accepted the recommendation that the present licensing courts should be replaced by licensing boards of islands and district councillors
1302
appointed by these councils and that the present courts of appeal should be replaced by a right of appeal to the sheriff. These licensing boards, with the support of the local authorities which appoint them, will be in a position to maintain and accelerate the trend to an improved standard of facilities in licensed premises.
I propose to make various other changes, mainly procedural, in the light of the report. No change will be made in the age limit on the purchase of excisable liquor and its consumption in a bar or in the system of registration of clubs with the sheriff.
Urgent consultations on the proposals which I have outlined will be initiated with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other bodies involved in their implementation. A Bill will be introduced when a suitable legislative opportunity is available.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome sincerely the statement by the right hon. Gentleman, which will be particularly welcome throughout Scotland. While recognising that this is a problem in which there is never any hope of pleasing everyone, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, despite his vacillations during the debate during the summer, on what I think is a certain amount of courage in tackling this problem and to a large extent implementing the proposals from what was generally recognised to be a very good report by the Clayson Committee.
I particularly welcome two points. First, despite the restriction in relation to the age of children, I express the hope that the introduction of the refreshment licence may be a very useful step in trying to stabilise attitudes towards drinking in Scotland.
I think that the right of appeal to the sheriff will be widely welcomed in Scotland and will perhaps reduce the concern which has existed about undue influence having been used in the past.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? Does he realise that his statement will raise expectations very widely throughout Scotland, and can he therefore be somewhat more forthcoming about when legislation will be brought in? If this is not done within the forthcoming Session of Parliament, I believe that all the expectations he has raised today will simply be dashed.
Mr. Ross: I am glad to have the commendation from the hon. Gentleman about the general approach. It was not a matter of vacillation. But we thought it wise, when we were having the debate, having sought consultation and advice elsewhere, that the House of Commons should also be allowed to express its opinion. The Government would then be able to make up their mind.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the recommendations of the Committee. As to his other point about legislation, I ask him to wait until the Queen's Speech.
Mr. David Steel: I, too, welcome this announcement of Government action on the Clayson Report. At first sight, the Secretary of State appears to have made some very wise selections from the report's recommendations for action. The right hon. Gentleman referred to proposed legislation. Is he aware that many of us feel that we do not make adequate use of the machinery of the Scottish Grand Committee sufficiently early in a new Session of Parliament and that perhaps this legislation might be tackled by the Scottish Grand Committee within a matter of weeks?
As for the point about entry of the police into registered clubs, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be some anxiety? It is a matter of some principle. What is to be the future distinction between a pub and a club, unless some other concession is to be offered to clubs?
Mr. Ross: There is, of course, a considerable difference between pubs and clubs, and not just in terms of licensing A club licence is a matter for the sheriff and is not controlled by the licensing laws. The hon. Gentleman will recall the very useful debate on this subject that we had in 1962. I hope that he will bear in mind the considerable extension to clubs since 1962 and that he will recognise the importance of this recommendation.
Mr. Dalyell: As regards the Clayson recommendation about the licensing of cafes, does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us are concerned about any prospect of cheap wine, which has a high profit margin, being made available to teenagers, even down to the age of 12 or 13? We gather that the licensing of cafés would permit this. May we be assured
1304
that that would not be acceptable to the Government?
Mr. Ross: The purchase of alcoholic wine by children is a completely different matter. There is a considerable element of doubt about cafe licences. But we think that this is an experiment which should be made. Of course, the police will watch carefully during its early years.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: My hon. Friends and I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement. It is a reasonable package, though not everyone will agree with it or with the original Clayson recommendations. Nevertheless the broad selection is useful.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with one or two specific questions? Will he explain the reason why the Sunday opening of public houses has been disregarded by the Government since in many cases hotels are the equivalent of public houses on Sundays?
Secondly, have the Government in mind as part of the overall package the making available of additional funds for the treatment of alcoholism in Scotland, and have they any proposals for the restriction of liquor advertising on television during hours when children watching television might be attracted by the advertisements?
Mr. Ross: That last point is important but it hardly comes within the Clayson recommendations. It is a general point, though I agree with the hon. Gentleman about it. But I cannot see it being dealt with in the Bill in relation to licensing. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about our not being able to please everyone. I recall reminding the Scottish Grand Committee, in the course of the debate to which I referred just now, of what Lloyd George said in 1915: that every Government who have ever touched alcohol have burned their fingers in its lurid flame. However, I think that a certain cautious change is desirable.
I know that it will be controversial in terms of the non-opening of public houses on Sundays. But here we face two problems. Although there has been a decline in church attendance on Sundays, Sunday is still very much a family day in Scotland and, bearing in mind the nature of public house drinking as against other kinds of drinking—it must be

1305
remembered that it is very much a male-only form of drinking—we thought it desirable to retain this traditional aspect.
I neglected to deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Pox-burgh, Selkirk and Peables (Mr. Steel) about the early introduction of the necessary legislation. Bearing in mind that we have to consult people, I do not want to give the impression that the legislation is ready to be introduced right away. If it were, I should bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind. It is right that we should get it started as quickly as possible.
Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend referred to the board which will grant licences and to a right of appeal to the sheriff. Will that work both ways? In other words, will that right of appeal be available not only to those who have an application for a licence turned down but in cases where objectors to it have been turned down? Secondly, will such a board consider issuing guidelines? I have in mind such matters as recommendations regarding the provision of food as a criterion for the granting of new licences.
Mr. Ross: That latter point is worth looking at. However, we are discussing not one board but boards in the various districts. There may be some desire to give general guidance along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests. As for his point about the right of appeal, it will work both ways—to objectors and to those who have applied for a licence and had it turned down.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of Scotland's appalling problem of alcoholism, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the liberalisation of our licensing laws will be accompanied by a major educational drive in schools to warn children of the dangers of excessive drinking?
As the representative of the only "dry" constituency in Scotland, may I ask the Secretary of State what is meant by the "transitional arrangements" for temperance polls? Does this mean that an area which is dry can stay dry for five years, or does it mean something else?
Mr. Ross: It means exactly that. We have to freeze the present position for five years. Following that—not just
1306
straight away—we have to move into freedom for the licensing boards. I have given some thought, and I shall consider it further, to whether it should be preceded by a motion in the district council so that there might be local participation in it.
The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of education. This is one of the big debatable points—the suggestion by people that we make wholesale reforms which will change attitudes. I do not believe that that is the case. We have to appreciate, as the Clayson Report says, that there is no doubt that Scotland suffers from a serious problem of alcohol misuse, both absolutely and in comparison with England and Wales. We have to continue and to step up our education in schools and elsewhere in relation to this need.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Although I believe that the Scottish people will welcome the liberalisation announced by my right hon. Friend, and although this liberalisation policy has been dictated by the general situation not only in Scotland but in the United Kingdom as a whole, will the Secretary of State nevertheless take the point made my the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that the greater availability of alcohol will not reduce the incidence of alcoholism? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a relationship between the availability of alcohol and the number of alcoholics? Therefore, will he make sure that facilities are available to take account of this possibility in the future?
Mr. Ross: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Sproat: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the proposed legislation will include provisions to tighten up the restrictions on those who are the means by which alcohol gets into the hands of minors, whether they be publicans or others giving alcohol to school pupils? Will he also consider the idea of imposing a direct levy on the manufacturers of alcoholic drinks to finance research into the causes and cures of Scotland's appalling problem?
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman raised this matter in April, and he raised it again in a letter to me this week. Having given it full consideration, I shall be replying to him on this point.

1307
As for what can be done to stop alcohol getting into the hands of young people, it is difficult to stop it if it is bought legitimately by an adult and handed over. In a number of cases, social disciplines are such that it may be available in the home. It is not a matter which can be dealt with entirely by the licensing system. It is a matter of attitudes and the acceptance of responsibility by the community.
Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although his statement will be welcomed, it does not go far enough for some of us? Does he realise there will be great disappointment that pubs will not be permitted to open on Sundays? Does he know that in order to get a drink on a Sunday many people in Scotland have to squeeze into hotels and often have to fight their way to the bar in overcrowded and barbaric conditions which are degrading for customers, who include many people who religiously observe Sunday as a day of rest?
Mr. Ross: Religiously observing Sunday and fighting their way to the bar? I think my hon. Friend should choose his words a little more carefully. I am quite aware that the statement will not please everybody, but when one bears in mind what happened in 1962, with the more generous provision of licences for hotels and the move away from the bona fide system, I think there is now far more opportunity for civilised drinking on Sundays than ever before, I considered the matter very carefully but did not think that we should make a further extension for public houses.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties (No. 2) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]
Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Statutory Instruments).
Not less than twenty Members having risen in their places and signfied their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments)

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
4.12 p.m.
Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the system of administering legal aid and advice.
The purpose of my Bill is to make significant changes in the legal aid scheme. The scheme is 25 years old this month and has assisted 2 million people, recovering about £160 million in damages. This is a proud accomplishment by any standards, but I am less concerned today with the achievement of the scheme than with its shortcomings. I want to put forward some constructive proposals.
I believe that an independent public corporation, called the "Legal Services Commission", should be set up to administer the legal aid scheme in the interests of the community. It is quite wrong that the Law Society, whose prime function is the protection of the interests of the legal profession, should be administering the present legal aid system. This is not criticism of the Society, which is doing an honourable job, but it is not ideally qualified to administer a system for people in need. We need an independent commission which can administer legal aid without ambiguity and which can avoid the present conflicts between the Law Society, the legal community and local authority workers. It would be independent in every sense of the term and would not be protecting the interests of solicitors, barristers or anyone else in the legal profession.
Now it is generally agreed that, for a variety of reasons, many people are not receiving the legal assistance that they require. One of the most important reasons is that representation, under legal aid, is not allowed to people appearing before tribunals. This is a scandalous omission. It means that the powerful are protected by skilled legal representation while the weak are exposed because they cannot afford that representation and are not permitted it under the legal aid system.
This is no small problem. In 1973, the last year for which figures are available, 1,287,336 people appeared before tribunals. They were concerned with assessments of their rents, rates and taxes,

1309
among other things and, perhaps more important, many were concerned about their entitlements. They included the old, the disabled, widows, war pensioners the unemployed and immigrants. Many were poor, baffled and bewildered by the legal complexities of their cases and were quite unable to match the skills of the legal advocates who were opposed to them. The question is—what do we do to correct this glaring injustice? The answer is that we exclude them from all legal representation under the legal aid scheme. We shackle the Davids and strengthen the Goliaths.
It is sometimes claimed that these harassed individuals do not need representation because their problems are technical, but if that is the case, why do Government Departments, landlords and employers use skilled legal representation? What is sauce for the golden goose is nectar for the impoverished gander. Welfare law is just as much law as any other part of the law, even though many lawyers are unenthusiastic about performing in this field. One can only guess at the reasons for this lack of enthusiasm, but this is a very complicated and important part of the law which needs as much skill and care as do the other branches. It is inconceivable that only one side would ever receive legal representation in a criminal action, and such a situation would rightly be condemned as unjust. It is unwarrantable that we should allow this kind of blatant injustice in welfare law which affects innocent and under-privileged people.
1310
My Bill provides that all tribunals under the auspices of the Council on Tribunals should be automatically included in the legal aid scheme. There are other tribunals which do not come under the auspices of the Council, for example, the tribunal which administers the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I believe that this tribunal, among others, should be considered for inclusion in the system for legal representation. I know that it is not a statutory body, but its operations are similar to those of other tribunals and its findings are just as important.
My Bill will not become law in this Session, but I am staking a claim for progress in this negelected field and saying that the Lord Chancellor's judgment was wrong when he said that he did not regard an extension of legal aid representation before tribunals as a priority. It is a priority. Without it, injustice is not only done but is seen to be done, and that is something that cannot be tolerated in our society.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. William Hamilton, Mrs. Millie Miller, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. R. C. Mitchell and Mr. Frank White.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  Mr. Jack Ashley accordingly presented a Bill to amend the system of administering legal aid and advice; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 243.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  CHILDREN BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  CHILDREN BILL [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      TRANSFER OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
      '.—(1) Where it appears to a local authority as respects a child in the care of a voluntary organisation which is an incorporated body—

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

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

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

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

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

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

      (6) The parental rights and duties which may vest in an organisation by virtue of this section do not include the right to consent or refuse to consent to the making of an application under section 14 and the right to agree or refuse to agree to the making of an adoption order or an order under section 25; and regulations made under section 33(1) of the Children Act 1948 shall apply to the
      1312
      emigration of a child notwithstanding that the parental rights and duties relating to the child are vested in the voluntary organisation.
      (7) Subsection (8) of section 2 of the Children Act 1948 shall apply in relation to a resolution under subsection (1) as if it were a resolution under the said section 2.'—[Dr. Owen.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.21 p.m.
      The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With the new clause we are to take Government new Clauses 2, 3, 11 and 15 and Government Amendments Nos. 131, 132, 186 to 204, 209 and 210.
      Mrs. Jill Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am disturbed to see that there are 240 amendments on the Notice Paper. We have very complicated matters to deal with in one day. We are grateful to the Minister for his help, but it is an enormous number of amendments to get through in a day.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was very courteous to the hon. Lady, because she knew in the first ten seconds that I appreciated that that was not a point of order. The hon. Lady's quarrels with the Government are not quarrels with the Chair.
      Dr. Owen: New clauses 1, 2, 3 and 11—and new Clause 15 makes similar provision under Scottish law—give effect to an undertaking that I gave in Committee on 29th July to introduce a new clause which would enable a voluntary organisation to obtain parental rights and duties in respect of a child in its care by means of a resolution passed by a local authority instead of by a decision of a juvenile court, as proposed in the new Clause 7 discussed in Committee.
      The proposals in the new clauses differ in a number of respects from the proposals outlined in Committee. These changes have the approval of the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations, and the initial reaction of the directors of social services is also favourable.
      Dr. Gerard Vaughan: We on this side of the House very much

      1313
      appreciated not only the many undertakings which the Minister gave in Committee but the way in which he has fulfilled them. We have had a steady stream of papers from him setting out more clearly the various steps that he would take. We welcome the new clauses.
      However, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman for clarification of new Clause 1. As I understand it, it makes no provision for the child who is in the care of a voluntary body which is not incorporated or for the very rare cases where the local authority does not consider a voluntary body to be a suitable recipient of parental rights. May we assume that in such cases the authority will still have powers under the 1948 Act to assume parental rights itself directly? May we have assurances on this matter?
      Dr. Owen: I can give the hon. Gentleman assurances on both those matters. In both instances the manner in which the children are cared for is subject to oversight by the local authority under Section 54 (3) of the Children Act 1948, which places a duty on local authorities to cause children living in voluntary homes to be visited from time to time, or under the Boarding Out of Children Regulations 1955.
      Restricting the voluntary organisations which may apply to a local authority for parental rights and duties to those which are incorporated bodies is done because we are advised that in law only an incorporated body could be vested with these powers as a body. In fact, many voluntary organisations already are incorporated bodies, and for others it is very simple to become incorporated.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO ASSUME PARENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES
      '.—(1) If it appears to a local authority, having regard to the interests of the welfare of a child living within their area, the parental rights and duties with respect to whom are by virtue of a resolution under section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) vested in a voluntary organisation, that it is necessary that the parental rights and duties should no longer be vested in the organisation, the local authority shall resolve
      1314
      that there shall vest in them the parental rights and duties relating to the child.
      (2) The local authority shall within seven days of passing a resolution under subsection (1) by notice in writing inform the organisation and each parent, guardian or custodian of the child whose whereabouts are known to them that the resolution has been passed.'—[Dr. Owen.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      EFFECT OF RESOLUTIONS UNDER SECTIONS (TRANSFER OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS) AND (DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO ASSUME PARENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES)
      '.—(1) A resolution under subsection (1) of section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) shall cease to have effect on the passing of a resolution under subsection (1) of section (Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties).
      (2) Section 6 of the Children Act 1948 shall have effect in relation to a resolution under subsection (1) of section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) as it has effect in relation to a resolution under section 2 of that Act.
      (3) A resolution under subsection (1) of section (Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties) shall be deemed to be a resolution under section 2 of the Children Act 1948 except that sections 2(2) to (7) and 4(3) of that Act shall not apply.'—[Dr. Owen.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 4

      REPORTS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND PROBATION OFFICERS
      '.—(1) A court dealing with an application made under this Part, or an, application which is treated as if made under section 32, may request—

      (a) a local authority to arrange for an officer of the authority, or

      (b) a probation officer,

      to make to the court a report, orally or in writing, with respect to any specified matter which appears to the court to be relevant to the application, and it shall be the duty of the local authority or probation officer to comply with the request.
      (2) Subsections (2) to (6) of section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973 shall apply in relation to reports which are requested by magistrates' courts under this section as they apply to reports under subsection (1) of that section.'—[Dr. Owen.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this new clause we are to consider Government Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 63 to 69.
      Dr. Owen: Subsection (1) of the new clause restates in plain language, instead of by reference to other legislation, the effect of Clause 37, which is taken out of the Bill by Amendment No. 35. Its effect is to give any court dealing with an application under Part II power to call for a report from a local authority officer or a probation officer.
      Subsection (2) applies to such reports when they are asked for by a magistrates' court, the provisions of Section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973, as amended by Clause 73, relating to the way in which a report may be admitted in evidence.
      I hope that that will clarify an issue which was discussed in Committee.
      Mrs. Lynda Chalker: Are we dealing with something that is purely a matter of clarification? Amendments Nos. 63 to 69 refer to "a magistrates' court". Does not this complicate the situation in Scotland, or are there other amendments to sort out the situation?
      Dr. Owen: I believe that there is clarification of the situation in Scotland elsewhere. I do not believe that this causes any problems in Scotland, but I shall check.
      Mr. John Robertson: If there is any effect on Scotland, it would be as well if a Scottish Minister said something about it. Only one Scottish hon. Member served on the Committee considering the Bill, and he was not from the Labour benches. In Committee there were two Ministers dealing with the Bill, and now we have a third. The Bill is being rushed through the House without adequate consideration being given to its effect on Scotland.
      With due respect to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, that is not good enough. My hon. Friend should give me an assurance that nothing is being done that will offend my sensitivity about the possible effect on Scotland.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I am glad
      1316
      to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson). I can assure him that we have gone into the Bill thoroughly. Former Ministers and I spent many hours on it during the Committee stage. There is nothing in the new clause that is detrimental to Scotland. If my hon. Friend is prepared to sit through what I hope will be a reasonably short sitting he will learn that we have paid a great deal of attention to Scotland.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 5

      AMENDMENT OF INTERPRETATION ACT 1889
      '.—(1) In the Interpretation Act 1889 after section 19 there is inserted the following section—
      19A.—In any Act passed after the Children Act 1975, unless the contrary intention appears—

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

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

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

      shall be construed in accordance with Part IV of the Children Act 1975.
      (2) This section does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland."'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the new clause we are to consider Government Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 62.
      Dr. Owen: The effect of the clause is to insert into the Interpretation Act 1889 an indication that the definition of the three expressions referred to is to be found in Part IV.
      The clause is a result of an undertaking given in Committee to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) to look again at these provisions. It has the support of the Law Society and the Association of British Adoption Agencies. Its purpose is to make readily accessible the definitions of certain commonly used legal concepts

      1317
      which are now embodied within the Bill, whilst avoiding the need for their repetition whenever the terms are used in future legislation.
      Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 62 delete the references to future enactments in the relevant interpretation clauses.
      4.30 p.m.
      Mrs. Chalker: We very much welcome the Minister's action. It has for long been a matter of grave concern to many of us that such legislation has to be so cross-referenced. I am sure that, with the new clause and the removal of the references to future enactments, matters will be much easier for many of those concerned.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 6

      CARE ETC. OF CHILD ON REVOCATION OF CUSTODIANSHIP ORDER
      '(1) Before revoking a custodianship order the court shall ascertain who would have legal custody of the child, if, on the revocation of the custodianship order, no further order were made under this section.
      (2) If the child would not be in the legal custody of any person, the court shall, if it revokes the custodianship order, commit the care of the child to a specified local authority.
      (3) If there is a person who would have legal custody of the child on the revocation of the custodianship order, the court shall consider whether it is desirable in the interests of the welfare of the child for the child to be in the legal custody of that person and—

      (a) if the court is of the opinion that it would not be so desirable, it shall on revoking the custodianship order commit the care of the child to a specified local authority;

      (b) if it is of the opinion that while it is desirable for the child to be in the legal custody of that person, it is also desirable in the interests of the welfare of the child for him to be under the supervision of an independent person, the court shall on revoking the custodianship order, order that the child shall be under the supervision of a specified local authority or of a probation officer.

      (4) Before exercising its functions under this section the court shall, unless it has sufficient information before it for the purpose, request—

      (a) a local authority to arrange for an officer of the authority, or

      (b) a probation officer,

      to make to the court a report, orally or in writing, on the desirability of the child return-
      1318
      ing to the legal custody of any individual, and it shall be the duty of the local authority or probation officer to comply with the request.
      (5) Where the court makes an order under subsection (3)(a), the order may require the payment by either parent to the local authority, while it has the care of the child, of such weekly or other periodical sum towards the maintenance of the child as the court thinks reasonable.
      (6) Sections 3 and 4 of the Guardianship Act 1973 (which contain supplementary provisions relating to children who are subject to supervision, or in the care of local authority, by virtue of orders made under section 2 of that Act) apply in relation to an order under this section as they apply in relation to an order under section 2 of that Act.
      (7) Subsections (2) to (6) of section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973 shall apply in relation to reports which are requested by magistrates' courts under this section as they apply to reports under subsection (1) of that section'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      In Committee on 24th July I accepted that the Bill as drafted did not accord sufficient protection to children who were the subject of applications for the revocation of custodianship orders. I undertook to bring forward an amendment on Report to ensure that the court dealing with a revocation application had adequate information and appropriate powers to make whatever orders it saw fit.
      The general purpose of the clause is to provide that, when determining whether to revoke a custodianship order, the court shall consider what result revocation of the order would produce for the child, having regard to the provisions of Clause 42(1) on the revival of rights to legal custody on revocation, and that, if the court has insufficient information for this purpose, it shall be empowered to call for a report. Where the court considers that the operation of Clause 42(1) would produce results that would not accord with the welfare of the child, or that supervision would be desirable, the court is empowered to commit the care of the child to a local authority or to make a supervision order.
      Dr. Vaughan: We agree with the Minister that the clause is a considerable improvement on the previous wording. It shows that our lengthy discussions in

      1319
      Committee on this subject have turned out to be worth while.
      In Committee we were concerned that the court would not be sufficiently informed about the circumstances of the child. The Minister will remember that we spent much time discussing the extent to which the court should investigate these circumstances. The Minister said that it would be sufficient to give the court authority to require a written report or an oral one. Both new Clause 6 and new Clause 4 incorporate that requirement. We welcome the situation as put forward in new Clause 6.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 11

      APPEALS BY PARENTS, ETC.
      '(1) Subsections (2) to (5) and (7) of section 2 of the Children Act 1948 shall apply to a resolution under section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) as they apply to a resolution under the said section 2, with the substitution for the reference in subsection (2) to the vesting of parental rights and duties in the local authority of a reference to the vesting of parental rights and duties in the voluntary organisation.
      (2) An appeal may be made—

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

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

      to a juvenile court having jurisdiction in the area of the authority which passed the resolution, on the ground that—

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

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

      (3) An appeal shall lie to the High Court against the decision of a juvenile court under this section.
      (4) Section 4B of the Children Act 1948 shall apply in relation to proceedings under this section.'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 12

      RECOVERY OF CHILDREN IN CARE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
      '(1) This section applies to a child—

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

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

      (c) who—

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

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

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

      (2) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person specified in the information can produce the child to whom this section applies, he may issue a summons directed to the person so specified and requiring him to attend and produce the child before a magistrates' court acting for the same petty sessions area as the justice.
      (3) Without prejudice to the powers under subsection (2) above, if a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a child to whom this section applies is in premises specified in the information, he may issue a search warrant authorising a person named in the warrant, being an officer of the local authority in whose care the child is, to search the premises for the child; and if the child is found, he shall be placed in such accommodation as the local authority may provide for him under Part II of the Children Act 1948.
      (4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a summons under subsection (2) shall, without prejudice to any liability apart from this subsection, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.'—[Dr. Owen.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that new clause we may take Government new Clause 13.
      We may also take new Clause 21—Recovery of child—and new Clause 22—Powers of local authority following assumption of parental rights.

      1321
      We may also take the following amendments:
      No. 227, in Clause 90, page 65, line 17, after '83', insert 'section (Recovery of child)'.
      No. 228, in page 65, line 17, after '83', insert:
      'section (Powers of local authorities following assumption of parental rights)'.
      Government Amendments Nos. 157, 158 and 178, and Amendment No. 229, in Schedule 4, page 93, line 11, column 3, leave out 'section 54' and insert 'sections 49 and 54'.
      Dr. Owen: The clause introduces two new powers which a local authority will be able to use to effect the recovery of children in the voluntary care of a local authority under Section 1 of the Children Act 1948 who are subject to a parental rights and duties resolution; and who have either run away, been taken away from premises in which they are required by the local authority to live, or have not been returned to the care of the local authority after having been allowed by the authority to be in the charge and control of a parent, relative, guardian or friend in exercise of the authority's powers under Section 13(2) of the Children Act 1948.
      The clause gives effect to an undertaking I gave in Committee, when we considered new Clauses 21 and 22, about ways of strengthening the hand of local authorities to secure the return of children who are subject to parental rights and duties.
      The clause meets points raised by the Association of Directors of Social Services in their comments on the Children Bill. I commend it to the House.
      Dr. Vaughan: We discussed the problems of the recovery of the child a great deal in Committee. A number of outside bodies, in particular the Association of Directors of Social Services, told us quite strongly of a situation where someone may be concealing a child, where there had been insufficient rights of entry and where the person could be taken to court and perhaps fined but where the authorities would still have difficulties over obtaining the child in person. Although one might have strong grounds for believing that a child was being concealed in someone's home, there was no
      1322
      provision for getting that child out of the home.
      That is why we tabled new Clause 21 and new Clause 22. New Clause 11 meets our anxieties on this matter. It should prove satisfactory and remove the anomaly. Therefore, we shall not seek to press new Clauses 21 and 22.
      Mr. Robertson: This is a hybrid Bill and I am not sure of the extent of the application of the new clauses to Scotland. Do they extend to Scotland? If so, is the terminology correct? Will it be applicable?
      This Bill is two Bills in one. It is not always clear in relation to new clauses what is applicable to England and Wales, what is applicable to Scotland and what is applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom. Important issues can be raised in this way.
      Mr. McElhone: I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) that we have paid special attention to the needs of Scotland. I have been concerned with the Bill only on Report and Third Reading, but my officials have paid attention to points raised in the clauses which affect Scotland. These clauses do not affect the Scottish position. If my hon. Friend remains for the whole of these proceedings, he will appreciate that most of the points about which he is concerned will be covered before we reach Third Reading.
      Mr. Andrew Bowden: First, may I thank the Minister for the conscientious and effective way in which he has dealt with all the points which arose in Committee? Although I have been a Member of Parliament for only a limited time, on all the Committees on which I have served where we have been assured by a Minister that he will look into the matter, in no case have they been dealt with more completely and fully than by him. I speak for all members of the Standing Committee when I say that we did a useful job and that due to the work which the Minister did in following up the points raised, the Bill is infinitely better than it was originally. New Clause 12 is an example of this. I support it.
      There is a massive amount of work before us. It is a pity that there is not more time to go into it. The Government's

      1323
      legislative programme is in a most appalling state. I am not blaming the Minister of State for that, because he has his own crosses to bear. I am sure that Conservative Members will wish the business to be dealt with with the maximum speed, although there will be a number of occasions when we shall refrain from speaking although we should have liked to speak. It is a pity that we could not have had two days for Report and Third Reading.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 13

      EXTENSION OF POWERS UNDER S. 32 OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1969.
      '(1) Section 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (detention of absentees) shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this section.
      (2) In subsection (1) of the said section 32, paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect.
      (3) After subsection (1) of the said section 32, there is inserted the following sub section:—
      "(1A) If a child or young person is absent from a place of safety to which he has been taken in pursuance of section 2(5), 16(3) or 28 of this Act without the consent of—

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

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

      he may be arrested by a constable anywhere in the United Kingdom or the Channel Islands without a warrant, and shall, if so arrested, be conducted to the place of safety at the expense of the person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) (as the case be) of this subsection.".
      (4) In subsection (2) of the said section 32, after the words "subsection (1)" there are inserted the words "or (1A)", and for the words "twenty pounds" there is substituted the word "£100".
      (5) After the said subsection (2), the following subsections are inserte—
      "(2A) Without prejudice to its powers under subsection (2) of this section, a magistrates' court (within the meaning of that subsection) may, if it is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person who is absent as mentioned in subsection (1) or (1A) of this section is in premises specified in the information, issue a
      1324
      search warrant authorising a constable to search the premises for that person.
      (2B) A court shall not issue a summons or search warrant under subsection (2) or (2A) of this section in any case where the person who is absent is a person to whom subsection (1A) of this section applies, unless the information referred to in the said subsection (2) or (2A) is given by the person referred to in subsection (1A)(a) or (b) (as the case may be) of this section.".
      (6) In subsection (3) of the said section 32, for the words "one hundred pounds" there is substituted the word "£400".
      (7) In subsection (4) of the said section 32, for the words "subsection (1)" there are substituted the words "subsections (1), (1A) and (2A)", and for the words "that subsection" there are substituted the words "subsection (1)."'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 17

      CERTIFICATES OF UNRULY CHARACTER
      'The Court shall not certify under section 22(5) or section 23(2) or (3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (committals to remand centres or prison) that a child is of so unruly a character that he cannot safely be committed to the care of a local authority unless the conditions prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State are satisfied in relation to that child.
      In this section, "court" includes a justice'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Government new Clause 31 and Government Amendment No. 256.
      Mr. McElhone: I should like to draw the attention of the House to a printing error in new Clause 31 on page 2925 of the Amendment Paper. At line 7 the words "made by statutory instrument" should be inserted after the word "order".
      Dr. Owen: As the new Clause represents something which was not raised in Committee and which has been inserted on Report, it merits a little explanation. The House knows that the number of remands to Prison Department establishments of juveniles charged with a criminal offence and certified to be of so unruly a character that they cannot safely be committed to the care of the local

      1325
      authority, has risen steeply in recent years. The number of receptions to prisons of boys aged 14 to 16 rose from under 2,000 in 1971 to more than 3,500 in 1974. The number of certificates issued in respect of girls rose from under 100 in 1971 to nearly 250 in 1974.
      The sending of these young people to Prison Department establishments and in particular in the case of girls and some boys to establishments in which adult prisoners are held has rightly attracted growing and widespread criticism. It is a difficult problem. The continuance of such treatment, particularly for the older, more difficult and more violent juveniles, will clearly need to continue, I regret, for a little time at least.
      We have given considerable attention to this matter and I am now looking with my Home Office colleagues at the recommendations of the Social Service and Employment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee in its recent Report on the Children and Young Persons Act. We had to consider whether we should use the opportunity that was presented in the Bill to take this power.
      The purpose of the clause is to empower the Secretary of State to prescribe by order the conditions which must be satisfied before courts issue unruly certificates authorising the commitment of juveniles who are remanded to Prison Department establishments.
      I think that the House will agree that it was right in this specific instance to take advantage of the legislative opportunity provided by the Bill, even at this late stage of its passage, and to take an enabling power to regulate the issue of unruly certificates.
      The Government would, of course, have liked to consult the various interests concerned—some interim informal consultations have taken place—including the courts and the social services, before deciding on the clause, but time has not permitted this.
      I should like now to repeat the categoric assurance already given to the various representative bodies that the Government will consult those bodies fully on the form, content and timing of the bringing into operation of the regulations. I do not myself regard them as having resource implications. Rather, they are concerned with ensuring
      1326
      that the courts and social services can together make the best use of what remand facilities are available within the community home system and to confine remands of juveniles to Prison Department establishments to the minimum necessary at this stage of development of the facilities in the community home system. The question of the need for more secure accommodation and the interpretation of the Children and Young Persons Act is not covered and has deliberately been left outside.
      I do not intend to move Amendment No. 256 which would have brought into operation new Clause 31, which covers Scotland—this is a matter with which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) is concerned—on the passing of the Act. We would now prefer to leave the matter to be dealt with by commencement order, as will be the case in the case of new Clause 17. This puts the two clauses on equal footing. The principle is exactly the same.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: As the Minister of State says, this is an important clause which has not up to now been debated. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to consult us We agreed that it should be introduced at this stage.
      The Opposition are greatly in favour of the intention behind the clause. The aim is to keep children out of prison. That is an aim on which we can all agree. A year ago I went to Wormwood Scrubs prison, which some hon. Members may remember is a special security prison with extra security precautions.
      However, another wing of Wormwood Scrubs housed the borstal allocation unit for the southern part of England. The boys who were sent there stayed three or four weeks whilst it was decided what borstal they should be sent to. Many of them went not to a closed borstal but to an open borstal. Although the boys were obviously kept separate from the adult prisoners, it could have hardly have failed to get around that they were being kept in prison. Twenty-five per cent. of them slept three to a cell.
      It is a scandal that children should be kept in prison. It is even worse if they are kept in prison when they are awaiting trial or sentence, because we are dealing with children whose guilt has not been

      1327
      determined or whose eventual sentence will not necessarily be a custodian one.
      This is a problem to which both sides of the House should turn its attention. The problem has gone on for far too long and we should certainly seek to solve it with the minimum of delay. Anything that can be done to minimise the problem is good and the Opposition will support it wholeheartedly.
      4.45 p.m.
      It should be remembered, however, that children are not in prison simply because magistrates are anxious to commit people to prison. That is not the case as the Select Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) was a member, made clear in its Report.
      We took steps to consult the Magistrates' Association this morning. The association has made it clear that it would welcome any steps that would obviate the need to send children to prison.
      The problem which must be faced, however, is the shortage of secure places for difficult juveniles. Therefore, as the leader in The Guardian said this morning, we should not approve this clause without having some information about how it will work and how it is to be applied in practice. There are at least two questions. I am sure that the Minister of State, whose interest in this question is well known, will have the answers.
      First, what new arrangements has the Minister of State in mind for making new secure accommodation available? We all agree that children should not go to prison. We all agree that prison should not be used in this way. How are we to avoid that situation arising? As the hon. Gentleman will probably have seen, tonight's Evening Standard carries the report of a councillor in one London borough talking about the crisis of child care in London and saying that there is no way of controlling the increasing violence in our community homes without a massive increase of staff. That is the problem we face. What alternative arrangements does the hon. Gentleman intend to make?
      Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman say something about the regulations and the policy? For example, do the Govern-
      1328
      ment intend to accept the Select Committee's recommendation that the practice of remanding young persons to adult prisons should cease forthwith?
      Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Like the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Fowler), I warmly welcome the clause, which seems to be designed to tighten up the conditions in which an unruly certificate is issued. About 4,000 children are admitted to prison establishments every year—not just to remand centres, but many of them to local prisons. On any one day about a dozen girls will be in Holloway prison. As the hon. Member said, that is a scandal to which too little attention has been paid by hon. Members of the House and by the public at large. It is a blight on society that we should send children to prison and that there should be so little in the way of alternatives to offer.
      My hon. Friend the Minister of State has gone some way, but unfortunately not yet far enough, to alleviate the situation. As the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield reminded us in his very fair and welcome comments, many of the children who are in prisons or prison establishments are awaiting trial; they have not yet been convicted of any offence. It is merely alleged that they have committed offences. A substantial proportion of the children committed to prisons as a result of the granting of unruly certificates are subsequently found not guilty of the offence with which they are charged or are given custodial sentences. Yet in effect they have already served a prison sentence. They have not just lost their liberty. They have been exposed to what anyone with any sense of compassion would regard as intolerable and uncivilised conditions.
      No one suggests that all of these children are innocent or are angels. Some are very unruly. Some are violent. Some are difficult. They are aged from 14 to 16.
      What precisely are the alternatives that my hon. Friend is offering? All that he is doing by means of the clause is to say that we shall tighten up the way in which unruly certificates are granted, that we shall make the conditions more stringent. Perhaps he will illustrate the exact nature of the conditions that will be prescribed by order. In

      1329
      future, under what conditions will magistrates be able to grant unruly certificates? How does the clause compare with the commitment made to me by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he was considering the phasing out altogether of unruly certificates?
      There seems to be some confusion between the two Departments. It would seem that the Home Office and the 111 Members who signed the all-party motion condemning the imprisonment of children agree with me that we should phase out unruly certificates. At one stage that was felt necessary for girls, but Lord Harris has made it clear in a letter that that should apply to all children. However, the Minister is saying that we are talking not about phasing out but about tightening up the conditions under which the certificates shall be advanced.
      We are not stopping the imprisonment of children by means of the clause. My hon. Friend is saying that we may prevent a few of them going to prisons because we shall have more stringent conditions than in the past. In his opening remarks my hon. Friend said something about the "minimum necessary". Surely he did not mean that. Surely he did not mean that it is necessary to imprison children, that it is necessary for some children to be in penal establishments. However, that is what he said. I believe that he said that, apart from the minimum necessary, it is to be hoped that the majority will now be dealt with by other means.
      That raises the question of the exact nature of the other means. This is an issue of resources. As the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, we cannot deal with 4,000 so-called unruly juveniles a year unless we are prepared to commit the necessary resources to the building of secure units. I do not believe that all of the 4,000 children that pass through our penal establishments each year should lose their liberty. Many of them could be properly cared for in the community by means of supervision orders, by the local authorities or by the probation service. Perhaps there is an important and continuing rôle for the probation service in offering that sort of care. The fact that so many are proved innocent or given non-custodial sentences only serves to emphasise my point.
      1330
      Clearly there are some children who require secure accommodation. My hon. Friend has been rather unforthcoming as to exactly how the local authorities are to provide such accommodation, unless the Government are prepared and willing to advance far more resources than in the past. I know that there is an amendment to provide an extra £2 million to be tied to local authority provision of secure accommodation, but what are the special conditions that will be prescribed in future for the granting of certificates? What alternatives does my hon. Friend now propose for those children who will not go into prison establishments? What resources does he propose to give to local authorities? Will he consider the suggestion in The Guardian that has been mention by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield—namely, that when children are sent to prison the local authorities should pay the full costs of their incarceration?
      I end with an urgent and heartfelt plea—I feel that it will be echoed on both sides of the House—for my hon. Friend to act speedily in conjunction with the Home Office to ensure that we remove this scandalous blight from our society, that we move from the Dickensian situation of having children in prison. I urge my hon. Friend to move quickly.
      Mr. Roger Sims: Although a final judgment on the clause must await the conditions which the Secretary of State prescribes, I join in welcoming the principle in the clause and what the Minister of State is seeking to do. At present a magistrate is faced with a difficult decision when there is an application for an unruly certificate, when he is told that unless a certificate is advanced the social worker cannot ensure that the child will reappear at court when next required. Anything which will in some way regularise the position has a great deal to commend it.
      Perhaps this debate also gives the opportunity to emphasise that magistrates do not of their own volition issue certificates of unruliness. They can only issue a certificate if the social worker applies to the court for a certificate. Social workers make application only if they consider that the circumstances warrant such action. They make application if they do not have the accommodation to cope with the child. If the clause can go

      1331
      some way to alleviating the present position it has my support.
      Mr. Robertson: It is clear that new Clauses 17 and 31 can hardly have very much in common. The procedures for dealing with children in Scotland initially preclude a court proceeding. The question of sentence does not arise initially if the matter is being dealt with by the children's panel. New Clause 31 deals with the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and not with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Two different concepts are raised. I think that my hon. Friend might have dwelt a little longer on the different procedures that apply.
      When we consider these provisions in relation to Scotland we must bear in mind the number of children who are in the notorious prison of Barlinnie. We must bear in mind the number of children who have appeared before children's hearings and who have been told that nothing can be done for them as there is no residential accommodation to send them to for corrective treatment. The backlog is so great that the whole system of children's hearings is in danger of collapse unless there are considerable added resources. Unless those resources are applied to the whole procedure I am afraid that it will become a laughingstock and will be brought into disrepute. That will be a pity.
      Theoretically, unless a child has been found guilty of some criminal behaviour it does not appear before the courts for sentence. However, the practice is rather different. We are bringing in new proposals that have unclear intentions. At present we cannot operate the provisions of current legislation. The Government might have been better employed had they considered how to deal with the existing problems.
      For example, they should have considered how to make the children's hearings more effective, bearing in mind the many children coming before them. At present there are no ideas about how those children should be dealt with and kept out of further mischief because of the lack of accommodation and the lack of resources. The result is that many children are without any real guidance or help from the social work departments.
      1332
      It gets to the point of being downright cynical to table clauses of this nature. Unless something is done to the present system there is a danger of collapse.
      I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has to say on this matter. When he was a back bencher he had some scathing things to say about the social work provision in Scotland, particularly as regards children's panels and children's hearings. I shall be interested to hear whether he still holds those opinions after the short time that he has been in his new position wearing his new hat. Will he try to defend the indefensible, or is he pie pared to let this matter go by without saying anything?
      5.0 p.m.
      Dr. Vaughan: I am concerned about the provision of the resources with which to back up this measure. The Minister said that he did not think additional resources were necessary. Will he give us more details of how he thinks these provisions will be carried out? We are concerned that there will be insufficient resources with which to implement many parts of the Bill. It is not only a question of buildings. It is more a question of staff.
      It is not only the prison and remand home aspects which cause concern. Resulting from our anxiety about young people in prisons or prison-type surroundings there has been increasing pressure on the psychiatric services. Those services are being stretched to take unruly children. I do not refer to children who need psychiatric treatment. I mean the children whom the community find difficult to look after. The alternative to prison is the general adult psychiatric hospitals. In those hospitals, which are sometimes large, children are exposed to the sight of the most serious forms of mental illness. That cannot be right. Sometimes they are placed in children's units containing children being treated for minor disturbances, such as learning disorders and bed-wetting problems. Therefore both the disturbed and difficult children are mixed. That is bad for both types of child. In psychiatric units disturbed and restless children need a staffing ratio of at least one member of staff to two children, or one member of staff to one child.
      Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend will reply to the points concerning Scotland which were raised in this short debate.
      The Expenditure Committee expressed concern, reflecting the evidence it received from several witnesses, that unruly certificates were being issued too freely on less than adequate grounds in a substantial proportion of cases of juveniles who do not in the end receive any custodial sentence from the courts. The Government make this pledge. There is no difference of opinion between the two Departments involved. This is a joint exercise between my Department and the Home Office. We are carefully examining the report of the Select Committee. We intend to answer that report and to give a full, detailed reply to Parliament. In the examination we are looking at a commitment, which has already been given by the Home Secretary, on the phasing out of remands on unruly certificates.
      We have emphasised, especially in respect of 14–year-old girls, the constraints set by the facilities at present available within the community home system. Even if the money is available, it takes time to build a community home and to staff it. There are problems of staffing and money. We must persuade people to undertake this type of difficult work. It is easy for the Press and the rest of us to put up our hands in horror at the thought of juveniles in prison establishments. In many senses these young persons are adults. They are physically well developed. They are violent. Often they have a record of aggression which is frightening in such young people. They require a high ratio of staff, often of considerable physical strength.
      Although I do not wish to exaggerate the problem, there are many young people who should not be in prison establishments. However, there are some who will always present a problem to society. We need more community homes.
      Although the Bill makes provision for direct grants I do not wish to deal in great detail with the provision of resources for this aspect of the social services, which is being given a high priority by the Government and the local authorities. When local authorities are allowed to choose their own priorities
      1334
      and capital building programmes it is noticeable what a high priority they give to secure accommodation. We shall look in detail at the target for the provision of more secure accommodation places.
      We hope for consistency and uniformity in the criteria under which unruly certificates are issued. They could be prescribed by regulation. We hope that this will lead to a reduction in the number of such demands and to the more careful vetting and selection of cases.
      Following the evidence to the Expenditure Committee, the intention is that the local or temporary difficulty in finding a suitable place in the community home system should not be allowed to lead to wholesale remands to prison establishments in cases where thorough and determined efforts to find suitable places should have succeeded. A check will be made on the situation. I do not claim that that will solve the problem. However, it is a modest step forward in reducing the number of juveniles in prison. We shall hold consultations about the regulations. It will be open to the House to debate the regulations.
      It may take a little time to telephone the social services department to discover whether provision is available. It may mean more of a search in social services departments to find secure accommodation. We shall encourage those concerned to search outside their area or region to find secure accommodation within the community home system.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will the Minister be more precise about the criteria for unruly certificates? Will the conditions be prescribed by order? What are the criteria? When will the order be laid? What will be the date of commencement?
      Dr. Owen: We do not know yet what the specific provisions will be. We must first consult the bodies concerned. This is an enabling power. I should have liked to have had fuller consultations before now. When we looked at the matter in the light of the report of the Expenditure Committee we discovered that we did not have the power to deal with the problem. We are taking the power. I hope that consultations will take place and that we may soon be in a position to announce to the House the results of our review in the light of

      1335
      the report of the Expenditure Committee. I should not like to commit myself to the date when we shall lay an order.
      Dr. Vaughan: Has the Minister made an estimate of the total number of children who are likely to be involved?
      Dr. Owen: We have not made an estimate of the number of children in prison or the number of people who need secure accommodation. This evidence was given to the Select Committee, but it would be very difficult to make an estimate of the number of children who would be involved as a result of a tightening up of the regulations.
      I do not wish to sound critical of the procedure in granting unruly certificates. However, the magistrates are responding to pressure. Much depends on the regulations and on the collaboration between the magistrates and the social services departments. The position has improved substantially in the past year. As a result there will be a substantial drop in the number of such people in prison establishments. That will make a bigger impact than the editorial in The Guardian gave credit for. It will not solve the problem. I warn the House that a complete solution of this problem in terms of an absolute ban is some time away. It will be difficult to achieve. However, there will be a dramatic drop in the number of persons in prison establishments if these suggestions are soundly and sensibly applied. I do not think that we utilise to the full our existing secure accommodation facilities.
      Mr. McElhone: I wish to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) regarding List D schools and the effect of Clause 31. Perhaps my hon. Friend's memory may be a little faulty about my protestations from the back benches regarding List D schools. I have made many protestations from the back benches in regard to social work, but not in regard to children's panels and List D schools. That perhaps was a fault on my part.
      I agree that the question of resources is extremely serious. Nobody would claim that we are entirely satisfied with the provision for Scotland. I also take the general points made about this matter, which have been covered in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of State
      1336
      at the Department of Health and Social Security. As the House knows, I have been in my present office for only a few weeks, but I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley that I shall be writing to him on the subject.
      Projects due to be completed later this year on the existing List D schools programme will provide an additional 20 secure places, almost doubling the existing accommodation. We are also discussing with the Lothian Regional Social Work Department the possibility of its providing a youth treatment centre for 40 very disturbed children. These are welcome provisions.
      Mr. James Dempsey: But not enough.
      Mr. McElhone: I agree with my hon. Friend when he says, "Not enough". Seventeen new children's homes have been provided by the new local authorities since the beginning of 1972, and 13 are at present under construction. The total number of places involved in the project is around 500. A further 17 projects are included in the building programme in 1975–76, including the provision of another 315 additional places. I agree that the provision is not sufficient, and I give an assurance that I shall take that matter on board in the next few weeks and I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley on the subject.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 8

      RETURN OF CHILD TAKEN AWAY IN BREACH OF SECTION 49
      'A court in which an application for custody of a child is pending may—

      (a) on the application of a person from whose custody the child has been removed in breach of section 49, order the person who has so removed the child to return the child to the applicant;

      (b) on the application of a person who has reasonable grounds for believing that another person is intending to remove the child from the applicant's custody in breach of section 49, by order direct that other person not to remove the child from the applicant's custody in breach of that section.'—[Mr. McElhone.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause makes provision for the court in Scotland to order the return of a child taken away from the possession of a person who has applied for custody in terms of Clause 49. It refers to a person who has had the care and possession of a child for at least three years before making the application. The clause is equivalent to Clause 40—a provision which was introduced in Committee—relating to applications for custodianship in England and Wales.
      The clause provides that on due application having been made by the person from whose custody the child has been removed—or is believed to be in danger of removal—the court can either order the return of the child to the applicant, or, where the applicant has reasonable grounds for believing that someone intends to remove the child, can order that the child shall not be removed.
      The purpose for which the provisions are to be included in Part II of the Bill in relation to Scotland concerns the powers of redress of a person from whom a child is removed in breach of Clause 49. Removal of a child in these circumstances is made a criminal offence and it is clearly desirable that the offence should be capable of rectification without the need to await the outcome of a criminal prosecution.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 9

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 20 OF SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) ACT 1968
      'The following subsection is substituted for subsection (1) of section 20 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
      "(1) Where a child is in the care of a local authority under any enactment, the local authority shall, in reaching any decision relating to the child, give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout his childhood; and shall so far as practicable ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child regarding the decision and give due consideration to them, having regard to his age and understanding."'.—[Mr. McElhone.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the new clause we may also take Government Amendment No. 59.
      Mr. McElhone: The purpose of the new Clause and Amendment No. 59 is to remedy an anomaly in the Scottish care provisions in the Bill as drafted at present.
      The existing Clause 62 amends Section 15 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 by incorporating in it a general duty on local authorities in respect of children in care. The new duty requires the local authority, in reaching any decision relating to a child in its care, to give first consideration to the need to promote the welfare of the child, and for this purpose to ascertain his wishes and feelings so far as may be practicable. This new provision overlaps to some extent with Section 20 of the 1968 Act which, as it exists at present, imposes a general duty on a local authority having a child in its care to promote the interests of the child. This provision should have been repealed when Clause 62 was incorporated in the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 14

      POWER OF REPORTERS TO CONDUCT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) ACT 1968
      "The following section is inserted after section 36 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
      '36A. The Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate may, by regulations—

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

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

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

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

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the new clause, we may also take the new Clause 10—Amendment of section 36 of Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—and new Clause 27—Additional provision in section 36 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
      We may also take Government Amendments Nos. 252 and 171.
      Mr. McElhone: I apologise to the House in advance for the length of the explanation on the new clause. I take this course because a number of hon. Members from all sides of the House have taken an interest in this matter which deals with the question of reporters in court. I should like to emphasise the great interest shown in this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and other hon. Members. I have carefully noted new Clause 10 tabled by my hon. Friend and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). I have also noted new Clause 27 tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and others.
      Although I acknowledge that these clauses have some general purposes, I wish for a number of reasons to commend the alternative provisions contained in new Clause 14 which, as I shall try to demonstrate, is designed to achieve the same objectives as new Clauses 10 and 27.
      The purpose of the new clause is to provide the Secretary of State, jointly with the Lord Advocate, with the power to deal with a difficulty that has arisen in connection with children's hearings. The clause would allow the making of regulations to enable reporters to children's hearings, although they are not advocates or solicitors, to conduct before the sheriff courts proceedings arising from children's hearings. It also gives power to prescribe qualifications, training or experience, as may be thought necessary, for reporters who are so empowered.
      The system in Scotland at children's hearings is that reporters to children's panels have to decide whether children who have committed offences or who are in need of care should be brought before a children's hearing, or whether they can be dealt with in some other way, such as
      1340
      by voluntary measures as agreed by the social work department. If a reporter decides to refer the case to a hearing, that hearing can proceed to determine the merits of the case—for example, what form of disposal is appropriate to the child's situation as it affects the grounds for referral likely to be accepted by the child and his parents. If not, application is made to a sheriff in chambers and the case must be considered and, if the facts are established, decided. If they are so established, the child goes back to the hearing for consideration and disposal of his case.
      Similarly, at a later stage there is provision for an appeal to the sheriff against the disposal of the hearing, although each year there is only a handful of appeals. We have also provided in the present Bill, in Clauses 67 and 68, amendments to Sections 37 and 40 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. It empowers reporters to seek from the sheriff extensions to certain warrants made at a hearing to retain children in a place of safety where cases are being considered.
      Since the children's hearing system began in 1971 many courts have allowed non-legally qualified reporters to appear before them in applications and appeals. In July this year, however, the Court of Session, on an appeal from a decision of the Sheriff in Glasgow, decided that, as no clear right of audience on the part of reporters had been confirmed by the Social Work (Scotland) Act, the normal rules of audience must apply, namely, that only solicitors or advocates may appear before the Sheriff. This has meant that reporters have had to take steps to instruct outside solicitors or solicitors from other local authority departments to proceed with these applications.
      A number of representations have been received from the Reporters' Association, the advisory council on social work, the chairmen of regional children's panels and hon. Members from both sides of the House, suggesting that an early opportunity should be taken to give reporters the necessary power to do what, in many cases, they have been doing in practice for the past four years, namely, to appear before the sheriff in chambers.
      Since July we have been considering carefully what action should be taken. It would have been tempting simply to give

      1341
      reporters the necessary powers, and to restore the situation which prevails in practice if not in the strict sense of the law. However, the issue goes wider than that. On the one hand, it is important that reporters who have knowledge of individual cases are able to deal with them all the way through, especially when they are complex cases in the realm of child protection.
      On the other hand, of course, it must be stated that it is usual for qualified solicitors or advocates to conduct proceedings in court for the good reason that it is in the interests of the courts and justice generally that cases should be presented as competently as possible. In this connection it is true to say that there have been instances in which the handling of some cases by reporters without legal qualifications has been criticised by some sheriffs. In its recommendations the Reporters' Association suggested that the granting to reporters of the necessary powers to appear should be accompanied by the Secretary of State having the power to prescribe any necessary qualifications.
      Although we recognise the validity of various arguments for and against the appearance of non-legally qualified reporters, we consider that some action should be taken relatively quickly to allow reporters to appear before the courts. The Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate therefore propose to make early regulations allowing reporters with a year's experience to conduct the relevant proceedings before the Sheriff. This will prevent too long a continuation of the ad hoc alternative arrangement to which I have referred which tends to be relatively expensive, time consuming and, at the end of the day, not very satisfactory.
      In terms of the proposed new clause, officers who may be empowered by regulations to appear, are officers appointed under Section 36 of the Act. That section provides not only for appointment of the reporter himself but also for appointment of
      "such other officers as deputies of the reporter as may be required."
      The term "deputies" is not however used in the Act in the technical sense which may apply to the term depute reporter for administrative or grading purposes
      1342
      within local authorities, but is used to mean any officer appointed to assist or to act for the reporter in the performance of his duties. It is therefore proposed that the regulations will empower to appear before the sheriff persons who may be categorised as assistant reporters but who, nevertheless, act on behalf of the reporter.
      Concurrently with the making of the regulations, we propose to enter into discussions with all the interested legal and social work bodies on a whole range of matters concerning the training, qualifications or experience of reporters. Our discussions will cover such matters as the special training or qualifications which reporters should have to enable them to operate effectively in all areas, but especially in the complex situation of appearing before the sheriff. We also hope to consider whether it is practicable and desirable not merely to make training available but to prescribe it in further regulations as a necessary preliminary to the exercise of these powers of appearance. It is our hope that what will emerge will be proposals for the future which will be acceptable to all shades of opinion.
      If such proposals required regulations specifying training or qualifications, we should not hesitate to provide such regulations as soon as possible.
      Whatever might happen to the new clause and about the regulations which we may make under it, it must be recognised that work involving the courts is necessary in only about 10 per cent. of the reporters' cases and is only a small part of the work on such cases. The rôle of the reporter is essentially that of decision-maker, together with the ability to establish relationships with all the bodies which supply information for the hearings. Those are his key functions. We should not like the present situation to lead local authorities to believe that the post of regional reporter or the higher subordinate posts within regional authorities must be filled by members of the legal profession.
      Local authorities have currently shown a readiness to regard both social work and legal qualifications as having substantial relevance for such posts, and in some cases other disciplines also. The new clause should make it possible for the service to continue developing along the

      1343
      existing lines, but with greater regard being paid to the necessary training for this new and vitally important appointment of dealing with children in trouble.
      I draw the attention of the House to Amendments Nos. 171 and 252 which relate to the new clauses. Amendment No. 171 is a minor consequential amendment to Section 49(3) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, to make it clear that, notwithstanding that the reporter may be presenting a case before the sheriff, he may still be formally examined by the sheriff, as is the position at present under section 49(3).
      Amendment No. 252 concerns the commencement provisions of the Bill and secures that the new clause and the consequential amendment to Section 49(3) come into operation immediately on the passing of the Act.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: The new clause and associated amendments are to be welcomed. It is apparent that on this issue there is agreement which straddles the Floor of the House. However, I should like to make it clear that I place great stress upon what the Minister said towards the end of his speech about the need for experience. From my own practical knowledge, as a solicitor before being translated to this place, at times difficulty was experienced when dealing with reporters who did not know the niceties of the law of evidence.
      I point out to those people who have not appeared before the sheriff and defended children with a reporter present that a qualified solicitor does, or could, have an advantage which stems from his knowledge of criminal law and the regulations concerning evidence. Had the Minister restricted his advocacy on this clause purely to one year's experience, I should have been a bit chary about accepting the Government's clause. Undoubtedly, along with the practical experience which comes from appearing in court, and having to deal with legal situations, there is also the need for training in the law of evidence and sometimes in the procedures of argument in court.
      Let us take as an example the rather complicated provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, which will be complicated even further by this Bill. There is no doubt that a fundamental knowledge of
      1344
      how to present a case in terms of advocacy is required.
      I was glad to hear from the Minister that it is intended to deal not only with the question of experience, which presumably means an assistant reporter sitting alongside a qualified reporter who has been duly authorised to appear before the sheriff, learning the practical ways of how to deal with lawyers, sheriffs and legal thinking, but also with the need to attend courses to learn the law of evidence. Many reporters, knowing the difficulties which they sometimes have to face in court, have voluntarily gone ahead and attended these courses and gained some of the necessary experience which is required. There is no doubt that the clause is required.
      5.30 p.m.
      I should like to mention that the stated case which I read relating to this matter, which came from the Glasgow sheriff's court, contains a definition of the law as it was passed in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. On the interpretation of the sheriff and on the confirmation of that interpretation by the Court of Session, that definition ruled out the opportunity of reporters appearing before the sheriff's court for legal purposes.
      In many courts throughout Scotland it was the practice of sheriffs, no doubt with some irritation, to hear reporters present the cases with which they had been dealing. At the outset of the social work provisions and reforms there was an acceptance by the then Government that reporters would be allowed to appear before sheriffs.
      I should like to quote from a circular which was submitted by the Social Work Services Group on 6th February 1970 to county clerks and town clerks of large burghs, as they then were. Under, "Functions and responsibilities", it states:
      "Where the grounds are not accepted by the child or his parents, the reporter will present the case to the sheriff, including the leading of evidence. He will also represent the children's hearing at appeals to the sheriff from their decisions."
      There is no doubt that when the Government, through the officers of the Social Work Services Group, were considering this question, that power had been given to reporters to appear before the courts,

      1345
      and sheriffs in many cases accepted that situation. I am not sure about the background, but, perhaps because certain unqualified reporters had appeared before sheriffs and made a mess of things, general irritation began to grow.
      Mr. Dempsey: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to lay Members what constitutes an unqualified reporter?
      Mr. Wilson: This is one of the conundrums. The reporter represents a new discipline. The specification by the Government at the outset for the recruitment of reporters was that due or equal consideration should be given to both legal and social work qualifications. It may be that in time, as the new system gets under way, academic disciplines will emerge from the universities which manage to combine both legal and social work qualifications. Perhaps, for the purpose of the argument, in relation to the stated case emerging from Glasgow, I could define an unqualified reporter as an inexperienced reporter. A reporter is appointed by the local authority. It is the local authority's responsibility so far to decide who is the best person to appear.
      There is no doubt that in areas such as Tayside, part of which I represent, considerable difficulty has been caused by reporters who had been accustomed to appearing before the courts, suddenly being refused the right of appearance. It is only proper that the situation should be put right. Indeed, additional expense is incurred by local authorities if a duly qualified lawyer—I do not intend to define him—has to present the case on behalf of the children's hearing. He is instructed and given all the papers. In many cases he is also given the arguments by a reporter or depute reporter who will be sitting alongside him. Therefore, one gets duplication of functions.
      There is the practical point that in many areas there are no legally qualified reporters. For example, Fife has no qualified solicitors, but it has five reporters who are not qualified solicitors. Tayside has no qualified solicitors on the reporters' staff, but it has seven reporters who are not qualified solicitors. Orkney has no qualified solicitor, but it has one reporter who is not a qualified solicitor. In Shetland the position is the same. Strathclyde—this huge area which repre-1346
      sents half of Scotland—has two qualified solicitors and 46 reporters who are not qualified solicitors. I am not sure whether this is correct, but I am informed that one of the two qualified solicitors is resigning and that the other prefers not to go into court to present cases. Be that as it may, in Strathclyde and in other areas there is a great problem. It is necessary that this gap should be closed.
      The new clause is acceptable to me in exchange for my own which specifies some training courses. However, I hope that the regulations, which will give meat to the skeleton which has been presented to us, will ensure that the irritations from which sheriffs suffer regarding inexperienced reporters are removed. It is not good for a child to see the reporter who represents the system under which children are to get treatment, twisted round the fingers of, say, an extremely well qualified solicitor.
      I am informed that the Tayside area, through both restrictive and non-restrictive advertisements, advertised for applicants for the regional post and that it did not get a single application from a qualified solicitor. That suggests that there is no tremendous enthusiasm on the part of solicitors to become involved in the new post of reporter which takes in a mixture of disciplines.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: I tabled new Clause 10 which in some respects, is similar to the Government's new Clause 14. The reason for tabling the new clause was a recent decision by the Court of Session in the case of Kennedy v. O'Donnell, to which reference has already been made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The decision by the Court of Session virtually deprives reporters to children's panels and their deputes and assistants of the right to appear in court in cases involving, for example, disputed grounds of referral to children's hearings unless they possess practising certificates from the Law Society of Scotland. It is important to remember that in giving that decision Lord Wheatley was expressing the law as it stands. He was not expressing an opinion on the desirability or otherwise of reporters, their deputes or assistants, making representations in court.

      1347
      Under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 a children's hearing may decide to make application to the sheriff for several reasons, first, where there are disputed grounds of referral and, secondly, when there is incapacity on the part of the child to understand the grounds of referral—for example, in the case of a battered baby. There is also the case where a child or his parents decide to appeal against the decision of the hearing. I am reliably informed by Mr. Alan Finlayson, the Midlothian children's reporter, that in his region the frequency of such cases works out at about five per week, mostly in the first two categories—disputed grounds of referral and incapacity to understand the grounds for referral.
      There are precedents for people who are not practising solicitors making representations in court. For example, Customs and Excise officers can conduct prosecutions in court in cases where people have avoided or attempted to avoid Customs. Factory inspectors can also prosecute in court for breaches of safety regulations, and so on. In view of these precedents, there seems to be no reason why, given other good reasons, a reporter should not be allowed to make the appropriate representations in court.
      The main responsibility of a reporter is to decide whether, and if so how, to intervene in the life of a child once a report has been submitted, and it is questionable whether a legal qualification is all that relevant and necessary to a reporter's job. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) referred to the fact that a social work background could be as relevant—if not more so—as a legal background.
      There is the possibility of recruitment to the post of reporter being inhibited unless the new clause is accepted. Without it, lawyers would be the only people qualified to apply for posts as reporters, and even assistant and deputy reporters. Unless the new clause is accepted there will be a kind of two-tier system of reporters: those who are in the top tier, namely, those who are legally qualified, and those in the second tier who are not legally qualified. It would be unfair to many applicants with excellent social work backgrounds, and so on, if they were deprived of the opportunity of reaching the top tier of their chosen profession.
      1348
      It also appears that not many lawyers are all that interested in becoming children's panel reporters. Not many applications for vacancies come from people with a legal background, and I am told that in the Strathclyde Region only one out of the 49 reporters or assistant reporters is a practising solicitor and therefore would be qualified, under the present law, to appear in court.
      There is even the possibility of a complete breakdown in the service unless an external solicitor is instructed. The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to the extra expense which a local authority would incur as a result of having to pay additional fees to an external solicitor. There is also the danger that if an external solicitor or a solicitor from another local government department took on a case before the court he would not have experience of the child's background, and this lack of continuity would be against the best interests of the child.
      Much of our debate today has been about the rights, and the lack of rights, of reporters, but we must remember that we are discussing a children's Bill which is concerned primarily with the rights and welfare of children, and it appears to me that unless the new clause is accepted there could be a break in continuity in dealing with a child and this could be detrimental to his welfare and interests.
      My new Clause No. 10 would give all reporters, deputies and assistants some ex officio right to make the appropriate representations in court. The Government's new clause contains a better form of wording than I have proposed because it stipulates qualifications, training and experience to be decided by the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate and also because it mentions making applications for warrants.
      Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) I get the impression that the regulations governing qualifications and experience will not be too restrictive but, at the same time, they will ensure adequate standards of competence. I shall, therefore, not call for a Division on my new clause. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park for listening to my suggestion. This is the first time that I have had one of my suggestions adopted in legislation by the

      1349
      Government. Recently, in reply to a Parliamentary Question that I tabled some months ago I was told that the Government were tabling a new clause similar to the one that I had put forward. I am, therefore, willing not to press my proposal as the Government have shown themselves more than willing to listen to what I have had to say. It is a pity that there are not more Government Ministers who are as receptive as my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park has been.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) said that this was the first time he had had one of his suggestions accepted. He will have noted that the new clause had my name to it as well, and that might have made a substantial difference.
      I welcome the Government's new clause. I used to have to declare an interest in that my wife was reporter for the children's panel in Selkirkshire, but since the reorganisation of local government she has left that post and therefore I give notice that I no longer have to declare a financial interest in these matters. But I still have a close interest in the development of the children's panel hearing system, and it is a pity that we are debating the matter on such a narrow point because, apart from one debate some time ago in the Scottish Grand Committee, we have never had a chance to review the working of the system as a whole and pay the tribute which ought to be paid and which is long overdue not only to the professional reporters but also to members of the children's panels and the social work departments for the way in which the system has operated. The system comes under much unjustified criticism, mainly from those who are resistant to the philosophy behind the Social Work (Scotland) Act and the criticism usually ought to be directed at the lack of basic facilities provided by the local authorities to enable the panels properly to carry out their work.
      As the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire said, this is a children's Bill, and it is children about whom we are concerned. The Government's decision, although it is a late one, is very welcome, as is the fact that the practice in the past of sheriffs varying in their attitude towards reporters, whether or not they had legal
      1350
      qualifications, will end, and the decision in the Kennedy case will be reversed.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) referred to the irritation felt by some sheriffs and some lawyers in court at facing inexperienced reporters, but that irritation is two-way. I suspect that there has been a lot of irritation amongst reporters at the obscurantism of the legal profession, often up to the Bench, on the philosophy behind the new Act. That measure was designed for the benefit of the family, for the benefit of the children, and it is right that in this Bill we should take steps to make a minor amendment to the law to put right something that we did not foresee at the time of the original Minister.
      I hope that the Minister will bring the regulations forward at an early date, because this is an important matter and he has not given much indication of timing. Secondly, I hope that he will so frame the regulations that the job of reporter will continue to attract a mixture of people from different disciplines, including the legal profession, because I am concerned at the stories from different hon. Members about the relatively small proportion of people from the legal profession going into this new job. I hope that in the new regulations the door will be left open for the direct recruitment of people with legal qualifications as well as those with other qualifications to come in and do this worthwhile job.
      Mr. Robertson: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has decided not to press his new clause to a Division. The position, so we thought, was that reporters had the right to appear before sheriffs. The House of Commons passed a measure giving, as we thought, reporters that right, but, lo and behold, much to our astonishment we discovered that that was not so. What guarantee is there that even with the words now proposed some other judge, at some other time, in relation to some other case will not find that Parliament has not the right to make this decision?
      We occasionally get into this kind of situation, and if it were confined to an exceptional case, or to one aspect of a reporter's work it would not be so bad, but in recent days another decision has been taken in relation to another field of work.

      1351
      In that case, judges and courts have decided that people who are not solicitors do not have the right to appear in the pleading. This is a good clause if it does what the Government believe it will do, if only because it breaks the monopoly—
      Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend make clear one point that I am trying to grasp? Is it not the case that a reporter will still not be entitled to appear in court unless he has a minimum of a year's experience?
      Mr. Robertson: Even that is not clear. Even under this new clause it is not clear which reporters can attend in which circumstances to deal with which cases.
      Two things were done by the decision of the Court of Session. One was the re-establishment of the monopoly of the legal profession in the courts which the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 was thought to breach. Even with these words, there is no guarantee that their intention will be carried out. It is clear that the Government have retreated from the position they took in the 1968 Act, if only in subsection (b).
      We have to decide what the relevant skills of a reporter are. Is he to be a social worker with a law degree or a solicitor with a social work degree? When we passed the 1968 Act we agreed that the person we wanted primarily was a social worker with an understanding of the laws relating to the care and problems of children and the whole social work climate. What we did not want—the Government assured us that this would be so—were the formalities and procedures normally associated with the law brought into children's hearings. Although there was nothing to prevent a lawyer who took some courses in social work from becoming a reporter, it was never intended that a solicitor should, just because he was a solicitor, be qualified to be a reporter. He had to be rather more than a solicitor.
      When I hear about the irritation of sheriffs and judges, I sometimes wonder whether they understand the irritation of the rest of us—particularly that of Members of Parliament—about their pronouncements and judgments and the
      1352
      way in which they deal with our proposals.
      I am not sure that the publishing of regulations is a good thing. The Government could have met the situation had they restated their intentions in the 1968 Act and given the reporter in all circumstances when a case had been referred from a children's hearing the right to represent in the sheriff court the point of view of the panel and of the child. If a sheriff is an expert in law and is to make sociological judgments, must we demand that he has a degree in sociology? Perhaps that would be a good idea. Who says that they are always well qualified to make judgments?
      We have said time and again that the child is the most important factor in these matters. The law must take second place. We must restate that firmly and clearly. I hope that the new clause will achieve that. I doubt it, but if the judges, on their Olympian heights, can hear an echo, I hope that they will hear this warning, "You have heard our intentions: interpret the words accordingly."
      Mr. Robert Hughes: In view of the general agreement that new Clause 14 is desirable I shall not detain the House long, but I want to place on record my appreciation of the Minister's responding so quickly to the case made by the reporters, the children's panels and hon. Members, including me, who have raised with him the points arising out of the case of Kennedy v. O'Donnell.
      The clause does not quite restore what was understood to be the position under the 1968 Act. However, it is probably the neatest way of amending that Act. I want to be sure of one thing: that the regulations which the Minister will then be empowered to make will appear steadily. He said that, concurrently with the regulations being prepared, there would be consultation with the legal profession, the reporters, the children's panels and so on. There is an old saying,
      "Procrastination is the thief of time."
      My experience of doing my hon. Friend's job is that consultation is the thief of time. We seem to go on far too long in consultations when often the intention of Government and Parliament is perfectly clear.

      1353
      The difficulty arose in this case because the 1968 Act was silent on this point. What was assumed to be the case has now proved not to be so because of the challenge in the sheriff court and subsequently in the Court of Session. It is agreed that that position should be restored and reporters enabled to carry on their previous practice. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that, as soon as the Bill is activated, we shall have the regulations to restore what was thought to be the position.
      Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the new clause. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), who is here, must be taking a particular interest in this matter as the Minister who was responsible for steering the Social Work (Scotland) Act through the House. We are glad to see some of the intentions of that Act being made more clear.
      It is right that the power, which we believed to be intended, should be restored. As many hon. Members have said, we are thinking particularly of the interests of the child. When a reporter has a particular knowledge of a child it is important that that knowledge is carried through all the stages at which the child is dealt with.
      The Minister said that this problem arose in only a small proportion of cases—about 10 per cent. Apart from the one case which has given rise to this problem in legal terms, over the last four years has the representation of children by reporters caused any practical problems? I question whether it has. Has there been any concern in legal circles or among sheriffs about the appearance before them of reporters who were not legally qualified?
      6.0 p.m.
      The Minister dealt with this question of a reporter having one year's experience. He went on to say that there would be consultations about qualifications and so on. I was unclear as to whether it would be one year's experience alone or whether there would be other things involved. Can the hon. Gentleman be more specific on this point? Paragraph (a) speaks of empowering:
      "officers or any officer or class of officers".
      Can the Minister explain in a little more detail what is meant by that? At one
      1354
      end of the scale it could mean a class of officer such as a reporter with one year's experience, while at the other end it could mean any officer. A regulation could be used to empower an individual by name. Will the hon. Gentleman explain what is meant here, because the words appear to cover an extraordinarily wide range?
      There is also this question of consultation on training or experience. How wide will the consultations be? Will the Government consider publishing draft regulations so that we may know rather more exactly what is involved? There is some unease in some quarters.
      While I support this new clause in principle I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) that it is a good thing that reporters should be able to appear before the sheriff, in the spirit of the Social Work (Scotland) Act. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that ultimately the final custodian of the liberty of the individual is the law. The law is made here, certainly, but it has to be administered in the courts. I am not a lawyer and am not always given to defending them, but there are occasions when the interests of a child cannot be served because someone is not legally qualified.
      Several of my legal friends pointed out during the passage of the Social Work (Scotland) Act the importance of bearing in mind that ultimately it is in the child's interests to make certain that the best legal advice is available from someone who is properly qualified. The purpose of the law is to serve the ordinary citizen. I say that with a certain amount of feeling because it is so important to remember this when talking about the necessary training or experience. We must ensure that the kind of qualifications a reporter needs before he can appear in a court enable him to give a child the full protection of the law.
      I welcome the new clause and would be grateful if the Minister would respond to the questions I have put.
      Mr. McElhone: By leave of the House to speak again, I would say the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has, along with other hon. Members, raised several important points. It is proposed that the first set of regulations to be made as

      1355
      soon as possible after the Bill becomes law should give a right of audience to those reporters and staff who have a minimum of one year's experience working as a reporter. These initial regulations would not require any training or qualifications. Consultations will, however, be set in hand to discover whether suitable training or qualifications can be devised. If this is possible, amending regulations will be introduced in due course.
      It should be noted that the qualifications for reporters which the Secretary of State may prescribe under Section 36(2) of the Act as amended were intended to relate to general qualifications for the reporters' work rather than the presentation of cases before the sheriff to which this clause relates. It is doubtful how wide the powers will go in terms of a reporter's staff. They would not cover training or experience.
      The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns asked whether there had been many cases other than that which occurred in Glasgow. As far as I am aware the Act has worked well generally in all parts of Scotland since the social work provision for children's panels came in. There is a requirement of one year's experience for reporters or deputy reporters or, as it says in the clause "officers". The hon. Member asked why we used the term "officers"—
      Mr. Dempsey: Can my hon. Friend clarify this quesion of a minimum of one year's experience? Is it not also subject to subsequent qualifications which the Secretary of State will lay down? Since there could be an able reporter who would not qualify under the conditions laid down by the Secretary of State does it not mean that there could be reporters with several years' experience who would not be eligible to appear before the sheriff?
      Mr. McElhone Mr. McElhone It is a question of striking a balance. This is a judgment upon the time a reporter could be within a social work department or a regional authority. We came down in favour of one year as being the most suitable period. This covers the whole of Scotland and allows reporters to go into the courts. It does not cause an interruption of the many cases coming before the courts on referral from children's panels.
      I return to the point about the use of the term "officers". The word means a deputy in the sense of the term as it is understood for administrative or grading purposes within local authorities. It is simply used to mean any officer appointed to assist or to act for the reporter in the performance of his duties. It is proposed that the regulations will empower people to appear before the sheriff—persons who may be categorised as assistant reporters but who, nevertheless, are acting on behalf of the reporter.
      I am grateful for the kind words spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and for the general welcome given to the new clause by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). I appreciate, too, the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). As for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson), knowing him as well as I do, I feel sure that the judges will be listening to him and will take due note of his comments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 15

      DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY IN SCOTLAND TO ASSUME PARENTAL RIGHTS AND POWERS VESTED IN A VOLUNTARY ORGANISATION
      'The following section is inserted after section 16 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
      16A.—(1) If it appears to a local authority, having regard to the interests of the welfare of a child living within their area, the parental rights and powers in respect of whom are by virtue of a resolution under section 16(1)(b) of this Act (hereafter in this section referred to as "the earlier resolution") vested in a voluntary organisation, that it is necessary that the said parental rights and powers should no longer be vested in the organisation, the local authority shall resolve that the said parental rights and powers shall vest in them; and the said parental rights and powers shall vest from the date of the resolution under this subsection.
      (2) The local authority shall, within seven days of passing a resolution under subsection (1) of this section, by notice in writing inform—

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

      1357

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

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

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

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

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

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

      (4) In hearing an application under subsection (3) of this section the sheriff may consider whether there was any ground for the making of the earlier resolution, and if he is satisfied that there was no ground for the making of that earlier resolution he shall make an order under subsection (3)(c) of this section.
      (5) In this section "the parental rights and powers" means all the rights and powers in relation to the child which in accordance with the earlier resolution were vested in the voluntary organisation.
      (6) While a resolution under subsection (1) of this section is in force with respect to a child, the child shall be deemed to have been received into and to be in the care of the local authority by virtue of section 15 of this Act, and subsections (2) to (5) of that section shall apply accordingly; except that where the earlier resolution was passed by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) of subsection (I) of section 16 of this Act, that part of subsection (3) of section 15 of this Act from the words "and nothing in this section shall authorise" onwards shall not apply in relation to the person who but for the earlier resolution and the resolution under subsection (1) of this section, would have the parental rights and powers in relation to the child.
      (7) Subsection (9)(a), (b) and (c) of section 16, subsections (3) and (4) to (9) of section 17 and subsections (1), (2), (4) and (4A) of section 18 of this Act shall apply to a resolution under this section as they apply to a resolution under section 16(1)(a) of this Act.
      1358
      (8) A notice served by a local authority under subsection (2) of this section shall not be duly served by post unless it is sent by registered post or recorded delivery service.".'—[Mr. McElhone.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 16

      RETURN OF CHILDREN TAKEN AWAY IN BREACH OF SECTION 17(8) OR (9) OF THE SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) ACT 1968
      '. In section 17 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (effect of assumption of parental rights) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (9)—
      "(10) Where an offence under subsection (8) or (9) of this section has been or is believed to have been committed, a constable, or any person authorised by any court or by any justice of the peace, may take and return the child to the local authority or voluntary organisation in whom are vested the parental rights and powers relating to the child.".'—[Mr. McElhone.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      It inserts provisions in Section 17 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 relating to the procedure for the recovery and return of children whose parental rights have been vested in a local authority or voluntary organisation. Equivalent provisions in regard to England and Wales have been introduced under new Clause 12.
      Section 17(8) and (9) of the 1968 Act as at present drafted together allow that it shall be an offence, punishable by a fine or imprisonment, for a person either to remove or prevent the return of children whose parental rights have been vested in a local authority, or to fail to return such a child when legally in the person's possession after being required by the local authority to return the person. Under a separate amendment, the same provisions will also apply in cases where parental rights have been vested in a voluntary organisation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 26

      COUNSELLING IN SCOTLAND FOR ADOPTED PERSON SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS BIRTH
      'In section 22 of the 1958 Act—
      (a) the following words are added at the end of subsection (4)—
      "or a local authority or an approved adoption society which is providing counselling, under subsection (4A) of this section, for that adopted person.";
      (b) the following subsections are inserted after subsection (4)—
      "(4A) Where the Registrar General for Scotland furnishes an adopted person with information under subsection (4) of this section, he shall advise that person that counselling services are available—

      (a) from the local authority for the area where the adopted person lives: or

      (b) if the adopted person's adoption was arranged by an adoption society which is approved under section 4 of the Children Act 1975, from that society,

      and it shall be the duty of such local authority and approved adoption society to provide counselling for adopted persons who have been furnished with information under subsection (4) and who apply to them for counselling in respect of that information.
      (4B) Where an adopted person has arranged to receive counselling under subsection (4A), the Registrar General for Scotland shall, on receipt of a request from the local authority or adoption society which is providing that counselling, and on payment of the appropriate fee, send to the authority or society an extract of the entry relating to the adopted person in the Register of Births."'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments 150, 151 and 152, and we may also take Amendment No. 21, in Clause 26, page 18, line 4, after 'years', insert
      ', and who was adopted on or after 1st January 1976'.
      6.15 p.m.
      Dr. Owen: The clause refers to Scotland, and perhaps it is important at this stage that we should talk about Scotland first, because Scotland has led the law. In this case, English practice is to some extent catching up with common Scottish practice.
      The Scottish clause differs, however, from the corresponding provisions for
      1360
      England and Wales by virtue of the fact that counselling of adopted persons who seek access to their birth records is placed entirely on an optional basis, as in the case of persons in England and Wales for persons adopted after the Bill becomes law. This is entirely appropriate in view of the fact that the law in Scotland since 1930 has allowed that adopted persons should be permitted access to their original birth records on attaining the age of 17. There is, accordingly, no question of a change under the present Bill in the circumstances in which persons given for adoption in Scotland can subsequently trace their natural parents.
      While the Scottish provisions do not provide for counselling as a necessary preliminary to the receipt of information by an adopted person, they lay down a clear avenue to such a person obtaining counselling in Scotland if he wishes to receive it. The Government amendments all relate to access to birth records for adopted persons. Amendment No. 150 is a paving amendment and combines the existing provisions of Clause 26 with those proposed in Amendment No. 151 to form a new Section, 20A, for the 1958 Act.
      Amendment No. 151 provides for the counselling schemes which will be obligatory for persons adopted before the passing of the Bill—subsection (6)—but will merely be offered to those adopted after the Bill. Subsection (3) places a duty on the Registrar General, local authorities and approved adoption societies to provide counselling for adopted persons who apply to the General Register Office for information to enable them to trace their birth record.
      Subsection (4) reques the Registrar General to inform every applicant of the counselling services available to him. These include the General Register Office, for those who prefer the anonymity of a central unit; the local authority in whose area the applicant lives, for those who wish to receive counselling locally; the local authority for the area where the court which made the adoption order sat. That authority may have supervised the placement while the application was pending, or provided the guardian ad litem to report on the application and might therefore have some detailed information. Finally, there is the adoption society which arranged the adoption, if

      1361
      known and if approved under Clause 4. This choice could not be offered until after Clause 4 was put into effect; that depends on high standards in relevant agencies.
      After our debate in Committee I took the Bill away and came to the conclusion—and it was my personal view—that unless we could have a system of counselling, this provision would not be acceptable to the House. It seemed to me the will of that Committee that all counselling should be obligatory for people who were adopted before the passing of the Bill. We have therefore tried to make a distinction in the legislation on that score. We undertook extensive consultation, but I do not claim that we have met every point. I think that these compromise proposals genuinely meet the consensus, and I get the impression that most people feel that the balance we have struck between centralised counselling and a local authority arrangement, in giving a choice, is probably the best way out of a difficult situation.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the Minister say something about the consultations? What was the balance of advice to the Department? We all recognise that this is a difficult question, but it would help if he could tell us.
      Dr. Owen: The directors initially wanted counselling to be handled by the local authorities and were not so keen on the idea of a centralised unit. I think that they changed their view when they realised that a high priority was being given to the local authorities for those who wished to receive counselling locally. That was the slight difference. Otherwise, I think that broadly the ABAA and most other organisations have favoured a combination of a centralised unit and a local authority option. Some, of course, have not been altogether happy about the idea of obligatory counselling. I think that it should be put on record that some of the social service workers feel that this is not necessary, and they point to experience in Scotland.
      However, I think that the feeling of the House is quite different. It is a feeling that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) holds strongly, and I understand her point of view. Some felt that although under the
      1362
      present rules people could obtain access to their adoption records, this fact was not so widely known, and many people had been adopted in the belief that the arrangement had been a private one.
      The House was therefore obliged to recognise this fact by making a distinction in the procedure. Once the counselling procedure is carried out, however, there is no way of stopping a person from having access to his or her records. I think the House is taking broad precautions to prevent distressing situations. They cannot, however, be prevented completely and may well arise. On balance, I believe that we have adopted the right approach to a very difficult problem, and I commend it to the House
      Mrs. Knight: I am deeply troubled about Clause 26 and the new Clause which we are now discussing. In Committee I withdrew my amendment so that I might raise the general idea again now. Hon. Members do not generally understand exactly what Clause 26 seeks to do. This is a Children Bill, not an adults' Bill, and I accept that. I am determined at all times to help children, even unborn children, because I recognise that they have very strong rights.
      I am, however, still troubled by the clause. In giving a child the right of access to its birth records and in doing so from the date when the Bill becomes law, we are creating a situation that will cause many women sleepless nights. Many women have had children, perhaps when they were very young, and they allowed the children to be adopted. They then closed the door on that episode of their lives.
      My concern springs mainly from my experience of a constituency case where an excellent marriage was totally ruined. The wife at the age of 17 had had an illegitimate child, and the child had gone for adoption. The woman subsequently married and had a very happy marriage with three children who were brought up lovingly in a very happy home. When her illegitimate child was 21 he discovered his mother's whereabouts and went to see her. That visit totally destroyed the marriage. The husband, who had not been informed of the wife's first child, found his trust in her totally ruined. He felt that if she had not told him about her illegitimate child, he did

      1363
      not know what else she might be keeping from him. The case had such a sad ending that it led me to form the views I hold about this clause.
      We have permitted women to close the door on any indiscretions in their past. Goodness knows, the men do it very successfully, indeed. Until now, it has been accepted that this is a woman's right. Having allowed her child to go for adoption, if she does not wish to see that child again, or to have that child in her life, it is very difficult to decide whether the child ought to have a right to know her when she would prefer not to know the child.
      One wants to give children the right of access to their records. I do not object to the theory for the future. That seems perfectly reasonable. We are passing a Children Bill and saying to the country "From now on, any child who is adopted may know that he has access to the records of his birth". But I do not think that we are being fair to the women involved if we make this provision retrospective. They understood when they allowed a child to go for adoption that henceforward that would be the end of that. Parliament is now dragging before them the spectre of something that they thought was finished.
      I beg hon. Members to appreciate that this is a genuine human dilemma. It is very difficult to have to weigh in the balance that sort of situation with the right of the child to have access to his birth records. It is not a light matter. It is not true that the whole problem can be got over by the adopted child being able to get access to counselling. There is not one word in all the clauses about counselling for a distraught and distracted woman who might find her family life threatened by what we are doing by the clause.
      I question very much whether obligatory counselling is a good thing—any more than obligatory schooling is good for certain children who would much rather leave school. What sort of use will it be to grab someone by the scruff of the neck, sit him down and say "You are to have some obligatory counselling whether you like it or not"? With the best will in the world, the Bill insists on obligatory counselling. I should not feel so badly if we were told that the counsel-
      1364
      ling service was available and if people were left to choose themselves whether they wished to take advantage of it.
      Over and above that, however, I am very worried about the whole pious hope that counsellors will be available. Where are they to come from? We have not enough counsellors in any part of our social service network. I know of no area where all of the social workers both sides of the House would wish to have available are actually available.
      I am greatly worried by the effect of Clause 26. I have recognised, as has the Minister, that it is a difficult matter. I do not seek in any way to be awkward or argumentative, but I believe that in this clause we are being grossly unfair to a number of women who will be astonished that the House of Commons should so lightly and easily take away their rights.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I find it very difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Lady for Birmingham Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) about Clause 26 as opposed to new Clause 26—and we must be careful of the distinction that we have here. The hon. Lady mentioned a specific case of a specific marriage being ruined by a specific event. I do not dispute for one moment that the case to which she refers is genuine or that the marriage was ruined because an illegitimate child found its way into the home and destroyed the husband's trust in the woman concerned. But the fear that some day her husband would find out about her previous indiscretion must have been with her for a very long time. I appreciate and am concerned about the fact that all of the women who have committed what we in this House call an indiscretion—women who have had an illegitimate child and had the child adopted—and who have subsequently married and said nothing to the husband must today, irrespective of the passing of this Bill or of Clause 26 on access to birth records, have at the back of their minds the nagging fear "What happens if my husband finds out?" There is no way in which anyone can be certain that a husband will not find out, or what the effect of that will be.
      During our lengthy discussions in Committee—I do not want to go into all of them again—I said that one of the problems of legislation of this kind, where

      1365
      there was an element of retrospection or where there was no element of retrospection, was that we must legislate for the uncommon, while maintaining a sense of proportion in legislating in the common sense. If because of one or two or, perhaps, dozens of cases similar to that mentioned by the hon. Lady we were to deny children the right to see their original birth certificates, perhaps to deny that right to many thousands of people, that would not be sensible law. This is an issue in which no amount of argument or persuasion, no question of obligatory counselling or voluntary counselling, will make one bit of difference to those who are opposed to the retrospection. On this matter sooner or later we shall have to divide, and each must stand where he will on the issue.
      I turn to new Clause 26, which deals with the Scottish position. As I have said, I do not want to rehearse the arguments about the Scottish position, but the House ought to be aware that since 1930 and the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act people in Scotland have had the right of access to their birth certificates. There is nothing to suggest that this has caused any untoward difficulty over the past 45 years.
      That is an experience that should be weighed carefully by those hon. Members who represent English or Welsh constituencies and who are looking for some way of resolving their personal dilemma about access to birth certificates. If they have not done so, I suggest that they read the Hansard for the Committee proceedings for 17th July, from column 354 onwards, where the results of the Triseliotis survey are very well detailed.
      I come to the subject of counselling. Having looked into it very carefully, I am of the opinion that counselling was unnecessary, in Scotland at least. There is nothing to show that we needed it. Nevertheless, I would not object to counselling being brought in. It is done at present, admittedly in a rather rudimentary and informal manner, by the Registrar General. I have no objection to the general idea of counselling being spread out to the local authorities and adoption agencies. I have no disagreement in principle.
      However, we must recognise—it would be foolish not to do so—that the social
      1366
      workers and the local authorities are at present under a very heavy strain. Most of them have case loads far beyond what any reasonable person would expect them to carry. Simply adding to this another duty, that of counselling, does not make a lot of sense in the present climate of public expenditure. Although I would be prepared to accept the new clause as regards counselling, I hope that counselling will not reach the point where it becomes an absolute priority with local authorities.
      I want to ask one or two questions about the new clause. I am concerned that there should be no interference whatsoever with the right of access which has hitherto applied in Scotland. It is worth while. I do not see why we should change it. That is not to say that because it has worked as a general overall principle, what has been good in Scotland for 45 years is automatically good, or that we cannot learn from English experience. That is not the point at all. Our experience is that the right of access has had no great effect.
      6.30 p.m.
      I hope that we can take it that counselling in Scotland will be purely voluntary, and that if an applicant who is advised of the counselling that is available from the local authority or adoption agency says that he is not interested in counselling, but wants the information now, that information will be made available to him, as it would have been before the passing of the Bill. There will thus be no need for a person to refer to the counselling service before the information is made available.
      I am curious about the possible effect of subsection (4B), which is as follows:
      "Where an adopted person has arranged to receive counselling under subsection (4A), the Registrar General for Scotland shall, on receipt of a request from the local authority or adoption society which is providing that counselling, and on payment of the appropriate fee, send to the authority or society an extract of the entry relating to the adopted person in the Register of Births."
      We are often told that the law is not what we think it is but what it says it is. In an earlier debate the appearance of reporters in the sheriff court was referred to. It was thought that the law allowed reporters to appear but, the law being silent on that point, that right is not conferred on them. It would be curious if,

      1367
      by voluntarily accepting a counselling service, the rights of the individual to access to his birth certificate were delegated by his voluntarily handing over to the adoption society or local authority his right of veto.
      I am sure that that is not the intention of the subsection, but it says nothing about the individual's right once he goes for counselling. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will make clear that this device is simply to assist the applicant and will not result in the applicant's rights being removed. It would be extraordinary if a diminution of an individual's rights or civil liberties resulted from a clause designed to be helpful and not restrictive.
      I am not opposed to counselling, but I hope that people will understand that resources are restricted. The Scottish system, which has served us well for so many years, should not be interfered with. The experience we have gained will be of great service to England and Wales. I hope that it will help to resolve the personal dilemmas of hon. Members and that they will support the Government on the clause and the subsequent amendments.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I warmly congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on his recent appointment. Will he confirm that he agrees with what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said and that counselling in Scotland will be purely voluntary, bearing in mind that the Scottish system has worked extremely well for the past 20 years?
      Mr. Robertson: I, too, am apprehensive about the wording of the clause, particularly subsection (4B). Its intentions are obscure. There is no need to alter the law, because anyone who wishes to receive assistance can easily obtain it. We would perhaps do better to look at the Money Resolution to see whether extra resources are to be made available to local authorities for counselling services. The Strathclyde Region is 1,400 social workers below establishment. What possibility is there of establishing a counselling service in Strathclyde? It is a pious hope, the fulfilment of which would add an extra burden on local authorities.
      1368
      The Scots are wiser. We never inquire too deeply into our antecedents. We might find a sheep stealer among them and prefer to keep it quiet. That is a policy which the English could well follow. It is sometimes better to leave well alone. This information for many years has been available to anyone who wanted it, and I have never heard of any person becoming distressed on receiving the information.
      My hon. Friend is not doing us a service by insisting on the inclusion of the clause. It gives us nothing. If he were saying that there would be a voluntary service for which extra resources would be provided that would be fair enough, but he is putting on local authorities a duty to provide such a service at any time they are called upon to do so without providing an extra penny piece to pay for it. That is just another bit of cynicism which experience tells us is unnecessary.
      I should like to be reassured about the meaning of subsection (4B). It seems to me to be superfluous. Will my hon. Friend tell us its purpose?
      I do not wish to say much about Amendment No. 151. I dare say the position in England and Wales is the same as it is in Scotland. Our social workers are hard pressed and local authority resources are being cut, not added to. To put extra duties on local authorities merely means a cut in some other service. To insist on compulsory counselling can only damage the service. In my view the clause and Amendment No. 151 are unnecessary and the Government would be well advised withdraw them.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I agree almost entirely with what has been said by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson). There is no advantage in adding a requirement for counselling. Voluntary counselling can only be helpful, but to add an obligagation to receive counselling will be time wasting and may cut across the purpose which lies behind the Scots law in its present form of which I approve.
      Being a matrimonial lawyer of many years standing I have considered this matter a great deal. The law is based on inherent respect for all the parties involved and the complex relationships

      1369
      which occur when a child is adopted. It is based on a great respect for all, including the natural parent or parents who may have to make a painful decision, the child who may have a curiosity about his parents and be left with the feeling that there is something disgraceful in a decision being made to give him away to someone else, and the adoptive parents.
      To take, first, the child's attitude if the child is happy, although he has the right in Scotland to inquire about his parents, he generally will not inquire. Some do, but there are always exceptions. An unhappy child often does inquire. He may want to check on his roots and, perhaps, to find someone somewhere. He may feel an obligation towards his natural parents. He may not be able to rest if he thinks that perhaps somewhere his mother is existing below the poverty line. Nothing should be done to discourage such a genuine attitude.
      I come next to the mother's attitude. I was interested in the example given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), but should not the lady to whom she referred have disclosed the facts to her husband? If she did not, should not she take the consequences? Why, because she chose to make that decision, should her child be deprived of his rights?
      Many of the decisions made by mothers who give their children away are made, and with finality, in an agony of self-sacrifice against, until now in our society, a background of extreme economic difficulty. Perhaps society will improve, and enable a woman always to be in a position in which she can make such a decision without regard to economic worries, but that day has not yet come, and for those women who made their decision in the past it was not there. Many of these women in my experience made the decision feeling genuinely full of self-sacrifice, wanting their children to have the best possible life and worried about the sort of life that they themselves could give them, bearing in mind the difficulties that society was enforcing on them.
      Mrs. Knight: I think the hon. Lady is unnecessarily censorious of the women concerned. Will she recognise that it is often a desperately difficult decision to
      1370
      make but that it is at least made easier by the knowledge that it will not drag on, that there is an end to it, that the child is adopted and that is that? I think that it is a great shame to be censorious of the women concerned.
      Mrs. Ewing: I am not being in any sense censorious. This is a moral decision for the woman herself, but, in my view, in making her decision, there is another party—the child. I do not think that, whatever her attitude or decision, she has any right to take a right from another human being. This has worked well in Scotland. It has not been abused; nor has it given rise to many cases such as that we have heard about. I certainly do not mean to be censorious. I have the utmost sympathy with any woman in this position. I am not concerned about moral grounds but with the point that I have made.
      On the question of finality, I ask whether anyone should have the right to close a door when she has actually brought a child into the world. That is another question, but I would say that the woman does not have such a right, that there must always be the possibility that the child will feel an obligation to a parent; for example, living a good life the child may feel it necessary to satisfy an obligation should it arise.
      Quite a number of children who take up the right to find out only want to satisfy themselves that the reason was a reasonable one for putting them into care of other people so that they could live happily. That in itself makes them happier in the family of their adoptive parents. Very often, a child, having found out these things, does not follow up. Very often, those who inquire find that the mothers are not in need and leave the matter there.
      In my experience, adoptive parents are quite happy to take this position in Scotland. They know that there will come a day when the child can find out. I have never had an adoptive parent complaining to me about it. They all have taken the view that if they bring up a happy child they have nothing to fear in that child seeking out the maximum information about his background.
      I join those who urge that counselling be purely voluntary and that we should not have any additional impediment to

      1371
      the present system, which does work well and has worked well in Scotland, and which I commend to England and Wales.
      Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Following four Scottish Members it is, perhaps, appropriate for an English intervention to inject a note of compromise into the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson). I was one of those who in Committee advocated the old Clause 25, later to become Clause 26, without, perhaps, seeing quite the force of the argument from many quarters saying that we should have a counselling procedure. It is incumbent on us to realise not only how far the Government have moved in these discussions but not to offer again on Report a kind of paperback version of the speeches in Committee.
      A good deal has happened since Committee. Although I can accept the force of Scottish Members' feelings in what they have said about the possibly otiose nature of these proceedings as applied to Scotland, and one's researches indicate that there has not been the kind of difficulty to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) referred. I would feel now that nevertheless, Scotland must bear that burden. Those who wish to see this right of access, available as it is by counselling, made available to the children should meet the Government half way about the procedure proposed. I am prepared to do so.
      6.45 p.m.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston has again raised the question of what will happen to the mother who has given her child for adoption and then might live in fear of what might happen if the child were to return at some later date. But this is the Children Bill. It is not the "Protection from the Return of Stigma Bill", or the "Concealment of One's Past Bill". It is designed to give children, as far as we can, that right to access which we know that they have exercised under the more sensible Scottish law of 1930 perfectly adequately.
      I do not believe that even in the present situation we have the total protection for the natural mother which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston supposes to exist under the law as it
      1372
      stands. Many adoptive children find their natural parents. They do so without benefit of counselling. I found my mother without any recourse to social workers or representatives of local authorities or any representative of an adoption agency. Had I been a homicidal lunatic, my mother might have been at risk as a result. Perhaps the hon. Lady thinks that I am, and that my mother was at risk. However, I do not wish to pursue that.
      Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman must not trail his coat tails to that extent, because it is too tempting. But I beg even him to recognise that while in the past it was possible to find the mother—I described such a case of an adopted child—I am saying that any woman knew with almost complete certainty that she would not be found, often being told by the adoption agency how she could avoid being found. She followed that guidance and was henceforth not found. The difference in Scotland was that she always knew that she could be found. In England, whereas formerly she was protected, now she will not be. I beg the hon. Gentleman not to think this funny, because it is not.
      Mr. Whitehead: As I said in Committee to the hon. Lady, by having recourse to counselling we make it much more likely that the person who may be at risk, or who may put that contact with the original biological mother into a dangerous situation of some kind, will be discovered and given proper advice. I think that the counselling procedure is eminently sensible on that point.
      The hon. Lady said that the mothers giving their children for adoption in Scotland always knew that there was the possibility of discovery of this kind, and that is correct. They did—in so far as they thought about it. My guess is that very few mothers in such circumstances make that a prime consideration. My guess is that they are thinking of quite different matters when they put their child forward for adoption.
      The hon. Lady was reminded in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) that every time one changes the law relating to personal relations one is saying that some people whose relations were governed by the law as it was may find

      1373
      themselves in a new situation. My hon. Friend gave the example of the divorce law. We did not say then that only those people who married after the reform of the divorce law could have easier divorces. That is the situation when one changes the law as it touches on personal relations.
      After all the discussions which have gone on about this controversial matter I and many other people believe that the proposals of Amendment No. 21 are quite unacceptable. The Association of British Adoption Agencies, in its submission, has again said that to restrict access to birth certificates to those adopting in future would be to undercut the whole point of the clause. That, indeed, is the case. We are dealing with what I regard as a basic civil right for the children. There must be protection of the other parties concerned. This is what the counselling procedure does.
      I hope that in the suggested form of counselling which my hon. Friend circulated to those who were members of the Standing Committee it will be made clear to those nationally and locally who will be looking at this scheme that there is no legal barrier, as is said in paragraph 5, to the handing over of information after counselling. Later in the consultation paper, in paragraph 7, the wording is not suggested to mean that only if an adopted person further pressed for the details of his birth certificate after counselling should he be told how to get it and how much it will cost, but that where any adopted person has recourse to counselling locally or nationally, and is seeking that information, his right to have it, subject to counselling, should be explained and safeguarded throughout.
      This is becoming much more widely understood and accepted. During the Committee proceedings I had letters from women who many years ago gave their own children for adoption, and they have praised the merits of this scheme and acknowledged what the counselling will do. Even the gentleman whose case I raised in Committee has now heard from the foundling hospital that it is prepared to trace his mother, though it will not give him any details about her, unless she is dead, since that would break the conditions of the Thomas Coram Foundation.
      This is not only a basic right for the adopted child but will actually strengthen
      1374
      the bonds of the adopted child with his adoptive parents, making it possible for a real source of loss and anguish to be relieved in the minds of many women who years ago, when the stigma of bastardy was much greater than it is today, gave up their children for adoption.
      Dr. Vaughan: We support what the Minister is proposing, and people working in the field share our view that this is a reasonable compromise. It is a very difficult question, and I think that a good balance has been struck.
      There are two aspects. One is the ethical and moral aspect, in relation to which great emotional feelings are generated. Much of our time was spent on that. There are people—we all have them in our constituencies—who are deeply involved and who greatly wish to know their origins, to know more about their parents, and to meet them if possible. We share the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) about the retrospective considerations. This is a very difficult problem. I find it interesting that both my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and myself have, for example, swung right round during the course of the discussions and are now completely behind what the Minister is doing.
      The second aspect concerns the procedure. Here we should have liked to know a little more about how the Minister sees the counselling actually working. As I understand it, he is proposing both a central or a general register service, with presumably at least one or two social workers at the centre, and working through the local authorities. Is that correct?
      Dr. Owen: Yes.
      Dr. Vaughan: Therefore there would be, as stated in his circular, the scheme C, with a local service and a central service. This is put quite fairly in the circular.
      The disadvantage of the local service, as he saw it, was that it would be a very elaborate procedure, and he queried its likely expense. He also said, very fairly, that it could be a formidable bureaucratic procedure and that it could throw considerable work on to the local authorities.

      1375
      He further made the point that, because of the spread right across the country, there might be difficulties about ensuring sufficient skilled people for the counselling in each local area. There is the worry, to which hon. Members have already pointed, that it might not be possible to find sufficient counsellors to do this work. I should like to have the Minister's reassurance on these aspects.
      There has been the question of the quality of the counsellors who would be prepared to work centrally. The Minister in his paper said that he thought the central cost would work out at about £70,000 a year. He said that he thought that the central procedure might have distinct disadvantages. There would be fewer safeguards for the natural parents. Can the Minister tell us where he thinks this counselling will come from, what kind of counselling he has in mind, the total cost likely to be involved, and to what extent his anxieties about a heavy bureaucratic procedure are likely to be founded in practice?
      Dr. Owen: We have had a very interesting debate, and I know that there are strongly held views on this issue. I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has endorsed the compromise that we have eventually reached. No one has come to this decision lightly or easily, and none of us is absolutely certain what the available funds will be.
      In listening to the debate, and particularly to the Scottish Members, who have experience of the system in Scotland, I felt that many of us in England had been helped in making up our minds about the situation by the knowledge that others had lived with the Scottish law for many years.
      Counselling will not be mandatory in Scotland at all. It is purely and simply intended to put it on a voluntary basis, and to make it available to Scottish people. It is a matter of tidying up the existing legislation. It is not envisaged as being a very large burden on local authorities. I recognise that their resources are already stretched.
      As for the system in England, we hope, first, that the GRO in London will be able perhaps to use retired, and experienced social workers of considerable skill, in that way draining less from
      1376
      the pool of skills. It is the sort of job that is ideally suited to such people. In the first few years I envisage that the load might be rather heavier.
      There is within the GRO's office already a system for dealing with applications for information about births. The staffing will have to be increased. It is not exactly certain how many clerical staff will be required. It is difficult for any of us to make an accurate estimation of the increase. In the first year the cost may vary between £20,000 and £50,000. It may be lower; it may be higher. It is likely to be somewhere in the middle. It is very interesting that the directors of local authority social services have all taken the view that it is already to a great extent part of normal social work practice. The extent to which it will put a burden on them is difficult for them to tell.
      When I had my discussions with the local authorities—we shall later be discussing the whole rate of implementation—most of them thought that this was a burden, although a small one. At the moment they are resistant to taking almost any burdens, but they felt that it could probably be absorbed in the forthcoming year.
      Spread across the country in each local authority it should not be a considerable burden. We have tried to cut the bureacracy to the absolute minimum by giving people the option to decide where to go. I think that this, too, will cut costs.
      Much of it can be done on paper. However, the appointment, naturally, has to be a face-to-face meeting with the counsellor. But once directed to the GRO or the local authority, it will be a question of a meeting. Facilities can be arranged easily for interviewing rooms in London in the GRO. There is no problem about that. In the local authorities, it would form a natural part of social work practice and no special buildings would be needed.
      The total cost could be £75,000 in a year. I have to admit that it is very difficult to estimate. I tend to think that in the first year there will be considerable interest in England and that we shall find a large number of people making applications. I expect that to die down fairly quickly after the initial period of interest. I accept that in the first year the cost

      1377
      might be higher. As for skilled personnel, I am satisfied that they can be found, and the directors feel that this is not too great a burden.
      I hope that the House will feel able to accept the Government's recommendation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 30

      REVIEW OF CASE OF CHILD IN CARE IN SCOTLAND
      'In the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 the following section is inserted after section 20—
      "Review of case of child in care
      20A.—(1) Without prejudice to their general duty under section 20(1) of this Act, it shall be the duty of a local authority who have at any time had a child in their care throughout the preceding six months and have not during that period held a review of his case, to review his case as soon as is practicable after the expiration of that period and, if a supervision requirement is in force with respect to him, the local authority shall consider in the course of the review whether to refer his case to their reporter for review of that requirement by a children's hearing.
      (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

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

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

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

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

      (c) make provision as to the considerations to which the local authority are to have regard in reviewing cases under this section.".'.—[Dr. Owen.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider Government Amendments Nos. 224 and 242.
      7.0 p.m.
      Dr. Owen: This amendment introduces a new provision in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 requiring local authorities to review the case of any child in their care not less than six months after the child has come into care or after the previous review. It also empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the manner in which cases should be reviewed and to vary the minimum interval for reviews by prescribing a different period under regulations.
      Local authorities in England and Wales are already under a requirement to carry out six-monthly reviews of children in care by virtue of provisions in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. In the past, there has been no substantial demand for a similar provision in Scotland, but the matter has been further reviewed in the light of certain discussions at the Commons Committee stage of the Bill, which focussed attention on a number of aspects of child care legislation lying outside the matters dealt with in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Adoption. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Scottish Branch of the British Association of Social Workers are equally in agreement that such a provision should be introduced into the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
      As for England, the amendment would extend the scope of Section 27 of the Children and Young Persons Act, which places a statutory duty on local authorities to carry out six-monthly reviews. The amendments are tabled to enable regulations to be made to meet undertakings given in Committee, some of which relate to points raised by my hon. Friends when we discussed the child's psychological parent, the question of what parents should be informed of six-monthly reviews, and, where appropriate, that they should be consulted.
      The present amendment also takes account of the Committee's views, arising from the discussion of Amendment No. 358, which was opposed by the Government but which was nevertheless accepted by the Committee and added as a new ground for the assumption of parental rights and duties, that the child's

      1379
      emotional needs and development warrant it and that the child's development will be impaired or stunted if he is returned to his parents. We shall have an opportunity to discuss this later. But it is the intention that the need to consider a child's emotional and other needs should be embodied in the regulations to be made under this amendment as one of the aspects of a child's welfare which should be looked at in the course of a six-monthly review of children in care.
      The amendment would give effect to a number of proposals included in a consultation paper circulated to local authority associations and all the various other interested bodies. The proposal to use the six-monthly review as a means of embodying the spirit of amendments discussed in Committee has received unanimous approval. The only reservation expressed by the directors of social services was in relation to the proposed power to vary the frequency of reviews. However, the directors were reassured when we explained to them that it was the intention to use this power only to advance the date of the first review to three months after reception in care and not to increase their frequency thereafter.
      In the light of that explanation, I hope that the clauses will be accepted by the House.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: It so happens that I am a foster parent of about 18 months' standing, and my experience leads me to believe that although a statutory requirement for the review of a case by the social work committee of the local authority may be made, it may be that, because of the lack of resources, such a review will not be carried out, or it will be done in such a perfunctory manner as to be useless.
      In my experience, despite a statutory visit from the social work department to inspect the conditions in which the children were living with me, it took the department 18 months to send someone to see the children concerned, and only then after a little prompting. I must admit that it was a relief not to be bothered with social workers on our doorstep day after day. However, there was a requirement. But if there are insufficient social workers, or if, as happened in Scotland, local government reorganisation
      1380
      should occur, however much we may have legislated for it, a proper review may not be carried out. I should like to know what proposals the Minister has to make this provision workable.
      Mr. McElhone: I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Dundee. East (Mr. Wilson) and the experience from which he speaks. We are making provision for these visits. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Scottish branch of the British Association of Social Workers were in agreement with this clause.
      I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the shortage of social workers. But we are concerned in Scotland, as in other parts of the country, that these visits are made. So far as my responsibilities go in Scotland, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these visits and reviews will be carried out.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 31

      CHILDREN OF UNRULY CHARACTER IN SCOTLAND
      'The following provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (which relate to children of unruly character) shall be amended in the manner specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) below—

      (a) in sections 23(1)(b), 24(1), 297(1) and 329(1)(b) of the said Act of 1975 the following words are added at the end—

      "; but the court shall not so certify a child unless such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument prescribe are satisfied in relation to the child.";

      (b) in sections 23(3) and 329(3) of the said Act of 1975 the following words are added at the end—

      "; but a commitment shall not be so revoked unless such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe are satisfied in relation to the said person.";

      (c) in sections 24(2) and 297(2) of the said Act of 1975 the following words are added at the end—

      ";but a commitment shall not be so revoked unless such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe are satisfied in relation to the child.".'—[Dr. Owen.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 19

      APPEALS AGAINST REFUSAL OF APPROVAL OF OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL FROM ADOPTION SOCIETIES
      'Any decision of the Secretary of State relating to the refusal of approval of or withdrawal of approval from an adoption societly under sections 4 to 6 of this Act shall be subject to a right of appeal to an Independent Adoption Society Appeal Tribunal appointed in pursuance of Schedule (Independent Adoption Society Appeal Tribunals) to this Act'.—[Mr. Norman Fowler.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 226, the proposed new schedule—Independent Adoption Society Appeal Tribunals.
      Mr. Fowler: This is a matter that we touched on in Committee. The starting point is that the voluntary adoption agencies have, as we all know, made an enormous contribution. If it were not for them, there would not be the adoption service that we have at present. Therefore, as well as recognising their worth in words, we feel it right to safeguard their interests to the maximum extent possible.
      The Bill gives the Secretary of State a great power and discretion. It lays down criteria that an adoption society shall meet, but those criteria are necessarily drawn very widely. The Secretary of State is required to take account of the numbers of staff, of financial resources, of organisation and control, and of operations, but none of these criteria is exact and the Minister has the last word on whether the society shall continue.
      Naturally, we accept the Minister's good faith and good intentions, We have co-operated with the Government on this legislation, as I am sure the Minister will agree. We would not have done that had it not been the declared intention of the Government to promote a partnership between the local authorities and the voluntary organisations. However, we have to recognise that we are making laws and seeking to guard against unwelcome future developments.
      If the Secretary of State were to decide to pursue a policy of making a substantial reduction in the number of voluntary
      1382
      agencies, he has all the powers in the Bill that he would need. He could set the criteria as high as he wished and he could easily reduce to a handful the number of voluntary agencies. It is true that the Secretary of State must set out in writing the reasons for withdrawing his approval. Although that safeguard is useful, it is not sufficient. The fact remains that any Secretary of State is judge and jury in this case.
      If we were dealing with a case in the purely civil rights sphere, there would undoubtedly be calls from both sides of the House for an adequate appeals machinery. I pointed out in Committee that other legislation provides for the right of appeal. The Children Act 1948 provides for the registration of voluntary children's homes, but there is also an appeal tribunal to determine appeals against ministerial requirements to close down such homes. Then there is the tribunal for independent schools which determines appeals against ministerial requirements to close down a school or to remedy a defect in an independent school. We have taken this provision into our clause, in that the appeal tribunal that we propose closely follows the already existing legislative form.
      In Committee the hon. Gentleman rejected the idea of there being an appeal to the courts. We have sought to meet him on this point, as he has sought to meet us on a number of other points, notably the point dealt with in the last debate He also sought to argue that a tribunal was not the best way of dealing with this question. He said this to the Committee:
      "I am not persuaded that ultimate wisdom always lies outside the House of Commons in some strange tribunal that may be established."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 8th July 1975, c. 112.]
      I do not suggest that either this proposed appeal tribunal or any such system would produce ultimate wisdom. I suggest that it might provide a safeguard on the exercise of power, which is something about which the House should be concerned. I urge the House to support the motion.
      Mr. Bowden: I urge the Minister of State to accept the clause. Adoption societies are concerned about the long-term future. We must not lose sight of

      1383
      the fact that there is a great wealth of experience within such societies. They have performed years of dedicated work. Many people work for these societies in professional or in voluntary capacities and they have given a lifetime of work and seen their work bear great fruit.
      It would be very frustrating if such people were to feel that at some time in the future their societies could be gravely endangered and that they did not have open to them the common justice of going to an independent appeal tribunal which could judge the situation at that time. I ask the Minister to accept this point so as to ensure that in future societies, even in changing conditions, have the right to go to an independent appeal tribunal.
      Dr. Owen: On 8th July I advised the Standing Committee to reject an amendment seeking to introduce a right of appeal to the High Court against the Secretary of State's refusal or withdrawal of approval of an adoption society. I also said that the case had not been made out for having what I called an appeal tribunal.
      I recognise that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has taken up the criticism and tried to seek another method which I think is preferable. I undertook in Committee to have another look at the matter
      "if, as a result of this debate there were substantial recommendations from the voluntary agencies saying that this was not a satisfactory situation".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 8th July 1975, c. 114.]
      I do not think that the voluntary agencies are the only people who have the right to express an opinion. Hon. Members have that right. Hon. Members, of course, attach great weight to what the voluntary agencies think because, after all, they are most likely to be affected by this. However, I do not think that the voluntary agencies share the anxieties of hon. Members about the Secretary of State's power.
      7.15 p.m.
      The ABAA, which represents most of the large voluntary adoption agencies as well as local authorities, wrote to me, following my appeal for views, saying that the matter had been considered by its council where there had been
      1384
      "full agreement from the voluntary society representatives that appeal to a court would be not only unnecessary but unsuitable since standards of adoption practice are not appropriately judged by legal criteria."
      The only dissenting view that I received was from the National Adoption Society and that appeared to be at least partly based on a misunderstanding of how applications would be dealt with. The society suggested that an appeals panel could give guidance to a society on how to attain the standard required for approval. In fact, we envisaged that such advice would be given, when needed, by the Department's social work service at as early a stage as practicable in consideration of a society's application and that a society could then be allowed a reasonable period in which to improve its standard before a final decision on its application was taken. If approval is refused, therefore, it will not be, as the National Adoption Society suggests, for lack of advice or guidance. It will be because, in spite of such guidance, the Secretary of State's professional advisers and the local authorities concerned cannot recommend that the society be allowed to carry the full range of responsibilities that an approved adoption society will be enabled to assume under the provisions of the Bill.
      I do not think that this one letter can be considered to amount to
      "substantial representations from the voluntary agencies".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 8th July 1975, c. 113.]
      and, in the light of the very strong recommendations from the ABAA, which is a professional organisation which speaks authoritatively of the view of the voluntary organisations, I have found no reason to change my view.
      I should like to be able to meet the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield on this point because I know that he attaches great importance to it. It occasionally arises on the Bill that there will be a difference of judgment. The decision in the case of an individual society will involve a qualitative judgment based on reports from the Secretary of State's advisers and from the local authorities with which the society will be working. I believe that the Secretary of State's answerability in the House is in this case a sufficient safeguard in allowing the full exercise of this power. However, I

      1385
      recognise that my judgment may not be shared by hon. Members opposite.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: As the Minister of State said, his judgment is not shared by Opposition Members. He has at least agreed that our proposed scheme is preferable to that we proposed in Committee. He spoke about representations made by the ABAA. As I understand it, the ABAA said that it was not in favour of an appeal to the courts. That is not exactly what is proposed. We changed our original proposal in view of what was said in Committee.
      It is the duty of hon. Members to see the defects in legislation. We should seek to be experts upon how legislation is framed and to spot its defects. The adoption agencies are the experts on adoption.
      The hon. Gentleman's reply was short and disappointing, although I accept that he gave a rather longer reply than he gave in Committee. He relied upon the Secretary of State's discretion and his answerability to the House. If we were always to rely upon that, there would be no departmental appeal mechanism. However, there are appeal mechanisms, not only in the hon. Gentleman's Department, but in other Departments.
      We shall press the clause to a Division. The Government have not met the spirit of our argument.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 188.

      Division No. 368.]

      AYES

      [7.20 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Hawkins, Paul

      Percival, Ian

      Arnold, Tom

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Hordern, Peter

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Banks, Robert

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Bell, Ronald

      Hunt, John

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Bottomley, Peter

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      James, David

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Brittan, Leon

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Brotherton, Michael

      Jopling, Michael

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Kilfedder, James

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Budgen, Nick

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Bulmer, Esmond

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Sims, Roger

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Churchill, W. S.

      Knox, David

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Cockcroft, John

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Sproat, Iain

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Costain, A. P.

      Madel, David

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mather, Carol

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Dunlop, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Durant, Tony

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Tebbit, Norman

      Dykes, Hugh

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thomas, Rt. Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mills, Peter

      Trotter, Neville

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Moate, Roger

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Viggers, Peter

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Wakeham, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Morgan, Geraint

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Gorst, John

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mudd, David

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Neubert, Michael

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Gray, Hamish

      Newton, Tony

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Grieve, Percy

      Nott, John

      Younger, Hon George

      Grylls, Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Osborn, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Mr. Adam Butler and

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Richard Luce.

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Parkinson, Cecil

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Beith, A. J.

      Anderson, Donald

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Bates, Alf

      Boardman, H.

      Atkinson, Norman

      Bean, R. E.

      Booth, Albert

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Harper, Joseph

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hatton, Frank

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Buchan, Norman

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Rooker, J. W.

      Buchanan, Richard

      Henderson, Douglas

      Roper, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hooley, Frank

      Rose, Paul B.

      Campbell, Ian

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Huckfield, Les

      Sandelson, Neville

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

      Hunter, Adam

      Small, William

      Concannon, J. D.

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Corbett, Robin

      Janner, Greville

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      John, Brynmor

      Stallard, A. W.

      Crawford, Douglas

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Cryer, Bob

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Deakins, Eric

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Stoddart, David

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Swain, Thomas

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Lamond, James

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Litterick, Tom

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Dempsey, James

      Loyden, Eddie

      Thompson, George

      Doig, Peter

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      D-ormand, J. D.

      McCartney, Hugh

      Tierney, Sydney

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      MacCormick, Iain

      Tinn, James

      Dunnett, Jack

      McElhone, Frank

      Tomlinson, John

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Tomney, Frank

      Eadie, Alex

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Edge, Geoff

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Ward, Michael

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Watkinson, John

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Watt, Hamish

      Faulds, Andrew

      Millan, Bruce

      Weitzman, David

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ford, Ben

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Whitlock, William

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Noble, Mike

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      George, Bruce

      Oakes, Gordon

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Ginsburg, David

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Gould, Bryan

      Ovenden, John

      Woodall, Alec

      Gourlay, Harry

      Owen, Dr David

      Woof, Robert

      Graham, Ted

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Park, George

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Pendry, Tom

      Grocott, Bruce

      Penhaligon, David

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Prescott, John

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Reid, George

      Miss Margaret Jackson.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 20

      PROCEDURE FOR PERIODIC REVIEW OF OPERATION OF ACT
      'The Secretary of State shall, within three years of the first of the dates appointed by order by the Secretary of State under section 90(2) and, thereafter, every five years lay before Parliament a report on the operation of those sections of the Act which are in force at that time; and the Secretary of State shall institute such research as is necessary to provide the information for these reports'.—[Mr. Norman Fowler.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause is perhaps the most fundamental proposal we shall be discussing today. Too often we have passed laws and simply left the matter there. We have not sought to monitor the effect of those laws in operation. Therefore, the House has been deprived of up-to-date and continuous information about how legislation is working in practice. When legislation breaks down, there is a public outcry and probably demands for debates in this House and calls for action. We have seen that process take place in many

      1389
      instances, not least concerning the legislation dealing with children and young persons.
      I should also like to make a general point relating to our recent debate on the Finer Report on One-Parent Families. I believe that there is a basic lack of information on social problems and how to cope with them. As a nation we must devise better ways to identify social problems and to monitor the effect of our policies in tackling the problems. This point was made by the Central Policy Review Staff set up by the Conservative Government. In a report published earlier this year that organisation made the point that the best conceived policies sometimes fall short at the point of delivery to their clients. One example lies in the social services and the low rate of take-up benefits or services designed for the public.
      Many programmes also lack adequate operational yardsticks. Without such yardsticks and information, it can be hard to make proper comparisons between programmes and objectives or to take informed decisions about priorities and phasing. The United States Commission on Crime observed that there was no other area in which so much money was spent with such an imperfect idea as to aims and achievements. The same is true of social policy generally. We spend far too little on identifying social problems and on research into how we should tackle those problems. We also spend too little on monitoring our declared policies.
      The clause seeks to do two major things. It places on the Secretary of State responsibility to lay before Parliament a report within three years of the coming into operation of the legislation, and thereafter at five-yearly intervals. In addition, it lays upon the Secretary of State a responsibility to institute such research as is necessary to provide information on those reports. Even on present standards that will not place any great strain on public expenditure, but it will break new ground and set a precedent for social legislation passed in this House. It will provide built-in research for legislation, as I believe is the wish of the House, and I am sure that it will have the support of both sides of the political spectrum.
      1390
      We attach great importance to this clause for we believe that it will be an excellent development in the legislative process. We urge the Government to meet us on this point.
      Dr. Owen: I am glad to say that the Government are happy to accept the new clause. I agree with many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). There is a tendency to lay down legislation that is static, and there is no more important area than that represented by the living law than in the area of children's legislation.
      The law can change, and on a number of issues I have taken discretionary power or power by regulation to amend legislation, particularly on the question of time limits and other aspects. I have also made abundantly clear to the House—and I emphasise this strongly—that if people want a manifestation of the seriousness of our financial difficulties over the next three to four years, they need to look no further than the way in which this legislation is being introduced. I am sure that nobody doubts my commitment to this legislation, but I am determined that it shall not be introduced on the basis that we should will the ends but fail to provide the means. Nothing could do more harm to the best interests of children.
      I believe that it would be beneficial for the House to have an opportunity to look at the implementation of this legislation. I have made it clear that the Bill cannot be implemented as fully as I—and I suspect hon. Members on both sides of the House—would wish to see. Therefore, we hope that the House will take the opportunity to review progress at fairly regular intervals.
      Some of the powers that we have sought to take as affecting the lives of children have been criticised. It is essential that those powers are wielded only by local authorities and adoption agencies which we are satisfied adopt the highest standards of social work practice. That is the spirit in which we accept the clause.
      The reference in the clause to research must depend a little on available resources, but there is access to the Secretary of State through regional social

      1391
      work services that will provide a source of information and seek to monitor the effects of legislation. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the results should be put before the House. I recommend that the clause should be accepted.
      Mr. Bowden: I am delighted that the Minister has been able to accept the clause. Had I been called to speak before the Minister, I intended to say that he was obviously straining at the leash to accept these provisions. Therefore, I am more than pleased that he has been able to do so.
      I believe that the passage of the present Bill has seen the House of Commons at its best. There has been an acceptance on both sides, and certainly from the Minister, that we must decide these matters with judgment and balance. We cannot be certain that we have achieved that aim and have reached the right decisions on each and every provision in the Bill. However, we can certainly take the view that the clause will enable the House to review the operation of the Bill and, as and when necessary, to change the legislation after it has been in operation for some time.
      The Bill as it stands inevitably must have a number of flaws, mistakes and loopholes. Reviews over the years will enable us to close those loopholes and to correct mistakes. The research and information that we hope will become available will enable us to do this as effectively as possible. This will be a good investment for the future. We shall be able to prevent other mistakes, and perhaps tragedies such as the Maria Colwell case. Every penny spent on research and the collation of information will enable Parliament to legislate more effectively in the years to come. By pushing through the new clause we shall not have to wait another 15 or 20 years, if that is necesary, to amend the present Bill. The Minister and the Government are to be warmly congratulated on having accepted the new clause so promptly.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to state that we are grateful to the Minister of State. This is the second time in two days that we have had the opportunity of helping the Government in their policy. Obviously we are now making progress.
      1392
      In all seriousness, I state that we are most grateful. I hope that when the economic climate permits, new research will continue and that it will not be simply a question of an administrative collection of figures. I hope that there will be original research. After all, research is probably one of the most cost effective means of seeing how the legislation is implemented.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 23

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1(2) OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1969
      'In section 1(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph (b):—
      "(bb) he is or is likely to become a member of the same household as a person who has been convicted of any of the offences mentioned in Schedule 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 in respect of him, or in respect of another child or young person; or"'—[Dr. Vaughan.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Vaughan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this it will be convenient to discuss new Clause 24—Amendment of section 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969—and Government Amendment No. 253.
      Dr. Vaughan: New Clauses 23 and 24 are both technical clauses amending the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. For convenience we have separated the two new clauses, but they have the same general objective. They seek to improve the conditions for taking children into care. As the Minister said in Committee, it is a question of technique. In Committee the Minister gave an undertaking to discuss this matter with the various organisations concerned.
      New Clause 23 aims to protect against adults who have been convicted under Schedule 1 offences. We have added a corporate clause to include protection not only where a child has been taken into care but where there may have been action against any other child or young

      1393
      person. We have looked carefully at Government Amendment No. 253. In my view there is a fine legal distinction between our new Clause 23 and Government Amendment No. 253. The intention is clearly the same, but our wording is rather better. I ask the Minister to consider accepting new Clause 23.
      New Clause 24 seeks to cover situations where, although no actual injury or damage may yet have occurred to the child, there are strong grounds for thinking that such an injury or damage might occur in the near future. For example, this would include children who are left for long periods or completely on their own so that they are clearly at risk. It can be argued that that type of situation is already covered by an earlier section of the Children and Young Persons Act. I put it to the Minister that he should seriously consider accepting new Clause 23 and perhaps also new Clause 24, but I should like to have his comments on that matter.
      7.45 p.m.
      Dr. Owen: I do not believe that there is anything of substance between us on this matter. The Government amendment would add as a further primary ground for the making of an order under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 the fact that a person who had been convicted of one of the offences listed in Schedule 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is or may become a member of the same household as the child in respect of whom the proceedings were brought.
      New Clause 23 and the amendment have been tabled to meet a point raised by the Association of Directors of Social Services in its "comments on the Children Bill" that paragraph (bb) should be added to Section 1(2) of the 1969 Act as a new primary ground for taking care proceedings.
      We prefer the Government amendment, but not just because it is tabled by the Government. We knew that the hon. Gentleman's proposal was on the Order Paper. He may remember that I have modified that proposal even further towards meeting the point about "likely". We use the words "or may become". The reason we prefer the Government amendment to new Clause 23 is that the latter does not require the court to consider, before making an order, the proba-
      1394
      bility that the child in respect of whom proceedings have been brought will be ill-treated, neglected, and so on, within the terms of the existing Section 1(2)(a) of the 1969 Act which reads:
      "(a) his proper development is being avoidably prevented or neglected or his health is being avoidably impaired or neglected or he is being ill-treated; or".
      We regard this consideration as essential before the court should be able to make an order. Unless there were a probability that any of the conditions in Section 1(2)(a) would be satisfied there would be no justification for making an order.
      The words "or may become" would enable a court to make an order before the person who had been convicted of a relevant offence actually became a member of the same household as the child in respect of whom the proceedings were brought. That is, of course, one of the points that is made in new Clause 23.
      I did not believe that our previous amendment covered the matter sufficiently cleary. That is why we have redrafted it. I prefer the way we have dealt with the amendment as opposed to the rather technical method used by the hon. Gentleman. I am advised that ours is a clearer method of dealing with the matter for the reasons I have tried to illustrate.
      Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to the Minister. If proceedings have taken place against another child—not a child in the household to which these particulars relate—does Government Amendment No. 253 cover that eventuality as does our new Clause 23? I do not believe that it does.
      Dr. Owen: If the person involved has committed an offence against another child, I believe that that is covered by our amendment. A particular case has been the subject of a recent inquiry. The report of that inquiry is with the Government and will soon be published. It is for that reason that I have paid particular attention to this aspect of the legislation. In this case we are able to make legislative changes prior to the presentation of a report. In that case and in a number of other cases which I have been considering recently, I am satisfied that that eventuality is covered by the amendment.

      1395
      New Clause 24 would add a declaratory subsection to Section 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 for the purpose of simplifying the interpretation which courts would be expected to place on Section 1(2)(a) of the 1969 Act. The objections to it are that the wording is defective and that it adds nothing to the meaning of the words already in Section 1(2)(a). The wording of the clause is defective because the words in lines 2 and 3,
      "if it is proved that the care and protection exercised over the relevant child by his parent or guardian is such that he is placd at risk".
      impart the opposite meaning to that which is intended. It would seem that these words are intended to mean that it is the absence or lack of care and protection which is placing the child at risk. I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman is after. This is an important distinction because the word "care" in the context of the child denotes concern or interest in his welfare and is thus a positive measure for the good of the child which is hardly likely to place him at risk unless misconceived.
      I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press new Clause 24. There is no difference between us on new Clause 23 and Amendment No. 253. I have tried to redraft Amendment No. 253 to meet the main substance of new Clause 23. I recommend the House to accept Amendment No. 253.
      Dr. Vaughan: We accept what the Minister said. As I said in opening, this is a technical matter. We accept that new Clause 23 is covered by the Government's Amendment No. 253, but naturally we would have preferred our own wording. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 25

      CONVICTION OF PERSON INVOLVED IN CARE OF A CHILD
      '(1)A chief officer of police shall supply such information as to the conviction of certain persons involved in the care of children as may be prescribed by regulations to be made by the Secretary of State.
      (2) The regulations to be made under this section shall specify—
      1396

      (a) the categories of persons authorised to seek and receive information as to convictions,

      (b) the categories of persons about whom such information can be supplied,

      (c) the form in which the information shall be given, and

      (d) such other matters as may be requisite to the supply of such information'.—[Mr. Norman Fowler.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We debated this clause in Committee and voted upon it, but we felt that it was sufficiently important that the House should have the opportunity to express its view upon it.
      The clause concerns a matter to which several hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), attach importance—namely, the conviction of a person involved in the care of a child.
      The case was put to us by the Association of Directors of Social Services, and it is correct to place on record the outstanding contribution that the directors have made to our debates through the information which they have supplied.
      I understand that it is common practice for the police to search their records at the request of local authorities seeking information about possible criminal convictions recorded against prospective adoptive or foster parents. Such arrangements have the backing of the Home Office, but there appears to be no statutory framework for such action. It is normally only in connection with prospective or foster parents that the police will co-operate in this way.
      The Association of Directors of Social Services makes the point that there are other circumstances where the right to knowledge of criminal convictions would be valuable. The directors give as an example consideration whether to permit a child to return to his home under supervision. Clearly it would be helpful to know in such a case whether there were any convictions recorded against, for example, the stepfather to whom the child is returning. Certain types of convictions could—not necessarily would—indicate that it would be unwise to return a child to such a household. In that way, the system would operate as a

      1397
      safeguard. After all, we are seeking to provide as many safeguards as we can. In principle, the Government have a strong case to answer.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown referred to the case of Maria Colwell. I am sure that he will doubtless wish to refer to that case again if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I should like to refer to the case of Roger Gleave, which shows that it is possible in our society for a man with convictions for offences concerning children to have further responsibility for children and then to commit further offences. Gleave ran a series of hostels in London. The only defect in the arrangement was that in 1959 he had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment for an offence concerning an Army cadet and in 1971 was given a two-years' suspended sentence for an offence involving a 14-year-old boy. That man was not only operating a hostel for children and young persons but was receiving official help for doing so. The story was completed this year when three men working for Gleave were sent to prison for life for the murder of Billy McPhee, a former resident in one of Gleave's hostels. The Minister knows that we are pressing for an independent inquiry into that case and that we shall want to return to it later.
      The only reason that I mention Gleave's case is to make the general point that it is possible for someone involved with children to have mat kind of record.
      The position is that, in order to obtain information about previous convictions, the local authority depends largely upon the co-operation of the local police. Yet the information could be absolutely vital to a child's future.
      We submit that there should be a specific requirement in the legislation regarding the obtaining of such information rather than have it left to a voluntary informal arrangement. The detail would be spelled out by regulations to be made later. The Department would be free to carry out wide consultations into the form that those regulations should take. I am sure that this proposal will have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I urge the Government to accept it.
      Mrs. Millie Miller: This clause covers the case to which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) referred, which was the subject of the television programme "Johnny Go Home". That programme led me to communicate with the Minister regarding the stress which is laid elsewhere in the Bill on the suitability of homes for children. The man concerned was running not a children's home but an institution for homeless adults, and children or young persons became involved. The Minister's reply, that institutions of this kind, which are primarily for the use of the homeless, will be covered by the need for the absolute protection of young people, did not entirely satisfy me. I appeal to the Minister to bear in mind that it is not sufficient merely to protect children through institutions which are run by voluntary organisations for children. He must go further, because there are institutions for adults which, as a sideline, take in young people who may become the victims of this type of person preying on them.
      Mr. Bowden: I am sure that the Minister will concede that this is an important clause, and I hope that he will feel able to accept it.
      I make no apology for reminding the House that Maria Colwell, who died in my constituency, was viciously battered to death by her stepfather, a man who by the age of 21 had two convictions for violence. It is no exaggeration to say that, if that information had been in the hands of the Social Services Department at an earlier stage when the question of Maria's care and protection was before the court, she would probably—I put it no higher than "probably"—be alive today.
      I know that the Minister has studied the document produced by the East Sussex County Council, "Children at Risk". Indeed, he has made some kind comments about it, and I should like to repeat my tribute to it. Paragraph 90, on page 41, states:
      "We also asked the police about their attitude to providing information about people and this is relevant to the points raised in the Report about references that could have been obtained about Maria's stepfather. The police operate at present under the Home Office Circular 140/73 'Police Reports of Convictions and Related Information' which strictly only enables the police to release information

      1399
      to the Social Services Department about prospective adoptive and foster parents. This excludes information, for example, about a child's prospective stepfather. The Sussex police are willing to co-operate, but need the formal agreement of the Home Office to the disclosure of such information. We feel that this matter is of particular importance, and the need for the information to enable informed decisions to be made about children outweighs the other disadvantages about individual privacy, and so on. We think that this is a particular area where present practices should be altered on a countrywide basis."
      I stress that that is a report from the local authority in whose area Maria Colwell died.
      8.0 p.m.
      I hope that the Minister will take the recommendations of that report to heart and accept new Clause 25. No doubt he is aware that consultations are going on between the East Sussex County Council and the Home Office, and if he is able to tell the House that it will be possible to get over this problem without the new clause we shall take a different approach to it, but if he is not able to give that assurance, I hope that he will accept the clause.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I mention the tragic case of Richard Clark, a Scottish case, to reinforce what has been said about the need for the new clause.
      I said in Committee that Richard Clark was introduced to hospital in May 1974 suffering from a massive cerebral haemorrhage as a result of severe ill-treatment and battering from the household in which he had been staying. His mother was charged with attempted murder on one day and on the same day senior social workers transferred Richard to a household where the two persons, the man and the woman, had already been convicted under Section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act of having neglected their children by failing to provide adequate food, clothing, lodgings and medical attention and keeping the children in a verminous condition. If information were made freely available in an emergency situation, it would be much less likely for a child to be transferred to a household where he might be battered within an inch of his life, as happened in this case.
      I understand the civil liberties argument, and I have some sympathy for it.
      1400
      It seems that there might be something in the argument about the police making available background information which does not refer to a conviction. But I suggest to the Minister that what matters is the interest of the child, and I should hate to think that in an emergency situation in which a child might be vulnerable and his life might be in danger the House would not consider it necessary that the information should be made freely available to senior social workers.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: The full history of the Colwell and Clark cases does not point to the fact that it was only because of a lack of information from the police that the incidents occurred. The worrying thing in both cases was that there was no lack of social workers going into these homes.
      The major failing was the lack of liaison between social workers operating from different agencies. Between the time of the crisis and the eventual incidents there was ample time for social workers to have identified the problem and taken action to remove the children from their homes. I hope that the impression will not be given, as I am sure it is not intended to be, that it was primarily because of a lack of police co-operation that these children suffered in that way.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a senior social worker knew that a man and woman had been convicted of a serious crime against children he would be unlikely, in an emergency situation, to transfer children to their care?
      Mr. Hughes: I should hesitate to comment on that.
      Mrs. Chalker: On looking ahead to the business before us I notice that the Minister, in Amendment No. 248 to a later clause, refers to information about a household to which one might return a child. He refers there not to the person to whom the custody of the child can be given but to other persons in that household.
      The Minister knows how concerned I have been on this score, and if he has seen fit to put forward that amendment to Clause 38 it seems that he should also see fit to accept the new clause, because there will be times when, without the provisions of the clause, the information

      1401
      will not be available to allow the social worker to judge whether a child should be returned to a home or whether a child should be in a particular home.
      It seems to me that we shall make the work of our local authority social services departments that much more difficult if we deny them this kind of information which will be given, I am sure, in the greatest of confidence, and only in those cases where it should be given. We are not seeking the disclosure of every bit of information which any chief police officer may collect. We are seeking to protect the interests of the child. That is the reason for the new clause and, because of his later amendment, I cannot see how the Minister can refuse it.
      Dr. Owen: This debate is familiar. There was a similar amendment in Committee and the arguments both against and for it were similar to those that we have heard today. We are united in our belief that there is a need for better communications. It is the lack of communication that has often been the reason for an incident to children when it might have been avoided. Almost every inquiry, whether formal or informal, into where child care has gone wrong has shown a lack of communication.
      In all these arguments the case has been put forward for the statutory provision of information. In many cases the argument has been that this is not the right way, and one has tried instead to arrange an informal process, or sometimes a formal process such as the area review committees, for the exchange of information.
      The House should be under no illusion that what we are debating here, as we did in Committee, is a major change in our legislative practice. Such a provision as this would be the first instance in English law of a specific statutory obligation on the police to provide information of this kind. I do not believe that such a major change ought to be made, or can be made, in just this legislation.
      I hold strongly to the view that the best interests of the child should come first, but I do not think that this can be confined to cases involving children. Mention has been made of the Gleave case. The hon. Gentleman knows that
      1402
      my right hon. Friend has a letter outstanding in reply to what he wrote on this matter. There is a question of the form of inquiry, but nobody has denied the need for an inquiry into this case, and in the light of that inquiry it would be wrong for anyone to prejudge any consequences that may come out of it.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Home Office had reached a conclusion on the request of East Sussex County Council. I am not in a position to answer that, but I imagine that it has not. I think that its conclusion is that it is within the county council's discretionary powers to reach a voluntary agreement at a local level between the police force and the social services department, and I am not convinced that the way to deal with the problem is to impose a statutory obligation on the police force.
      Mr. Bowden: I hope that the Minister has not missed the point that I am anxious to stress. As things stand, there can be no voluntary agreement between the Sussex police and the East Sussex social services department because of the existing regulations. The police in Sussex are anxious to supply the information, but at the moment they cannot do so.
      Dr. Owen: I agree, because I understand that it does not require legislation. It is within the power of the Home Office, either by guidance or in particular circumstances, to agree that it should be done. This is primarily a Home Office matter, not one for my departmental responsibility. I understand that it would require formal agreement from the Home Office but that it does not require legislation for it to give that agreement.
      What I was trying to say to the hon. Gentleman is that this case, where the request has come from a local police force in combination with the social services department, will be in a way a test case for what he wants and what the House would wish to establish—a close working relationship between the police force locally and the social services department. The question posed by the amendment is whether we should make this statutory.
      I am not convinced that by making a statutory provision one ensures better communication. Indeed, in many cases where there was statutory provision—one

      1403
      hon. Member mentioned the provision for visits—it had not been complied with. We delude ourselves if we think that statutory provision ensures better communication.
      There are major civil liberties issues involved here. I remain of the conviction that this is the wrong place in which to make such a major change. The change may come, through voluntary arrangements, as I would prefer, or through a statutory obligation if it is felt by the Home Office, the Police Federation and the police constables that that is what is necessary, but I do not think that a statutory provision here which would make a precedent is the right way to proceed.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will explain where Scotland stands in this respect, since this discussion has related to the powers of the Home Office. If the Home Office has power to make decisions of this kind, has he consulted it? If so, what is its attitude? I should also like to know the attitude of the Scottish Office.
      Dr. Owen: I am speaking for the Government, but since this is mainly the departmental responsibility of the Home Office, it can be taken for granted that the Home Office feeling is that the House should be urged to resist the new clause and that a statutory provision is not the way to deal with this need. No one denies the need for better communication or wishes to restrict access to information. This raises the whole question of which the House is very jealous in other respects—how much police information, dossiers and the rest, should be made available to other Departments.
      I know that the hon. Member holds a different view, but he is asking us to establish for the first time in English law a specific statutory obligation on the police to provide such information. He cannot get away from the fact that this would be a major change involving major issues of civil liberties, issues which the House would be well advised to take very cautiously. It is for the Home Office to agree to this policy, which has been put to it. If I am wrong, specific legislation would be needed and that would have to be produced in its widest context. I believe that this is an aspect which will
      1404
      be looked at in the inquiry, but I must ask the House to resist the new clause.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. McElhone: If I may deal with the Scottish situation, Scottish local authority social work departments already have access to records of conviction in relation to prospective foster and adoptive parents. The arrangements are given effect in the administrative circular, a version of which is about to be issued to police forces which will strengthen this situation. The circular says:
      "A director of social work inquiring about applicants to act as foster or adoptive parents may be given details of their convictions."
      It adds:
      "A director of social work inquiring about prospective employees in residential establishments for children may be given details of their convictions."
      Mr. Norman Fowler: Both Ministers have made the point. They claim that civil liberties are at stake, but what we want is already being done in some areas and we wish to ensure that it can happen everywhere. It cannot be argued that new and fundamental civil liberties questions are involved—
      Dr. Owen: There is all the difference in the world between a police officer making available information for a local social service department under a voluntary agreement and a statutory provision that he shall supply information.
      Mr. Fowler: But the Minister contends that new and fundamental issues are involved. That is not so. This already happens in some areas.
      Mr. Bowden: To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, the police willingly provide information about prospective adoptive or foster parents. Surely it is only a narrow line that we are asking that it should be available in the case of stepparents.
      Mr. Fowler: I agree entirely. We are all seeking to safeguard the interests of the children. This debate has concentrated on circumstances in which men with convictions have got through the net, so the system is not working that well. Statutory provision will not necessarily be the ideal solution or solve all problems for ever, but it is more likely

      1405
      to lead us to an ideal solution than the informal and inadequate arrangement we have. I must advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Government.
      Question put, That the new clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 163.

      Division No. 369.]

      AYES

      [8.17 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Henderson, Douglas

      Reid, George

      Arnold, Tom

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Atkins, Ht Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Hordern, Peter

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Banks, Robert

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Beith, A. J.

      Hunt, John

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      James, David

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Brittan, Leon

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Jopling, Michael

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Shepherd, Colin

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Sims, Roger

      Budgen, Nick

      Kilfedder, James

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Bulmer, Esmond

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Knox, David

      Sproat, Iain

      Cockcroft, John

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Costain, A. P.

      MacCormick, Iain

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Crawford, Douglas

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Madel, David

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mather, Carol

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Durant, Tony

      Mawby, Ray

      Tebbit, Norman

      Dykes, Hugh

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thomas, Rt. Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thompson, George

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Mills, Peter

      Trotter, Neville

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Moate, Roger

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Viggers, Peter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Wakeham, John

      Freud, Clement

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mudd, David

      Watt, Hamish

      Gorst, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Newton, Tony

      Welsh, Andrew

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Nott, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Gray, Hamish

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Grieve, Percy

      Osborn, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Grylls, Michael

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Younger, Hon George

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Penhaligon, David

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hastings, Stephen

      Percival, Ian

      Mr. Adam Butler and

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Mr. Richard Luce.

      Hawkins, Paul

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Anderson, Donald

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Eadie, Alex

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Edge, Geoff

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Coleman, Donald

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Concannon, J. D.

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Bates, Alf

      Corbett, Robin

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bean, R. E.

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Cryer, Bob

      Flannery, Martin

      Boardman, H.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Booth, Albert

      Deakins, Eric

      Ford, Ben

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      George, Bruce

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Dempsey, James

      Ginsburg, David

      Buchan, Norman

      Doig, Peter

      Gould, Bryan

      Buchanan, Richard

      Dormand, J. D.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Graham, Ted

      Campbell, Ian

      Dunlop, John

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Dunnett, Jack

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Grocott, Bruce

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Harper, Joseph

      Marks, Kenneth

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Hatton, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Hayman. Mrs Helene

      Millan, Bruce

      Swain, Thomas

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Huckfield, Les

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Tinn, James

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Newens, Stanley

      Tomlinson, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Noble, Mike

      Tomney, Frank

      Hunter, Adam

      Oakes, Gordon

      Urwin, T. W.

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Ovenden, John

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Janner, Greville

      Owen, Dr David

      Ward, Michael

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Watkins, David

      John, Brynmor

      Park, George

      Watkinson, John

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Pendry, Tom

      Weitzman, David

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Prescott, John

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Whitlock, William

      Lamont), James

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Litterick, Tom

      Rooker, J. W.

      Woodall, Alec

      Loyden, Eddie

      Roper, John

      Woof, Robert

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Rose, Paul B.

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      McCartney, Hugh

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      McElhone, Frank

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. David Stoddart.

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Small, William

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 28

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 44 OF THE SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) ACT 1968
      'In subsection 44(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 the following paragraphs are inserted after subsection (1)(a)—
      "(b) to pay a penalty or damages whether with or without any other requirement by virtue of making an order that the penalty or damages be paid by the parent or guardian of the child instead of by the child, unless the children's hearing is satisfied that the parent or guardian cannot be found or that he has not contributed to the grounds under which the referral has been brought by neglecting to exercise due care of the child, or
      (c) to pay security for his good behaviour by virtue of making an order that the security be paid by the parent or guardian of the child, or
      (d) to carry out such unpaid community service as the hearing may consider appropriate to the treatment of the child given the grounds for referral and the age, mental condition and physique of the child."
      and the following subsection is inserted after subsection (2)—
      "(2A) In making an order under paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) hereof, the hearing shall give the parent or guardian time to pay such penalty, damages or security but should payment not be made within the stipulated period or any extension thereof which may subsequently be granted by the hearing, then the hearing shall be entitled to vary the supervision requirement provided that nothing in this
      1408
      subsection shall be construed as limiting the powers of variation contained in Section 47 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or any other section of that Act."'.—[Mr. Cordon Wilson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This clause is for Scotland one of the most important that we are discussing this evening, because it gives the House the first opportunity since the 1968 Social Work (Scotland) Act was passed to consider the powers of the panels and the children's hearings which were set up for dealing with children in difficulty and trouble where the emphasis was placed on the need for treatment.
      8.30 p.m.
      During the five years or so that have elapsed since the new system was introduced there has been, particularly recently, a rising volume of complaint as to whether resources are adequate to implement the concept under which this enlightened system was introduced. One of the complaints concerns the main method of dealing with children. Under Section 44 of the Social Services (Scotland) Act, after the grounds of referral have been accepted or proved, the course of action taken to deal with the child has been by way of a supervision requirement. That requirement covers almost

      1409
      nothing and everything. Under it there could be what used to be the old probation order whereby children were subject to supervision, so that in a sense they were on good behaviour.
      The alternative would be to adopt a requirement for residence in a specified establishment, usually a List D school, or a school which used to be an approved school. Under the first course a child is expected to be of good behaviour under the supervision of the social work department, with right of review by the hearing, with or without action being taken by the supervisory officer.
      The problem is that the good intentions of this system—and I am one of the many who are enthusiastic about it—have in a sense been undermined by the lack of resources available to social work departments and the children's hearings. Sometimes this lack of resources covers an inability to find a place in a List D school. The Government have been trying to find resources, but there has been difficulty about getting children into such a school immediately the hearing has decided on that course of action. That is the worst of all possible worlds, because if the treatment is desirable, the last thing the child should be told is to go away and come back, perhaps in six weeks' time, when he might get in. Sometimes, depending on the vacancies available, the child can go immediately to the establishment of the hearing's choosing.
      The fundamental concept in the 1968 Act was not any criminal sanction against the child, and I agree with that. It is premature to bring in criminal sanctions during formative childhood years. Criminal sanctions tend to scar a child's life. There has been frustration among members of panels about the absence of resources. Frustration is also caused by a shortage of experienced social workers or by social workers changing departments or areas.
      A lack of continuity may have robbed the system of the guidance envisaged when the legislation was first enacted. In many instances such guidance was given, and it would be wrong to say that the intentions of the Act have always been thwarted. Probably in the majority of cases the opposite is the case.
      1410
      In certain areas where there is a shortfall in social workers supervision has not been of the desired standard. The whole object of these provisions for dealing with children was to see that guidance could be given on the spot by the social worker and would override the bad influence of parents when they were not taking sufficient care of the child or were misleading the child in its development. Because of these two factors, the social work system and the children's hearings have in some ways come under attack by the public.
      I instance a child who has been repeatedly before a hearing. Perhaps because of parental background or trends of behaviour, that child became eligible for a List D school but was unable to get into that school. Two things might follow. The first is a hiatus—the time during which there is no execution of the decision of the hearing, which makes the hearing itself look ridiculous. It reduces the authority of the members of the panel who are discussing the question with the parents if they cannot deliver the goods, if they think that it is better for the child to be dealt with in that fashion.
      The second way in which the system has fallen down is if the panel, seeing that there will not be any prospect of finding a home or educational establishment suitable for the child and recommended by the social work department, perhaps even on occasion with the agreement of the parents, has to decide on some other alternative. That other alternative might very well be supervision without the adequate back-up which the whole system would require. In those two situations—and they have occurred and there is sufficient evidence to show that they have—this new scheme, which has been in operation for five years, although the enactment was seven years ago, could fall into disrepute and that might lead to its abolition.
      What I am suggesting in the new clause is that, accepting that it is unlikely in the current United Kingdom situation that there will be any major increase in social work allocation, or any major programme to provide either the List D schools or other residential establishments required—approved schools or List D schools are not the only things and one must look at other training schools or

      1411
      establishments which might be of advantage to the child, because it is the treatment of the child which is looked upon as the important thing—the panels are faced with choosing between supervision and detention. What else are they to do?
      The whole concept of a children's hearing was a discussion among the reporter and the members of the hearing and parents. It was intended to be, and probably is, one of the main strengths of the whole new arrangement. But if other children find that their peers are getting off lightly for what used to be called offences but are now, in the language of the Social Work Act, described as social indiscipline, or something of that sort, that is an encouragement for others to follow suit. What is suggested in the new clause is an intermediate method of providing ways by which the hearings can adopt alternative solutions which are not primarily dependent upon the provision of new accommodation, which may not be available because of lack of Government funds, ways to help to push up the authority of the panel members and give them more authority in trying to encourage parents to co-operate within the system.
      I should like to go over the proposals and explain them in relation to the problem I have outlined. The first thing I should like to make clear is that these proposals are not intended to reintroduce the criminal or quasi-criminal system which used to operate, either under Section 50 of the old Juvenile Courts Act or the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1957, or the sheriff juvenile courts, which in many other parts of the country took the place of the special JP courts. What it does is to introduce a supervision requirement, which is the basic formula produced in the Social Work (Scotland) Act. That is the provision that in given circumstances, if the hearing finds it useful and desirable and, above all, in the best interests of the child—that must be the crucial criterion—to make an order incorporated in the supervision requirement, a penalty or damages be paid either by the child or by the parent. The option is given, and the formula that is adopted has worked for many years.
      A penalty is not a fine and has no criminal sanction behind it. It will not
      1412
      necessarily scar the future development of the child. Such a penalty could bring home to a range of children who come from good family backgrounds the need for more care and individual responsibility. Although arrangements are made for the penalty to be paid by the parent or guardian, it could, by agreement between the parent or guardian and the panel, be deducted from the pocket money of the child appearing before the panel.
      In my earlier days, as a solicitor, I had some experience as a JP and procurator fiscal in an old Section 50 juvenile court. I have seen parents who really wanted to encourage their children to come back. There was no problem in requiring constant supervision or introduction into a List D school. It is helpful to the child for the money to be deducted from his pocket money, because it brings home to him the importance of individual responsibility for his acts.
      The second ground—damages—could relate to a child who had committed a minor form of vandalism. The provision means that by agreement there could be some form of restitution, which is one of the best ways of dealing with vandalism. It brings home to the child before the panel for the first time that there is individual responsibility for damaging public or private property. It makes the child realise that no one lives in limbo and that someone else in society is automatically affected by any action he takes.
      I attach a great deal of weight to the second provision, which is for paying security for good behaviour. When a supervision requirement is made the hearing may consider that in addition a little more encouragement should be given to the child and perhaps to the parent. The hearing may say that if a certain sum of money is paid—not necessarily in a lump sum but by instalments—that payment will be lodged for security of good behaviour of the child, in addition to the supervision order. That gives more chance for the parent to co-operate with the supervising officer in giving guidance to the child. That co-operation is essential. The power is an intermediate one that the hearings do not have at present.

      1413
      The third power contained in the clause is that there should be a requirement—again, built into the main order—that the child should:
      "carry out such unpaid community service as the hearing may consider appropriate to the treatment of the child given the grounds for referral and the age, mental condition and physique of the child."
      I am not suggesting a form of forced labour, merely that there is room for action by the child who has been before the hearing to help him gain an understanding of communal responsibility.
      I am thinking, for instance, of an order for the removal of graffiti which may have been put on walls, either by that child or by someone else—it does not necessarily have to be related directly to the grounds on which the child has been brought before the hearing. Perhaps it could be the picking up of litter, or clearing up the back lots of tenements, to encourage responsibility. Perhaps it could be dishwashing in an old people's home. It could be an additional useful power to have the child do gardening work at the homes of old folk. All these things would be of use to the whole community and they would bring in some form of community service.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. A. P. Costain: How does one enforce this community work? What sanctions are provided?
      Mr. Wilson: The main concept of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 is treatment of the child and co-operation with the parents and an attempt to talk matters out with them and gain their co-operation. It is only in those terms that corrective action can be taken. It can be taken in institutions, but all too often it proves a failure there, with supervision officers, for example able to give only a limited time to a case. The concept is set against the background of co-operation.
      In drafting my proposed subsection (2A), I had to make a decision about what sort of power there should be to implement the decision of the hearing. My first decision was in relation to some monetary penalty in that there should be a transfer of the arrangement to, say, the sheriff court, which has the machinery by which, in adult cases, fines can be col-
      1414
      lected. But I thought that that would go against the whole concept of the Act under which these hearings were introduced.
      Needless to say, it was a strong temptation to say that panels must have the opportunity to enforce the conditions, and my proposal is that this should be done if possible by way of agreement for a certain range of jobs and that if agreement were not reached, the hearing could make an order. If the parents did not comply with that order, it would be necessary, under the terms of the clause, to bring the case back before the hearing for alternative action.
      I am not suggesting that that is the strongest way of enforcement. If the system did not work out—and we have committed ourselves to a rolling review of the legislation—there is no reason why, if it was considered necessary, we should not build in more compulsory methods of enforcement. But, meanwhile, let us try this system of keeping the basic provisions of the Social Work Act while trying to give them more power and trying to work in co-operation with the children.
      In any event, certain of the powers proposed are those in which many parents worried about their children—those I am considering would not be the habitual attenders before children's panels but those there for the first time, having kicked over the traces—would be willing to participate. My main argument is that, after some five years of experience, certain gaps in the present system have emerged.
      The resources are not adequate at present. Above all, something has to be done, and it has to be done quickly. Committees are looking at this matter, but we cannot always wait for committees, knowing the burden of legislation with which the House is dealing. Therefore, I ask the House to adopt the clause. It would do a great deal to help to build up social responsibility in Scotland, and it would be of help to the children's hearings in carrying out the functions entrusted to them under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
      Mr. Robertson: It is rather strange that the incipient punitive tendencies of the SNP should emerge in a matter like this. The hon. Member might well have

      1415
      gone the whole hog and suggested the abolition of the children's panels. Whatever fancy words the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) may use, however he may dress up his proposed clause, what it means is the introduction of juvenile court measures, which have not worked.
      Had the hon. Member come from one of the fancy areas on the West side of Glasgow, I should not have been surprised, but I understand that he had a practice in Paisley, and he must have heard of Ferguslie Park. Some community work is done there with graffiti. Usually the cleaning up is of Ferguslie Park and not the graffiti.
      He cannot be serious in what he is suggesting. This is not the problem that the children's panels face. The resources have never been available for the Social Work (Scotland) Act to operate, and yet the hon. Member seems to be suggesting that we should scrap the Act. When we ask the obvious questions, the whole of the fairy tale breaks down and the argument becomes a nonsense.
      What he meant came out later. He said that if this did not work, consideration could be given to more compulsory measures being used to enforce the fine or punishment or whatever is determined by the panel. The one naturally leads to the other. I should not have objected too much if he had said quite clearly that he did not believe that the methods of remedial and corrective treatment used by the children's panels were right, and that we should punish the children or the parents. Had he said that, I should have thought much more of him, or at least known where he stood. He is simply trying, as I see it, to get the best of both worlds.
      The system is not working in Scotland. Certainly it is not working in Paisley. But, having said that, let us say why it is not working. There are no places in these schools. There is no other accommodation where children can be given corrective treatment. This is not to condemn the concept, but it is to say that we must have these facilities and resources. There are not enough social workers—and there are many reasons for that. In the Strathclyde area the pressures on the social work department are enormous, especially as a result of the reorganisation of local government, and we shall not
      1416
      succeed unless the Government are determined to see that the resources are made available. If that proves to be the case, we are talking now in a vacuum and there is no meaning behind our words.
      I operated in juvenile courts as a magistrate knowing that what I did would not have much effect on the basic problem. The basic problem has to be solved by social workers, and in that description I include a whole range of other people in the community. It will not be solved by punishment. It will not be solved by putting people in gaol. We need a new approach, and the basis of that new approach is to be found in the Social Work (Scotland) Act. Any derogation from that destroys the whole concept.
      Let us not despair. Let us put pressure on the Government for the resources that are required so that the policy may become meaningful.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is being a little harsh in his strictures. If, after all the protestation, the Government provide little or no additional money for the necessary background facilities, what does the hon. Gentleman suggest should be done?
      Mr. Robertson: We must continue to apply the pressure. I do not know of any other remedy. That is the only way in which we have been able to get anything done in the past. But that is the remedy. The remedy is not to revert to what was there previously because it did not work.
      To be fair, the hon. Member for Dundee, East has not suggested flogging, the whip or the hangman's rope, although it may be that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will. But even those did not work. They did not reduce the incidence of delinquency. They did not reduce vandalism.
      The Social Work (Scotland) Act was a serious attempt to come to grips with the problem. Unfortunately, the Act having been introduced by a Labour Government in 1968, we then had a Conservative Government who did not believe in it and who starved the service of the necessary resources. But I ask this Government to give it a chance as it was conceived and to give it the resources.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was extremely interested to hear the speech of

      1417
      the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson), and he echoes the opinion of all of us in wishing that resources could be made available. It was a request made constantly during the Second Reading debate, and the Minister made it clear that, if a Children Bill were to be passed, other resources and back-up facilities would have to be provided.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has moved what in my view is a valuable clause. His is not a heavy-handed approach. In some areas, and certainly in my own constituency, vandalism is a very serious problem. When the stage is reached where old ladies write to their Member of Parliament saying that they have had windows blown out by airguns and asking what is to be done, it becomes clear that some firm action must be taken.
      This proposal appears to provide a subtle and simple approach. It allows a children's panel powers which may restrain a child from violence. If a panel can impose an order requiring a parent or guardian to pay damages for a child's act of vandalism, the parent or guardian will put pressure on that child not to commit illegal acts. What is more, if a parent or guardian has to put up security for the child's good behaviour, that parent or guardian has a vested interest in seeing that the child does not break the law. This might well produce quick results.
      9.0 p.m.
      Thirdly, if the panel can order unpaid community service, persons engaged in vandalism may well make restitution for their acts of vandalism. In a skyscraper in my constituency which houses 250 families there is graffiti scrawled on the walls from top to bottom. Residents dislike the graffiti intensely. Those responsible for the graffiti might perform a useful service to the community if they were told that they were required to remove the graffiti instead of going to a detention centre.
      Rather than being too harsh on the hon. Member for Dundee, East, we should ask the Government to consider the clause favourably. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East on his ingenuity in introducing it, because a proposal such as this might well act as a deterrent and restrain youths from committing acts of vandalism.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Strangely, perhaps, on this occasion I do not share the strictures of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) which have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson). Nor do I share my hon. Friend's strictures about expenditure on social work. After allowing for inflation, expenditure on social work has grown at the rate of about 8 per cent. per annum. The Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974, who were responsible in large part for the implementation of the 1968 Act after the Labour Government left office in 1970, should not be decried for their efforts as regards social work.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East paid tribute to the original concept of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the establishment of children's hearings. The decision to abolish juvenile courts in Scotland was bold and imaginative. It was decided that in the case of juveniles the concept of crime and punishment was no longer to apply, that there was to be a recognition that what was necessary was not fines or probation as such but a tailoring of the treatment of the case to the needs of the individual within the family and home circumstances.
      It is understandable that some people are impatient because there is no positive proof that the new system is operating effectively. Such people want to be able to say that since 1971, when the system of children's hearings began, there has been a reduction in vandalism and that fewer people are now referred to children's hearings than were referred to the juvenile courts.
      The people who take that view do not realise, perhaps, that many children come before the children's hearings not because they have committed an offence or because they have been involved in antisocial behaviour but because they are in need of care and treatment which so far the community has been unable to provide.
      I wish that someone would come forward with an easy, clear answer to the problem of recidivism and to anti-social behaviour such as vandalism, but there is no easy answer. All of us are worried about vandalism and about the fact that it is an offence which seems to be committed many times over by one youth.

      1419
      However, paradoxically, there was much in what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley said, namely, that the only way to ensure that someone will not commit an offence is to hang him. But there are few people who would argue that that penalty should be exacted even for the offence of murder.
      In our society there is great compassion for children who live in difficult circumstances. Because of old slum conditions or arising from the new slums—multi-storey blocks, and so on—some children now find it difficult to come to terms with society. It is all too facile to say that the present system is all wrong and generally to rail against vandalism as though that can easily be cured.
      Complaints about the operation of the children's hearings system centre on the shortage of approved schools. It is unfortunate that Parliament looks to local authorities to provide the whole answer. The responsibility for the provision of List D school places under the 1968 legislation is placed on local authorities. In spite of the growth of local authority expenditure, I shall act like Oliver Twist in asking for more funds.
      Unfortunately, the local authorities have not responded by providing enough List D places. There is a shortage of such places. Behind the complaints about these schools there is a misconception in the mind of the public about the purpose of List D schools. A List D school is not a juvenile prison. Many people think that it is. We hear cries to the effect that we should take young persons out of society and lock them away for a period. People forget that the child must return to the community. We must seek a method by which children can be cared for and treated within the community. We must help them to overcome the handicaps of their background and the difficult circumstances in which they live.
      The children's hearings occurred in an experimental situation, in which there were no guidelines to steer them along the way. Nowhere in the world is a system operated in this way. In the beginning reliance was placed on List D schools. People tended to regard the children's backgrounds as being so bad that the only solution was to be
      1420
      found in List D schools. I have listened in a private capacity to one or two children's hearings. Knowing the circumstances, I said to myself "Thank goodness I do not have to make a judgment in this case". It is very difficult to make judgments in such cases. It is easy to blame the tribunals. Although they rely too much on List D schools, I do not condemn them for that.
      We must now look to intermediate treatment, in the sense of individual experimental schemes, to deal with the problem, without necessarily taking the children out of the community. Anyone interested in the problem should inspect Panmure House in Edinburgh. It is a kind of youth club. Important work is being carried out there to inspire confidence in the children. Many of these children, who are in trouble time and again, have no friends in society. Very often they have no friends in the home.
      It is said that parents should be responsible for restitution for acts of vandalism and that they should put up a bond or make a payment. I shall not use the word "fines". The problem is that the parents of 99 out of 100 children in trouble do not give a damn. That is part of the reason why the children land in trouble. Perhaps payment by the parents would work in a minority of cases, but the system would not work in the majority of cases. I am not convinced that the principle of monetary payments or restitution by parents has yet been proved. The problem is being examined now by at least one committee. I am prepared to await the studies now being made before going further.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman say to which studies he refers?
      Mr. Hughes: I refer to the working party set up under the auspices of the Scottish Office. The Minister will be able to give its title.
      I have some sympathy with paragraph (d) of the new clause. Perhaps we should look at the question of social responsibility and social restitution, although I doubt whether those matters in themselves will change the troubles we appear to be facing. However, it may be helpful if we encourage such an approach.

      1421
      My impression is that the clause may have some relevance in relation to Section 44 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 under which a child in need of compulsory measures of care may be required to submit to supervision in accordance with such conditions as a children's hearing may impose. Then subsection (8) provides that:
      "A supervision requirement shall be in such form as the Secretary of State may prescribe."
      Perhaps something could be done administratively to encourage that aspect.
      I hope that the clause will not be pressed to a Division. I believe that a period of four years is too short a time in which to come to conclusions about the success or failure of a process. Bold experiments are taking place in Scotland which may give a lead to many other parts of the United Kingdom, and indeed to Europe as a whole. It is a mistake to condemn the whole system because in certain cases there may have been failures. We need a longer period in which to examine the situation.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and Paisley (Mr. Robertson) appear to have worked on the simplest assumption—an assumption which I hope they will examine and reconsider—that penalties do not deter. Indeed, the hon. Member for Paisley referred to my views on capital punishment when dealing with the relevance or otherwise of deterrent penalties.
      I hope that both hon. Gentlemen will examine an Answer that was given to me only last week by the Secretary of State for Scotland relating to convictions for murder before and after abolition. They will discover that in Scotland in not a single year in the 20-year period between 1945 and 1965 did convictions for murder amount to double figures. But they will also find that in not a single year since 1965 has the total been fewer than 20. We must remember that the 20-year period after the Second World War was a time of social breakdown, and yet I repeat that in that period the murder figure did not rise above 10.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Is not one of the reasons for the figures given by the hon. Gentleman that before abolition such charges did not involve murder but culpable homicide? Has he compared the
      1422
      total number of criminal deaths year by year rather than simply those connected with charges of murder? Indeed, will he tell the House the last time that there was a hanging for murder in Scotland, irrespective of the state of the law? I can tell him the name of that case if he wishes to know it. Does not that affect the hon. Gentleman's views on murder?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The situation is becoming difficult for the Chair. We are discussing not murder but the Children Bill. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will keep to that subject.
      Mr. Taylor: I was trying to deal with the argument advanced by Labour Members that penalties do not deter. I was seeking to point out that there was ample evidence that they did deter. I was asking hon. Members to examine the Written Answer showing that the figures for culpable homicide moved in exactly the same way. I shall not dwell on that point. I ask the hon. Member for Paisley to examine the figures, to establish whether he is right in saying that there is no evidence that penalties deter. I believe that there is ample evidence.
      9.15 p.m.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has brought forward a moderate and sensible new clause that should command the support of all reasonable hon. Members. The hon. Member for Paisley astonished me when he said that the Social Work (Scotland) Act was not working. He said that we must wait until the resources were available. I was astonished by his compassion for youngsters in trouble, but I wonder whether he feels the same compassion for the victims suffering the consequences of vandalism. He has said that until resources are available, we shall not be able to do anything practical. However, there is no evidence that resources will be available. What is more important is that there is no evidence that even if resources were available the situation would improve.
      First, let me deal with resources. There is a shortage of List D school places. It is interesting to note that since the introduction of the Act the shortage has become more acute. We have no idea of what is the real shortage of List D places, because, apart from the fact that there is a waiting list, it must be borne in mind

      1423
      that many panels have decided not to send children to List D schools because of the long waiting list. That will be within the knowledge of the hon. Member for Paisley and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.
      Secondly, we must consider whether the provision of more cash would relieve the shortage of social workers. There is no evidence that the provision of cash would make good the deficiency in the number of social workers. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North was kind enough to refer to the good old days when the Conservatives were in power and when there was plenty of money. I can remember some happy and indeed some unhappy times when I was a Minister at the Scottish Office. I used to come here and constantly say to Labour Members that there was no shortage of cash for social work, that nothing was being held back because of a shortage of money. I know that there are conflicting views within the Conservative Party about whether we created the money in the right way, but there certainly was plenty of it. It was even suggested that perhaps the money was just printed. At any rate, I know that there was plenty of it at that time.
      The jam in the provision of social workers appears to be the difficulty in finding field worker placements. A doctor has to do his practical work in a hospital. A social worker has to undertake a field work placement before becoming qualified. Because of the shortage of field workers, it is not possible to find sufficient field work placements. Even if hon. Gentlemen were successful in persuading their miserable Government colleagues to adopt the financial principles that the Conservatives adopted to ensure that there was plenty of cash, it would not solve the problem. It will be a long time before any progress can be made in this direction.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked what we should do in the interim if money was tight or if the availability of cash would not resolve the shortage of social workers. We cannot allow the upsurge of vandalism to continue because even if the hon. Member for Paisley will not accept it, I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McMillan) will accept that there are
      1424
      many people in his constituency, and mine, who are living a life of hell because of vandalism by youngsters and because of other anti-social behaviour by young people. First, we have a duty to deter youngsters from getting involved in antisocial acts. This is where the deterrent comes in. It is important to have a deterrent to warn young people against becoming involved in this kind of unhealthy anti-social activity.
      Secondly, we need to reassure our police forces. Anyone who has had discussions with police officers in our cities, if not in other areas of Scotland, will accept that many of them are fed up to the teeth with the attitude of youngsters when apprehended if those youngsters are at the age which involves their going before a panel. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your constituency, and other hon. Members in their constituencies will know that the police are fed up to the teeth because they believe that it is a waste of time to apprehend youngsters who are guilty of offences of vandalism if they are of the age that means going before a panel. The panel does not strike fear into the hearts of youngsters who engage in anti-social activities. We need something that will strike a measure of fear into the hearts of those contemplating anti-social behaviour.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one deterrent would be a policeman on every street corner, or possibly a policeman on the beat? The hon. Gentleman said that the police were fed up. Will he give us a few examples? The hon. Gentleman once had a very close interest in acting for the police. Is he talking about police in motor cars or on the beat?
      Mr. Taylor: I am talking about police in general. The hon. Lady is quite right. I had the pleasure of very close contact with the police when I was adviser to the Scottish Police Federation before the Conservatives got into power and things had to change. I keep in close touch with the police, as does the hon. Lady. It probably would be helpful to have a policeman on every street corner, but there is no point if youngsters who throw bricks through windows respond to police inquiries by saying "You can only send me to a panel". The hon. Lady will be

      1425
      aware that that is the attitude of many young people. I accept that it would be helpful to have more policemen on the beat, but, with the shortage of manpower, that is not possible. However, the police can and do perform a useful service.
      Something must be done. I do not think that new Clause 28 provides the kind of answer I would prefer. The hon. Member for Dundee, East will be aware that I would go a lot further and that it would be successful. However, I accept that this would be a useful interim measure. It has the merit of probably commanding the support of a large number of hon. Members and people outside. Basically, the proposal is that a youngster coming before a panel would be given the option of doing some community service or of being sent to a List D school. That would be a useful step forward. It is a suggestion that should be tried.
      One thing stands out a mile: it would be wrong and shameful to allow the present situation to continue for another five years. The indications are that the problem is getting worse. The public are losing confidence in the panels in their present form. Some action must be taken. This proposal is a useful step forward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East and, if he takes his proposal to a Division, I shall certainly give it my support.
      Mr. Dempsey: The problem that we are discussing is not new. If anything is wrong, it is the same phenomenon as has been wrong in the past—namely, that Acts of Parliament are passed without the necessary financial support to back them up. That is what is wrong now.
      We have all had experience of dealing with young offenders, and several courses of action can be taken to deal with them. First, they can be allocated to List D schools. Secondly, they can be allocated to assessment centres. Thirdly, they can be sent home to be supervised by social workers.
      Frankly, none of these three categories of action is possible. There is no room at List D schools for the next six months; there is no room at the assessment centre in Lanarkshire; and the social work director advises us that he has not sufficient
      1426
      social workers to supervise young offenders at home. Therefore, we are left with the old standby of sending young offenders to the police for a warning. Of course, some of these youngsters go to the police so often that they put their fingers to their noses at the uniform and do what they like.
      This is the stage that we have reached, and I should like to draw attention to one aspect of the whole problem. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that List D schools are not the answer. I say that because I have come across boys who have been expelled from List D schools, and they run around the streets carrying out acts of violence. I have taken this matter up and asked whether, after a panel, acting under the law has allocated a person to a List D school for treatment, the head of that school has authority to expel the individual who has been sent there for treatment, and I have been advised by the Secretary of State that the head of the establishment is within his rights to take that action. I know one offender who has been expelled from two List D schools. There is no use sending him to an institution of that type. He is already roaming the streets committing one foul act after another.
      One of these individuals smashed up three houses in one day. I should like to hear my hon. Friend's views if he arrived home and found his wife in tears, his house broken into and smashed twice in one week. I am sure that he would be demanding stern action against the culprits who committed such an outrage against decent well-behaved members of the community.
      What type of offences have we in mind when we talk about the new clause? I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). He put forward a good case for his new clause, but the one fact that he overlooked is that many of the depredations are committed by young people under 10 years of age. One cannot give them useful community work to do at that age, and the problem is what to do with them.
      A new primary school was virtually burned to the ground, resulting in a loss of £100,000, by three youths, the youngest of whom was nine. It is difficult to find an effective way of dealing with

      1427
      these individuals at that early age. Only recently a serious tragedy occurred when a young boy was carrying some glue. Another youth went by and set light to the glue, which spread over the hands of the boy who was carrying it and caused him considerable damage. What does one do to a person who commits a series of offences such as that? There is no List D accommodation. There is no assessment centre accommodation. There are no social workers to help. Is he to be sent back home? Is that the attitude that we are to adopt? What is wrong with our society today? The answer is that it is sick, and one reason for this is the lack of discipline. It is as well to face this problem, because we cannot allow the present situation to continue indefinitely.
      I remember being called from an engagement one night to attend a panel hearing which had been suspended so that I could get there. We had before us a boy who had stolen 27 cars and at the age of 14 had been driving along the main thoroughfares of some of our towns. His relatives appealed to the panel "For God's sake take him away and put him in a place of safety somewhere". There was "no room at the inn", and that boy was sent back to the very relatives who were pleading for the panel to take him away.
      9.30 p.m.
      We cannot stand by in such a situation. That is only one of the many cases with which I could weary the House. We tried to have that boy placed in the only security institution in Scotland, at Montrose, but were told there was a six-month waiting list. Why should we introduce any legislation if we do not back it up financially?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North told me when he was a Minister about the intermediate experiments. We have been conducting them in Coatbridge and Airdrie for a long time, but they are not the answer to the problem. We still have to send these children home. When they are convicted of serious offences, we take them to the local hills and show them Wallace's monument, or take them canoeing on Loch Lomond. They have committed outrages like cutting old people's telephone wires or putting smoke bombs
      1428
      through their letter boxes and setting their houses on fire.
      This is no joke. It is a serious problem and we must decide how, when and where to introduce a deterrent. Altering the present law will mean legislation and take some time, but we could do much more. Could the new clause give any additional help or introduce new deterrents? Could it deal with these individuals more effectively? I am talking about people who habitually destroy property and attack others. It is dreadful to hear of an old person having been clubbed to the ground by hoodlums too young for the present law to deal with. It is a tragedy to let this state of affairs continue.
      If we are to use the present Act, let us make it effective. I do not see how the new clause can operate without financial support. The present Act might work—although I have my doubts—with financial support. When one has to tell relatives who are pleading for a boy to be taken away that he must go home, when he then goes in the front door and out the back and commits another crime, there is something lacking in our society.
      The authorities are doing all they can. In Coatbridge, we provide area policemen—that is, beat policemen—in the difficult areas. I wish they had police dogs with them as well. One sees at football matches what a deterrent to hoodlums a trained police dog is. It is tragic when business people virtually in tears report £1,000 worth of damage to their plate glass windows, yet when the police catch the culprits by excellent detection and take them to the children's hearing, nothing can be done with them. This is a serious problem which we ought to consider when examining this clause and the existing law.
      I hope that we have said enough to make the Minister roll up his sleeves, go to the Chancellor and say, "Finance must be made available." We know that there is an inflation problem and that we are all out to save the pound. We also know that at the same time we are duty bound to make sure that the law should be given the opportunity to work. It never has been given the opportunity because it has not had the financial backing. I hope that as a result of this debate the finance will be forthcoming.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has raised a wide point of principle with his new clause. It goes very much wider than matters dealing with children and concerns reparation of a type almost appropriate to a Criminal Justice Bill. The Government have rather laid themselves open to this type of proposal. The clause contains an important principle, which applies just as much to children as to other classes of offenders. It is important because it may help to bring about a greater degree of parental responsibility. The lack of such responsibility, at school and when children grow older, is one of the problems in our society. This reparation type of proposal helps to some extent because as a form of punishment—and we kid ourselves if we think that punishment is not important in this context—it could lead to a greater degree of understanding on the part of the child of the seriousness of the offence committed than do other types of punishment we sometimes think of.
      I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). There is a need for some form of intermediate treatment between the pat on the head and sending a child to a List D school. The type of project he mentioned, Panmure House in Edinburgh, is a good example. It may be a mistake to put List D schools under local authorities for finance purposes. Such schools have a difficult job. I have one in my constituency, Rossie School, which does a first-class job in very trying circumstances. I take this opportunity of commending the amount of good work which the staff does in difficult conditions.
      There is a place for some form of intermediate treatment. I support the idea in principle. I was a leader of a youth club for over 10 years and in that capacity worked closely with the police. I know the kind of work that can be done when the police bring someone along who is in trouble. There is a problem of supervision. I am worried about legislating for this type of treatment in advance of making sure that there is proper supervision.
      However, I fully support the principle of the proposal and I await with interest what the Minister will say. While the idea may be more appropriate to a
      1430
      Criminal Justice Bill, the Criminal Justice Act for England and Wales gave powers to the courts for reparation on an experimental basis, and I think that the experiment has worked out fairly well
      If the Minister will not accept the spirit of the amendment, or say that it is a principle he is prepared to apply in Scotland, my hon. Friends and I would feel inclined to support the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
      Mr. McElhone: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and his hon. Friends for giving us the opportunity of an interesting and well-informed debate. If accepted, the clause would give the children's hearings three new powers. These would be the power to require restitution from parents or guardians; power to require parents to pay security for good behaviour, or caution, as it is known in Scots law; and power to require community service. Subsection (2A) requires the hearing to give the parent or guardian time to pay, but, if payment is not made, makes it clear that the hearing can vary the supervision requirement.
      There are three parts to the clause—three new powers suggested for the hearings. They are not new thoughts, and they had had their obvious attractions in the past. But for one general and several particular reasons the clause cannot be accepted.
      The main point is that these new powers are too important and their presentation is too final in form for them to be accepted, snap, at this last-gasp stage in the Bill. The disposals by children's hearings have not been under detailed consideration in the course of the Bill and they cannot be given proper consideration in the time left. The Secretary of State has already indicated that he proposes to consult about possible changes in the powers and procedures of children's hearings and of the courts in relation to procedures against children. A consultative memorandum may be issued very shortly. Any points that the memorandum does not endorse could readily be raised by others in the context of the consultative process and be given proper consideration there.
      On the specific proposals, the Secretary of State's current view, as contained in a reply to a Parliamentary Question

      1431
      in July 1974, is that he would not seek to give children's hearings the power of restitution. Nor did the Kilbrandon Committee favour compulsory restitution, which it thought would not be likely to benefit the child or encourage the cooperation of the parents.
      The clause seeks to empower the hearings to require restitution from parents or guardians. The general question of reparation by the offender to the victim in Scotland is under consideration by the Dunpark Committee. The committee, although primarily concerned with issues in the criminal courts, has received evidence from children's panels and others. It would be inappropriate to legislate in what is a difficult field without looking carefully at the considered views of the committee. The committee is expected to report in the course of 1976.
      To a great extent the community service proposal in paragraph (d) links with what has just been said. Reparation can be not only financial payment of damages but practical restitution. Direct practical restitution is often a very effective disposal and is quite often, we understand, achieved under the present system, sometimes by tacit or explicit agreement of all the parties, sometimes by the attachment of conditions to a supervision requirement. Conditions could also be used for community service; but the situation is rather different from that of a short adult sentence of community service as a non-custodial disposal. If the social worker is to work with the child, he must have the possibility of working out an appropriate treatment programme after consideration. Questions of this kind and of who would organise and supervise the community service are the kind of things best considered once the Dunpark Committee has reported.
      9.45 p.m.
      Before concluding I should touch on the point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East regarding security for good behaviour. Security for good behaviour is a rather different point. It is certainly a point that we would expect to be raised
      in the consultations we shall be having on possible changes in powers and procedures of the hearings; and that, in our view, is the right place to consider what would in theory at least be a substantial new power for the hearings involving financial powers and expanding their powers for the first time to include parents as well as children.
      But whatever the outcome of the considerations we must not expect miracles from this kind of power. The courts have this power of caution and in relation to those children who came before the courts in 1973 it was used in only three cases out of 3,000.
      In conclusion, this amendment is very relevant, but action should await the Dunpark Committee and detailed consideration of possible changes in the powers and procedures of children's hearings, about which we shall be consulting soon.
      Therefore, I must resist the new clause.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I shall endeavour to be brief. What we have heard from the debate, which I shall not rehearse, is that there is worry and doubt about what is happening in relation to dealing with children's offences. There is a crisis. It has been admitted by many people who may not necessarily support the proposals that I have brought forward. The answer is resources, but when will they come? We may wait until Kingdom Come for them. Certainly there is no real prospect of resources being made available to deal with this problem in the foreseeable future. If cash restrictions are imposed upon local authorities—there are suggestions that they may be imposed—social work might be one of the first casualties.
      With those views I ask the House to accept the new clause, because something must be done now. What we need is action now, rather than prevarication.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 160.

      Division No. 370.]

      AYES

      [9.50 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Banks, Robert

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Beith, A. J.

      Boyson, Or Rhodes (Brent)

      Arnold, Tom

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Atkins. Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Brittan, Leon

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Bottomley, Peter

      Brotherton, Michael

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Budgen, Nick

      James, David

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Jopling, Michael

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Kilfedder, James

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Cockcroft, John

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Sims, Roger

      Costain, A. P.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Crawford, Douglas

      Knox, David

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Luce, Richard

      Sproat, Iain

      Dunlop, John

      MacCormick, Iain

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Durant, Tony

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Madel, David

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Mather, Carol

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Mawby, Ray

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Mills, Peter

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Thomas, Rt. Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Gorst, John

      Moate, Roger

      Thompson, George

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Trotter, Neville

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Gray, Hamish

      Morgan, Geraint

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Grieve, Percy

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Wakeham, John

      Grylls, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Neubert, Michael

      Watt, Hamish

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Newton, Tony

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nott, John

      Welsh, Andrew

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Osborn, John

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Hawkins, Paul

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Penhaligon, David

      Younger, Hon George

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Percival, Ian

      Hordern, Peter

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Howells. Geraint (Cardigan)

      Reid, George

      Mrs. Winifred Ewing and

      Hunt, John

      Renton. Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Mr. Douglas Henderson.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Anderson, Donald

      Dempsey, James

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Doig, Peter

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hunter, Adam

      Atkinson, Norman

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dunnett, Jack

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Janner, Greville

      Bates, Alf

      Eadie, Alex

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Bean, R. E.

      Edge, Geoff

      John, Brynmor

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Boardman, H.

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Booth, Albert

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Flannery, Martin

      Lamond, James

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Buchan, Norman

      Ford, Ben

      Litterick, Tom

      Buchanan, Richard

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      George, Bruce

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Campbell, Ian

      Gilbert, Dr John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ginsburg, David

      McElhone, Frank

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Gould, Bryan

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Gourlay, Harry

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Cohen, Stanley

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

      Grocott, Bruce

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Harper, Joseph

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Corbett, Robin

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hatton, Frank

      Millan, Bruce

      Cryer, Bob

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Deakins, Eric

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Huckfield, Les

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Newens, Stanley

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Noble, Mike

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Ward, Michael

      Oakes, Gordon

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Watkins, David

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Sillars, James

      Watkinson, John

      Ovenden, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Weitzman, David

      Owen, Dr David

      Small, William

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Park, George

      Spearing, Nigel

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Pendry, Tom

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Whitlock, William

      Prescott, John

      Stallard, A. W.

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Woodall, Alec

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Swain, Thomas

      Woof, Robert

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Tierney, Sydney

      Roper, John

      Tinn, James

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Rose, Paul B.

      Tomlinson, John

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Mr. David Stoddart.

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 29

      DUTY TO PROMOTE WELFARE OF CHILD
      'Before making an adoption order or refusing to make an adoption order otherwise than on grounds of incompetency or on grounds falling within section 12, the Court shall be satisfied that to make or refuse the order as the case may be will safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout his childhood and the Court shall, so far as practicable ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child regarding the making or refusing of the order and give due consideration to them having regard to his age and understanding'.—[Mr. Gordon Wilson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we shall take the following amendments:
      No. 237, in page 2, line 38, leave out Clause 3.
      No. 260, in Clause 3, page 2, line 38, at beginning insert:
      'Subject to subsection 2 of this section'.
      No. 261, in page 2, line 40, after 'first', insert 'and paramount'.
      No. 262, in page 3, line 3, at end insert:
      '(2) In reaching any decision relating to—

      (a) dispensing with the consent of a parent or guardian of a child in accordance with section 12(2) or section 14(3), or

      (b) the application of a former parent under section 16,

      the court shall have regard to all the circumstances, first consideration being given to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout his childhood; and shall so far as practicable ascertain the wishes and
      1436
      feelings of the child regarding the decision and give due consideration to them having regard to his age and understanding'.
      Mr. Wilson: I shall be brief because this matter was rehearsed at considerable length in Committee, where there was discussion about the meaning of the phrase "first consideration" and also on an amendment relating to the word "paramount".
      All these are concerned with the interests of the child—
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That the Children Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Miss Margaret Jackson.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
      Mr. Wilson: I have been advised by a professor of law that on the existing wording there could be a chance of its being misconstrued by the courts. There was a discussion earlier this evening about the effect of a decision taken by the court of session on a stated case relating to the right of reporters to appear in the sheriff courts. There is, according to the advice and guidance that I have been given, a danger that this could very well happen in the present instance. I have made it clear that this question has been gone into, and I have produced a form of words which I hope will help to clear up some of the weaknesses and poverty of draftsmanship in the present version.

      1437
      I ask the Minister to consider the amendment and to see whether it might not be an improvement on the present text.
      Mr. Hooson: It was on an amendment moved by me, together with an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), that the debate on this subject took place in Committee. To my mind, as I stated in Committee, Clause 3 is the heart and kernel of the Bill. Whereas the economic constraints prevent the ideal solutions from being implemented, many of the clauses in this Bill are based on hope rather than on expectation in many respects. The one thing this House can do is to lay down guiding principles for the courts, without interpreting such questions as those relating to the adoption of children.
      In this country for centuries the blood tie was all-important. Until about 20 or 30 years ago it was regarded as so important that it overrode every other single consideration with regard to children, welfare, inheritance or anything else. We have moved a considerable way—so far, in fact, that the Houghton Committee recommended that the first consideration in adoption be given to the welfare of the child.
      When the Government first introduced the Bill they dropped that form of wording, and it was replaced in the Lords as a result of an amendment moved by my noble Friend Lord Wigoder. As I said in Committee, I ran the risk of upsetting the apple cart and having the original wording introduced in place of the more liberal wording introduced in the House of Lords.
      Nevertheless, I feel that it is very important that we in the House of Commons should insist that in this Bill we have the words that the "first and paramount" consideration in adoption is the welfare of the child. I say "first and paramount" because these words occur in the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971. Therefore, this phrase "first and paramount" has been interpreted by the courts and everybody knows what it means. It does not mean that the child's welfare is the overriding consideration or
      1438
      that it is numerically the first consideration either. It means that the scales are weighted in favour of the welfare of the child.
      I speak as an adoptive parent. I have two adopted children and I know the anguish of going through the process of adoption from the adoptive parents' point of view.
      There is, of course, the great problem of the natural mother surrendering the child. However, anyone who has studied this subject will agree that what matters in the long run is the long-term interests of the child.
      In my view, the right wording to ensure that the courts follow this principle is that which spells out that the first and paramount consideration should be given to the welfare of the child, save in two specific instances which I set out in the amendment—where one is dispensing with consent, which is very important, and where there is revocation of consent within a given period by a natural parent who may have agreed initially. In those two instances the word "first" is sufficient to safeguard the welfare of the child.
      We went into this matter at length in Committee, and for that reason I shall not detain the House now. But if this amendment is rejected, the House will fail to take this opportunity to put what we feel beyond peradventure—that it is the interests of the child which should be first and paramount. I say that because every lawyer to whom I have spoken, including members of the judiciary, has felt that there is ambiguity about the term "first consideration". It can be interpreted as meaning that it is the paramount consideration. It can be interpreted as meaning that it is the first to be considered numerically in deciding any issue arising in the adoptive process.
      The mistake in the Bill is to take one touchstone for all circumstances. It is that the term "first consideration" covers all considerations arising under an adoption, whereas I believe that "first and paramount" should apply in all except the two considerations included in my amendment.
      Dr. Owen: As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said, this clause has been argued about more than any other part of the Bill. I do not claim that it will satisfy everyone. However, I believe that in its present form it reaches about as great a consensus as possible, and that was the conclusion in Committee where we discussed the matter in detail.
      I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman's views. He has been consistent and he has argued the same case all the way through. But, in view of what he said about the opinion of judges, it is worth recording that among the judiciary, after considerable discussion and some changes of view, the Lord Chancellor, the present President of the Family Division, Sir George Baker, and a past President, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, believe that this wording represents the best way round a very difficult problem.
      I recommend strongly that we do not change the wording. It has received broad acceptance from people who will practise it as well as from the members of the legal profession who will have to deal with it. That is my judgment, and that was the judgment of the Committee. I recommend strongly that we stick to it.
      On the specific matter raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), Clause 3 refers to any decision relating to the adoption of a child. I think that he has in mind that certain decisions of the court could fall to be taken on matters of pure law—for example, whether the court has jurisdiction, the domicile of the parent, and so on. Such decisions may leave the court with no discretion to weigh the merits in terms of the child's welfare, and the hon. Gentleman's clause emphasises this point by referring to the making of an order.
      I have consulted people about this, and there are precedents. In Scotland, Section 1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925 has wording which is broadly similar. It mentions reaching any decision regarding the custody, education and upbringing of the child, and so on. The courts have applied similar provisions sensibly in the past. I have no reason to believe that
      1440
      they will not use the same sensible way of interpreting these words.
      This is a provision affecting the whole of Great Britain, and I have looked at it from both sides with the assistance of Scottish legal advice and of English legal advice. I am satisfied that the point raised by the professor of law in Scotland, with which I was familiar, will not arise and that the courts are not unfamiliar with a situation such as this.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East for drawing attention to the matter. It is on the face of it an important point, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's fears are as justified as may have at first appeared. I hope that he will agree to withdraw the motion and I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery even granted the strength of his views, will accept that the House would be well advised to stick to the present wording.
      Dr. Vaughan: It is no secret that many of us are very unhappy about the use of the words "first consideration". I have had a great deal of experience professionally in the divorce courts with discussions about custody. I know that "paramount" has a well-known connotation and has been regarded as a useful word.
      We have become obsessed with finding one or two words to describe what is wanted—"paramount" or "first consideration". I agree with the Minister that "paramount" probably would have been a mistake. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said, the phrase "first consideration" is open to confusion in that it could mean "first priority" or it could mean "first in time".
      Clause 89 contains a list of definitions. It is a weakness of the Bill and a criticism of the Government that Clause 89 contains no definition of "first consideration". The inclusion of a defintion would have strengthened the Bill greatly and would have taken us off this hook. This is bound to cause us trouble. By "first consideration" do the Government mean "greatest weight" with a list of other factors to be taken into account?
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I do not accept the Minister of State's arguments. On the merits of the case, my proposed wording would impose a duty upon the court to be satisfied that in making or refusing an order the effect will be to
      "safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout his childhood".
      1442
      That would have been a more convenient form of words.
      I hope that the Minister is right. I do not propose to divide the House at this late hour, particularly as the matter has been ventilated at length. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      ESTABLISHMENT OF ADOPTION SERVICES
      Mr. Hooson: I beg to move Amendment No. 245, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'within their area'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that amendment we are to take Amendment No. 246, in page 1, line 9, after 'needs' insert 'within their area'.
      Mr. Hooson: These are small drafting amendments which are nevertheless important within a narrow sphere. Clause 1 reads:
      "It is the duty of every local authority to establish and maintain within their area a service designed to meet the needs in relation to adoption…".
      The amendments propose to move the words "within their area" so that they qualify not the words "establish and maintain" but the word "needs".
      As the wording stands, it is the duty of an authority to meet the needs within its area. On a strict interpretation of the present wording, an authority must establish and maintain a service within its area—that is, the service must be provided within the area.
      There are certain areas—mine is one—which are sparsely populated and where it would be more economical if the authority were able to share the service with adjoining authorities. The present wording would preclude an authority from sharing a service with adjoining counties.
      Great complaints are made about the enormous enlargement of local government services and the building up of small empires where they are not necessary. The present wording of the clause invites that process.
      This is a small amendment. It would cost the Government nothing to adopt it. It makes it clear that the service to be established and maintained need not necessarily be located in the local authority's own area.
      10.15 p.m.
      Dr. Owen: There is no difference of intention between the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government. I made it clear on a number of occasions that
      1444
      it is possible for local authorities to provide services for adoption by, for instance, collaborating with voluntary adoption agencies, although going outside their boundaries. However, there must be a responsibility on them to co-ordinate the facilities of the full service. I believe that they should have the responsibility to ensure that people in their area benefit from this service. The restriction which the hon. and learned Gentleman feels is placed on local authorities does not exist. Local authorities are able to go wider than their own areas. That is important, but I do not want there to be any misapprehension. No local authority can get out of its responsibility to provide an adoption service.
      The existing wording carries out the hon. and learned Gentleman's intention. I do not think that there is any need to make the amendment which he suggests. His wording might act in a slightly more restrictive way on the local authority. I advise the House not to carry this amendment.
      Mr. Hooson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move Amendment No. 230, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—
      '(5) The service maintained by each local authority under subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to approval by the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State shall not give his approval unless he is satisfied that that service is of equal standard to those provided by adoption societies approved under section 4 below.
      (6) When determining whether or not to approve a local authority adoption service the Secretary of State shall have regard to the same criteria as are set out in section 4(3) below'.
      We support an adoption service covering the whole country and partnership between local authorities and voluntary organisations. The amendment seeks to ensure that the service should be of an equal standard and subject to an equal check.
      The Secretary of State is responsible for approving voluntary adoption societies and for seeing that they are efficient and have adequate staff. We propose that he should oversee all adoption agencies and that the same standards should apply to the service throughout the nation.

      1445
      We do not seek to criticise local authorities or their staff. We seek to ensure that there is no double standard in the Bill. I should like to give one example. In Committee the Minister spoke of the danger of the Department speaking with two voices, of imposing a tough, inspectorial standard and at the same time not giving the resources to the local authorities to enable those standards to be met. However, the same general consideration applies to the voluntary societies. The Government face a crisis of resources. So do the voluntary agencies. Voluntary organisations now face one of the most acute crises in their history. It is nevertheless still proposed by the Government that inspection should continue and that standards should be enforced. Therefore I urge the Government urgently to examine this question and to see whether it would not be better for the Department to oversee operations throughout the nation and to apply the same basis to voluntary societies and local authorities. The suggestion is put forward in a constructive spirit and with the aim of ensuring that similar standards are applied to local authorities and the voluntary agencies.
      Dr. Owen: This matter was discussed in Committee. There is no difference between the two sides about high standards required of local authorities as of voluntary organisations. The issue in this respect arises periodically in many other areas of local government activity. All local authority functions are carried out under the general guidance of the Secretary of State but local authorities, in the light of competing priorities, must judge how best to use resources. They are directly accountable to the public for the service they provide. That is the difference between local authorities and voluntary organisations. We expect the same high standards in local authorities as we do from voluntary organisations. I do not think there should be any double standards.
      We already have social work service offices located in the regions and they keep the Department and the Secretary of State informed of progress. I believe that the overseeing rôle which the hon. Gentleman seeks already exists. Indeed, the service that already exists is a proven and effective method of raising standards in local authorities. In most cases we
      1446
      shall have to ensure that the same high standards apply. Because I believe the social services already undertake an overseeing rôle, I ask the House to resist the amendment.
      Mr. Fowler: We wish to make progress. We shall see how the system works. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 7

      INACTIVE OR DEFUNCT ADOPTION SOCIETIES
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 149, in page 5, line 17, after 'society', insert
      'or by the society jointly with the authority'.
      The effect of this amendment is to enable a local authority directed by the Secretary of State under Clause 7 to take over activities of an inactive or defunct adoption society, or a society from which approval has been withdrawn, to apply to a court for an order transferring parental rights and duties which had been vested in the society following a Clause 14 order.
      The amendment should put beyond dispute a local authority's power to make such an application on its own. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 20, at end insert—
      '(2) Before giving a direction under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall, if practicable, consult both the society and the authority'.
      The amendment provides that under Clause 7 the Secretary of State, before directing a local authority to take over the responsibilities of an inactive or defunct adoption society, shall, if practicable, consult the society and the authority. The words "if practicable" allow for emergency situations where, for example, there might be difficulty in getting a response from a society and the welfare of the children in the society's care was at risk. This fulfils an undertaking given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) on 8th July.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8

      ADOPTION ORDERS
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
      The amendment deletes the provision that would have prevented any duty to pay maintenance arising from an agreement made by a person at a time when he was not liable to maintain a child from being extinguished when the child is adopted.
      The Committee was concerned that the Bill, as drafted, did not provide for such a duty to be extinguished, and thought it unfair to insist that a maintenance agreement made voluntarily by a relative or friend should continue when the child was adopted. I agreed to examine the matter, and I hope that the House feels that I have met the point.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 182, in page 6, line 6, at end insert:
      '(5A) An adoption order shall not be made in Scotland in relation to a child who is a minor unless with the consent of the minor; except that where the court is satisfied that the minor is incapable of giving his consent to the making of the order, it may dispense with that consent.'.
      The purpose of this amendment is to secure the retention in the law on adopttion, as it is to apply in Scotland under the Children Bill, of provisions at present contained in Section 4 of the Adoption Act 1958 regarding the right of children who are minors under Scots law to give or refuse consent to their being adopted. These provisions were omitted from the Bill as originally drafted for reasons I shall explain.
      The amendments also reintroduce the provisions at present contained in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1966 relating to the position of a minor who is incapable of giving consent. It is necessary to retain the existing powers of the court to dispense with a minor's consent where the infant who is the subject of an adoption application is incapable of giving consent.
      Section 4(1) of the 1958 Act provides that an adoption order shall not be made
      1448
      in Scotland in respect of an infant who is a minor except with the consent of the infant. Scots law differentiates, in a way which the law in England does not, between the status of "pupil"—that is, girls under 12 years of age and boys under 14—and "minor", namely, girls of 12 years or over, boys of 14 or over, up to 18. The provisions regarding the consent of minors to their adoption have existed since 1930, when the first legislation concerning adoption in Scotland was enacted.
      In associating Scotland with the provisions in Part I of the Bill relating to adoption, it has clearly been necessary to do everything possible to highlight the duty of the court in Scottish adoption proceedings, no less than proceedings elsewhere, to promote the welfare of the child in regard to any decisions relating to his adoption. Thus the provisions of Clause 3 in relation to the court's welfare duty extend fully to Scotland and the court will be required to
      "ascertain the wishes and feelings"
      of the child having regard to his age and understanding, and to
      "give due consideration to them".
      It has been the wish of Scottish Ministers to avoid, if possible, detracting from these most important provisions, by requiring the court to follow different steps in dealing with a proposal to adopt an older child. A particular concern has been the need to avoid overlaying the procedure for assessing the child's wishes, which may change, with a formal system of consents. Another worry has been the fact that psychological and chronological ages will not always coincide, so that a dividing line based on 12th and 14th birthdays may turn out to be arbitrary in practice.
      It has become apparent, however, that the initial decision not to continue the right of minor children to refuse consent to their adoption under the Bill has been seen as involving a loss of an existing right on the part of minor children in Scotland. This may be more a question of principle than of practice, since it is hard to envisage a court insisting on an older child's adoption against his or her wishes, bearing in mind the duty imposed by Clause 3 of the Bill. Nevertheless the Secretary of State has decided to restore the provisions to the Bill on receiving

      1449
      assurances from the Scottish Law Commission that the matter will receive further consideration in connection with its current study of the legal capacity of pupils and minors.
      In conclusion I should like to express my thanks to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) for raising the matter with me. I assure him that I am most reluctant at any time to see rights removed where continuance is in keeping with the progress of the law more generally. I think that we have reached a sensible conclusion in this matter. I hope that the Law Commission's studies will point to a satisfactory solution in due course.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is I who should be thanking the Minister for recognising this right under Scottish law. I assure the Minister that his decision in this matter will be greatly welcomed by many persons north of the border.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am a Scottish lawyer and I should like to congratulate the Minister on safeguarding this particular tenet of Scottish law. Although in terms of the differential of age it does not seem to meet the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Bill, both sexes of those ages will be very pleased with the result.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 9

      CHILD TO LIVE WITH ADOPTERS BEFORE ORDER MADE
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 27, at end insert—
      '(3) An adoption order shall not be made unless the court is satisfied that sufficient opportunities to see the child with the applicant or, in the case of an application by a married couple, both applicants together in the home environment have been afforded—

      (a) where the child was placed with the applicant by an adoption agency, to that agency, or

      (b) in any other case, to the local authority within whose area the home is'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that amendment we may discuss Government Amendments Nos. 5 and 9.
      Dr. Owen: The amendment fulfils an undertaking given to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) on 8th July
      1450
      to clarify one aspect of Clause 9. The Committee was concerned that Clause 9 appeared to allow a court to make an adoption order even though the child might have had his home with only one of the couple applying to adopt him. The amendments make it clear that, while the child has to have his home for a fixed period with only one applicant, the court, before making an adoption order, must be satisfied that the local authority or adoption agency reporting on the application has had sufficient opportunities to see the child with both applicants together in the home environment. I hope that the hon. Lady feels that I have met the point.
      Mrs. Chalker: We are most grateful to the Minister for coming back with better amendments than those that I proposed in Committee. It is recognised on all fronts that unless a child has had the chance to settle down with both persons who might be in that environment—as we are trying to enshrine in other clauses—there may be consequent problems when new adults come into the home. I hope that this clause and other clauses that follow it will be welcomed by all hon. Members.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10

      ADOPTION BY MARRIED COUPLE
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 215, in page 6, line 28, at beginning insert—
      'Subject to sections 35(1) and 50(1),'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may discuss Government Amendments No. 216, 31 to 34, 212 and 213.
      Dr. Owen: I undertook in Committee on 10th July to introduce an amendment on Report to meet two points made in debate. The first of these was to include in the provisions of Part I of the Bill—the provisions in Clauses 10 and 11—specifying what a court should consider when dealing with an adoption application, a forward reference to the power of the court when considering an adoption application, to make a custodianship order instead, that is, the provisions of what is now new Clause 35. The first objective is met by Amendments Nos. 215 and 216.
      The second point was that the wording of what is now new Clause 35—Clause

      1451
      50 for Scotland—should be altered to bring it more closely into conformity with Recommendation 20 of the Houghton Committee. I hope that the House will think we have met those points.
      Amendments No. 212 and 213 to Clause 50 make equivalent provisions in Scotland to Clause 35(1) for England and Wales, requiring that the court shall not make an adoption order in the case of an application by a relative or step-parent unless it is positively satisfied that the adoption is the better course in the particular case. I believe that that faithfully records the undertaking I gave in Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 6, line 39, leave out subsection (3).—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 11

      ADOPTION BY ONE PERSON
      Amendment made: No. 216, in page 7, line 12, at beginning insert—
      'Subject of sections 35(1) and 50(1),'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 7, line 13, leave out from 'person' to first 'is' in line 15 and insert
      'where he has attained the age of 21 and—

      (a) is not married or

      (b)'.

      ' or
      This is a drafting amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 7, line 18, at end insert
      (iii) his spouse is by reason of ill health, whether physical or mental, incapable of making an application for an adoption order.'.
      The effect of this amendment would be to enable one of a married couple to apply to adopt alone where a husband or wife is incapable of joining in the application because of physical or mental ill-health. This meets the undertaking that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight).
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 7, line 25, leave out subsection (3).—[Dr. Owen.]
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 8, line 2, leave out from 'child' to second 'the' in line 4.
      This amendment removes a superfluous reference to Clause 32(5) from Clause 11(5) and brings its wording in line with that of Clause 10(4). This is mainly a drafting amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12

      PARENTAL AGREEMENT
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. Sims: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 28, at end insert—
      '(g) three months has elapsed since the original consent to adoption was made'.
      It is many years since the House has considered legislation relating to adoption and it may be many years before it has a similar opportunity. It is a pity that that opportunity has not been taken by means of the law concerning the irrevocability of consent to adoption. The House should give some consideration to this matter, and that is why I have moved the amendment.
      The House will be aware of the present procedure whereby, if a mother decides that she wishes her child to be adopted, she signs a written consent to that effect. The child is then in due course placed by a proper agency for adoption. When the child has remained with the adoptive parents for at least three months and possibly longer, there is a court hearing for an adoption order to be made. At that time, the mother is again asked whether she still gives her consent. This may be several months after she first gave her consent and she then has the power to withdraw it. If the court feels that she is unreasonably withholding that consent, it may overrule her and go ahead with the adoption order. The mother may then appeal. As a result it may be some time before the matter is finally resolved.
      I will not burden the House again with the details of the case I mentioned in Committee, when 13 months elapsed between the time when the child was first placed with the adoptive parents and the time that the adoption order was finally made. I accept that that may have been exceptional, but I suspect that

      1453
      many hon. Members will be familiar with cases in which a number of months have elapsed.
      The procedure that I have just described is the present procedure and there is nothing in the Bill to alter it. It is true that the Bill introduces the new option of freeing the child for adoption, but the present procedure remains should the natural mother prefer to follow that course. In my view this procedure imposes uncertainty and unnecessary strain on all the parties involved. It is unfair on the natural parent, the prospective adoptive parents and on the child, bearing in mind that the child involved in any sort of change that may arise from these procedures will possibly be at the vulnerable age of 12 months.
      It seems that three months is an adequate period in which the mother could reconsider her decision. It is a period which caters for all the sorts of problems raised by post-natal depression. If three months have elapsed since the mother originally gave her consent to adoption, at that point that consent should become irrevocable.
      I notice that the Association of British Adoption Agencies in its commentary on some of the amendments being discussed suggests that my amendment could be punitive to natural parents. I suggest that the present system is punitive to natural parents with its "Do you or don't you?" approach. Since I raised this matter in Committee I have consulted other bodies and individuals concerned. Needless to say there is not unanimity on this. I have been surprised at the wide range of people who share my views—people who are much involved in this work. I quote from a letter from my local director of social services who says that his views are supported by his senior officer, who has been working with adoption matters continually for 10 years. He says:
      "It will be acknowledged that adoption is an irrevocable step and crucial to this is the giving of consent on the part of the natural parents. With the improved service now being given to more adequately informed parents they are tending to agree that, having given their consent, this should, in fact, be regarded as final. From experience it is on the whole the caring parent who gives up her child for adoption. Her need to finalise the process of adoption is as great as the prospective adopters. They are both anxious that
      1454
      the adoption procedure shall be completed within a reasonable space of time."
      I, too, am equally anxious. That is why I have tabled this amendment.
      Mrs. Knight: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). I have been impressed by the number of people who are very close to this problem and who are strongly in favour of the principle of irrevocability being inserted into the Bill. I could mention many bodies but I single out of those to whom I could pay tribute the justices clerks, who have had a tremendous amount of experience in this area. They feel that the principle of irrevocability is immensely important.
      For the parents there is the long-drawn-out peculiar sort of torture which ought not to be encouraged by legislation. There is nothing in this clause which would cover irrevocability. Subsection 2(a) talks about the parent or guardian not being able to be found or being incapable of giving agreement. Perhaps the parents would be quite capable of giving agreement. How does one decide whether agreement is being withheld unreasonably? Three months seems to be a reasonable period of time. If it were written into the Bill it would be a great deal easier for parents and for those who have to make the decision whether the agreement is being unreasonably withheld or whether a person is incapable of giving agreement. It would be easy to decide whether a child has been neglected abandoned or persistently or seriously ill treated. There is, however, nothing to help a person who simply is incapable of making up his mind. The trouble for such people can drag on for so long.
      I therefore ask the Minister to listen, if not to our words then to those outside the House who regard this whole principle as important and helpful to adoption matters.
      Mr. Alan Clark: There is little I should like to add to the lucid arguments advanced by my hon. Friends. This is an excellent Bill and I congratulate the Minister on his personal authorship. The motivation behind the Bill is the well-being of the child and the advancement and protection of its interests. Of all the contributions which can be made to that well-being in this initial stage, surely the element of stability is the

      1455
      most important. By fixing a finite period, as we suggest in the amendment, we are making possibly the most important contribution of all to that stability.
      We all know of instances when the possibility of a reversal hangs over the new family, and this can cause stress and strain at a particularly critical stage. I believe that paragraph (g), which we should like to insert, is every bit as important as those categories already incorporated in paragraphs (a) to (f). The House should seriously consider whether this is not the most important contribution we can make.
      Dr. Owen: The amendment embodies a major issue of principle which we discussed at length in Committee. There are people who believe that the Bill offers the opportunity to put an irrevocable agreement into law. I accepted in Committee that in future years such a proposal might prove much more acceptable. There are at present, however, a number of reasons for resisting it.
      I do not find a major body of support for such a principle at this stage. It was specifically looked at and rejected by the Houghton Committee. The Committee has produced a new procedure of freeing which might or might not change the climate of opinion to make it easier to introduce in later years what the supporters of the amendment argue for now. It would not be right to make such a provision now.
      We are here making decisions on a balance of judgment, a balance between parental rights and duties and what is good for the child. We are all agreed that in the Bill we wish to shift towards giving a far greater priority to the best interests of the child than hitherto. However, we must be careful not to swing that balance too far. I should prefer to see the new procedure for freeing operated for some years before moving on to irrevocable consent.
      I know how strongly hon. Members feel about this issue, but I urge them to leave the Bill unamended at this stage so that we may all have open minds in future years about the introduction of such a proposal.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 14

      FREEING CHILD FOR ADOPTION
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 219, in page 9, line 1, leave out subsections (1) to (6) and insert:
      '14.—(1) Where, on an application by an adoption agency, an authorised court is satisfied in the case of each parent or guardian of the child that—

      (a) he freely, and with full understanding of what is involved, agreed generally and unconditionally to the making of an adoption order, or

      (b) his agreement to the making of an adoption order should be dispensed with on a ground specified in section 12(2),

      the court shall, subject to subsection (5), make an order declaring the child free for adoption.
      (2) No application shall be made under sub section (1) unless—

      (a) it is made with the consent of a parent or guardian of the child, or

      (b) the adoption agency is applying for dispensation under subsection (1)(b) of the agreement of each parent or guardian of the child, and the child is in the care of the adoption agency.

      (3) No agreement required under subsection (1)(a) shall be dispensed with under subsection (1)(b) unless the child is already placed for adoption or the court is satisfied that it is likely that the child will be placed for adoption.
      (4) An agreement by the mother of the child is ineffective for the purposes of this section if given less than six weeks after the child's birth.
      (5) An order under this section shall not be made in Scotland in relation to a child who is a minor unless with the consent of the child; except that where the court is satisfied that the minor is incapable of giving his consent to the making of the order, it may dispense with that consent'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we may also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 26 and 79.
      Dr. Owen: In Committee on 15th July I undertook to look again at the overlapping aspects of subsections (1) and (3) of the clause—it was about the only time that we got heated in our discussions—to consider whether the different situations covered by the subsections might be dealt with differently. We have found a way of doing so.
      The amendment has two effects. It changes the basic structure of Clause 14 and removes the overlapping aspects of subsections (1) and (3). It also removes subsection (6).

      1457
      Amendment No. 26 operates the freeze in relation to the clause in a more selective way than was possible before the clause was redrafted, and Amendment No. 79 is purely consequential.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 16

      REVOCATION OF SECTION 14 ORDER
      10.45 p.m.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 220, in page 11, line 30, after 'authority', insert 'or voluntary organisation'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 222 and 221.
      Dr. Owen: These three amendments to Clause 16 deal with the revocation of freeing orders and the re-vesting of parental rights. They are fairly self-explanatory. Amendments Nos. 220 and 221 depend on the acceptance of new Clause 1, which would allow a voluntary body to hold parental rights over a child in its care.
      Amendment No. 222 emphasises that parental rights shall not revert in a body or authority. It stems from a question raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Reading South (Dr. Vaughan)—why does the Bill sometimes use "person" and sometimes "individual"? I hope that this clarifies the matter.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 222, in page 11, line 32, leave out 'person or persons' and insert—
      'individual or, as the case may be, the individuals'.
      No. 221, in page 11, line 33, leave out "that order was made' and insert—
      'they were vested in the authority or organisation'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move Amendment No. 162, in page 11, line 38, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '(4) If the application is dismissed on the ground that to allow it would contravene the principle embodied in section 3 the former parent shall be entitled to make a further application only with the leave of the court.'
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 231, in page 11, line 43, after 'child', insert—
      1458
      'unless there has been a material change in his circumstances and with the leave of a Court, and'.
      Mr. Bennett: I move my amendment merely formally. I understand that the Minister has a proposal to meet the point in question.
      Dr. Owen: With the permission of the House, I shall seek to move, as a manuscript amendment to the Bill, in page 11, line 38, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (5)'.
      As a further manuscript amendment, I shall seek to move, in page 11, line 45, at end add—
      '(5) Subsection (4)(a) shall not apply where the court which dismissed the application gives leave to the former parent to make a further application under subsection (1), but such leave shall not be given unless it appears to the court that because of the change in circumstances or for any other reason it is proper to allow the application to be made.'
      It will be clear to the House that this incorporates the substance of Amendment No. 231, and it is intended to meet that point. It also meets the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stock-port, North (Mr. Bennett). I hope that it commends itself to the House. I am sorry about seeking to move these amendments at such a late stage.
      Dr. Vaughan: The Opposition welcome the Minister's manuscript amendments. As he says, they fulfil the function of Amendment No. 231.
      We were concerned about the situation where a child may be freed for adoption and then a year later, if the child has not been adopted, the parents may apply to the court for a revocation of the order. If then the court refuses the revocation and afterwards the circumstances and the child's natural home improve, the parents have no right then to apply to the court again for a further revocation. This seemed to us both unjust and not at all in the interests of the child.
      As far as I can see, the point is met entirely by the manuscript amendments. In those circumstances, I shall not move Amendment No. 231.
      Mr. Speaker: The position is that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) should now withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Bennett: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Manuscript amendments made:
      In page 11, line 38, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (5)".
      In page 11, line 45, at end add—
      '(5) Subsection (4)(a) shall not apply where the court which dismissed the application gives leave to the former parent to make a further application under subsection (1), but such leave shall not be given unless it appears to the court that because of the change in circumstances or for any other reason it is proper to allow the application to be made.'—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 20

      GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND ADOPTION OFFICER
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 13, line 25, leave out from "and" to end of line 26 and insert
      'performing such other duties as the rules may prescribe.'
      This amendment provides that rules of court may prescribe the duties of reporting officers appointed under Clause 20(1) (b) of the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 13, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).
      This amendment, by deleting Clause 20(2)(b), removes the prohibition on the guardian ad litem or the reporting officer being an employee of the local authority involved in a non-agency application.
      Amendments made to Clause 20 in Committee provide that guardians ad litem and reporting officers must be independent not only of the adoption agency, that is, a local authority or approved adoption society, which placed the child or made the application for a freeing order or held parental rights over a child who was the subject of an application for the revocation of a freeing order, but also of the local authority which has been notified by the prospective adopters of their intention to apply for an adoption order if the child has not been placed by an agency.
      The Association of Directors of Social Services, BASW and ABAA have all
      1460
      pointed out that this is unnecessary and could be a waste of social work resources. I am sure that the House will welcome the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 16, in page 13, line 34, after '14', insert 'by'.
      No. 17, in page 13, line 36, after '16 insert 'by'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 22

      MAKING OF ORDER
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 14, line 24, leave out 'will' and insert 'may'.
      The amendment substitutes "may" for "will" in Clause 22(1), as it more correctly expresses the intention of the subsection.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 15, leave out lines 9 to 11.
      This is a technical amendment which remedies a minor omission not detected in Committee.
      Clause 22(6) provides for the application of the earlier provisions in Clause 22 to Scotland. Paragraph (a) of Clause 22(6) refers to wording in subsection (2) which is no longer extant, following a Government amendment in Committee which substituted a completely new and unrelated subsection (2) for that subsection. A specific reference in subsection (6) to subsection (2) is, therefore, irrelevant in the context of the revised clause.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 25

      ADOPTION OF CHILDREN ABROAD
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 17, line 13, leave out 'and (8)' and insert '(8) and (9)'.
      The amendment provides for an adjustment of provisions in Clause 25(2) dealing with the status of a child who is made the subject of an order providing for his adoption overseas.

      1461
      As at present drafted, the Bill provides that Schedule 2, dealing with the status of an adopted child in Scotland, shall apply to a child in Scotland. It is clearly not appropriate, however, that a child who is the subject of an order facilitating his being taken for adoption abroad should be given the legal status of an adopted child in Great Britain by virtue of the court order. The need for differentiation is all the greater given the enhancement of the status of such children under the Bill.
      The amendment disapplies Schedule 2 to such children and brings the Scottish position into line with the position in England and Wales.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Hooson: I beg to move Amendment No. 233, in page 17, line 13, after '11(2)' insert '14 to 16'.
      Mr. Speaker: With that amendment we may take Amendments Nos. 234, 235 and 236.
      Mr. Hooson: Three of those four amendments are technical. The heart of the matter is Amendment No. 236 which proposes the deletion of subsection (5). The reason for it is that as the Bill stands it prejudices a small but vulnerable group of children; that is to say, minority groups. For example, it has been found possible to make successful placements of black children with black American Service men over here, and they are often willing to take older children.
      If the subsection remains and the Bill becomes law as drafted, the work of the adoption societies will be inhibited. The amendments have the support of the Association of British Adoption Societies.
      Mrs. Chalker: We welcome the amendment. In Committee I raised several times the problem of children of mixed parentage and the difficulty of adoption by parents not domiciled in this country. We hope that the amendment will bring to an end the difficulty which arises in the placement of many children who come into our adoption societies because one of their parents is no longer in this country. This has been a problem not only with our own Service men but with an increasing number of troops who move round the world. The deletion of sub-
      1462
      section (5) will do a great deal to help those prospective adoptive parents.
      Dr. Owen: The Government have helped with the drafting of the amendments and I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) on them, for they are important. We ask the House to accept them. As a Member representing a Service constituency, I am particularly glad that we are able to accept the amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 234, in page 17, line 13, after '22(1)' insert '23'.
      No. 235, in page 17, line 13, leave out from '24' to the end of line 14.
      No. 236, in page 17, line 37, leave out subsection (5).—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 26

      OBTAINING OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE BY ADOPTED PERSON
      Amendments made: No. 150, in page 17, line 40, leave out from '(5)' to 'The' in line 1 on page 18 and insert
      'after the word "except" there are inserted the words "in accordance with section 20A of this Act or".
      (2) The following section is inserted in the 1958 Act after section 20:—

      'Disclosure of birth records of adopted persons.

      20A.—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (6) of this section,'.

      No. 22, in page 18, line 10, after and insert 'who'.
      No. 151, in page 18, line 17, at end insert—
      '(3) It shall be the duty of the Registrar General and each local authority and approved adoption society to provide counselling for adopted persons who apply for information under subsection (1) of this section.
      (4) Before supplying any information to an applicant under subsection (1) of this section, the Registrar General shall inform the applicant that counselling services are available to him—

      (a) at the General Register Office; or

      (b) from the local authority for the area where the applicant is at the time the application is made; or

      (c) the local authority for the area where the court sat which made the adoption order relating to the applicant; or

      (d) if the applicant's adoption was arranged by an adoption society which is approved under section 4 of the Children Act 1975, from that society.

      (5) If the applicant chooses to receive counselling from a local authority or an adoption

      1463
      society under subsection (4) the Registrar General shall send to the authority or society of the applicant's choice the information to which the applicant is entitled under subsection (1).
      (6) The Registrar General shall not supply a person who was adopted before the date on which the Children Act was passed with any information under subsection (1) of this section unless that person has attended an interview with a counsellor either at the General Register Office or in pursuance of arrangements made by the local authority or adoption society from whom the applicant is entitled to receive counselling in accordance with subsection (4)."'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 27

      RESTRICTION ON ARRANGING ADOPTION AND PLACING OF CHILDREN
      Amendments made: No. 23, in page 18, line 21, leave out 'subsections are' and insert 'subsection is'.
      No. 24, in page 18, line 29, at end insert—
      '(aa) the following subsections are inserted after subsection (1)'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 19, line 4, after 'months', insert
      'and for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400".'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take the following Government amendments: Nos. 27, 28, 37, 48, 102, 103, 104, 107, 111, 113, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 125, 140 and 141.
      Dr. Owen: In Committee I undertook to look at the whole question of the fines in the Bill. Hon. Members felt that the fines proposed were not commensurate with the gravity of the cases. I hope that the House feels that I am now raising them to a more appropriate level.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 28

      RESTRICTIONS ON REMOVAL OF CHILD PENDING ADOPTION
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 19, line 21, leave out from 'application' to 'is' in line 23 and insert
      'is pending for an order under section 14 of the Children Act 1975 and—
      1464

      (a) the child is in the care of the adoption agency making the application, and

      (b) the application was not made with the consent of each parent or guardian of the child,

      no parent or guardian of the child who did not consent to the application'.
      No. 27, in page 19, line 31, leave out '£100' and insert '£400'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move Amendment No. 161, in page 19, line 31, at end insert—
      '(4) Any application by a parent or guardian under subsection (2) of this section to remove the child must be heard within 28 days of the application being made. '
      In Committee, considerable concern was expressed about the problem of frivolous or misguided applications for adoption. The Minister agreed to re-examine the matter and this amendment is designed to see whether there can be some safeguard for the parents. My particular concern is that the courts are the last resort. While one accepts that the courts should be able to make the final decision, if we are to have good case work done it is far more important that cases are kept out of the courts as far as possible. But if they go into the courts, it is essential that they should be decided quickly so that anxiety and uncertainty are not prolonged.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will either meet the point now or will at least agree to monitor the legislation in practice with a view to legislating again at an early date, if necessary.
      Dr. Owen: I am certainly prepared to monitor the working of the Bill and, if necessary, make changes. I believe that at the moment there are good reasons for resisting the amendment. However, I have consulted the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Office, and it is considered that a time limit for application to remove a child is unnecessary. In the county court, an application is heard at not less than one clear day's notice to all the parties, and in the magistrates' court not even one day's notice is required in any event. Matters affecting children can be given high priority in the courts and when parties are quick to inform the court that an application is urgent, it can be disposed of speedily.
      On frivolous or misguided applications, subject to consultations the Adoption

      1465
      Agency Regulations, which apply to local authorities and approved societies, will specify that applications under Clause 14(2) should be made at not less than assistant director level for local authority applications and a similar level for approved adoption societies. The directors' association welcomes this provision and will be giving guidance to its members. I think that this reply will meet the point put by my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      11.0 p.m.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move Amendment No. 163, in page 20, line 17, leave out from 'is' to end of line 21 and insert
      'may, if appropriate, remove the child from the actual custody of the applicant or of the prospective adopter in pursuance of its general duty to promote the welfare of the child under section 12 of the Children Act 1948, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) or (2) of this section. '
      This causes me far more concern than Amendment No. 161. We are considering a matter in which this legislation upsets existing practice. It has been accepted over the years that one should take the advice of the social worker who was supervising a particular case.
      If this legislation goes through in its present form, without amendment, it will be possible for the foster parent to take a unilateral decision which may not be in the best interests of the child. This may eventually be decided in the courts, but it is important that we retain the authority of the social worker. The amendment is designed to do that and to ensure that if a course is in the best interests of the child the social worker can pursue it, and that the scheme cannot be upset by the unilateral action of the foster parent.
      The problem arises where one has a child placed in a very satisfactory foster home for nearly five years and it is clear that the intention of the local authority, the social worker and the natural parents is that the child will be returned at some time to the natural parents. Just before the five-year point arrives, if a social worker feels that a foster parent is particularly possessive and may want to take
      1466
      advantage of the five-year period, the social worker has to face a difficult choice of taking the child back to the natural parents at that point, which may not be the appropriate point, or to move the child to a different foster home. A great deal was made of this in Committee and many felt that the provision in the Bill was unsatisfactory. We want to be careful not to erode the authority of the social worker and give too much authority to the foster parent, who may not be the best person to exercise it.
      Dr. Owen: This point was discussed in Committee. These amendments are designed to give local authorities the power of veto over adoption or custodianship applications by foster parents regarding children in care.
      The British Association of Social Workers proposed these amendments because of its objections
      "to allowing foster parents unilateral rights over a child in care, especially when those powers are triggered by a child remaining in a foster home for a particular period of time".
      The Committee discussed this, and since then I have consulted the Home Office and the Scottish Office and I am satisfied that the provisions in Clauses 28 and 39 do not prevent a local authority from removing a child who is at risk, by means of emergency procedure for obtaining a warrant or authorisation allowing the child to be removed to a place of safety.
      The advantages and disadvantages of allowing foster parents to apply for adoption or custodianship without the consent of the local authority in whose care the child is were fully discussed and the Committee accepted the Government's arguments in favour of the time limits and decided not to accept an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Andrew F. Bennett).
      Safeguards built into the legislation protecting local authorities' perfectly legitimate interests are real and sufficient. We have to take a balance of view in this matter, and I say to my hon. Friend, who has made his views clear throughout, that we should see how the legislation goes. I hope that his fears will not be fulfilled.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 28, in page 20, line 39, leave out '£100' and insert '£400'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 21, line 4, at end insert—
      '(8) In relation to Scotland, subsection (3) of this section does not apply where the removal of the child is authorised, in terms of Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, by a justice of the peace or a children's hearing'.
      The purpose of this amendment is to provide a Scottish application for provisions which were included for Great Britain in Clause 28 by the Standing Committee. The provisions, which appear now as Clause 28(3), limit the circumstances in which a child can be removed by a local authority from the possession of a person with whom the child has had his home for over five years, and who has applied, or given notice of an application, to adopt the child. Clause 28(3) already provides that a local authority shall not be able to remove a child who is in the care of that authority except with the leave of a court.
      It is necessary in Scottish terms for any provision governing the removal of a child to have regard to the provisions of Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 governing place of safety orders made on the authority of a court, justice of the peace or children's hearing. This is done by Amendment No. 29, which provides that the restriction on removal imposed by Clause 28(3) shall not apply where removal of the child is authorised either by a justice of the peace, in the case of the emergency procedure provided under Section 37(2) of the Act, as now amended by Clause 67, or by a children's hearing, under Section 37(4) or Section 40(7) of the Act after the child has been brought before a hearing.
      The power of the sheriff under Section 37(2) is preserved by the reference in Clause 28(3) to removal
      "with the leave of a court".
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 29

      RETURN OF CHILD TAKEN AWAY IN BREACH OF SECTION 34 OR 34A Of 1958 ACT
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 153, in page 21, line 14, at end insert—
      1468
      '(3) If, in the case of an order made by the High Court under subsection (1), the High Court or, in the case of an order made by a county court under subsection (1), a county court is satisfied that the child has not been returned to the applicant, the court may make an order authorising an officer of the court to search such premises as may be specified in the order for the child and, if the officer finds the child, to return the child to the applicant.
      (4) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a child to whom an order under subsection (1) relates is in premises specified in the information, he may issue a search warrant authorising a constable to search the premises for the child; and if a constable acting in pursuance of a warrant under this section finds the child, he shall return the child to the person on whose application the order under subsection (1) was made.
      (5) An order under subsection (3) may be enforced in like manner as a warrant for committal.
      (6) Subsections (3), (4) and (5) do not apply to Scotland'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take Government Amendment No. 156.
      Dr. Owen: I undertook, during the discussions in Committee on 5th August on new Clauses 21 and 24, to give further thought to the question of the enforcement of orders under Clauses 29 and 40, and to consult leading authorities on the matter.
      The effect of these amendments is to provide courts with fresh powers to order premises to be searched for a child who has been taken away unlawfully and has not been returned in accordance with an order made under subsection (1) of both Clauses 29 and 40.
      I think that this fulfils the wish of the House, and I am glad that we have been able to meet those wishes.
      Dr. Vaughan: We debated over and over again in the Committee this problem of recovering the actual person of the child, and I am glad that the Minister has been persuaded by our arguments that there was a loophole which needed filling. We welcome these amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 31

      PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES TO ADOPTERS
      Mrs. Knight: I beg to move Amendment No. 232, in page 21, line 24, leave out Clause 31.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 154 and 155.
      Mrs. Knight: The amendment is moved in the firm belief that the whole principle of payment for adoption and continued payments for adoption is quite a wrong principle. After all, parents have their ordinary family allowances, which are very welcome. But if we adopt this principle that some adopters will be paid for the children they have adopted, how on earth are we to say to the foster mothers of others, "You are not eligible for payment"—in other words, that some people are and some people are not eligible.
      If would-be adopters needed to have payment—and certainly there are many people not well endowed with cash who would be happy to give a child a home if only they had the money to do so—we should have to find the money for them, acting as a fairy godmother. I completely agree with that principle, but surely any parent in that position could be a foster parent. There is full and easy machinery for the payment of foster parents.
      I do not think foster parents are paid enough. I should like to see them getting more. If we could, by making it financially viable, encourage more people to have children in their homes, it would be a very wise and sound move.
      Clause 31 permits some adopters to be paid simply for having adopted children, and I think that is a very difficult principle to carry out unless it is done for all adoptive parents. Since it is fully established that foster parents come into this category and get paid, why are we in this clause suddenly saying that there may be a totally new category of adoptive parents, somehow different and somehow more deserving, and somehow singled out for special State help, apart from all the other adoptive parents? Are we not putting ourselves into a very difficult position indeed when the decision comes to be made as to which is in the magic category of the receivers and which is in the less fortunate category of not receiving money at all? Are not we making a rod for our own backs in this regard? Will not the Minister please look carefully again at this principle?
      Dr. Owen: I recognise that this is an issue on which the Committee was fundamentally divided. Indeed, it was the casting vote of the Chairman which resulted in the retention of the clause in the Bill.
      I have always respected the major issue of principle behind the Opposition's amendment. However, in Committee, concern was expressed on two points. The first was the breach of the principle that adopted children should be in the same position as children born to the adopters. The second was that there was nothing in Clause 31 to indicate the experimental nature of relaxation in the law. It was the second which created the stronger current in the Committee's proceedings, and I undertook to consider whether this objection could be met.
      Subsection (7) of Amendment No. 155 provides that the Secretary of State's power to approve schemes shall expire seven years after Clause 31 comes into force, unless the Secretary of State under subsection (8), by an order made by statutory instrument at any time before the seven years is up, repeals subsection (7)—in which case the power continues.
      Subsection (9) provides that the Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (8) unless a report has been published under subsection (6) and a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House, so that the House would make a decision on the basis of information on the working of it.
      Subsection (10) provides that payments made under an approved scheme may continue even if that scheme is subsequently revoked by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State's power to approve such schemes expires. Without such a provision, persons who adopted a child on the understanding that they would receive payment so long as they had need of it would be at risk of breaking the law if the scheme were revoked and the Secretary of State's power to approve such a scheme came to an end. In other words, once started, it needs to go through on a continuum.
      The effect of Amendment No. 154 is to amend subsection (6) in Clause 31 to provide that the Secretary of State shall, within seven years of the date on which Clause 31 comes into force, and every five

      1471
      years afterwards, publish a report on the operation of the schemes of payments. As the Clause stands, the first report is to be made seven years after the first scheme is approved.
      Subsection (9) of Amendment No. 155 requires a report to be made under subsection (6) before Parliament is asked to consider whether the power to approve schemes should continue. If by any chance the first scheme were not approved within seven years of Clause 31 being implemented, the report could not be made. The amendment avoids this remote possibility by tying the requirement to report to the date of implementation of the clause.
      If Parliament resolves that schemes should continue, the Secretary of State will still be obliged to report on the operation of the scheme every five years.
      This is a serious attempt to meet some of the very fair objections which were raised in Committee. The original intention and, indeed, the recommendation of the Houghton Committee was that it should be experimental. But it was not sufficiently spelt out in legislative form that it was experimental.
      My view remains the same, that it is right to make this limited experiment. The Adoption Resource Exchange, which is particularly concerned with children who are hard to place, has written to all hon. Members who served on the Committee supporting Clause 31. Islington borough has inquired when Clause 31 is likely to be implemented as its councillors are anxious to submit a scheme. They have a number of suitable foster parents who are prevented from adopting only because they cannot afford to forgo the boarding-out allowance.
      With this important modification to the principle of legislation, I hope therefore that the House will agree that the Government's amendments are preferable to that moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight).
      Dr. Vaughan: Before the Minister sits down, will he say up to what age he envisages these payments being made?
      Dr. Owen: I have to admit that that question has caught me out slightly. I assume that it would be until the child becomes an adult, or possibly 16 might
      1472
      be the age. I am not certain about this. I shall have to look into it. But I think that we would tend to take account of when the child was of earning age. However, in the case of a mentally or physically handicapped child, I should not want to see any specific age level introduced into legislation.
      This is a decision that I have not consciously made. Each case must be considered on its merits. Some of these children will be severely mentally and physically handicapped and will be very unlikely ever to be able to earn their living. In that situation the family would get no financial relief as the children grew older if the burden were relieved from them.
      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. Hooson: May I, as one who spoke strongly against the clause in Committee, say that I now think that the Minister has met my main objection to it, namely, that it was drawn too widely? I have been greatly persuaded by the letter written by the Adoption Resource Exchange. I see the great difficulty of placing some children without some form of financial subsidy. It would be difficult to arrange the adoption of a family of two or three coloured children who had been abandoned, but who it was desirable should be kept together, unless there were some form of financial subsidy.
      I can also see that difficulties might arise about arranging the adoption of two spina bifida children unless there were a subsidy.
      The objection of the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is wrong in principle. It does not follow that, because a subsidy is given in hard cases, there will be a general demand for a subsidy. I therefore think that as amended the clause should be supported.
      Mrs. Knight: I urge the Minister of State to take on board my point that the way out of this difficulty is by keeping to the foster parent principle, which is an excellent one. Money is paid to foster parents. It is difficult to see how fish can be made of one and fowl of another by saying that one adoptive parent will be eligible for money but another will not. If the foster parent scheme were not already established and recognised as an excellent way of making homes available for children, I should not be arguing

      1473
      in this way. It is now proposed that there should be two different sorts of adopters. This is what worries me.
      Nothing that the Minister of State said convinced me that there is an easy way out of the dilemma of how to decide which adoptive parents shall have financial assistance. It is easy with foster parents. It will be very difficult with adoptive parents, particularly when adoptive parents get to hear that by some magical means money is available to adoptive parents in the same street, for instance.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 154, in page 21, line 40, leave out:
      'the first scheme is approved under this section'
      and insert
      'section 31 of the Children Act 1975 comes into force'.
      No. 155, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—
      '(7) Subject to the following subsection, subsection (4) of this section shall expire on the seventh anniversary of the date on which it comes into force.
      (8) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument at any time before the said anniversary, repeal subsection (7) of this section.
      (9) An order under subsection (8) of this section shall not be made unless—

      (a) a report has been published under subsection (6) of this section, and

      (b) a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.

      (10) Notwithstanding the expiry of subsection (4) of this section or the revocation of a scheme approved under this section, subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in relation to any payment made, whether before or after the expiry of subsection (4) or the revocation of the scheme, in accordance with a scheme which was approved under this section to a person to whom such payments were made, where the scheme was not revoked, before the expiry of subsection (4) or, if the scheme was revoked, before the date of its revocation.'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 32

      CUSTODIANSHIP ORDERS
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move Amendment No. 164, in page 22, line 29, after 'child', insert:
      'who is not in the care of a local authority'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that amendment we may take the following amendments:
      No. 165, in page 22, line 32, at end insert—
      '(d) Any person with whom the child in the care of a local authority has had his home for a period or periods before the making of the application which amount to at least three years and include the three months preceding the making of the application and who has previously obtained the permission of the local authority in whose care the child is. '
      No. 166, in Clause 39, page 27, line I, leave out sub-section (2).
      No. 167, in page 27, line 5, leave out from 'is' to end of line 7 and insert:
      'may, if appropriate, remove the child from the applicant's custody in pursuance of its general duty to promote the welfare of the child under section 12 Children Act 1948, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section. '
      Mr. Bennett: On an earlier amendment I referred to the problems which I believed existed in regard to the right at any rate to apply for adoption after five years. We come now to the same problem as regards custody, except that now the period is three years.
      The major concern of people working in this area is to ensure that action should be taken only with the consent of the local authority. The aim of Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 is to ensure that applicants for custody orders must seek the consent of the local authority where a child is in the care of that authority. Alternatively, Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 provide a safeguard. If the local authority feels that the applicant for a custody order is unsuitable it can prevent the application from succeeding.
      The major issues were thoroughly discussed in Committee. Most people are still unhappy about the time limits. They feel that this should not be a matter for the courts but should rather be one of consent. As a result of the existence of time limits the natural parents may act hurriedly, or the foster parents may suddenly make an application when, in the absence of time limits, good social work could be carried out and the desired objective achieved without upsetting anyone.
      I press the Government to accept Amendments Nos. 164 and 165. If they are unable to do so they may find the second set of amendments acceptable.
      Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is nothing if not persistent. I respect his views.
      The effect of these two amendments taken together would be to prevent a person who has looked after a child for over three years from applying for a custodianship order in respect of the child if he is in the care of a local authority, unless the local authority has first given its permission. The amendments were discussed in Committee and there was a vote.
      I understand the general intention underlying the argument. However, I ask the House to resist Amendment No. 166. The effect of this amendment is to remove from the Bill the provision restricting the power of a local authority, pending a court decision, to remove a child from the home of an applicant for a custodianship order who has looked after the child for three years, where the child was in care before he began to live with the applicant and is still in care. Removal by the local authority in such circumstances requires the consent of the applicant or the leave of the court.
      Here we are trying to find a balance between the rights of the person who is looking after the child and the local authority. My hon. Friend has always drawn a major distinction in respect of children who are in the care of a local authority. He is right in saying that that relationship is different from any other. But the logic of his argument is to give the local authority an overriding veto in these cases. Many people feel that that does not pay sufficient attention to the interests of the child. It is a balance of judgment. Such a conflict will rarely exist. Good child care practice would usually ensure that no such conflict arose between the local authority and the foster parents. It would be wrong for us to predict that conflict would arise frequently, although I can imagine circumstances in which a conflict would arise. In the event of a conflict the decision should be made by the court.
      I ask the House to reject the amendments. I understand the motives behind them. The British Association of Social Workers feels strongly about this matter, but a large number of social workers
      1476
      believe that the original provision should stay within the legislation.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 33

      ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE
      Mrs. Knight: I beg to move Amendment No. 241, in page 24, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
      This amendment seeks to make the deletion because some of us feel that the provision would enable custodians to obtain contribution orders against stepparents and former foster parents in respect of whom custodianship orders have been obtained.
      I seek an assurance from the Minister on subsection (2) because it seems that almost anybody who has taken care of a child for a period of time may find coming out of the blue a demand for payment. In Committee we discussed the situation of a man who married a lady with three children by her previous marriage. The marriage was not a happy one and lasted only a few months, but the man in question found that henceforward he was responsible for his former wife's children. Such a man could discover that a custodianship order was being made against him and under the subsection could suddenly find himself liable for payment.
      Surely under the subsection a person by taking on a step-child or privately fostered child will make himself liable for maintenance contribution in the event of possible custodianship for somebody else and also may even risk having his will upset in favour of a former child of the family. I am not happy with the subsection as it stands.
      The Government's view is that the clause does not change the law. Is that the true situation? Surely such orders may be made independently of matrimonial proceedings so that the machinery of the court will not be brought into play. It appears that the provision changes the law to a drastic extent. Foster parents who for some reason cease to foster a child will now be vulnerable. Applications may come at them out of the blue by future custodians. The same thing could happen to stepparents in cases where the real parents

      1477
      have died or neglected the child, or even badly treated it.
      A relative may have taken a child in care for a short period of time totally oblivious of the fact that the law may later take the view, "You had little Johnny after the child was taken from its parents because he was badly treated for three months. You are now liable for payment." Where grandparents were looking after a child no matrimonial proceedings might be necessary under these provisions. It seems to us that liability may well be assessed in direct proportion to the step- or foster parents' past generosity.
      If the Minister tells me that this is a totally wrong reading of the subsection, I shall be pleased to withdraw the amendment, but at present it appears that, unless the amendment is made, many people who take charge of children may find themselves in difficulty.
      Dr. Owen: The purpose of this amendment is to prevent a court which has made a custodianship order from making a further order requiring a person other than the child's natural mother or father to contribute towards the child's maintenance. The amendment would also—though this is probably not intended—have the effect of preventing a court which has made a custodianship order from granting access to a person who, though not the child's natural mother or father, has nevertheless treated the child as a child of his family.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) would not wish to deprive anybody of access. I pointed out in Committee that, contrary to what the hon. Lady suggested, the relevant provision in Part II of the Children Bill did not introduce a new principle into the law, since there was ample precedent for it in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which consolidated earlier legislation.
      I accepted that much ill-feeling could be caused by the courts requiring persons to contribute towards children not their own, but I suggested that while the precedent existed, the right course was for the Bill to follow it.
      Subsection (2) of Clause 33 provides that references in subsection (1) to the child's mother or father include any per-
      1478
      son in relation to whom the child was treated as a "child of the family", as defined in section 52(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. But the court in deciding whether to order a person other than the child's mother or father to pay maintenance for the child is to have regard to whether that person assumed responsibility for the child's maintenance and, if he did, to the extent to which and the basis on which he did, and the length of time during which he discharged that responsibility. The court is also to have regard to the liability of any other person to maintain the child. "Child of the the family" is defined in the 1973 Act as meaning, in relation to the parties to a marriage, a child of both of those parties; and any other child, not being a child who has been boarded out with those parties by a local authority or voluntary organisation, who has been treated by both of those parties as a child of their family. The effect of the provision is to enable a person who has treated the child as his own during the currency of his marriage, for example, a step-parent, to be treated as a parent of the child for the purposes of subsection (1).
      11.30 p.m.
      It is difficult to give total reassurance to the hon. Lady. Each case would be considered individually on its merits, weighing a large number of factors. I should not like to give a categorical assurance in some of the instances that she mentioned. Much would depend on the circumstances of each case.
      But this is not a new problem. It is a difficult decision for the court to make and in one or two instances decisions of the courts have been a little surprising. The only way around this difficulty is to have a provision, perhaps cast a little more widely than one might want, that relies much on the sense of the court applying it. For those reasons I believe that this provision is a necessary safeguard and that it will be helpful, in most cases, although I do not totally escape the charge that it could be misapplied in some instances.
      Mrs. Knight: I should be most grateful if the Minister would say what principle the Bill follows in saying that a person who has voluntarily opened his home to a child for a short time should

      1479
      be vulnerable to a demand for payment although under subsection (3) the child's father is not to be liable for payment. It seems odd that the father of an illegitimate child will not be vulnerable although a good-hearted relative who acts out of kindness may be vulnerable.
      Dr. Owen: The hon. Lady raises the whole subject of matrimonial causes legislation. All I can say is that if there are many examples of the present law being misapplied, we shall have to look at that, but I am not yet convinced that that is so.
      Mrs. Knight: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 24, line 20, after '1973', insert
      'and sections 3 and 4 of that Act (supplementary provisions)'.
      This is a drafting amendment to avoid an ambiguity on the face of the Bill and to facilitate later consolidation of legislation relating to children.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 35

      CUSTODIANSHIP ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR ADOPTION OR GUARDIANSHIP
      Amendments made:
      No. 31, in page 25, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'are' in line 21 and insert—
      '(1) Where on an application for an adoption order by a relative of the child or by the husband or wife of the mother or father of the child, whether alone or jointly with his or her spouse, the requirements of section 12 or, where the application is for a Convention adoption order, section 24(6) are satisfied, but the court is satisfied—

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

      (b) that it would be appropriate to make a custodianship order in the applicant's favour,

      the court shall direct the application to be treated as if it had been made by the applicant under section 32, but if the application was made jointly by the father or mother of the child and his or her spouse, the court
      1480
      shall direct the application to be treated as if made by the father's wife or the mother's husband alone.
      (1A) Where on an application for an adoption order made—

      (a) by a person who is neither a relative of the child nor the husband or wife of the mother or father of the child; or

      (b) by a married couple neither of whom falls within paragraph (a).

      the said requirements'.
      No. 32, in page 25, line 25, leave out from '32' to end of line 27.
      No. 33, in page 25, line 33, leave out from '32' to end of line 36 and insert—
      '(2A) Where a direction is given under this section the applicant shall be treated (if such is not the case) as if he were qualified to apply for a custodianship order and this Part, except section 38, shall have effect accordingly.'.
      No. 34, in page 25, line 41, at end insert—
      '(4) Subsections (1) and (1A) do not apply to an application for an adoption order made by the child's mother or father alone.'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 37
      REPORTS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES, ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 35, in page 26, line 4, leave out Clause 37.—[Dr. Owen.]
    Clause 38

      NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO BE GIVEN TO LOCAL AUTHORITY
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 247, in page 26, line 19, leave out from 'investigate' to end of line 22 and insert
      'make a report to the court (so far as is practicable) on the matters prescribed under subsection (3) and on any other matter which he considers to be relevant to the application.
      (3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe matters which are to be included in a report under subsection (2) and, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the prescribed matters shall include—'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 248.
      We may also take Amendment No. 146, in page 26, line 29, at end insert—
      '(c) the suitability of any person living either temporarily or permanently in the household of the applicant; and'
      Dr. Owen: These Government amendments are designed to ensure that the local authority, in carrying out its duty under Clause 38(2) to report to the court on an application for a custodianship order, shall include relevant information, of a kind to be specified in regulations, relating to members of the applicant's household.
      The amendments are intended to fulfil my undertaking, given in the tenth sitting of the Standing Committee, to consider the possibility of meeting on Report the point underlying Amendment No. 168, suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who withdrew it, which would have required the local authority to investigate the "suitability" of other persons living in the applicant's household. I explained that there were difficulties about using the term "suitability" in this context in the Bill. Those objections apply also to Amendment No. 146 now tabled by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). However, I think that we have met the substance of her argument in Committee.
      Mrs. Chalker: We welcome the Government amendments on this matter. It came to my knowledge only this week that there is a tragedy in my own area where a child of mixed parentage in a secure foster home has been taken back into the home of natural parents. Custodianship would have been applied for had the Bill been passed. Without these amendments there would have been no reason for the social workers to investigate the part-time cohabitant in this particular family who, regrettably, happened to be racially prejudiced.
      We are now beginning to get to the bottom of the case, which but for the concern of the social worker and her interest in the legislation might not have been possible.
      We welcome the two amendments to the Bill. We are sure that they will improve the Bill and the practice of social work.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 248, in page 26, line 29, leave out 'and' and insert:
      '(bb) information of a kind specified in the regulations relating to members of the applicant's household;'.
      No. 36, in page 26, line 33, leave out from 'report' to end of line 36 and insert:
      'under this section which is submitted to a magistrates' court.'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 39
      RESTRICTION ON REMOVAL OF CHILD WHERE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED HOME FOR THREE YEARS
      Amendment made: No. 37, in page 27, line 11, leave out '£100' and insert '£400'.—[Dr. Owen.]
    Clause 40

      RETURN OF CHILD TAKEN AWAY IN BREACH OF SECTION 39
      Amendment made: No. 156, in page 27, line 26, at end insert:
      '(3) If, in the case of an order made by the High Court under subsection (1), the High Court or, in the case of an order made by a county court under subsection (1), a county court is satisfied that the child has not been returned to the applicant, the court may make an order authorising an officer of the court to search such premises as may be specified in the order for the child and, if the officer finds the child, to return the child to the applicant.
      (4) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a child to whom an order under subsection (1) relates is in premises specified in the information, he may issue a search warrant authorising a constable to search the premises for the child; and if a constable acting in pursuance of a warrant under this section finds the child, he shall return the child to the person on whose application the order under subsection (1) was made.
      (5) An order under subsection (3) may be enforced in like manner as a warrant for committal.'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 41

      ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTODIANSHIP ETC. ORDER
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 27, line 28 after "child" insert
      'by virtue of a custodianship order made by a magistrates' court'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 128.
      Dr. Owen: The purpose of this group of amendments is to assist future consolidation of Clause 41 and section 13 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971. It is a simple matter.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 39, in page 27, line 37 after "made" insert "by a magistrates' court".
      No. 40, in page 28, line 1 after "money", insert
      made by a magistrates' court'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 45

      GRANTING OF CUSTODY
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 183, in page 29, line 16 at end insert
      'enactment or rule of law conferring a—'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government Amendment No. 41.
      Mr. McElhone: Both these amendments are designed to emphasise the relationship between the new statutory provisions in Clause 45(1) under which the relative, step-parent or foster parent of a child is entitled to apply for custody of the child in Scotland, and the existing law relating to custody applications.
      The first amendment makes it clear that the new provisions are without prejudice to the existing rights of application for custody, and powers of the court to grant custody, under any enactment or rule of law. The insertion of these words makes it clear that the existing law which the new provisions build upon is part statute law—for example the Guardianship of Infants Acts 1886–1973—and part common law.
      The insertion of the reference to Section 1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925 in Clause 45(2)(d) is designed to emphasise the relationship of the provisions of Clause 45(2)(d) with the general principle, applying to all cases involving the custody education or upbringing of a child, embodied in the 1925 Act. This is the same principle as is mentioned in the context of custodianship applications in England and Wales in Clause 32(9) of the Bill. Mention of the Scottish provisions is now felt to be desirable in view of the
      1484
      doubts that have been expressed since the Bill was originally published—by among others the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—as to the application of Section 1 of the 1925 Act to custody proceedings in Scotland to which the new statutory provisions in the Bill will relate.
      These doubts have been related to paragraph (d) of Clause 45(2) dealing with cases where a person is applying for custody without having the locus of a parent or guardian, or who does not fall within any one of paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of Clause 45(2). The second of the two present amendments should put those doubts to rest by making it absolutely clear that the case to be made by an applicant under paragraph (d) must be related expressly to the court's duty to treat the child's welfare as the first and paramount consideration in dealing with any application relating to custody, education and upbringing.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: By this amendment, the Minister has protected the rights of non-parents to apply for custody in the Scots courts. I am sure that this decision will be warmly welcomed by Scotsmen.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 41, in page 29, line 42, after 'cause', insert,
      ', having regard to section 1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925 (the principle on which questions relating to custody, upbringing etc. of children are to be decided)'.—[Mr. McElhone.]

    Clause 46

      MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO CUSTODY
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 30, line 23, leave out 'applying for' and insert
      'making an application relating to the'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45.
      Mr. McElhone: The purpose of these amendments is to extend the provisions of Clause 46 in such a way as to provide that certain ancillary provisions already applicable to the making or determination of applications for custody of a

      1485
      child in Scotland shall also apply in relation to any proceedings subsequent to the making of a custody order by the court. The points now covered have arisen from further consideration of the Scottish custody provisions. They deal with matters relating to court procedure and ancillary powers of the court in custody proceedings in Scotland; the proposed changes extend not only to the new categories of persons qualified to apply for custody under the Bill but more generally to any person applying for the custody of a child in Scotland.
      No changes are being made to the substantive provisions of clause 46 which have already been agreed in Committee. These amendments simply apply the provisions of Clause 46 more extensively to the whole range of custody proceedings including applications for variation or discharge of the order and for access or maintenance.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: In calling the next amendment, may I appeal for brevity? It is getting rather late now.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 238, in page 30, line 26, leave out from 'child' to end of line 27.
      I am surprised that you should ask for brevity now, Sir. I had intended to be brief, but I do not see why I should be singled out.
      My first reaction was lack of sympathy for those fathers who beget illegitimate children, but after further consideration one realises that some fathers have been in a permanent relationship with someone for three, four, five, ten or 15 years. They have produced children and when the relationship finishes, they are interested in the future of the child. I presume that that is at the root of the clause.
      There is a technical difficulty which I am not sure is dealt with by the amendment, which may go too far. It relates to the term "known" in the clause. How does one know who is the father of a child? In a permanent liaison there is no difficulty, but if a child has appeared as the result of a hit-and-run association, it is sometimes difficult to decide. The clause refers to an Act of Sederunt which could be passed by the Court of Session
      1486
      outlining the criteria by which the putative parent could be found. Even so, there could be difficulties without adequate guidance from the statute.
      An example is a mother telling an applicant for custody that someone is the father. Does that mean that the applicant must give notice to that person? If an entirely innocent person were dragged in, the applicant could be in hot water. So the Government should try to define what a "known" father is. He could be defined—this could possibly be done in another place—as one who is liable under a decree of the court or a written agreement to contribute to the aliment of the child or who has for a period of some months preceding had possession of the child, or, if one wanted a much looser definition, someone who has contributed to the payment of aliment for a child. In those circumstances, the admission would have been made by the father that he is responsible for the child and has paid for it.
      There can be few better admissions than the payment of money. In any event, I would like to think that the known parent is someone who has had some fairly close association with the child over a period of time and not someone who is just plucked from the blue because he happens to be the father of an illegitimate child.
      11.45 p.m.
      Mr. McElhone: This amendment proposes the removal from Clause 46 of wording which requires notice of a custody application to be given not only to the parents of a legitimate child, or the mother of an illegitimate child, but also to the putative father of an illegitimate child.
      The effect of the amendment would be that when application for custody of a child was being made by any person, whether a parent, or one of the persons now qualified to apply by virtue of the new statutory right contained in Clause 45(1), or a person applying under common law, the putative father might not be aware of the proceedings at all. The problem does not arise as a significant issue in the case of existing custody proceedings in Scotland since, where the custody of an illegitimate child is in question in proceedings taken under the Custody of Illegitimate Children

      1487
      (Scotland) Act 1930, both parents, including the putative father, where known, will normally be involved as parties.
      Such an effect would be unfair to the putative father and undesirable in terms of policy regarding the Scottish custody provisions in the Bill. The departmental committee was at pains in its report to stress that the position of the putative father should be fully examined before an order was made freeing the child for adoption and Clause 14(9) of the Bill expressly requires that the court considering the making of a freeing order should satisfy itself as to the possibility—in the Scottish context—of a prospective application under the 1930 Act. If the court should be required to consider the position of the putative father before making a 'freeing' order, it is also appropriate that the putative father's position should come under review when the making of a custody order is under consideration.
      The most effective means of securing this result, while avoiding any delay which might arise, is to require the applicant for custody to serve notice on the putative father along with the mother of the child, where practicable. There is, admittedly, no requirement as to the giving of notice to the putative father in the case of an application for adoption under court rules as at present framed. Clearly, however, this should be looked at again in the preparation of new adoption rules after the Bill becomes law having regard to the comments made by the departmental committee on the position of the putative father at pages 56–57 of its report.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 43, in page 30, line 29, leave out 'may be revoked' and insert 'discharged'.
      No. 44, in line 34, leave out 'any application other than one' and insert
      'an application relating to the custody of a child, other than an application'.
      No. 45, in line 36, leave out 'for custody of a child'.—[Mr. McElhone.]

    Clause 49

      RESTRICTION ON REMOVAL OF CHILD WHERE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED HOME FOR THREE YEARS
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 31, line 37, at end insert:
      '(1A) In any case where subsection (1) applies, and

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

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

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

      (i) with the applicant's consent;

      (ii) with the leave of a court; or

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

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Amendment No. 47.
      Mr. McElhone: Amendment No. 46 inserts a provision corresponding to one inserted in Committee in Clause 39(2) in relation to England and Wales. Its purpose is similar to the provision in Clause 28 which inserts a new section 34A(3) in the Adoption Act 1958 in relation to England and Wales and Scotland. The purpose of Clause 49 is to restrict the removal by local authorities of children who are the subject of custody applications by persons who have had the child concerned in their possession for a period of over three years.
      Amendment No. 47 is a drafting amendment consequential to Amendment No. 46.
      The inclusion of Amendment No. 46 derives from the fact that the custodianship provisions in Part II of the Bill were expanded by the Committee so as to inhibit the removal of a child by a local authority from the possession of an applicant for custody in circumstances where the applicant had had custody of the child for over three years and removal could be seen as an attempt to frustrate the wish of the applicant to obtain legal custody of the child.
      The provision now made is the equivalent in Scottish terms to that contained in Clause 39(2) while allowing for

      1489
      the provisions relating to the temporary accommodation of the child in a place of safety contained in Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Amendment No. 46 makes equivalent provision in this regard to that in Amendment No. 29 which dealt with the removal of a child from an applicant for adoption.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 47, in page 31, line 38, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
      No. 48, in page 31, line 41, leave out '£100' and insert '£400'.—[Mr. McElhone.]

    Clause 50

      CUSTODY ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR ADOPTION IN SCOTLAND
      Amendments made: No. 212, in page 32, line 9, leave out from beginning to 'direct' in line 12 and insert:
      'applicant is a person qualified to apply for custody of the child, and the court is of opinion—

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

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

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

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

      the court shall'.
      No. 213, in page 32, line 13, leave out 'in such a case' and insert:
      'where such a direction is made'.—[Mr. McElhone.]

    Clause 53

      RESTRICTION ON REMOVAL OF CHILD FROM CARE
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 33, line 16, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 23 and insert:
      1490
      'not less than 28 days' notice of his intention to do it'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we may take Government Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 184 and 185.
      We may also take Amendment No. 168, in page 33, leave out lines 18 to 21.
      Dr. Owen: The amendment would remove from the clause the requirement, added in Committee, for the parent of a child in the care of a local authority under Section 1 of the Children Act 1948, or in the care of a voluntary organisation, to give variable periods of notice of intention to remove the child from care depending upon the length of time the child had been in care. The amendment would substitute for the variable periods of notice a single requirement to give up to 28 days' notice after the child has been in care for six months.
      The Government's proposal, to substitute a single requirement to give up to 28 days' notice after six months in care for the requirement now in the Bill to give variable periods of notice which would begin to apply immediately the child was received into care, was included in a consultation paper which was circulated among professional bodies in September.
      The response to this paper indicated that opinion on the need for notice of removal during the first six months was polarised between those of the Association of Directors of Social Services, which would have preferred that there should be a requirement to give up to 28 days' notice effective immediately the child came into care, and the British Association of Social Workers, which preferred that there should not be any requirement to give notice however long the child had been in care.
      Between these extremes there were the views of the voluntary organisations concerned with child care which expressed a preference for the Government's proposal to the variable provisions now in the Bill.
      Perhaps I may quote from some of these. The National Council for One-Parent Families said,
      "We are very worried about Clause 53 because the majority of children in care from 0–6 months are in care because of the illness of the parent and the one thing they long for is to be able to go home. Even a delay of two days will seem extremely long, especially to a very young child.

      1491
      We think that 14 days is ample time for the Local Authority to apply for an order preventing a child in their care from being returned to his parents should that be thought necessary, and to prepare the child for the return".
      The National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations said it had consulted all its major societies and that they felt that it was important to have only one qualifying period as it would be impossible to give valid reasons for variable periods in care requiring different periods of notice.
      "I think they would have preferred the period to be twelve months rather than six, as the Houghton Committee recommended, but they appreciated the point that the requirement for notice could be waived by the authority or organisation."
      The Association of British Adoption Agencies said,
      "The flexibility of the Committee Amendment with its variable periods of notice is very attractive but we fear that it would prove complicated in practice and very easily misunderstood. Rather regretfully therefore, we support the government compromise of a single recruitment of up to 28 days' notice after 6 months. We wonder, however, whether six months will soon prove to be too long a period and would like to see the Secretary of State given power to change the time either up or down. Differentiation between short-term and long-term does seem valid but only experience can show where the dividing line should be drawn."
      It seems clear that we cannot meet the wishes of all who have expressed a view on this contentious issue and therefore in a spirit of compromise I have tabled this amendment which goes part of the way towards meeting the differing views expressed. The original proposals in the Bill have been changed from 12 to six months.
      The amendment would, of course, enable the Secretary of State, by order subject to approval by each House, to vary the periods of 28 days and six months should these prove, in practice, not to be the most suitable.
      I know that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) has very strong feelings about this issue. I respect those feelings. He has already successfully moved an amendment which has substantially changed the periods. We have met him half way, although he may say that it is not quite as far as half way. My only consolation to him is to say this: first, it may well prove that his
      1492
      suggestion eventually is the one that is fixed on. My own sympathy for the fact that that may well be so is well known. I have always wanted shorter periods, but I am bound to take account of what the professional organisations feel. There is very strong feeling against going for the variable period as a first step.
      The compromise, which does not meet all the objections of everyone, is in the best interest of children. It will give us a six-month period—down from 12 months. It will give us experience of this shorter period and time scale. If as the result of experience we want to go even further down, it gives the Secretary of State full power.
      I have often stressed that this legislation must not be static legislation. We must be able, in the light of experience, to make adaptations. But equally, we would be extremely foolish if we were to ignore the collective experience of those who are working in the child-care field.
      I take account particularly of the National Council for One-Parent Families. It is our duty to respect one-parent families, who face very formidable problems. We can easily tilt the balance in this legislation too strongly against single-parent families. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the need to put the interests of the child first and foremost, we must always remember that there are other balances to be held when we are considering this legislation. Therefore, I urge the House to accept this compromise.
      Mr. A. W. Stallard: Very reluctantly, I have to say that I am not exactly satisfied with the new amendment proposed by the Minister. I say that regretfully, because I have admired the way in which the Minister has handled the Committee stage of the Bill and the period since then. I have admired his courteous replies and his treatment of members of the Committee. It has been a model as regards treatment of Committee members. I was proud and privileged to serve on such a Committee. The level of debate has been as high as, if not higher than, that of many Committees. Much of this has been due to my hon. Friend the Minister. I unequivocally give credit to him in that regard.
      However, I have one sorrow. I have no personal axe to grind in this matter,

      1493
      but I have come to know over many years' involvement in public health and local government a great number of people and many problems in my constituency. One of these problems has been the midnight snatch, the sudden snatching away of children from Section 1 care under the 1948 Act. In my constituency this has happened at all hours, sometimes in the middle of the night. Children have been literally snatched from a bath when a parent has turned up.
      I am not saying that the parent does not have a right to take the child back. That is not the argument. We are saying that there ought to be a reasonable period before the child is moved from one situation to another, no matter how long it has been in care. This kind of situation can occur, even in the first six months. I should have said that 28 days' notice after six months is too long. The scale ought to be graded down, even going right to the bottom. I am worried about the reaction which might be set up among some parents at the end of, say, five months and 20 days because of the 28 days' notice which would come into force at the end of six months. There will be a reaction. They will want to get back the child quickly because the 28–day period is too long.
      12 midnight.
      I do not have as many contacts with the professional organisations as does my hon. Friend, but I have many contacts with foster parents who live in fear that a child may be snatched away. There has been an increase either in the number of such incidents or in the reporting of them. People may be more concerned because of our discussions on the Bill. They may have reacted because of their fear of what might happen because of the Bill, or there may be a general increase in these incidents because people are worried. There is just as much need for protection in the first six months as in any period thereafter.
      There is no adequate protection now. That is no reflection on the authorities. They may be reluctant to operate the existing legislation, or there may be a delay in operating the legislation which allows the parent to carry out a snatch. If we are to prevent the occurrence of incidents similar to those which are so frequently reported in newspapers and
      1494
      on the radio, the time scale must start from the beginning. I am unable to accept the absence of any protection in the early days.
      I am puzzled by the Association of Directors of Social Services. In Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) referred to a letter from that association which welcomed the principle of the clause but wished to see the principle applied to all children in care. The association did not suggest that it should apply only after six months or 12 months. It referred to an abrupt change of surroundings being very distressing for a young child, especially for one who had been away from home for much less than a year.
      Dr. Owen: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. That is the view of the Association of Directors of Social Services but it is polarised by the BASW view which is that there should be no requirement.
      Mr. Stallard: That is the kind of healthy debate we had in Committee. Many foster parents who do a tremendous job, often with difficult children, fear the possibility of a snatch. I want that fear to be removed. We must, therefore, return to the time scale accepted by the Committee after much discussion. Several compromises were suggested, many amendments were tabled and, after long discussion and a consensus of expert opinion, we arrived at the words which appear in the Bill. I do not think that we could have arrived at a better set of words, and I hope that the House will accept the clause as it stands and reject the amendment.
      Mr. Bowden: I rise to support the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). With great respect to the Minister, I remind him that we had an excellent debate in Committee where, by 12 votes to nine, the wording in the Bill was accepted by the Committee. It is regrettable that the Minister should ask us to overturn that decision.
      I have on many occasions expressed my great respect for the way in which the Minister has handled the Bill. He has done a remarkable job. Yet, on this amendment, he has put the weakest case and weakest argument of any discussion on the Bill.

      1495
      As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Minister had before him a whole range of possibilities of compromise, but he has come up with the worst possible answer, a limit which is too long—six months—and if the child is only one day within the six-month limit it can be taken away by the parent without warning.
      In Committee, I outlined a number of horrifying circumstances in which it would have been possible, under the original proposal, for a parent to remove a child from care without warning. Much as I respect the director of Gingerbread, I do not think it reasonable to say that even two days' delay could cause stress and strain because the child might be in care because the mother was ill. As the Bill stands, that two days' notice could be and would be waived easily in the vast majority of cases, but where it was undesirable to waive it, where the local authority wished to make further inquiry, it would be able to do so. I urge the Minister to think again about this. He should let the provision stand as the Committee decided by the substantial majority of 12 votes to nine.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I hope that the House will support the Minister of State's amendment because in a very difficult situation it is a reasonable compromise. The decision to make the change at six months makes a clear distinction between short-term and long-term fostering. We should be trying to make short-term fostering as informal and as easy as possible. Only in the long-term fostering situation do we need the sort of safeguards suggested.
      In most instances quoted, a snatch-back, even if in a long-term fostering case, would be covered by the amendment. In the one case I have had quoted to me of a snatch-back in a short-term fostering case, the local authority should have used powers it already had to have the child in care under Section 2 instead of Section 1 of the 1948 Act.
      We should consider carefully what we mean by short-term fostering. Many hon. Members have had family crises in which they have been unable to look after the children and have turned to grandparents, uncles, aunts or friends, with the children moved at short notice because of family
      1496
      illness, for example. When the crisis is over, the children are brought back quickly. I can think of circumstances in which I fetched my children back from grandparents at very short notice with complete agreement.
      But there are many families which have no supportive web of friends or relatives to turn to in a crisis, so the local authorities have to provide short-term fostering. They should be working in the same supportive way as relatives and friends support the vast majority of families, and it is important that they should not have to give this sort of formal notice.
      There are many instances where someone has made plans for a confinement, for instance; the husband has a job which takes him away from home but makes arrangements to be on holiday on the due date to look after the other children. Then the birth starts early, he is away and the other children have to be looked after. The only course may be to place them in a foster home. The father returns and naturally goes to the house to collect the child. He sees the child but is told "You have not given two days' notice" or the foster parent may not think that he is the ideal person to take the child away, but the child runs to him.
      It is important to keep short-term fostering as informal as possible. If there are any grounds for the natural parent not to be in possession, the local authority should use not Section 1, but the existing powers—
      Mr. Whitehead: There are bound to be circumstances of what is technically short-term fostering which cannot be seen as the legal equivalent of a family situation where powers have been taken, but if a child is in care in a fostering situation, we need safeguards to prevent a snatch-back.
      Mr. Bennett: The statutory powers should be those within the 1948 Act which provided that parents should not take a child back at will. The sad thing is that many local authorities have been reluctant to use this power, which they already have. They could use that power to stop those situations. We have to concern ourselves that we do not extend the power to a completely different group and cause a lot of upset.
      We should look at the situation of a single parent facing sudden illness who

      1497
      possibly knows someone who might be persuaded to look after the child in an informal situation or may have an elderly relative who could look after the child. Does she do that or use the first-class local authority foster home? So long as there are these time limits, they may push her to use the poorer services when she feels that she is not losing her child. It is about cases of that kind that the British Association of Social Workers and certainly the social workers to whom I have spoken in Stockport are worried.
      What do we do about enforcement? If a parent does not give notice but turns up, especially if it is only after three or four weeks, the child will recognise the natural parent and it will be difficult for the foster parents to ring up the police. They would have to say, "You have not given notice and the child stays here". What do we do then? We have to tell the natural parents that they are losing some rights.
      There is also a difficult situation where possibly someone is taken into care because the parent has a breakdown in mental health. How does one tell people in such a case?
      My last point is about timing. There are many problems with this if one faces it. I would plead with the House to recognise the short-term fostering situation. There should be informal arrangements for 99 per cent. of cases and in the cases where there are problems the local authorities should be using their existing powers under the 1948 Act.
      Mr. Bowden: May I refer the hon. Member to what he said in Standing Committee in the light of what he has just said about where he stands? He then said,
      "The simple answer is for parents to tell the local authority, perhaps giving 24 hours' notice, so that the representative of the local authority can be present when the child is transferred.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29th July 1975; col. 550.]
      Mr. Bennett: Yes. I am sure that that would be the simple answer, but the problems are for the short period. I accept the suggestion that six months is perhaps too long and that perhaps one could come down for small children in a short-term fostering of two or three days, but we should look at it in the family situation. If we look at the figure for
      1498
      children in care in 1973, we find that it was 93,000. Some 54,000 of them had come in during that year. Therefore the vast majority come in and go out over a very short period of time.
      The compromise put forward by the Minister is, I think, the best, retaining the very valuable short-term service. If we introduce any time limits we shall discourage some parents from letting their children come in and cause a great deal of unrest among social workers.
      12.15 a.m.
      Mrs. Chalker:I remind the House that, as the Bill stands, in the case of a child in care from nought to six months—that is a period, not the age of the child—the notice is two days, for a child in care from six to 12 months the notice is seven days, and for a child in care over 12 months the notice is 28 days.
      We were starting just now to lose sight of the fact that we are concerned with children in care over a period of time. We are not concerned with the child who goes into care while a mother is in hospital for a relatively short period. We are concerned with up to six months in the first instance. While accepting what the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) says about the use of Section 2 of the 1948 Act, that is not the argument behind this particular matter.
      The Minister has reported to the House a wide range of views, and has come down very much more on one side than I would have expected from what he reported to us. We have had from the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) a clear exposition of the problem. Had we not had that, I think that the words of the National Foster Care Association regarding the notice of removal would be extremely relevant. The Association maintains that any reasonable parent will see the necessity for a foster parent to have at least 24 hours' notice to prepare a child for his return home, to get his clothes and toys together and prepare her own family for the child's departure. In cases where circumstances are not really suitable for a child's immediate return home, many tragedies could be averted by the obligation to give notice—even two days'

      1499
      notice for a child in care under six months.
      In one case a toddler of 19 months was brought out of his cot one Sunday evening at eight o'clock and given to his father, who had been discharged from jail that day and had never before seen the child. That child was to be taken, the foster mother was told, to an address which was that of a neighbour. That child has never been traced by the foster parent from that day forward. It was somewhere in North Wales. The addresses were completely false. Yet there was absolutely nothing the foster parent could do, or the local authority social worker, to prevent that parent snatching that child—a child that he had never seen.
      The effect on two other foster children in the same home was such that it took weeks to settle them. They said, "We are terrified that someone will snatch us away as Jenny was snatched away last night." This is a case from my own constituency.
      In all we have heard it seems to me that we need to give the foster parents the chance to ensure that the facts they are being given are true. For the shortest period of care now written into the Bill, nought to six months, the two days' notice is a very short period, particularly when a child's mind needs to be prepared for that transition.
      I hope very much that the House will support the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North and reject the Government's proposals on this point.
      Mr. Robertson: Although it is not clear that this provision or the Government amendment would apply to Scotland, it is a possibility that we have to consider in the light of later amendments. But, whatever be the case, I support the Bill as it stands, because I believe that the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) is unshaken. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) was careful to avoid mentioning the reason why notice was required. It must be within his experience of cases in his own constituency that some form of notice would have been beneficial to all concerned. In any event, it is only common decency that a child should not
      1500
      be snatched away in the middle of the night, which is always a distinct possibility.
      There is a problem. The period now in the Bill and proposed originally by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North in Committee may not be perfect, but it is better than the Minister's proposal. I cannot see why, in the case of a period of six months less one day, no notice should be required, but that a period of six months plus one day should require 28 days' notice. In both cases, sufficient notice is needed so that the foster parent can verify the facts and the local authority can take some action if necessary so that the situation can be kept under control.
      I support the provision now in the Bill.
      Dr. Owen: The argument has been well demonstrated in the conflicting views advanced by my hon. Friends the Members for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).
      The Houghton Committee studied this proposal and recommended a period of notice—and this is the first time that it has been incorporated in our legislation—after 12 months. The Committee discussed it and decided in favour of the provision now in the Bill. I have come forward with a proposal to introduce a pause up to six months.
      The Secretary of State would have power to come to my hon. Friend's proposal if it seemed better in the light of experience, but in my view it would be unwise to take this step quite so quickly. It may be a step to which we shall come eventually.
      I hope that I have demonstrated that, on balance, the compromise which I propose commands the greatest respect among those whom we have consulted. But I accept that there are differing views, and I respect those views.
      We have to be careful in striking a balance. We have to bear in mind the possibility, as the Bill stands, that poorer families will be deterred from putting their children in care when things go wrong in the absolute certainty of being able to reclaim their children immediately. The open access of short-term fostering and care facilities is a very important factor.

      1501
      As matters stand, we should have to explain to anyone putting their children into short-term care that there would have to be a two-day period of waiting. We have to be careful that we do not deter people from using the care facilities in times of economic difficulty.
      It is with that possibility in mind that the National Council for One-Parent Families has not felt able to support my hon. Friend. I might say, incidentally, that far from being an elitist organisation, the National Council has championed the cause of people who have no access to elite organisations, as have the fostering organisations—
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Can my hon. Friend make a distinction between voluntary care on a short-term basis as opposed to the situation when a local authority takes a child into care? Is there a distinction?
      Dr. Owen: The important thing is when the child goes into care. It applies whether the person concerned is taking care of the child under an order—in which case, if that person has been shown to be
      unable to look after the child, there are other powers open to the local authority—or whether it is a case of a parent who has done no harm to the child at all but where there is a long period of illness, financial difficulty, a housing crisis, or violence in the marriage. It might be a temporary situation. Initially the parents may have thought that they were putting their child into care for a very short period and it may have developed into a very long period.
      I return to the point that the House must decide whether it wishes to take a much wider step than was recommended by Houghton or a more cautious step, with the possibility of going to the scale recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras North. I hope that the House will agree with myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Stock-port, North and decide to support Amendment No. 49.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 24.

      Division No. 371.]

      AYES

      12.25 a.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Noble, Mike

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Flannery, Martin

      Oakes, Gordon

      Atkinson, Norman

      Ford, Ben

      Owen, Dr David

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bates, Alf

      George, Bruce

      Penhaligon, David

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Prescott, John

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Roper, John

      Boardman, H.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Harper, Joseph

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Small, William

      Buchan, Norman

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Hunter, Adam

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Campbell, Ian

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Stoddart, David

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Swain, Thomas

      Coleman, Donald

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Tierney, Sydney

      Concannon, J. D.

      Lamond, James

      Tinn, James

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Urwin, T. W.

      Corbett, Robin

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Dalyell, Tam

      McElhone, Frank

      Watkinson, John

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      White, James (Pollok)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Whitlock, William

      Dempsey, James

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Dormand, J. D.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Woodall, Alec

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Eadie, Alex

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Millan, Bruce

      Mr. Thomas Cox and

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Mr. Tom Pendry.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      NOES

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cryer, Bob

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Newens, Stanley

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Wool, Robert

      Sillars, James

      Welsh, Andrew

      Sims, Roger

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Mr. Phillip Whitehead and

      Stallard, A. W.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mr. R. C. Mitchell.

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 50, in page 33, line 29, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
      No. 51, in page 33, line 37, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 54

      SUBSTITUTION OF S. 2 OF CHILDREN ACT 1948
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move Amendment No. 169, in page 35, line 6, leave out paragraph (d).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 172 to 176.
      Mr. Bennett: A little earlier we considered the problems of children in care under Section 1 of the 1948 Act. I believe that many children who are now in care under the provisions of Section 1 of that Act should come within the provisions of Section 2. There has been a growing feeling in the last 10 years that local authorities have not made sufficient use of existing legislation. However, within the last six months or so many local authorities have again started to use their powers in the existing legislation. Unfortunately, the Bill includes paragraph (d), a provision that seems to be inappropriate. Whereas all the other provisions repeat or strengthen the powers in the 1948 Act, that paragraph seeks to bring in new criteria. The grounds involve a positive act of failure by the parent. The Bill is now seeking to look merely to the passage of time.
      I am most disturbed by the thought that many local authorities may again fail to carry out their duties. During a period of three years many problems may arise. Therefore, surely it would be better to use other provisions in existing legislation rather than wait for the passage of time.
      I hope that the Minister will consider removing the paragraph from the Bill and will make clear that local authorities will
      1504
      be expected to use their existing powers in Section 2 of the 1948 Act and will not be able to invoke as an excuse the mere passage of time.
      Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has on many occasions sought to emphasise that many problems could be circumvented if local authorities were to use the existing powers. My hon. Friend is right to say that. There is no doubt that if local authorities took that line it would greatly alleviate the situation. To that extent I strongly endorse his closing remarks. However, in the opening part of his comments he virtually argued that we should go back on the major Houghton recommendations. I would regard that as totally wrong. I believe that we should endorse, as did the Standing Committee, the Houghton recommendations. Therefore I believe that there are strong grounds for resisting Amendment No. 169.
      Government Amendments Nos. 172 to 176 bring about a change in Section 2(1) (d) of the Children Act 1948 introduced by Clause 54 and also the body of subsection (1) so as to make clearer the meaning of the subsection as it applies to a child who has been partly in the care of a local authority and partly in the care of a voluntary organisation. I do not think that these are contentions provisions. They merely help to clarify the situation.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 172, in page 35, line 9, after 'or', insert:
      'partly in the care of a local authority and partly'.
      No. 173, in page 35, line 10, leave out 'or partly the one and partly the other'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 35, line 11, leave out from 'other' to end of line 15.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The following amendment may also be discussed: No. 148, in page 35, line 12, leave out from 'child's 'to' if 'in line 15 and insert:
      'proper emotional needs and development have been avoidably prevented or neglected

      1505
      or his health has been avoidably impaired or neglected and is likely to continue to be so'.
      Dr. Owen: This amendment will remove from Section 2 of the Children Act 1948, subsection (1)(e), which provides as a ground for the passing of a resolution assuming parental rights and duties,
      "that the child's emotional needs and development warrant it, and that the child's development would be impaired or stunted if returned to his parents".
      This paragraph was added to Clause 54 as a result of Amendment No. 358, which was opposed by the Government, but was carried on a Division. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) will no doubt wish to argue with the proposal.
      Mr. Whitehead: There were a number of hon. Members who were not present in Committee. I should like to remind the House that the proposal was passed in Committe by 15 votes to five—only the Government Ministers and one other hon. Member voting that way.
      Dr. Owen: I am not trying to escape from the voting figures. However, if legislation is passed in Committee, as with other procedures, I have to put the matter forward for consultation and ask what should be done in this particular situation and how it would affect the child-care practice.
      The comments received from the professional bodies to which the Government's consultation paper was sent indicated a remarkable number of people who supported the removal of the words. The ACC, the AMA and BASW supported the removal. The NCVCCO said:
      "there is unanimous disapproval of the new subsection (1)(e)…as a dangerous weapon in the hands of a manipulative social worker perhaps conniving with a possessive foster parent."
      The ADSS said:
      "It looks as though the Association will wish to support your proposal"
      to remove the subsection.
      The NFCA was very concerned at proposals to delete subsection (1)(e), which it strongly opposed.
      The ABBA said that there was some division of opinion within the Association on Clause 54 2(1)(e). While it strongly
      1506
      supports the intention of protecting the child's emotional health and development, it is also aware that this subsection introduces new and vaguely defined reasons for depriving natural parents of their rights.
      Words like "emotional needs", "impaired" or "stunted" could give rise to real difficulties concerning legal interpretation. I recognise that there is a wish to try to introduce this concept, and I have undertaken that I will be prepared to try to write this into the regulations, but I do not think that we should write it into the body of the Bill. Therefore, I ask the House to agree to withdraw these terms, which I think will shift the balance. There has been some considerable unease about this wording. I do not think it is easy to interpret in terms of legislation, and I hope that the House will agree to withdraw it.
      Mr. Stallard: I make no apology for keeping the House for another few minutes. I shall be as brief as possible because most of us were here until the early hours of this morning—and rightly so—discussing the Hare Coursing Bill and cruelty to animals. We are now discussing, but not nearly so late, what some of us may think is as important as, or more important than, hare coursing; namely, children.
      I was a little disappointed with the last vote, as no doubt hon. Members will have guessed. I therefore make no apology for keeping the House to discuss what is a very important subject.
      Our parliamentary democracy and system can sometimes be extremely frustrating for a back bencher. There is nothing more frustrating than when one succeeds in having an amendment accepted in Standing Committee, by a reasonable majority and after a good discussion, only to find on Report that it is turned out by the full weight of the Government Front Bench and the Government machine. It is frustrating when it happens once, but when it happens twice, we backbench Members may be forgiven for feeling a little inadequate and for developing some kind of complex. This amendment was carried in Committee by an even larger majority than was the last amendment. The only people against it were Government spokesmen and one backbench Member.

      1507
      12.45 a.m.
      I divorce myself from any criticism of the organisations that the Minister has mentioned—the National Council for One-Parent Families, the Child Poverty Action Group and others. I have supported them for many years, and I shall continue to do so, even though from time to time we have to agree to differ about certain aspects of their policy. I shall, for instance, fight whole-heartedly for the implementation of the Finer recommendations. This debate will make no difference to my arguments in that respect.
      It must be remembered that this is not a parents Bill; it is a Children Bill. Ministers have been at great pains to say that first consideration should be given to the child's needs, development, welfare and so on for all its childhood. That is what the amendment is about. We say that to put the child's needs first automatically means that the needs of someone else must come second, and that might even mean the parents. If the concept of the Bill is accepted, that must be a result.
      There is often a fine balance, and who am I, any more than any other man, to say that I am right? Perhaps we shall not know who is right for some time. But I am convinced that in this respect we are more right in our approach than are those who oppose us. We are talking not about all children in normal circumstances but about special children and special parents in special circumstances. Fortunately, they are a very small minority.
      The amendment deals with an exception to the grounds on which a local authority may assume parental rights. We want the exception because, as it was so aptly put to me, most of the grounds concern the fittedness—if there is such a word—or the unfittedness of the parents. In other words, there is a direct criticism of the parent in those circumstances.
      Our amendment is an attempt to create some kind of escape clause, some ground that would not necessarily condemn the parents. It would allow the parents, the social worker and everyone else involved to say that there were grounds connected with the child's emotional development and so on. Who is to say that that approach is wrong in a Children Bill? I should have thought that that was what the Bill was all about.
      1508
      The amendment will mean controversy and criticism. Since it was passed in Committee, we have been the subject of a number of criticisms. The first, mentioned by the Minister, naturally came from the National Council for One-Parent Families and the Child Poverty Action Group. They said that the amendment introduced a new criterion—poverty and inadequate housing conditions—and that that criterion could be used by a local authority against the parents. Having discussed the matter with them and reread the amendment, I believe that the criticism of the words was justified. That is why I changed the words and amended the amendment. The words "stunted" and "impaired", which the Minister mentioned, have now been removed.
      The other legal criticism was that there was no precedent. I have in the main used the words in the 1969 Act, so that criticism cannot be maintained.
      Perhaps, the words which remain, "emotional needs" are capable of some interpretation. If the Minister had said that he would support the amendment without them, that would have been reasonable, but he did not say that: he said "Scrub the lot."
      Dr. Owen: With respect, I did not say that. What I said—the House has accepted Amendment No. 224—was that in the regulations about the six-monthly re view for the child I am prepared to write in "emotional needs" and similar wording to that in my hon. Friend's revised amendment. It is much better to do that by regulation than by legislation. Since my hon. Friend has now accepted that "stunted" should go out, the difference between us is not great.
      Mr. Stallard: I do not profess to have the expertise or the advice to enable me to know whether regulations are better than legislation in this case. I am a little suspicious. If we accept the spirit of this proposal, perhaps it is better to have it in the Bill as well. Many people will read the Bill but not the regulations. That is not to say that I do not have complete trust in the Minister and the Government, although I am not so sure about some future Government—God forbid!
      My new amendment is a genuine attempt to take care of genuine criticism.

      1509
      The Minister has said that the fundamental right of parents is the custody of their children. No one disagrees with that, but the amendment deals with children in care. Of course parents have rights, and they are often vocal in demanding them. But under the Bill children have rights, and they often have no one to speak on behalf of their rights.
      I hope that the amendment will enable us to protect children's rights. It is difficult to get parents to give up some of their parental rights because of the present law, which demands that the local authority should demonstrate that someone has shown a parental failure. We say that the amendment would help in that difficulty.
      Since the Committee stage I have been inundated with letters giving examples of cases that might be helped if this amendment were included in the Bill. I am moved by that kind of response. I never expected it. Having amended my original amendment, I would have thought that the House could accept the new form of the amendment, thus strengthening the Bill and helping these parents and all involved.
      Mr. Whitehead: We all know at this late hour what the situation is—the Committee proposes, the House disposes. The House in this situation frequently consists of many hon. Members who wish to get home. They support the Government loyally in the Lobby and do not necessarily follow every line of the proceedings in Committee.
      In Committee the vote was 15 to 5 in favour of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). He has been conscious of some of the criticisms of the phraseology that have been levelled at the original amendment. There was the question of the use of the word "stunted" and so on. The whole of the offensive phraseology has been removed. My hon. Friend and I now propose a form of words similar to that in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. I accept that those who have criticised this and who apparently have had their way with the Minister—although he was also of that persuasion in Committee—have at heart the best interests of those they represent.
      Mr. Holland, from the British Association of Social Workers, and Margaret
      1510
      Bramall, of the one-parent family organisation, have written to me about this. They are good friends of mine, and I expect to be working with them on many issues in future. I think they are wrong on this one. Mr. Holland has written to say that nowadays the
      "unwillingness to act which may have characterised some local authorities a few years ago has changed dramatically since the Maria Colwell inquiry".
      In other words, he says there is now no need for us to be seeking legal safeguards.
      Mrs. Bramall takes a different line and suggests that the Children Act 1948 and the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 are the way to seek these safeguards and that it should be done through the courts rather than by giving powers to local authorities. We say that in this narrow area the local authority should have in some circumstances—which were gone into in Committee—these powers and should be able to exercise them.
      We have gone to great lengths to find a form of words which has a precedent in Section 1 of the 1969 Act so as to meet objections about the phrasing that we had in Committee. I hope that those who have listened to this short debate will support the majority in Committee—a three to one majority. In doing so they will be supporting not only the principle of the amendment, which may be imperfectly understood from this debate, but the whole principle that Committees of this House sit and deliberate on legislation in a meaningful way and cannot simply be steam-rollered by the Government late at night.
      Mrs. Chalker: I echo the words of the hon. Members for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). We spent a long time in Committee considering most carefully what the outcome of this difficult situation would be. I know how difficult it must be for hon. Members who come in to a debate late at night and may not be sure of what the argument is. It has happened to me. There are many hon. Members who have listened to the debate tonight.
      We are concerned that we now have a thoroughly acceptable amendment in the shape of Amendment No. 148. It is a great improvement on the amendment we passed by 15 votes to 5 in Committee.

      1511
      Four of those five votes belonged to Labour Members.
      1.0 a.m.
      Very often local authorities cannot find sufficient grounds for implementing Section 2 rights. We feel that Amendment No. 148 is needed by the local authorities to strengthen their hand.
      Perhaps I can give one small example. A baby of 14 months was suffering from severe malnutrition. Until he was 2 years old the mother never bothered to visit him. Between the ages of 2 and 3 years she took him out about once a month, but not every month. From the age of 3 she ignored him again. At this stage the local authority had still not implemented its Section 2 rights, in spite of frequent requests that it should do so. The child was past the age of 5 before that happened. The emotional development of that child has been such that at the age of 7 years he will not accept invitations to visit other children with whom he goes to school because he does not want to go to a strange house, even with people he sees on a daily basis in school.
      One could go on criticising and amending every amendment. There were times this week when it was suggested that we might amend Amendment No. 148. I decided against that course because I felt it was adequate for what the local authorities required.
      We have heard from the Minister and from a number of bodies, but I am concerned now with the people who care for the child in this difficult situation. Therefore, I put most weight on the views of the foster parents. They are unequivocal in their view of the importance of a child's emotional development. The Government must drop their amendment and accept Amendment No. 148.
      Dr. Owen: The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) has made much of what the local authorities require. She must, therefore, address herself to the fact that the ACC and the AMA, which represent the authorities which will be most deeply involved in social services, support withdrawal of the provision. That is also the case with the directors of social services and the British Association of Social Workers. These are the people who will have to operate this Act and
      1512
      use the legislation. Although I respect the views of the foster parents, they are in a minority on this issue.
      The Committee made many changes to the Bill. Many of the Committee suggestions have been accepted throughout the proceedings this evening, but we are also bound to take account of the views of other people on Committee amendments, and in rejecting Amendment No. 148 I ask the House to recognise that I have undertaken to put the wording about emotional needs as far as possible into the regulations. To that extent I am taking a sizeable step towards meeting the objection of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard).
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 174, in page 35, line 17, leave out from 'them' to 'and' in line 19 and insert:
      'the parental rights and duties with respect to that child'.
      No. 175, in page 35, line 20, leave out 'that parent' and insert:
      'the parent on whose account the resolution was passed'.
      No. 176, in page 37, line 20, at end insert:
      'or an order under section 25 of that Act'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Mr. Whitehead: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When will the House have the opportunity to vote on Amendment No. 148?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will not vote on Amendment No. 148. It fell when the House agreed to Amendment No. 52. That is the way of life.
      Mr. Whitehead: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 37, line 20, at end insert:
      '(12) Before passing a resolution under the provisions of subsection (1) of this Clause, the local authority must—

      (a) have regard to and consult the individual who has had the closest personal relationship with the child over the previous three years, as far as this can be established, and

      (b) ensure where at all possible that the relationship continues thereafter, having regard to Section 3 of this Act.

      In this subsection "closest personal relationship" shall be interpreted as that person who on a continuing daily basis has fulfilled the emotional and physical need of the child in place of a stable parental relationship'.

      1513
      The purpose of the amendment, which is supported by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen), is to return to the concept which we brought into the Committee stage with what was then Amendment No. 400. That amendment was much criticised when I moved it in Committee on the ground that we incorporated the phrase "psychological parent" for that person who had the closest emotional and personal relationship with the child at the time when the child might become subject to a care order. I drew there upon the wording of Dr. Anne Hayman, to whom again I pay tribute, who was very keen on the particular phrase "psychological parent."
      I can see that the phrase leads to certain difficulties, but I have been amused to find it cropping up not once but four times in a letter written on 24th October to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), in which my hon. Friend the Minister said that in his redrafting—which is Amendment No. 224, I think, which we discussed earlier—he would see something roughly equivalent to the concept of psychological parenthood written in, if not into the statute at least into the advice which will be sent out under the terms of Amendment No. 224.
      What the hon. Member for Wavertree and I have sought to do is to provide a precise definition of those close personal relationships which ought to survive and should be acknowledged when any local authority is making a care order. We have now said that the local authority must, when making any resolution under subsection (1) of the clause
      "have regard to and consult the individual who has had the closest personal relationship with the child over the previous three years, as far as this can be established, and"—
      and perhaps this is more important—
      "ensure where at all possible that the relationship continues thereafter, having regard to Section 3 of this Act."
      That is the clause which asserts that the rights of the child have primacy within this legislation.
      I do not wish to detain the House unduly. The hon. Member for Wavertree hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However. I say to the Minister, who has been most patient throughout these proceedings, that I should like
      1514
      him to say whether he can take something of the spirit of this amendment as implicit in whatever instructions may be issued or whatever consultations may take place under the auspices of his Department along the lines of Amendment No. 224, which the House has already accepted.
      Mr. Anthony Steen: It would be useful for the House to appreciate the seriousness of the amendment, because what the clause does is to extend the powers which local authorities were given under Section 2 of the Children Act. The clause gives to local authorities the powers to pass resolutions which deprive the natural parents of the rights to their own child. The House should not shrink from realising the severity of the clause. It is saying that the local authority, with all its bureaucratic machinery and all its weakness, should have the right to deprive the parents of any rights towards their child. Local authorities are in a weak position in view of the turnover of social workers, many of whom do not stay for long, and good social practice is not as widespread as we should like. In those circumstances the clause has serious implications.
      Sacred to the Bill is the concept that the family unit should be maintained at all costs and that it should be nourished and boosted. Every support should be given to that concept by the local authority. We must encourage the unstable family. We must promote the concept of neighbourhood and community.
      Families face special stress in the worst urban areas, and in those areas the social service workers are also facing stress and deprivation. It is significant that social workers are often as deprived as are the clients they serve. The clause is likely to be used in the most deprived urban areas and it wields an axe with a potential cutting edge sharp enough to sever the whole family unit and to permeate the extended family.
      The clause refers to children who are in care. Where a local authority, on the recommendation of social workers—often young and untrained—takes the view that a parent is:
      "of such habits or mode of life as to be unfit to have the care of the child, or
      (v) has so consistently failed without reasonable cause to discharge the obligations of a

      1515
      parent as to be unfit to have the care of the child;"
      it can pass a resolution which will divest the parent of that natural relationship. That is a serious matter, and the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and I feel that the clause needs modification.
      The Minister may say that the parent can serve a counter-notice on the local authority, as provided in the clause, within one month after the passing of the resolution, but he must know that deprived parents are often depressed and downtrodden and do not have the life force or will to appeal against the bureaucracy which has taken away the child. They feel that the full weight of bureaucracy is bearing down and crushing them.
      The clause will have the most pernicious effect upon the most deprived families. Perhaps too many mistakes are made by unskilled social workers. The amendment does not interfere with the powers contained in the clause. It merely allows local authorities to have a further source of information before passing a resolution to divest parents of their natural rights. It provides that, before passing the resolution, the local authority should examine as closely as possible the relationship which the child may have had over the previous three years—it may be with an aunt, an uncle, friends or grandparents—and consult the individual who has had the closest personal relationship. In that way, the members passing the resolution would have two sides before them—the social worker's recommendation and hearing a member of the family or a close friend who has known the child and can advise them.
      1.15 a.m.
      In Liverpool, I attended a large case conference about a child and I was amazed that it was put under a Section 2 care order without either the mother being there or any member of the family or friend being approached. Clause 54 goes further than Section 2, and that is why the amendment is so crucial. It would not reduce the powers of local authorities. It would simply direct the local authority towards a fresh source of information to help and guide it in a very difficult decision.
      1516
      In this way, it would provide some continuity in the child's life. Without it, the child could pass from the natural parent into the bureaucracy of a local authority with social workers changing year in and year out. The amendment would at least offer some continuity with the child from a person who has had close dealings with it for three years. This is a relatively modest amendment but it could make a lot of difference to the lives of the children in the years to come.
      Dr. Owen: I do not think I disagree with anything my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) have said. There is no doubt that to use these powers without proper regard to the personal relationships would be wrong. That is not confined to the regulations on parental rights and duties. It applies to practically the whole Bill.
      It was to meet these general points that I put down Amendment No. 224 relating to Section 27(4) of the Children and Young Persons Act so that we would be able to make regulations prescribing six-monthly reviews and the manner in which they should be carried out. I assure the House that in those reviews those aspects of the child's welfare which are important, particularly the personal relationships and emotional needs, will be covered, as they should be.
      I think that we can find a form of wording in the regulations which will be freer and easier and not so hidebound as it would be in legislation. It will certainly have regard to the concept of personal relations, which are very important. Amendment No. 224 will give us an important new power in a wide range of regulations for which the local authorities are the key people. I think that in this way we shall meet the purpose of Amendment No. 53 and some of the others which we are discussing.
      Mr. Steen: Why will the hon. Gentleman not consider putting the provision in the Bill as well as in the regulations? It is our fear that committees and local authorities will look not at the regulations but at the Bill. To put this requirement in the regulations might mean that it will fall on eyes that do not read.
      Dr. Owen: Amendment No. 53, as drafted, is open to the objection that the parent may be the individual referred to in paragraph (a) and it may not be practicable or desirable to consult him.
      A further point about the amendment is that Clause 54, to which it relates, is concerned only with children who have been placed voluntarily in the care of local authorities under Section 1 of the Children Act 1948. Amendment No. 53 would not apply this concept of considering a child's personal relationships to other children who have been committed to the care of a local authority under other legislation such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, guardianship and wardship, or matrimonial legislation, where it might also be relevant.
      There are a number of technical points. It is often tedious for a Minister to plead that it is better to do things in another way, but I believe that in this case we shall get a more flexible and wider coverage of the points made by hon. Members by dealing with them in regulations.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 57

      ADDITION OF NEW SECTIONS TO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1969
      Amendments made: No. 54, in page 38, line 25, leave out from 'a' to end of line 26 and insert:
      'relevant supervision order or a supervision order made under section 21(2) of this Act on the discharge of a relevant care order; or'.
      No. 55, in line 28, leave out from 'a' to end of line 29 and insert:
      'relevant care order or a care order made under section 15(1) of this Act on the discharge of a relevant supervision order; or'.
      No. 56, in line 35, leave out from 'a' to end of line 36 and insert:
      'relevant supervision order or against a care order made under section 15(1) on the discharge of—

      (i) a relevant supervision order; or

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

      No. 57, in page 38, leave out line 40 and insert:
      'relevant care order or against a supervision order made under section 21(2) on the discharge of—

      (i) a relevant care order; or

      1518

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

      No. 58, in page 39, line 27, at end insert:
      '(5) In this section—
      "relevant care order" means a care order made under section 1 of this Act;
      "relevant supervision order" means a supervision order made under section 1 of this Act.'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 62

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 15 OF SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) ACT 1968
      Amendments made: No. 59, in page 42, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).
      No. 184, in page 43, line 9, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
      No. 185, in page 43, line 24, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.—[Mr. McElhone].

    Clause 63

      SUBSTITUTION OF S. 16 OF SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) ACT 1968
      Amendments made: No. 186, in page 43, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 44 and insert:
      '16.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a local authority may resolve—

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

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

      if it appears to the local authority—

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

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

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

      1519

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

      (1A) The circumstances referred to in sub-paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section are that the person on whose account the resolution was passed—

      (a)has abandoned the child; or

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

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

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

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

      No. 187, in page 44, line 29, after '14, insert' or 25'.
      No. 188, in line 32, leave out 'under paragraph (a)' and insert
      'by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (i)'.
      No. 189, in line 36, leave out 'under paragraph (b)' and insert
      'by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (ii)'
      No. 190, in line 40, leave out 'under paragraph (c)' and insert
      'by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (iii)'.
      No. 191, in line 44, leave out 'under paragraph (d)' and insert
      'by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (iv)'.
      No. 192, in line 46, at end insert—
      '(2A) A local authority shall not pass a resolution under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section unless—

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

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

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

      1520

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

      No. 193, in page 45, line 1, leave out 'paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of'.
      No. 194, in line 2, at end insert
      by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) thereof'
      No. 195, in line 5, after 'authority', insert
      or in the voluntary organisation, as the case may be,'.
      No. 196, in line 45, leave out ' (b), (c) or (d)'.
      No. 197, in line 46, after 'section', insert
      'by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (ii), (iii), or (iv) thereof'.
      No. 198, in page 46, line 16, at end insert 'or'.
      No. 199, in line 22, leave out 'or the child' and insert
      'or the child; or
      (d) it is a resolution under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section and a resolution is passed under subsection (1) of section 16A of this Act in respect of the child.'.
      No. 200, in page 46 leave out lines 23 to 29 and insert—
      '(10) If the whereabouts of any parent or guardian of a child have remained unknown for twelve months, and throughout that period the child has been in the care of a local authority under section 15 of this Act, or in the care of a voluntary organisation, or partly the one and partly the other, then for the purposes of this section that parent or guardian shall be deemed to have abandoned the child'.
      No. 201, in line 32, leave out 'paragraph (d)' and insert 'sub-paragraph (iv)'.
      No. 202, in line 34, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraph'.—[Mr. McElhone.]

    Clause 64
      MAKING OF ADOPTION ORDERS WHERE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVE PARENTAL RIGHTS
      Amendment made: No. 203, in page 47, line 5, after 'authority', insert or a voluntary organisation'.—[Mr. McElhone.]
    Clause 65
      SAFEGUARDING OF INTERESTS OF CHILDREN IN PROCEEDINGS IN SCOTLAND RELATING TO THE ASSUMPTION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
      Amendment made: No. 204, in page 47, line 9, at end insert ', 16A(3)'.—[Mr. McElhone.]
    Clause 67

      AMENDMENT TO SECTION 37 OF SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) ACT 1968
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 254, in page 48, line 25, at end insert—
      '(bb) who is, or is likely to become, a member of the same household as a person who has committed or is believed to have committed such an offence; or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 239, in Schedule 3, page 85, line 36, at end insert—
      '48A. In section 32(2)(b), at the beginning, leave out "through lack of parental care". ' and Government Amendment No. 251.
      Mr. McElhone: Amendment Nos. 254 and 251 are intended to extend provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 relating to the system of children's hearings and dealing in particular with the provision of compulsory care for children who are in a situation of risk, whether physical or otherwise.
      The origin of the proposals lies in part in the consideration given by the Standing Committee to proposals for amending the Bill by providing additional grounds for the making of a care or supervision order by a juvenile court in England or Wales in care proceedings. Two of the proposals advanced at that time were in identical terms to existing grounds for referral of a child to a children's hearing in Scotland under Section 32(2). The third related to children who are members of a household where there is present a person who has committed, or is believed to have committed, offences against children. This is covered in the present amendments which are parallel to Amendment No. 127 in relation to England and Wales. Amendment No. 251 has a wider purpose, however, which is
      1522
      connected with Amendment No. 239 tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Gordon Wilson) and other hon. Members. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members associated with him in this amendment will note that we have met their point.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I wish to thank the Minister for incorporating within his amendments the tranche of our amendments. It meets a need which has been made clear by those active within the children's panel system in Scotland. We are grateful that he has incorporated this group.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 69

      PARENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES
      Amendment made: No. 60, in page 50, line 33, leave out 'and any future enactment'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 177, in page 51, line 14, at end insert—
      '(5A) Subsections (4) and (5) apply in relation to the dissolution of a body corporate as they apply in relation to the death of an individual.'.
      This amendment extends to voluntary organisations which are incorporated bodies for the purpose of new Clause 1 the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 69, which deals with the devolution of parental rights and duties on the death of a person holding those rights and duties. It is uncontroversial.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 70
      LEGAL CUSTODY
      Amendment made: No. 61, in page 51, line 18, leave out 'and any future enactment'.—[Dr. Owen.]
    Clause 71
      ACTUAL CUSTODY
      Amendment made: No. 62, in page 51, line 33, leave out 'and any future enactment'.—[Dr. Owen.]
    Clause 73

      PROCEDURE IN GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS
      Amendments made: No. 63, in page 52, line 5, after 'above', insert 'to a magistrates' court'.
      No. 64, in line 7, leave out 'copies' and insert 'a copy'.
      No. 65, in line 15, leave out 'The' and insert 'A magistrates''.
      No. 66, in line 24, leave out 'the' and insert 'A magistrates''.
      No. 67, in line 32, leave out from 'evidence' to
      'notwithstanding' in line 34 and insert 'is, in the opinion of the court, relevant to the application,'.
      No. 68, in line 35, at end insert:
      '(2) The following subsection is added after subsection (5) of the said section 6—
      "(6) A single justice may request a report under subsection (1) of this section before the hearing of the application, but in such a case the report shall be made to the court which hears the application, and the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply accordingly."'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 74
      PROCEDURE IN MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS
      Amendment made: No. 69, in page 52, line 43, leave out 'copies' and insert 'a copy'.—[Dr. Owen.]
    Clause 78

      VISITING OF FOSTER CHILDREN
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 206 in page 56, line 34, at end insert:
      '(1A) In section 1A of the Children Act 1958 (visiting of foster children in Scotland) the words "where the local authority consider such a course to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this section," shall cease to have effect, and for the words" from time to time "there are substituted the words" in accordance with regulations made under section 2A of this Act."'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 207.
      Mr. McElhone: These amendments together provide for the application, in Scottish terms, of the provisions contained in Clause 78 of the Bill dealing with the oversight of private fostering arrangements. The reason for their inclusion is related to changes made at the Committee stage in the provisions of Clause 78 as they apply to England and Wales.
      The second of the two amendments is purely technical. It seeks to allow for the fact that the provisions in Section 3 of the Children Act 1958, referred to in Clause 78(3), are provisions which do not extend to Scotland.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 207, in page 57, line 13, after 'Act', insert:
      'as it applies to England and Wales'.—[Mr McElhone.]
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 57, line 14, after 'authority)' insert—
      "(a) in subsection (5A), for the words "one or more foster children" there are substituted the words "a foster child", and for the words "foster children" and "any foster children" there are substituted the words "that foster child";
      (b) in subsection (5B) for the words "foster children" there are substituted the words" a foster child", and for the words "any of them as a" there is substituted the word "that"; and
      (c)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 71.
      Dr. Owen: These amendments are to make good the defects of Clause 78(3) as printed in the Bill. They make it clear that when regulations are made under subsection (2) of Clause 78 foster parents will have a duty to notify the local authority whenever they cease to maintain a child, as well as when they receive a child, unless the child leaves their care for a temporary period not exceeding 27 days—for example, to go on a holiday with its parents.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No 71 in page 57 line 16, leave out 'Subsections (2A) and (5B)' and insert 'Subsection (2A)'.
      No. 72, in page 57, line 19, leave out subsection (4)—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 79

      NOTIFICATION BY PARENTS
      Amendment made: No. 73, in page 57, line 38, at end insert—
      '(2) In section 14 of the said Act (offences), in subsection (1)(a), after the words "this Part of this Act" there are inserted the words "or under regulations made under section 3A of this Act".'—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 80

      ADVERTISEMENTS RELATING TO FOSTER CHILDREN
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 74, in page 57, line 42, leave out 'made by statutory instrument'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77.
      Dr. Owen: Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 are drafting amendments.
      Amendment No. 76 is intended to make the meaning clearer, which is to provide that regulations may be made under paragraph (a) to say who shall be prohibited from advertising to seek foster children, or under paragraph (b) to say who shall be allowed to advertise. This will give flexibility to allow advertising which is considered acceptable, such as advertising holidayse for children.
      In Amendment No. 77 the intention is to remove any doubt that regulations may distinguish who may and who may not advertise, and, in relation to (1A), to allow advertisements seeking foster parents to be made on behalf of parents by approved bodies. I would add that (1A) prohibits a person from "causing" an advertisement to be published.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made:
      No. 75, in page 58, line 4, leave out 'made by statutory instrument'.
      No. 76 in line 5, leave out from" prohibit "to end of line 15 and insert—
      '(a) a member of a class of person specified in the regulations, or
      (b) a person other than a person, or other than a member of a class of persons, specified in the regulations,
      from publishing or causing to be published any advertisement indicating that he is willing to undertake, or to arrange for, the care and maintenance of a child.'
      No. 77, in line 16, leave out
      'A statutory instrument made under subsection (1A) shall be'
      and insert
      'Regulations made under this section—

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

      (b) may exclude certain cases or classes of cases, and shall be made by statutory instrument'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 83

      COURTS
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 78, in page 60, leave out line 21 and insert—
      '(b) the sheriff court of the sheriffdom within which the child is'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 80.
      Mr. McElhone: It is a purely drafting amendment. It adjusts the definition of "authorised court" contained in Clause 83(3)(b) of the Bill which establishes court jurisdiction in proceedings in relation to the adoption of a child in Scotland. The present definition provides that in the case of the sheriff court, the court authorised to hear and determine an application shall be that within whose jurisdiction the child is. The revised definition refers instead to the sheriff court of the sheriffdom within which the child is.
      The present wording, "within whose jurisdiction", is clearly unsatisfactory, because the court's jurisdiction should not be defined in terms which use the word "jurisdiction" itself. The alternative wording chosen avoids this pitfall by relating jurisdiction to the physical presence of the child in the care of the sheriffdom.
      Amendment No. 80 disapplies the definition of "authorised court" in Clause 83(3) for the purpose of applications to a court under Clause 29 and provides a separate definition for this purpose. The applications in question relate to the return of a child illegally removed from the possession of a person after application has been made, or notice given of intention to apply for an adoption of a "freeing for adoption" order under Part I of the Bill.
      The terms of the new definition refer to the court where the application is

      1527
      pending or the sheriffdom where the applicant resides rather than where the child is. It is clearly desirable that the court with continuing jurisdiction in relation to the application for the child's adoption should be that where the child was at the time he was illegally removed. In the case where an application for adoption or freeing for adoption has been made, this is the court in which that application is pending. In the case where an application for adoption has not yet been made, it must relate to the area in which the applicant resides—the term "applicant" referring in this context not to an application for adoption, but to one under Clause 29 for return of the child.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 79, in page 61, line 11, leave out '14(2) or (3)' and insert '14'.
      No. 80, in page 61, line 16, at end insert:
      '(9) Subsections (3) and (8) do not apply in the case of an application under section 29 in Scotland but for the purposes of such an application the following are authorised courts—

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

      (i) an adoption order; or

      (ii) an order under section 14,

      the court in which that application is pending;

      (b) in any other case—

      (i) the Court of Session;

      (ii) the sheriff court of the sheriffdom within which the applicant resides'.—[Mr. McElhone.]

    Clause 89

      INTERPRETATION
      1.30 a.m.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 81, in page 63, line 9, at end insert—
      '"area", in relation to a magistrates' court, means the commission area (within the meaning of section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973) for which the court is appointed;'.
      The purpose of the amendment is to remove ambiguity as to the meaning of the term "area" in relation to a magistrates' court.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 90

      AMENDMENTS, REPEALS, COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 252, in page 65, line 12, leave out 'and section 91' and insert:
      ', section 91, section (Power of reporters to conduct proceedings under Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968) and paragraph 50A of Schedule 3'.
      No. 82, in page 65, line 16, leave out '69' and insert '67'.—[Mr. McElhone.]
      No. 83, in page 65, line 16, leave out '72' and insert '74'.
      No. 255, in page 65, line 18, leave out 62'.
      No. 256, in page 65, line 17, leave out and to 89 ' and insert
      ', 86 to 89 and section (Children of unruly character in Scotland)'.
      No. 257, in page 65, line 19, leave out from 'paragraphs' to end of line 21 and insert:
      'A1, A2, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11(6), 13, 15, 16, 16A, 16B, 17(1), (2) and (4), 18 to 22, 24(b), 26, 30, 31(b), 32, 34(b), 36, 37(c), (d) and (e), 38, 40, 45, 46, 47(a), 47A(f)(ii), and (g)(ii), 49, 50, 50B, 50C, 51, 52, 53, 55 to 59, 62(2), 64, 65, 68 and 70'.
      No. 91, in page 65, line 22, after 'I', insert 'IA'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Clause 91

      SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 157, in page 66, line 5, after 'except', insert: insert:
      'section (Extension of powers under s. 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969)'.
      No. 158, in page 66, line 9, at end insert:
      '(3) Subsection (1) of section (Extension of powers under s. 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969) extends to the Channel Islands'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Schedule 1

      STATUS CONFERRED BY ADOPTION OR LEGITIMATION IN ENGLAND AND WALES
      Amendments made: No. 92, in page 69, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
      '(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, and of paragraph 6, provisions of the law of intestate succession applicable to the estate of

      1529
      a deceased person shall be treated as if contained in an instrument executed by him (while of full capacity) immediately before his death'.
      No. 93, in page 69, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
      No. 94, in page 69, line 42, at end insert:
      '2A. As an example 1 or 2, but referring to grandchildren of A, instead of children of A'.
      No. 95, in page 71, line 21, leave out paragraph 12.
      No. 96, in page 72, line 15, at end insert—
      '(9) Part 1A of Schedule A, which repeals enactments superseded by this paragraph, has effect as respects any instrument, other than an existing instrument'.
      No. 97, in page 72, line 34, at end insert—
      '(or, if deceased, is treated as legitimated)'.
      No. 98, in page 72, line 38, after 'legitimated', insert
      '(or, if deceased, is treated as legitimated)'.
      No. 99, in page 73, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'affect' and insert
      'This Schedule shall not'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Schedule 2

      STATUS CONFERRED IN SCOTLAND BY ADOPTION
      Amendments made: No. 100, in page 74, line 32, leave out 'provision of the'.
      No. 101, page 74, in line 47, at end insert:
      Pensions
      1A. The provision in paragraph 1(1) whereby a child who is the subject of an adoption order is to be treated in law as if he were not the child of any person other than the adopters or adopter shall not affect entitlement to a pension which is payable to, or for the benefit of, the child and is in payment at the time of his adoption.
      Insurance
      1B. Where a child is adopted whose natural parent has effected an insurance with a friendly society or a collecting society or an industrial insurance company for the payment on the death of the child of money for funeral expenses, the rights and liabilities under the policy shall by virtue of the adoption be transferred to the adoptive parents who shall for the purposes of the enactments relating to such societies and companies be treated as the person who took out the policy.
      Social Security
      1C.—(1) Paragraph 1 shall not prevent a person being treated as a near relative of a deceased person for the purposes of section 32 of the Social Security Act 1975 (payment of death grant), if apart from paragraph 1 he would be so treated.
      (2) Paragraph 1 does not apply for the purposes of section 70(3)(b) or section 73(2) of the Social Security Act 1975 (payment of industrial death benefit to or in respect of an illegitimate child of the deceased and the child's mother).
      (3) Subject to regulations made under section 72 of the Social Security Act 1975 (entitlement of certain relative of deceased to industrial death benefit), paragraph 1 shall not affect the entitlement to an industrial death benefit of a person who would, apart from paragraph 1, be treated as a relative of a deceased person for the purposes of the said section 72.'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Schedule 3

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 102, in page 77, line 2, at end insert:
      'Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (23 and 24 Geo. 5 c. 12)
      Al.—In section 1(1)(b), for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400".'.
      No. 103, in page 77, line 2, at end insert:
      'Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (c. 37)
      A2.—In section 12(1)(b) for the words "twenty-five pounds" there is substituted "£400".'
      No. 104, in page 77, line 11, leave out '£100' and insert'£400'.
      No. 105, in page 79, leave out lines 12 to 14.
      No. 159, in page 79, line 15, at end insert:
      '14A. In section 2, as it applies in England and Wales,—

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

      (b) in subsection (4A),—

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

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

      No. 107, in page 79, line 25, at end insert:
      '16A. In section 14(2), for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400".
      16B. In section 37(2), for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400".'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 108, in page 80, leave out paragraph 20.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We may also take Government Amendment No. 135.
      Mr. McElhone: These are technical amendments, the first of which is consequential on the repeal effected by the second.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Dr. Owen: I beg to move Amendment No. 109, in page 80, line 19, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
      '(a) the following subsections are substituted for subsection (1)—
      "(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit unincorporated bodies from applying for approval under section 4 of the Children Act 1975 (Approval of adoption societies); and he shall not approve any unincorporated body whose application is contrary to regulations made under this subsection.
      (1A) The Secretary of State may make regulations for any purpose relating to the exercise of its functions by an approved adoption society.";'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We may also take Government Amendments Nos. 110 and 112.
      Dr. Owen: These amendments provide that the Secretary of State may by regulations provide that voluntary adoption societies must be incorporated bodies if they are to be considered for approval under Clause 4.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 110, in page 80, line 22, after '(2)', insert:
      'for "(1)" there is substituted "(2)" and'.
      No. 111, in page 80, line 24, leave out '£100' and insert '£400'.
      No. 112, in page 80, line 24, at end insert:
      '(c) the following subsection is added after subsection (3)—
      "(4) Regulations under this section may make different provisions in relation to different cases or classes of cases and may exclude certain cases or classes of cases. "'.
      No. 113, in page 80, line 36, at end insert:
      'and for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400".'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 114, in page 81, line 5, leave out' subsection is 'and insert' subsections are'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We may also take Government Amendment No. 115.
      Mr. McElhone: Amendment No. 115 imports certain changes in the provisions of Section 37 of the Adoption Act 1958 relating to the circumstances in which a child placed for adoption ceases to be a protected child. The changes are necessary to ensure that the provisions of Section 37, in their application to Scotland, properly reflect Scottish differences in the relevant statutory provisions.
      This is the Scottish equivalent of an amendment relating to England and Wales incorporated in Committee into paragraph 28 of the schedule.
      Amendment No. 114 is a paving amendment to the amendment I have just described.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 115, in page 81, line 21, at end insert:
      '(4A) In relation to Scotland—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      No. 116, in page 81, line 26, at end insert:
      'and for the words "one hundred pounds' there are substituted the words "£400".'.
      No. 117, in page 81, line 31, at end insert:
      'and for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400";'.
      No. 118, in page 81, line 35, leave out '£100'and insert '£400'.
      No. 119, in page 81, line 36, leave out paragraph 33.
      No. 120, in page 81, line 38, after '52', insert '(1)—
      (a)'.
      No. 121, in page 81, line 39, at end insert: '
      'and—
      (b) for the word "six" there is substituted the word "three" and for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400".'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 122, in page 82, line 48, leave out '; and "legal custody" means custody'.
      This is a purely technical amendment removing the definition of "legal custody" in Scottish terms which paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 inserts in Section 57(1) of the Adoption Act 1958.
      The need for the amendment arises because the Bill as amended in Committee no longer proposes the insertion of the term "legal custody" in the 1958 Act as it did previously. There is, therefore, no need now to include a meaning of "legal custody" for the purposes of the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 178, in page 83, line 5, at end insert—
      'Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (c.37)
      39A. In section 49(1), for the words "twenty pounds" there are substituted the words "£100".'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      No. 123, in page 83, line 16, at end insert:
      'and paragraph 1B of Schedule 2'.—[Mr. McElhone.]
      No. 179, in page 83, line 27, leave out '"Provisional"' and insert '"the word 'Provisionally'"'.
      No. 180, in page 83, line 28, after 'words', insert '"the words'.
      No. 181, in page 83, line 30, at end insert:
      'followed by the name, in brackets, of the country in which the order was made."'.—[Dr. Owen.]
      Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 208, in page 85, line 16, at end insert:
      ". In section 6(1)(b), after sub-paragraph (ii) there is inserted the following sub-paragraph—
      1534
      "(iii) a child who has been placed for adoption by an adoption agency (within the meaning of section 1 of the Children Act 1975); "'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that amendment we may take Government Amendments Nos. 249 and 242.
      Mr. McElhone: The amendment applies purely to Scotland and adjusts the terms of Section 6 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which confers powers of supervision and inspection in regard to residential establishments and other premises on officers of the Secretary of State authorised for the purpose. The adjustment is necessary purely to reflect certain changes in the law relating to children placed for adoption who are protected under Section 37(1) of the Adoption Act 1958. It is precisely equivalent to Amendment No. 127 in relation to England and Wales.
      The amendment extends Section 6(2) of the 1968 Act and makes it possible for authorised officers to supervise places where children have been placed for adoption by adoption agencies in terms of Clause 1—that is, either a local authority or an approved adoption agency. Section 6(2) at present covers foster children and protected children in terms of Part IV of the Adoption Act 1950. The amendment will not in fact extend the total range of situations open to inspection at present, but will ensure that the powers of supervision continue to be available in the case of all adopted children.
      The purpose of amendments to Sections 69 and 70 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, respectively, is, first, to provide a power on the part of the court in Scotland to issue a search warrant in cases where it is shown to it that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is harbouring a child who has either absconded, or has been unlawfully removed, in terms of the provisions of Part V of the Act. The second purpose is to extend the provisions of the section to deal with cases of a child who absconds not only while in one of the situations covered by Part V at present, but also while awaiting transfer to such a situation.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 209, in page 85, line 31, at end insert:
      '47A. In section 17—

      (a) in subsection (3), for "section 16" there is substituted "section 16(1)(a)" and

      1535
      after "local authority" there is inserted", in whom are vested in accordance with the resolution the parental rights and powers in respect of a child,";

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

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

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

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

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

      (f) in subsection (8)—

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

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

      (g) in subsection (9)—

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

      "Where—

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

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

      allowed";

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

      47B. In section 18—

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

      (b) in subsection (3)—

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

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

      (iii) after the words "otherwise direct, the local authority" there are inserted the words ", and any voluntary organisation
      1536
      having parental rights and powers with respect to the child,";

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

      No. 210, in page 85, line 32, leave out paragraph 48.
      No. 251, in page 85, line 37, leave out paragraph 49 and insert:
      "49. In sections 32(2)—

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

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

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

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

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

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

      No. 171, in page 85, line 41, at end insert:
      '50A. In section 49(3) for the words "The sheriff may examine the reporter and" there is substituted—

      "The reporter, whether or not he is conducting the proceedings before the sheriff, may be examined by the sheriff; and the sheriff may examine".'.

      No. 249, in page 85, line 41, at end insert:
      '50B. In section 69—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      "; and a court, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the child is within any premises, may grant a

      1537
      search warrant authorising a constable to search those premises for the child.".'

      No. 125, in page 85, line 41, at end insert—
      '50C. In section 71 for the words "one hundred pounds" there is substituted "£400".'.
      No. 242, in page 85, line 41, at end insert—
      '. In section 44(5) after "20", there is inserted "20A.".'.—[Mr. McElhone.]
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 240, in page 85, line 41, at end insert—
      'In section 94, at the end of the definition of the word "parent" there shall be inserted—

      "(c) in relation to a registered pupil attending a school belonging to or operated by a local education authority and for the purposes of section 32(2)(a) only means the headmaster or depute headmaster of the said school, provided that the facts upon which the ground is based arise during normal school hours."'.

      This is neither a technical nor a drafting amendment. In fact, it is a very important amendment. It is intended to deal with a serious deficiency in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
      Previous amendments alter the grounds of referral on which children can be sent to children's hearings for acceptance of the facts and for subsequent treatment. There is one difficulty. If the disruptive behaviour occurs at school, there is doubt whether the children's hearing has power to deal with what used to be described as a criminal offence. If there is an assault, or an act of that kind, which, under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, forms a ground of referral, the trouble emanating in the school can be dealt with by means of the children's panel and the children's hearings procedure.
      Where a headmaster acts for a local authority in loco parentis, and is responsible for a child while in school, and the child's behaviour can be termed disruptive behaviour, which affects the running of the school, causes wear and tear on the nerves of a teacher, or affects the running of the classroom and the education of other children, there is doubt whether the children's panel can deal with the situation.
      A briefing that I received from one panel states categorically:
      "At the present time there are no grounds for the referral of children whose behaviour in school is severely disruptive. Parents cannot
      1538
      easily be held liable for the behaviour of their child in the classroom or playground. The exclusion of pupils is not an effective or desirable method of dealing with the problem."
      The Educational Institute of Scotland maintains that there possibly is power to deal with the situation, but it admits that many of its headmasters and deputy headmasters doubt whether they have power to initiate complaints as a result of which the child will go to the children's panel for treatment, or for a decision which might help to cure the problems causing difficulty in the school. The easy solution, of barring the child from that school, is not acceptable. That is far too crude a method of dealing with it. Headmasters feel that their powers in that direction should be improved.
      This amendment was referred to the Educational Institute of Scotland. It was discussed with one of the depute secretaries of that organisation. The institute approves of the amendment. As that body is the largest teaching institute in Scotland, the Government are well advised to accept the amendment.
      At present the parent of the child at school is defined as the headmaster or deputy headmaster of a school which belongs to or is operated by a local education authority where the pupil is a registered pupil of that school. That is an unacceptable way of accomplishing our aim. There is a glaring gap in the present arrangements which should be plugged as quickly as possible. If the Government do not accept the amendment, I shall not force a Division, although I should have done so had the matter been discussed earlier.
      Mr. McElhone: The effect of the amendment would be to provide that a new ground for the referral of a child to a children's hearing would be that he was beyond the control of his headmaster or deputy headmaster within the school situation. The amendment may one day become law, but this issue presently requires—and is receiving a good real more preliminary consideration.
      At present the children's hearings deal with children who have truanted. Internal discipline within schools is another matter. It is, of course, a matter for concern, which is why the Pack Committee on Truancy and Indiscipline was set up in 1974. That committee is considering in a substantial way the issues that arise

      1539
      on indiscipline within schools. The proposition contained in the amendment will be considered by that body.
      1.45 a.m.
      There are many implications in the situation which it will have to consider before making recommendations, which in turn will have to be considered by all the bodies concerned. Examples are, alternative solutions, internal discipline and how far that is a question for the schools themselves, and the degree of education machinery required to ensure that such referrals could be controlled and carried out consistently. These matters will have implications for social work departments. But to discuss those matters now would be entering into an education debate and going far beyond the scope of the Bill.
      We recognise the concern over this matter, but we feel that the amendment is premature and too simplistic in approach to be acceptable in a complex situation.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 253, in page 87, line 1, at end insert:
      '56A. In section 1(2) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph (b):—

      "(bb) it is probable that the condition set out in paragraph (a) of this subsection will be satisfied in his case, having regard to the fact that a person who has been convicted of an offence mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1933 is, or may become, a member of the same household as the child;",'.

      No. 127, in page 87, line 29, at end insert:
      '59A. In section 58(1), the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph (b)—

      "(bb) premises in which a child is living with a person other than his parent, guardian, relative or custodian, with whom he has been placed by an adoption agency (within the meaning of section 1 of the Children Act 1975);'".

      No. 224, in page 87, line 29, at end insert:
      '59A. In section 27—

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

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

      "(4) Without prejudice to their general duty under the said section 12, it shall be the duty of a local authority to review the case of each child in their care in
      1540
      accordance with regulations made under the following subsection.

      (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—

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

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

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

      No. 152, in page 88, line 2, after '1', insert:
      '(a) at the end of the entry relating to the Adoption Act 1958 there are added the following words "Counselling services for adopted persons";
      (b)'.
      No. 128, in page 88, line 28, at end insert:
      '(1A) In section 13(2), after the words "order for the payment of money" there are inserted the words "made by a magistrates' court".'.
      No. 129, in page 88, line 39, leave out 'made with respect to a minor of whom care' and insert:
      'an order requiring payments to be made to an authority to whom care of a minor'.
      No. 130, in page 89, leave out lines 14 to 19 and insert:
      '67—(1) In section 4(3) for the words from "the following provisions" to the end there are substituted the following words "sections 12(2) and 13 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 shall apply as if the order made under section 2 of this Act were an order under section 9 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971.
      (2) After section 4(3) there is inserted the following subsection—'.
      No. 131, in page 89, line 37, leave out 'paragraph is' and insert 'paragraphs are'.
      No. 132, in page 89, line 39 at end insert:
      '(g) proceedings under section (Appeals by parents etc.) (2) of the Children Act 1975".'.—[Dr. Owen.]

    Schedule 4
    'PART 1A

    LEGITIMATION

    Chapter

    Short Title

    Extent of Repeal

    16 & 17 Geo. 5 c. 60.

    Legitimacy Act 1926

    Section 1(3).

    5

    Sections 3 to 5.

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

    10

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

    1969 c. 46.

    Family Law Reform Act 1969.

    Section 14(8).

    Section 15(4) and (6).

    These repeals have effect subject to paragraph 13(9) of Schedule 1'.

    No. 140, in page 93, line 3, at end insert:

    '23 and 25 Geo. 5 c. 12.

    Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

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

    No. 141, in page 93, line 3, at end insert:

    '1937 c. 37

    Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

    In section 12, in subsection (1) (a), the words "not exceeding one hundred pounds" and in subsection (5) (a) the words from "the maximum" to "pounds, and".

    No. 142, in page 93, line 6, column 3, at end insert:

    'Section 21(3).'.

    No. 225, in page 93, line 6, in column3, at end insert:

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

    No. 143, in line 39, at end insert:

    '1973 c. 29.

    Guardianship Act 1973.'

    Section 3(5).'

    No. 144, in page 94, line 12, leave out 'and (3)'.

    No. 258, in page 94, line 12, at end insert:

    '1966 c. 19

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

    Section 4'.

    No. 259, in page 96, leave out lines 17 to 19.
    No. 145, in page 97, leave out lines 34 and 35.—[Dr. Owen.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Dr. Owen.]
    1.48 a.m.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: I shall not detain the House for long on Third
    paragraph 5(2) of Schedule I, and the other repeals in this Part'.
    No. 139, in page 92, line 30, at end insert:
    Reading. It is not too much to say that progress on the Bill has shown Parliament at its best. Our debates have been constructive, we have not divided on party lines, and our discussions have been aimed at protecting essentially, and above all, the interests of children. That has been the cause advanced by all who have taken part.
    I wish to congratulate the Minister of State. The measure undoubtedly will

    1543
    become known as the Owen Bill', just as recent pensions legislation became known as the "O'Malley Bill". There must be somebody missing somewhere in the team. I also wish to thank the members of the Standing Committee on my side for their contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan).
    On Second Reading I said:
    "We are now accustomed to talking about the choice of priorities in social services, and with an ever-deepening economic crisis it is likely to become more and more a feature of our debates."—[Official Report, 20th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 1840.]
    That economic crisis is now evident to everyone. It might not have been evident in June when the Bill had its Second Reading, but its effects have been devastating in social policy terms.
    Already there are yawning gaps in our social services. Already there are people in desperate and urgent need who are unable to get help. It is unlikely—I fear that we must accept this truth—that we shall be able to help these people and many more like them over the next few months or perhaps years.
    Inflation hits those who can least look after their own interests. Inflation hits the weakest in our society. That is our greatest social problem. As we pass this legislation, let us recognise and face that problem.
    In many ways we are passing legislation in the hope that resources will become available. I join in that hope. Certainly it could be argued that the Government should give first and foremost priority to the children. Upon such an aim and effort both sides of the House can agree. If we fail or omit to give help in childhood, the omission may never be repaired. That is why children should be given priority, especially in the resources that we make available.
    I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their efforts, but let us not think that the battle is over: the battle has just begun.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: I became involved in these proceedings late in the day, because I was concerned with the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Bill when the Children Bill was in Committee. Nevertheless, my hon. Friends and I have
    1544
    had a strong interest in the subject of the Bill, and we are glad to see that it has reached a happy landing.
    I should like to make a strong criticism. Perhaps it could have been made on Second Reading, and certainly in Committee. There should have been two Bills—one for England and Wales and another for Scotland.
    This Bill adds to the hotchpotch of legislation with which Scottish lawyers find it extremely difficult to deal. It is bad enough if one is an English lawyer to deal with legislation that keeps chopping and changing, but if one is a Scottish lawyer and has to keep translating terms from one jurisdiction to another, it is murderously difficult. Such a situation also applies to social workers, reporters, the judiciary and all those who have to interpret various pieces of legislation.
    The reforms or changes in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 are belated. We know that a review is taking place involving a number of committees, but this too gives room for criticism about the way in which Scottish legislation is tackled in this House. Apart from the large number of Scottish Ministers who passed through the pipeline in Committee—three Under-Secretaries and the Lord Advocate—there was only one other Scottish Member of Parliament on the Standing Committee dealing with the Bill. That was unsatisfactory. However, we should express our thanks to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and the Ministers who have been concerned with this subject. I hope that at the end of the day we have made some improvements in Scottish law on the treatment of children, although there is much more that we have to carry forward.
    In passing I should like to pay tribute to the new Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has taken over at a very late stage, as I have. Tonight he has accepted a number of amendments that had been rejected in Committee, amendments that will prevent the assimilation of Scots law to the law prevailing in England.
    If one thing has emerged from these debates it is that there is a tremendous gulf between the way in which Scotland and England tackle the problems of

    1545
    custody, adoption, the treatment of children before children's panels, juvenile courts, and so on. That does not necessarily mean that our methods in Scotland are the best, and plenty of criticism has been expressed this evening about some of our legislation. But it means that the English and Scottish methods are completely different, and one of the strongest arguments for a Scottish Assembly is that we could have a rolling review of Scottish legislation to make sure that it was up to date and in line with current developments on the Scottish scene.
    1.57 a.m.
    Mr. Hooson: The passing of the Bill is a very important landmark of the way in which the community at large treats children. We have come a long way from the days of Charles Dickens, and this is another step on the way.
    I should like to add my congratulations to those already offered to the Minister of State. I know that he will take great pleasure in seeing the Bill become law, for the simple reason that when he was successful in the Ballot as a Private Member he chose this as the subject for his Bill. I had the privilege of working with him on the drafting of that Bill, and I know that he was an expert before he became a Minister.
    In my experience in Parliament—although it is not as long as yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not short—I do not remember a Member presenting a Private Member's Bill and being at the receiving end of much discouragement, being told that it was so complex that it was impossible to contemplate a Private Member's Bill covering the subject, and then having the opportunity of putting his ideas into effect with the whole strength of the Department behind him.
    A good deal has been said tonight and in Committee about the economic constraints of our time, and of course they limit the speed at which some of the provisions of the Bill can be put into operation. Nevertheless, it is important that the Bill should be enacted, for it takes the law a considerable step forward. Although it is a time of economic constraint, this is the right time to pass good social legislation. It need not be rushed, although the Bill certainly has been more rushed on Report than it should have been.
    1546
    I congratulate everybody concerned and say that this is the best handled Bill that I have seen. The Minister and his Department have been prepared throughout to look at suggestions in Committee. I have never known any team on a Bill as cooperative as the Government team have been on this occasion.
    Normally, legislation ends in acrimony as it begins in acrimony. It is a great pleasure to be involved in a Bill that did not begin in acrimony and certainly does not end so.
    1.59 a.m.
    Mr. Bowden: I should like to be associated with the tribute paid to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). The Minster has emerged at the end of the Bill with increased stature and respect both inside the House and outside. I know that he would be the first to pay tribute to the tremendous help he has received, from the very start, from his officials.
    The Bill is rightly called the Children Bill. It is a new charter of children's rights. I am proud to have been associated with it and to have played a small part in its passage. It is the care section which has been my greatest interest, of course, because it was in my constituency that the tragedy of Maria Colwell took place. The name of Maria Colwell is indelibly printed on my memory and that of everyone in Brighton. I think. As the Bill has progressed, the people of Brighton have realised that it will go a long way to reducing the chances of such cases happening in future. The care section is indeed a worthy memorial to that tragic little girl.
    We respect the Minister's determination to make the Bill work. He has said that he is prepared to do everything possible to reallocate resources within his own Department to ensure that it gets under way as quickly as possible.
    There is greater public awareness of the needs of children, but there must be continual vigilance. No law by itself can produce all the answers. Public commitment is essential. The family is still the basic unit in our society and I hope that it always will be. Ultimately, the protection and welfare of children is the responsibility of every individual citizen.
    2.2 a.m.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to pay tribute to all the Ministers involved with the Bill for the gracious way in which they dealt with amendments. Many representations were sent to me from many bodies in Scotland. Each of the four Scottish Ministers involved took immense trouble to take up these complaints and to deal with them satisfactorily. There were only two outstanding complaints, and I am glad that the Scottish Minister who has just taken over dealt with them in Government amendments tonight.
    Anyone who participates in Scotland's legal system—the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and I are both qualified lawyers on different sides of the profession—will know that an enormous effort has been made. If we took up a disproportionate amount of time, I apologise to English Members, but the Scottish requirement has been well defined. Scottish Office Ministers took particular trouble to help in this connection.
    At a time of severe financial stringency, we all hope that, however many cuts there may be in public expenditure, they will never be at the expense of children. I hope that sufficient funds and facilities will be made available to make the Bill work well in future. I wish the Minister every success with it.
    2.4 a.m.
    Dr. Vaughan:I want to pay tribute to someone who has been mentioned many times during our debates on the Bill—the late Sir William Houghton—and his committee. The Houghton Report was an absolute model. Despite all the enthusiasm of the Minister of State, we should have found it more difficult to carry the Bill through without the recommendations of that committee.
    I should also like to congratulate the Minister of State on the immense care, good humour and patience he has shown. I do not suppose there has been any Committee stage in which more undertakings have been given which have actually been carried out. We have appreciated this very much. I believe that the Bill will be much more effective as a result of what we have done. Clearly, there will be a need for a consolidation Bill for children's legislation. The scene has now
    1548
    become very confused. People working in this area will need some kind of guidance by bringing the legislation together.
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) for the way he has led the debates for the Opposition. It will be no surprise to the Minister if I say how concerned we are about the resources that will be needed to back up this measure. We all know what happened to the Children and Young Persons Act and the difficulties that arose in implementing it. That was one of the reasons why we emphasised the need for some kind of monitoring and research. We were pleased that the Minister accepted that need.
    We are concerned about staffing. Although we appreciate the sincerity of what the Minister says—that this measure will not be implemented until there are the resources to back it up—there are fears that, particularly in the present economic climate, it will not be possible to implement it. We are now getting reports, for example, that Wakefield is cutting its social services budget by £273,000. This involves, among other things, the abandonment of the appointment of 31 social workers and nine trainees. This is a major depletion of the ranks and is bound to have an effect on legislation of this kind. In East Sussex the bill is being cut by £750,000. This, too, will affect, among other things, the establishment of social workers and, in this case, stand-by emergency duties of social workers, which is most serious. At Coventry, major cuts are being made which will affect the establishment of social workers.
    I do not want to end on a gloomy note. I mention these things to support the anxiety that we have shown about the implementation of the Bill. We accept the Minister's sincerity when he says that he will introduce the Bill in stages as resources are available. We have appreciated the harmony and good will that has been shown throughout proceedings on the Bill.
    2.8 a.m.
    Dr. Owen: I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their kind references to me. It is worth putting on record from the start that this legislation

    1549
    could never have been brought to this stage had it not been for the work of the Houghton Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who as Home Secretary set up that Committee. There is now only one member of that Committee left in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) who is at present out of the country. I know that he wanted to take part in the Committee proceedings. He was a tremendous friend of this measure when it was a Private Member's Bill, as was the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).
    I have many people to thank, not least those in voluntary bodies outside the House. They have contributed tremendously to the informed debate on both sides of the House. They have had a major and genuine influence. I like to think that they have been consulted in depth at all stages.
    I do not think that I could let this occasion pass without mentioning the Association of British Adoption Agencies, which certainly helped me greatly when the Bill was introduced as a Private Member's Bill. It made an outstanding contribution. Many other voluntary organisations have also helped. Nor can I forget the work of the volunteer draftsmen who worked on the Private Member's Bill. They worked against massive obstacles to draft the Bill in its early stages before it became Government legislation. That push given to the Bill then was crucial. There were young lawyers who gave up a lot of their time, and we are grateful to them.
    No one could possibly deny the contribution made by the Department. Many hon. Members have been the recipients of letters from it. It has been hard work. I am grateful to members of my Department and members of other Departments. The Scottish Office, the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Office have also been involved—to name the major Departments. We are certainly very grateful to them all.
    I must mention my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Miss Jackson) without whose ability to keep together the requisite number of hon. Members for voting purposes the Bill might have had a more difficult time.
    1550
    We start the Bill at a very difficult financial time, and it would be quite wrong if the message were to go out from the House tonight and when, eventually, as I hope, the Bill receives the Royal Assent, that somehow and automatically many of its desirable provisions will be automatically implemented. They will not be. That must be clearly understood. Most of us here recognise that the Bill will have to be implemented in phases and at a speed which many of us will regret. Those, however, are the facts of life, and I believe that we shall serve the best interests of children by being realistic about resources.
    Too often in the past the House has willed an end and then failed to provide the means. This time we must move at a pace at which we can match the means to our aspirations, and I hope that we shall be able to achieve that.
    I have been discussing implementation of the Bill with the local authorities. The first group of clauses, which I hope will start to operate on 1st January 1976, includes the welfare clause, the clause concerning the additional reason for dispensing with consent, requirements as to religious upbringing, power to order inquiries, supplementary powers and other aspects involving no extra costs.
    The second group will require a period of six to nine months for rules and regulations to be made dealing with relatively minor changes and re-enactments of adoption law. I think that we shall be able to introduce in 1976–77 the provision to enable people to have access to their birth record. The acceptance of the new concept of custodianship orders cannot be jeopardised by premature introduction, but I hope that the prospects for introducing it in 1977–78 are reasonable.
    The core of the Bill is the comprehensive adoption service, and this is the area where the big money is involved. An extra £5 million will probably be needed in addition to resources spent on adoption. It will not be possible to implement that immediately. I do not believe that we shall know before the rate support grant discussions next summer and autumn whether we shall have sufficient resources to give enough money for local authorities to have at least a year's warning of the introduction of statutory provisions, and a longer period than that

    1551
    may be needed before we can be sure of the necessary high standards.
    Separate representation, a new aspect of the legislation, again involves high cost. I am discussing with the local authorities the possibility of making a start in the year 1976–77, with particular attention to cases like that of Maria Colwell involving applications for the variation or discharge of care or supervision orders. That would be a modest low-cost start, and it is important that this provision is started as soon as possible.
    Against that sort of background we shall not know the true pace of implementation until we know what resources are available. We shall have to match the demand on these parts of children services with all the other pressures on the services, such as the rise in juvenile delinquency and increasing numbers of children in care. All these factors make demands on scarce skills. It is not always just a question of shortage of money. One of our scarcest resources is skilled people, although that often comes down in the end to a question of money.
    Reference was made to the need for consolidation. That is a high priority requirement, and I hope that the adoption provisions will be the first part of the Bill to be consolidated.
    This has been United Kingdom legislation. We have gained from Scottish experience, and in certain aspects there is no doubt that Scottish law has been in advance of English law. However, there are advantages when discussing an issue so central to the whole stability of the United Kingdom—the family and children—in being able to bring together legislation from across the United Kingdom. I think that this has been helpful for all of us.
    Tonight marks the end of the Bill's stages in this House. It has taken a long time to bring it this far. It is a very much better Bill than the Bill which went into Committee, and a better Bill than the Bill which left Committee. Tonight's proceedings, though they have had to go on rather long, have improved the Bill substantially. Many people have contributed to this. I think that it has shown perhaps a view of the House of Commons that is not often appreciated enough outside—the detailed work that can go across
    1552
    party lines to improve legislation without political rancour and show the House of Commons in one of its most attractive aspects. Would that we received more opportunity to publicise that working of our parliamentary democracy to the country as a whole. I am grateful to the Opposition for the way in which they have enabled that spirit to manifest itelf throughout the legislation.
    With those sombre warnings about the future and of a phased implementation which will not be as rapid as any of us would wish, I hope that in the last analysis what the Bill will do more than anything else is to change people's attitudes to child care. It will be a success if as a result of this legislation we see increasingly and in all decisions that are made about children the best interests of the child becoming the priority consideration. It is that interpretation of the legislation that I should like to see operated by the courts.
    We for our part, in the difficult financial choices that will face us, must face up to the fact that if we do not invest in the children of the country, we are serving future generations ill. They are the seed corn of our future, and they need and demand an investment of money and resources but perhaps above all a fundamental change of attitudes in many aspects of our decision-making as it affects children.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

    Schedule 4

      FURTHER REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 133, in page 90, leave out lines 5 to 12.
      No. 134, in page 91, line 3, in column 3, at end insert 'Section 7(3).'.
      No. 135, in page 91, line 6, at end insert 'Section 18(1).'
      No. 136, in page 92, leave out lines 4 and 5.
      No. 137, in page 92, line 28, at end insert:

      '1975 c. 61.

      Child Benefit Act 1975.

      Section 24(3)(c).

      No. 138, in page 92, line 29, leave out 'These repeals' and insert:
      'The repeals of sections 16 and 17 of the 1958 Act, and of provisions containing references to those sections, have effect subject to

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

SPAIN (MISS NICOLA BAUGHAN)
2.17 a.m.
Mr. Walter Johnson: I wish to raise the case of the tragic death of Nicola Baughan, aged 15, the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Baughan, of Alvaston, Derby, my constituents.
The family went on holiday to Calella, Spain, on 20th July. After 10 days in Spain, on 1st August, Nicola, the daughter, was knocked down by a car when crossing the main road in Calella,

1553
and she was taken to a small hospital in the town. She was then transferred from that hospital to a larger hospital in Barcelona. After about one hour it was decided that no one there could treat the particular problem of Nicola and the injuries she sustained in the accident, and she was on the move again. This time she was taken to the Residencia Francisco Franco, outside Barcelona. The family were not allowed to leave until they had been presented with a bill and had given the home address in England and all the relevant detail to make sure that they could meet the expenses necessary.
They were told at this hospital that it would be necessary to perform a small operation on Nicola, and the mother realised, of course, that this was to be a hole drilled in the skull to relieve the pressure on the brain. Nicola was taken to the operating theatre some time after 5 p.m. After about two hours the operation was finished and Nicola was taken into the intensive care unit. The family were allowed to look at her for only a very short time through a window, and then the intensive care unit was shut up for the night.
Following this, various visits were paid, naturally, by the family to see the daughter. Eventually they saw the doctor, on Sunday 3rd August, and he explained that Nicola was very seriously injured and that the brain damage was extensive, but that her condition was not hopeless.
On Monday morning 4th August they visited the hospital again and spent two hours in the finance department sorting out who would be responsible for the bill. They saw Nicola for a few minutes, after which they were told to leave.
Mr. Baughan then had to return home because the holiday was over, and Mrs. Baughan was left alone. She went to the British consulate in Barcelona and saw a Mr. Bradley, who said that he would keep in touch. Mrs. Baughan received a telephone call from Mr. Bradley to the effect that the consulate would arrange for her to move from her holiday hotel to a hotel nearer the hospital, but, as an illustration of how everything went wrong, when Mrs. Baughan in her anxious and emotional state arrived at the hotel, no room was ready for her and the hotel provided no food.
1554
Mrs. Baughan went back to the hospital, saw her daughter for about an hour and spoke to the doctor, who told her that Nicola's chances of survival were about three in 10. Mrs. Baughan returned to the hotel and arranged to move, so that she could be sure at least of getting food after returning from the hospital. On the next day she visited Nicola again and saw her daughter through the window, as usual.
There was no change in Nicola's general condition until Friday 8th August, when, on visiting the hospital once more, she found that Nicola was on a respirator. Naturally, she was very upset about this, so the nurse telephoned the doctor, who explained that Nicola's condition was not desperate. However, when Mrs. Baughan saw her daughter at the hospital on Saturday she saw that her condition was not good. The doctor said that he would take Nicola off the machine to see whether she was breathing spontaneously. After a short time he came back to Mrs. Baughan and told her that Nicola was dead. Mrs. Baughan asked to see her daughter, but permisson was refused.
The consulate was informed that Nicola had died, and Mr. Bradley telephoned to say that a post-mortem examination had been performed. When Mrs. Baughan said that her permission for a post mortem had not been requested, he replied that in Spain permission was not needed and post-mortem examinations were performed as a matter of course before burial authority was granted. He asked Mrs. Baughan what the family had decided to do with Nicola and, naturally, was told that they wanted to take her home. He said that that would take a very long time and cost a great deal of money. He asked the family to think about it and gave a telephone number where he could be reached. He explained that nothing could be done then, because the consulate was closing for the weekend—this during the busy time of the year in Spain.
On the next day, Mr. Baughan arrived back in Spain and he went ahead with the funeral arrangements. On Sunday 10th August several attempts were made to contact Mr. Bradley on the telephone number he had given, but there was never an answer. Not until Monday were the family able to get hold of Mr. Bradley. He was still involved in other duties at the consulate.

1555
At 9 a.m. Mr. and Mrs. Baughan went to the mortuary, accompanied by Mrs. Farrell—an English resident who spoke Spanish and with whom the family had become acquainted during the holiday. They again telephoned the consulate, and Mr. Bradley said that he was just leaving to come to the mortuary. The general idea he conveyed was that he would be free to help to make the arrangements for the funeral. Several telephone calls were made to the consulate, and it was said that Mr. Bradley had left in good time to help with the funeral arrangements.
Eventually, just after noon, a Mr. Ortega arrived at the consulate. He went through the arrangements, and said that he understood everything and would arrange for a Protestant clergyman to conduct the funeral service on the following day.
On the following day, 12th August, the family arrived at the mortuary for the funeral. Mrs. Farrell and her sister were there and so were two members from the agency that had arranged the tour. But there was no one from the British consulate at all; nor was a Protestant clergyman present. They thought there had perhaps been some mistake and therefore they went on to the cemetery. They thought that perhaps the clergyman and people from the consulate would be there in attendance.
They arrived at the cemetery only to find that there was no one there, and several telephone calls were made, but without any success. After quite a long wait, they were told that the coffin must be interred because of the terrific heat, and they drove up to the tombs, as they are described. The coffin was unloaded on to the floor. Shortly, some workmen arrived with a small truck and winched the coffin up to its resting place. There still was no sign of the clergyman or anyone from the consulate.
So Nicola was sealed in her tomb without a proper funeral service. Mrs. Farrell and her sister said the Lord's Prayer, and that was all. The family went back to the hotel and later in the evening received a telephone call from a Mr. Copestake, the clergyman who should have been at the funeral. He explained that Nicola had been buried in the Catholic cemetery and he had been waiting at the Protestant cemetery.
1556
The family went to the British consulate next day and saw Mr. Ortega, who was very nervous and did not seem to know what to say. Eventually, they went to see the consul, a Miss Winifred Durbin. She was apologetic and accepted the criticism. Apparently, everything was left to assumption. Mr. Ortega assumed that Mr. Copestake knew where Nicola was being buried and Mr. Copestake assumed that she was being buried in the Protestant cemetery.
One can imagine the effect this series of events had upon the family. Quite clearly, they were very dissatisfied, to put it mildly, with the service and treatment they received from the consulate throughout the whole of this time. Having seen the family and discussed the matter in detail, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I received a reply from the Minister of State and I asked the family to meet me again so that we could discuss his reply.
We came to the conclusion that the Minister of State's reply was a whitewashing exercise and that he had fallen over backwards to find excuses for the indolent way in which the consulate had carried out its duties. Mrs. Baughan made it clear that she had no complaint against the travel agency, and yet the Minister said time and again throughout his reply that the blame lay with the travel agency for not making the proper arrangements and that that was the cause of the chaos. I conclude by asking my hon. Friend some questions, and I hope that he will answer them.
First, will the Foreign Office now, as a result of what I can only describe as a disgraceful episode, carry out a full investigation into the slipshod, indolent, incompetent attitude of the consulate staff in Barcelona? Secondly, the Minister of State excused the staff there by referring to a large number of incidents over the weekend, yet Mr. Bradley, presumably one of the senior members of the consulate, said that the consulate was closed for the weekend. Surely at this very busy time of year, the last two weeks of July, there should be some staff on duty over the weekend.
I am also advised that the consul-general was on leave. The slack period between November and March is surely the time when the consul-general should

1557
be on leave, not during this busy period. Why did Mr. Bradley of the consulate staff put so many obstacles in the way of Nicola's being flown home for burial? When the consulate staff knew that Mrs. Baughan was alone, why did they not assign a member of the staff to deal with the problems of hotel, cost of hospital treatment, and funeral arrangements? Finally, will the Foreign Office now try to make amends by flying home Nicola's body for burial in Derby? That would at least ease the pain and anguish still being suffered by Mrs. Baughan and family.
The Spanish authorities also come badly out of this. I have related how Nicola was moved from one hospital to another immediately after she had sustained serious injuries in this accident. When she finished up at the hospital where she was operated on, the authorities spent most of the time trying to find out how much money the family had and whether the bill would be paid. Spain gets many British holidaymakers and, bearing in mind the vast amount that must go into the coffers of that country as a result of British holidaymakers going there, they are entitled to more sympathetic understanding than they get. I ask the Minister to see whether we can do something to assist in cases like this, not only on questions about how a consulate would deal with the matter, but by having discussions with the Spanish authorities.
This has been a difficult time for the family and I trust that the Foreign Office will at least make amends by flying home this coffin so that Nicola can have a decent burial in this country.
2.32 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands): Before dealing in detail with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson), let me say how deeply sorry I feel about Nicola's tragic and untimely death. I am a family man and no one can help sharing in the agony and grief of the family. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on my sympathy to Mrs. Baughan.
My hon. Friend has outlined some of the facts of this tragic case. From the moment they knew of the accident to the
1558
date of Nicola's death on 9th August—that moment was on 4th August—the consulate-general responded to various inquiries and requests from Mr. and Mrs. Baughan. For example, it arranged for privileged hospital visiting facilities for Mr. and Mrs. Baughan to see their daughter, as well as for hotel accommodation. Following Nicola's death on 9th August, the consulate-general at Barcelona contacted Mr. Baughan, who had returned to Britain. Mr. Baughan decided that Nicola should be given a local burial. The consulate-general did not pressurise the decision, It was made by the family. The consulate-general explained the circumstances and the costs involved. It did not make the decision, nor "persuade" Mr. Baughan, as one Press comment said. The decision was taken by Mr. Baughan.
On Monday 11th August Mrs. Baughan sought the help of the consulate-general in two ways—to arrange for a Protestant clergyman to officiate at the funeral and to assist in making the funeral arrangements with the local undertaker. The consulate-general began to look for a clergyman. However, it had not planned to be with Mrs. Baughan that morning since she was to be accompanied at the undertaker's by a friend who lived locally and spoke Spanish and by the local travel agent of the tour organisers. It was the peak of the holiday season and the staff at the office were dealing with a number of other serious accidents on the morning itself. Unfortunately, before the vice-consul was able to join Mr. Baughan, the undertaker arranged the funeral at an entirely Catholic cemetery.
Meanwhile, the staff of the consulate-general had found a Protestant lay preacher, who, unfortunately, was not informed of the arrangement to hold the funeral at the Catholic cemetery. The next day the lay preacher went to the wrong cemetery. Before he or the consular official could get to the right one, the interment had taken place.
I want to tell my hon. Friend that we make no attempt at all to whitewash the circumstances arising from the funeral arrangements. In his letter, my hon. Friend the Minister of State expressed his deepest regret and apologies that this tragic misunderstanding had occurred and that the arrangements were not dealt with more effectively.

1559
We accept that there should have been more care to avoid the confusion and misunderstanding that arose. I wish publicly to express my own sincere regret and to associate myself with the apologies that the consul made to Mr. and Mrs. Baughan on the day after. Concerning that tragic aspect, and particularly the misunderstanding and confusion over the funeral arrangements, I repeat that we have not attempted to whitewash but have accepted the element of responsibility for that misunderstanding.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of specific points. He has asked for a full inquiry. That has taken place. We have already held a detailed investigation, and that has led to this statement, as well as the reply from the Minister of State to my hon. Friend. As for the fact that the consulate was closed at the weekend, there is always a duty officer at weekends, contactable through the consulate. As my hon. Friend said, the family were therefore given telephone numbers to ring. I am sorry if they did not actually make contact.
As for the "obstacles" put in the way of flying Nicola's body home at the time, I do not think there were obstacles. The consulate explained the problems and the difficulties which could arise. They were not meant as obstacles but as a factual explanation of the situation that faced the Baughan family. My hon. Friend has asked about the assigning of staff, and I shall refer to that shortly.
His main question concerned the possibility now of flying the body home. I quite understand and sympathise with the request made for the repatriation of Nicola's body. I think we ought to explain to Mr. and Mrs. Baughan that, Mr. Baughan having decided on a local burial, to bring the body home now would present very difficult problems. The chief one is that if the Baughans wish to bring the body home, they have to bear in mind that Spanish regulations, like those of some other countries, are such that exhumation can be considered only after two years. That is not a regulation confined to Spain. It is in force in other countries. Mr. and Mrs. Baughan and my hon. Friend will no doubt wish to consider the matter in the light of these facts.
The Department as such has no funds available with which to finance the
1560
repatriation of the body, but in any case we are faced by the fact of the Spanish regulations concerning exhumation.
Mr. Walter Johnson: The Minister is now aware, as were the consular staff, that no proper burial service took place. He can imagine that even now the family suffer very considerably from the anguish of knowing that their daughter was just put into a tomb and interred without any religious ceremony at all. I still say that the Government have a responsibility to make amends here to the family, and I ask the Minister to think again and to talk to the Spanish authorities with a view to bringing the body home.
Mr. Rowlands: I have made the point that these are the Spanish regulations. As a Christian myself. I appreciate the point about there having been no proper Christian burial. I was simply pointing out that these were the Spanish regulations. I shall take note of the further representations that my hon. Friend has made to me tonight.
Finally, I wish to make one general point. My hon. Friend has quite rightly drawn attention to the difficulties over staff in meeting the needs and requirements of Mr. and Mrs. Baughan in these tragic circumstances. If I put the whole matter in the context of the work of the consulate, I hasten to say that it is in no way meant to detract from the deepest regret that I feel and the apologies that I have just made to my hon. Friend and, through him, to Mr. and Mrs. Baughan. However, I feel that we should be aware of the circumstances and pressures under which the staff of the consulate-general were working at the time, bearing in mind my hon. Friend's reference to the need to assign staff to deal with circumstances of the kind in which Mr. and Mrs. Baughan found themselves.
When I looked at the pressures under which this office was working in August, I was frankly both astonished and shocked. For example, at the time when Mrs. Baughan called at the office, the staff were also dealing with four road accidents involving two dead and five seriously injured Britons, together with one death by illness and a medical repatriation by air. They were also trying to help 500 British campers who were reported stranded further up the coast. This was on top of other more routine but

1561
equally time-consuming work on passports, visas, thefts from visitors, missing persons and tourists in trouble with the police.
In the month of August, the office in Barcelona alone dealt with problems arising from 15 deaths—in all, more than 500 queries and calls were made in the month. So far this year there have been 77 deaths of United Kingdom nationals reported to the consulate-general in Barcelona, of which 37 required significant action such as informing next of kin, contacts with insurance companies, assisting with funeral arrangements and transfer of funds.
At the British consulate-general in Barcelona we have one career consul, one locally-engaged vice-consul, two locally-engaged assistants, and three counter clerks. With clerical workers, the sum total of the Barcelona consular office is nine people.
I am sure that many citizens, and many holiday-makers, will not have been remotely conscious of the tremendous variety and number of problems that our consulates in major holiday resorts face each year. What I have described certainly presents a different image from the popular one fostered sometimes in the media—of our missions and posts abroad enjoying an easy life, constituting somehow a luxury that we cannot afford. They try to provide a service, to assist British
1562
citizens abroad, to help when trouble arises. It is the duty of our posts to do so. But we face a period of financial retrenchment. We are being forced to close one consulate in Spain this year, and the service will be severely pressed to maintain its present capability in the future.
I am certainly very conscious and aware of the very sad circumstances of the case my honourable Friend has rightly brought to our attention tonight. No one hearing about it can fail to be moved and shocked, and, as I said to my hon. Friend, we apologise sincerely for the misunderstandings and the confusion over the funeral arrangements. But I am sure that he will appreciate that people working abroad in consulates under the pressures that exist are human beings who may make mistakes. I hope that we shall be able to avoid such an instance in the future.
I shall take note of my hon. Friend's further representations, though it would be cruel to offer any hope that we can get round either the regulations about exhumation of the body or the problem of the costs involved. The Department has no funds with which to finance the repatriation of Nicola's body.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Three o'clock a.m.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  SUMMIT MEETINGS
  SUMMIT MEETINGS
  SOCIAL CONTRACT
  SOCIAL CONTRACT
  GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAMME (PROGRESS)
  GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAMME (PROGRESS)
  MERSEYSIDE (MEETINGS WITH UNIONS)
  MERSEYSIDE (MEETINGS WITH UNIONS)
  FOREIGN SECRETARY (SPEECH)
  FOREIGN SECRETARY (SPEECH)
  WALES TUC (MEETING)
  WALES TUC (MEETING)
  CYPRUS
  CYPRUS
  MINISTERS' HOMES (SECURITY)
  MINISTERS' HOMES (SECURITY)
  TUC (CONSULTATIONS)
  TUC (CONSULTATIONS)
  DEFENCE SALES (CO-ORDINATION)
  DEFENCE SALES (CO-ORDINATION)
  FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
  FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
  TUC, CBI AND NEDC
  TUC, CBI AND NEDC
  CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
  CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
  CABINET MINISTERS
  CABINET MINISTERS
DEFENCE
  Commercial Transport
  Commercial Transport
  Armaments Sales
  Armaments Sales
  Exercise "Inside Right"
  Exercise "Inside Right"
  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
  Aircraft
  Aircraft
  Oil Supply
  Oil Supply
  Armaments Purchasing
  Armaments Purchasing
  Army Education Corps
  Army Education Corps
ENVIRONMENT
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
  Housing Waiting Lists
  Housing Waiting Lists
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Litter
  Litter
  Business Tenancies
  Business Tenancies
  Kent (Map)
  Kent (Map)
  High Alumina Cement
  High Alumina Cement
  Vacant Property
  Vacant Property
  Local Government Staffs
  Local Government Staffs
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Tenancies
  Farm Tenancies
  Apples
  Apples
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Terrorism (Legislation)
  Terrorism (Legislation)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Criminal Injury Compensation
  Criminal Injury Compensation
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Deportations
  Deportations
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  Licensing Law
  Licensing Law
  Charities
  Charities
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Rhodesians
  Rhodesians
  Patrials
  Patrials
  Local Government Elections
  Local Government Elections
  Police Powers ("Eagle" Ferry)
  Police Powers ("Eagle" Ferry)
INDUSTRY
  Drypool Group
  Drypool Group
  Paper
  Paper
  Co-operative Development Agency
  Co-operative Development Agency
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Departmental Buying
  Departmental Buying
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Marathon Shipbuilding Co.
  Marathon Shipbuilding Co.
  British Leyland Ltd.
  British Leyland Ltd.
ENERGY
  Nuclear Power Stations (Cost)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Cost)
  Electricity Supply
  Electricity Supply
  CB/34 Room Heater
  CB/34 Room Heater
  Torus
  Torus
  British Nuclear Fuels Limited
  British Nuclear Fuels Limited
SCOTLAND
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Schools
  Schools
  Teaching
  Teaching
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Pensioners' Telephones
  Pensioners' Telephones
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Smoking (Clinics)
  Smoking (Clinics)
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Scottish Special Housing Association
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Capital Allocations
  Capital Allocations
  Community Health Councils (Reports)
  Community Health Councils (Reports)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Private Practices
  Private Practices
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Pensioners' Telephones
  Pensioners' Telephones
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Count)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Count)
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Radiotherapists (Midlands)
  Radiotherapists (Midlands)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Sickness Benefit (Scotland)
  Sickness Benefit (Scotland)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Counter-inflation
  Counter-inflation
  Monetary Remittances Abroad
  Monetary Remittances Abroad
  Income Tax Allowances
  Income Tax Allowances
  Air Pilots
  Air Pilots
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Maintenance Payments
  Maintenance Payments
  Owner-occupiers
  Owner-occupiers
  Christmas Party (EEC Staff's Children)
  Christmas Party (EEC Staff's Children)
  EEC Budget (Contributions)
  EEC Budget (Contributions)
  International Facilities
  International Facilities
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  European Community (Oversight of Income and Expenditure)
  European Community (Oversight of Income and Expenditure)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  HOUSE OF COMMONS
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  University Graduates
  University Graduates
  University Staffs (Pay)
  University Staffs (Pay)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  School Inspectors
  School Inspectors
  Headmasters
  Headmasters
  Schools Inspection
  Schools Inspection
  St. Peter's College, Saltley
  St. Peter's College, Saltley
  Engineering
  Engineering
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Regional Development Fund
  Regional Development Fund
WALES
  School Building
  School Building
  Secondary School Pupils
  Secondary School Pupils
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Local Government Capital Projects
  Local Government Capital Projects
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Indian Subcontinent (United Kingdom Entry Applications)
  Indian Subcontinent (United Kingdom Entry Applications)
  European Parliament (Elections)
  European Parliament (Elections)
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  USSR (Representation in Britain)
  USSR (Representation in Britain)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Petrol Retailing
  Petrol Retailing
  Beer
  Beer
TRADE
  Paper
  Paper
  Companies Registration Office
  Companies Registration Office
  Patents
  Patents
EMPLOYMENT
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
  Social Auditing
  Social Auditing
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  District Manpower Committees
  District Manpower Committees
  Short-time
  Short-time
  Public Sector
  Public Sector
  Training
  Training
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
  Wages Policy
  Wages Policy
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Racial Discrimination
  Racial Discrimination
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Social Contract
  Social Contract
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
  Disabled Workers
  Disabled Workers
  North-West
  North-West
  Wolverhampton
  Wolverhampton
  Motor Car Industry (Scotland)
  Motor Car Industry (Scotland)
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Teachers (London)
  Teachers (London)
  Westminster Dredging Company
  Westminster Dredging Company
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Haslingden Employment Exchange
  Haslingden Employment Exchange
  Redundancy
  Redundancy
  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  St Peter's College, Saltley
  St Peter's College, Saltley
  Careers Advisory Service
  Careers Advisory Service
  Bournemouth
  Bournemouth
  Holidays and Working Hours
  Holidays and Working Hours
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH
Maurice Arthur Ponsonby, Lord Bishop of Norwich—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Leicester and the Lord Bishop of Coventry.
The Countess of Mar—Sat first in Parliament after the death of her father.

POST OFFICE: CHRISTMAS CARD RATES
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY:My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is correct that in this country the cost of sending Christmas cards abroad is 5p if the envelope is unsealed; and why such an arrangement is profitable for cards sent abroad but not for cards sent within the United Kingdom.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): Yes, my Lords. In accordance with Universal Postal Union regulations, unsealed greeting cards with not more than five words of conventional greeting may be sent abroad by the overseas printed papers service for which the postage rate at the first step is 5p. I understand from the Post Office that this rate is not profitable.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, am I to understand from the Minister's reply that the Post Office has to make an additional payment to fit in with the regulations governing such traffic? Secondly, may I ask him whether
142
he can give a plain answer to a plain question? Is he aware that on 16th October Sir William Ryland said that he was required by Statute to make a profit? Does the Minister himself really believe that the Post Office considers that its revenue will be greater from Christmas cards if the stamps remain at 6½p, than if they make a reduction?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, in trying to give a straight answer to the straight question posed by the noble Baroness, I cannot quote the Act, but I think it said something about making the Post Office profitable taking one year with another. I hope that that is straight enough. On the third point of the question, the fact is that there is a difference of opinion as between her and me and the Post Office.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sure it was not intentional, but the Minister has not answered my question. I asked him whether in his opinion the Post Office really believe—it must believe something—that the revenue would be greater if the stamp remained at 6½p than if it were reduced?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, this Question is about Christmas cards sent abroad. But on the point now put by the noble Baroness, as I have already told her, the judgment of the Post Office is that by increasing the rate the revenue will be increased.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the stubbornness of the Post Office is pricing out of the market the Christmas greetings that many thousands of poorer people wish to send at this Christmas time?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, that is the view of the noble Lord and it is shared by other people, but it is not the view of the Post Office.
Lord WADE: My Lords, on the point of the 5p stamp, is the Post Office bound by international Convention or is there any freedom to alter this figure of 5p?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the Universal Postal Union regulations cover a number of points. For example, the regulation governing the five words of greeting is laid down by the UPU Convention. The rate is not fixed but the

143
weight is, and the rate will be increased in January.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sure the Minister thinks I am being tiresome. I am not, but I think we are in a muddle. He did not answer the first part of my first supplementary question, and arising from his original reply I asked him whether, as this was not a profitable rate for cards sent abroad, the Post Office had to make a payment in accordance with the Universal Postal Union regulations.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend is in a muddle. The fact is that this is a somewhat more complex Question than she probably imagined in the first place. The fact is, as I have said, that this rate is not profitable. It is also a fact that in January it will be increased.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether Sir William Ryland has any women among his advisers?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, indirectly I think my noble friend is one.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY RECESSION
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to help the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry during the present world-wide recession in orders for ships of all types.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the Government are discussing the situation with managements and trade unions in the shipbuilding industry. I am not yet in a position to announce any plans, but we recognise the urgency of the matter.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether the Government would consider calling an international conference, perhaps among the ten nations most closely concerned with this desperately serious world-wide position? This is a matter for urgency, since every
144
month the recession becomes more deep and more serious.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, there have been some discussions but I will see that the precise point put by the noble Lord is considered.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that, as we have been giving public money to shipbuilding, now that the ship repairing industry is in distress we must not pay public money to private enterprise without taking it over for the taxpayer?
Lord BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. Considerable public money has been put into the different companies and, as my noble friend is aware, in the next Session of Parliament there will be a Bill to bring the whole of the shipbuilding industry into public ownership.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how long the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries will have to wait before the conference to which the noble Lord has referred will be held? Is the noble Lord aware that part of the difficulty is presumably due to the fact that nationalisation is in the offing, and would it not be very much better for the shipbuilding industry if that part of the Government's programme was now destroyed for ever?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I follow the remarks made by the noble Baroness.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, shall I repeat them?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I will not tempt the noble Baroness, but I draw her attention to the fact that since 1965 under private ownership the different companies have had £170 million worth of public money in addition to £80 million per annum given through the shipbuilding home credit scheme. This has been found not to work, and it is about time we tried something else.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, are our principal competitors, those who in Japan have driven us out of the market, privately or publicly owned?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, they are private companies competing against private companies here who did not do so well.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, will the noble Lord recognise that throughout the world the shipbuilding companies have had subsidies from their own Governments, and that all shipbuilding companies are paying their taxes from the profits that they have been making? Will the noble Lord assure us that, quite apart from any differences there may be on political matters, such as nationalisation, the Government will give real priority to the great difficulties facing these industries at present?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged for the conciliatory note struck by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. It is a fact that there are difficulties elsewhere, but it is also a fact that we have tried one method of helping, and are now proposing to try another. The temporary expedients which might be possible, and the restriction of capacity, are something which might well be considered on an international basis.
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, are the Government aware that a period of recession in the shipbuilding industry is an ideal time to concentrate on matters of research and development in the industry? Is the noble Lord aware of the efforts of the Greenwich Forum, with which I am indirectly connected, in advocating further development in the industry? Also, does the noble Lord note that members or observers of his own Department are also attending this particular conference from time to time? Would he say whether he feels that the efforts of the Greenwich Forum are having an influence in this direction?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I cannot answer the particular point about the Greenwich Forum. I am aware we are making an effort to improve or increase research in this field, but even more important is the application of what is established in the actual industry.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I just ask about the suggestion of trying a new idea in order to help the industry? Since the nationalised industries are losing
146
money, why try that kind of new idea?—because it is a very bad one.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the fact of the matter is that under private ownership these companies also lost money.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Not always.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, Harland and Wolff could not pay their way under private ownership, Cammell Laird could not pay their way, and are now 50 per cent. owned; Sunderland Shipbuilders could not pay their way under private enterprise; Appledore also faced financial difficulties; Govan Shipyard could not pay their way. It is for these reasons we have decided that all the shipyards should be brought under public ownership.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister note that he has totally failed to make any case at all for nationalising the ship repairing industry? These companies have not had aid from the Government. They have made considerable profits. They need great flexibility and a quick reaction time. This is unlikely to arise from the heavy hand of nationalisation. Would the noble Lord bear in mind that even our shipbuilding industry is not in any way asking for any greater terms than are given in competitive countries overseas? They ask only that they be given a chance to earn their living in an efficient industry which is helped as much as other countries help their own industries.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, may I direct the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, to the Question he has on the Order Paper, which refers to shipbuilding and not ship repairing? Can I not expect from his Parliamentary experience that he will expect me to stick to his Question?
Lord ORR-EWING:My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite referred particularly to ship repairing, I felt it logical to follow in the views taken from his own side of the House.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister take note of the fact that Scott Lithgow and Yarrow are both profitable concerns, with large order books? I understand that they are threatened with being taken over as well.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, it is a fact that there are some yards which specialise in military ships which are doing rather better.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Opposition believe that competition is the great factor in the life of capitalism although firms have failed in the face of competition? Can we expect the public of England to give public subscription out of national funds without taking advice on what we are doing with it?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, so far as the Government are concerned, the answer is "No". I agree with the point behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, in the light of the experience we have had since 1945, could the noble Lord explain simply to the House why he thinks nationalisation will make things better?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if the Leader of the Opposition would care to put down a Question, I will do my best to answer it.

POST OFFICE: CHRISTMAS AIRLETTERS
2.55 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Christmas greetings airletters advertised in the Post Office leaflet PL(B) 3160 will not be on sale until 26th November.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am advised by the Post Office that experience shows that the last Wednesday in November is the day best suited for the issue of the special set of Christmas stamps, which includes the Christmas greetings airletter.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this date is only seven days before the last recommended posting date for Australia, only eight days
148
before the last recommended posting date for Africa, and only nine days for Central and South America?—which covers most of the world. Is that not a rather short interval? Secondly, can the noble Lord say why the leaflet gives no indication of price?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I cannot answer the second part of that question. As to the first part, this date is the same date as last year, and there were no complaints last year. The previous year there were two different dates; one for the special stamps and one for the airletter. It was found that this was administratively expensive, and so the two dates were combined last year and again this year. I have no indication that it has been impossible for those who wish to airmail their Christmas greetings not to do so within the seven days.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my Question had nothing to do with the special issue of stamps? Can he give any reason why the two matters should go together? Thirdly, can he say why the airmail letter should be issued at least a month earlier in order to encourage people to post earlier?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, there is always an argument as to when one starts the shopping days to Christmas. I think the last Wednesday in November is not unreasonable for an anniversary on the 25th December. As for the first part of the question, the fact is that, as I have said, administratively it is much more economic to have the two issues on the same day; that is, the stamps and the air letter.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, if I may be allowed to ask a closely related question—though perhaps not exactly arising out of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate—can the noble Lord the Minister tell us why the leaflet giving instructions to the Post Office and consumers as to the last date for posting sea mail was received two days after the last date for posting sea mail to Australia and New Zealand?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am unable to give an answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, but I will make inquiries.

TIMOR: INVASION REPORTS
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of reports that Indonesian military personnel have invaded Timor, they ask the United Nations Security Council to consider this threat to peace and security and to take the necessary action.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, in the absence of any British representation in the area, Her Majesty's Government have no independent means of verifying the reports which the noble Lord has mentioned, though I understand that the Indonesian official news agency has now reported one clash near the border. I also understand that the Indonesian Foreign Minister is shortly to have talks with the Portuguese Foreign Minister about Timor. I welcome this. I do not think in the circumstances that an initiative by Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations would be helpful, but we shall keep in close touch with those countries most closely involved in the situation.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that there has been evidence for a fortnight now that Indonesian troops have been in Timor, and that Indonesian naval vessels have stormed the territory? Would he add to his statement about the official statement yesterday? Is it not a fact that yesterday the official news agency in Jakarta acknowledged that Indonesian troops were engaged six miles within Timor and, if this is the case, surely it is a matter in which the United Nations Security Council should intervene.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is one of those circumstances where evidence is obviously something that comes from both sides. There is evidence from Freitilin and from the Indonesian Government. As I have said, we have no representation on the spot to test which evidence is most credible.
150
As to the statement issued yesterday from Jakarta, which is reported in today's Times and which I regard as probably being well founded, the report said that the,
" 'unavoidable'clash took place after Freitilin forces attacked Indonesian security posts in an attempt to infiltrate Indonesian Timor and carry out foraging raids. The Freitilin forces were repelled".
That is the information which I have. But perhaps more hopeful from my noble friend's point of view, certainly mine, is the statement by Mr. Malik the Indonesian Foreign Minister, that he is to meet Major Antunes of the Portuguese Government this week—probably, it is said, on Thursday or Friday—to discuss the peaceful future of this part of the world. Mr. Malik has said that what is urgent is the restoration of peace and order as soon as possible.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Indonesia respects the right of self-determination of the people of Portuguese Timor; and has neither any territorial nor any other claim whatsoever on this colony, which was not part of Indonesian territory when Indonesian independence was declared in 1945. The only action, as I understand it, which Indonesia has taken is to give refuge to 50,000 refugees from Portuguese Timor. Does the noble Lord agree that it is up to Portugal to refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council if there has been any violation of their territory?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely agree that the official Indonesian attitude is that they have no designs at all on this territory, and so far, I am bound to say, they have acted in conformity with their statements to us. I have said, carefully I hope, that the evidence of who started what on the border is not of such a nature that we can come to a snap decision. But I have every confidence that the Indonesian Government will stand by their declared policy, which is self-determination, democratic determination, in Timor. That is our policy. I hope it is the policy of everybody concerned, including Freitilin.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while greatly appreciating the fullness of the Minister's answer, may I ask him this further question? Could we not act in

151
association with the Australian Government, which is very deeply involved in this issue? Just as the Secretary-General of the United Nations has helpfully intervened in the trouble in Spanish Sahara, where there has been no military action, is it not desirable that the United Nations should intervene in this place, where there has been military action?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is indeed eminently desirable, and in fact the Secretary-General of the United Nations made an appeal towards the end of August, that everybody should refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of Timor so that a peaceful democratic solution could be attained there. Unfortunately, his appeal was not listened to by, among others, the organisations which the noble Lord has in mind. As to our taking an initiative, I would ask the noble Lord and your Lordships to consider this point. There are countries more immediately involved in this area; my noble friend has quite rightly mentioned one. Australia is clearly very closely concerned with what happens in this area; so is Indonesia. It would be, I suggest, somewhat invidious if an initiative in the United Nations were taken by the United Kingdom, when in fact those countries most closely involved have not so far seen fit to take such an initiative themselves.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will repeat a Statement on the Guildford and Woolwich bomb prosecutions at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
HARE COURSING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 10, and to be printed.

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
3.6 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now 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 5 [Land acquisition and management schemes]:
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 72, line 22, at end insert—
"(dd) arrangements for the management of land held by any authority pending development with particular regard to the need to encourage the full and proper agricultural use of any farm land acquired by any authority party to the scheme in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture."
The noble Lord said: At the beginning of this afternoon's discussion, when we are looking at the Fifth Marshalled List of Amendments which consists of no less than 44 pages—we have a very large number of Amendments to consider—this may be the opportunity for a member of the Opposition to make somewhat pertinent and abrasive remarks in regard to the Government's legislative programme. I shall, however, restrain myself on this occasion, but I should like to remind the noble Baroness of an Arab proverb which says, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single pace" and the single pace is this Amendment No. 92A, which relates to a question to which I have already spoken on Amendment No. 42A. It is the question of land management, which we have already discussed at some length on Clause 14 in regard to Wales.
This Amendment relates to land management schemes in regard to England and Scotland. As I have already spoken to this Amendment at some length, perhaps your Lordships will not expect me to speak again at any great length. Nevertheless, I feel that your

153
Lordships would like to know the intention of this Amendment. As set out in the Marshalled List, I think it reflects Amendment No. 42A very clearly. It says:
"arrangements for management of land held by any authority pending development with particular regard to the need to encourage full and proper agricultural use of any farm land acquired by any authority party to the scheme in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture."
I think it is self-evident from our earlier discussion, when we wrote in Amendment No. 42A in regard to Wales, that it is highly desirable in the interests of a universal approach in this matter that this provision should apply to England and Scotland. I therefore beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I am afraid that I think Amendment No. 92A represents a faltering stumble towards Amendment No. 218KK, rather than the firm step which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has indicated. When we were dealing with Amendment No. 42A on Wales, I said that in that case the Amendment was quite unnecessary. It is certainly possible to distinguish this Amendment from the previous Amendment No. 42A, because the Amendment on the Welsh part of the Bill went a great deal further and laid a duty on the Land Authority to make arrangements for the management of land, and here we are dealing with the administrative land acquisition and management schemes.
I confess that I am in some difficulty about the Amendment. My advice is that without the last two lines it would be quite acceptable to the Government, and I should offer at Report stage to bring forward an Amendment along those lines. My feeling is that noble Lords opposite should be allowed to be consistent. They have already put into the Bill—by Amendment No. 42A, which is if I may say so, a completely nonsensical Amendment to have pressed—a need to consult with the Ministry of Agriculture. My feeling is that they should be allowed to carry on in that vein and put this into the Bill.
It might help if I indicated how nonsensical is this business of consulting the Ministry of Agriculture. It lays an absolute duty on either the Land Authority or, in this case, any other authority
154
to consult with the Ministry of Agriculture once they have acquired agricultural land. If I can give an example, this means that an authority might have some land which they intended to develop—some derelict land, for instance, left over from industrial workings—and they want to widen a road to give them access to the land, and the farmer who owned the land alongside the road needs some cash and comes to the Authority and says, "I understand at some point in the future you will be widening this road to develop your piece of derelict land. Would you buy my strip of land along the road now as I am willing to sell it to you. "The Authority, wanting to do things by agreement, buy the stretch of land, perhaps 20 yards wide and a few hundred yards long, or less, and for the sake of convenience they allow the farmer to go on farming it until they are ready to widen the road. The Amendment would mean that the Authority would have to consult the Ministry of Agriculture as to how that land must be treated until theycome to widen the road. It is quite ridiculous, but I leave it to the noble Lords opposite to decide what to do about this Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Is it not possible for the noble Lord, as opposed to making snide remarks, to accept the Amendment in principle, and to say he will put it in at Report stage to take care of the obvious mistakes or difficulties which he foresees in his farmer and derelict land example?
Lord MELCHETT: That was my advice, but my difficulty is that noble Lords opposite have already voted an Amendment into the Bill with this very inconsistency in it.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Amendment reads, "full and proper agricultural use of any farm land". It does not say, "derelict land".
Lord MELCHETT: If they want to develop a bit of derelict land and there is a road leading to it and they buy, let us say, 10 square yards of agricultural land in order to widen the road, they will have to go to the Ministry of Agriculture and consult with them as to what happens to that 10 square yards until the road is widened.
3.14 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: I thought that this Amendment was helpful—as indeed it was supposed to be—and it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, should have started off by saying that it was nonsensical and ridiculous. As he knows perfectly well, and there is no secret about it, we on this side of the House do not like this Bill, but if it is to work we want to see that it works as well as possible. All this Amendment says is that the local authorities having the power to acquire development land up to five or 10 years ahead, should, pending development, not only use it properly but also show how they propose to use it. With the greatest respect, that is not nonsensical, nor ridiculous.
We have a situation where the Government want agricultural production; they say so, and there is nothing peculiar in that. We believe that agriculture has a great part to play. All we say is that, where a local authority acquires land it may not use for another five or 10 years, it should be under an obligation to use that land properly where it is agricultural land, and under this Amendment we say how it proposes to use it. This could only help the Bill. I cannot see how it could spoil it, and I simply do not see how it is ridiculous.
Lord MELCHETT: I entirely agree with everything that the noble Earl has said thus far about the Amendment. He has not dealt with the latter part of the Amendment, which concerns the necessity for an authority to consult with the Ministry of Agriculture. That was the only part of the Amendment I was objecting to. I accept what he has said so far. If the Amendment on Wales were withdrawn, I should be happy to bring forward an Amendment to this part of the Bill embodying exactly what the noble Earl said, because I agree with it.
Earl FERRERS: I am delighted to know that. I suggest to the noble Lord that, if this Amendment is not moved as it is, you could have large tracts of land not used properly. If the Government accept this Amendment, then I would suggest that it is possible for the noble Lord, between now and Report stage, to see whether this is making an absurdity over one small piece of land and, if that is so, to bring forward an Amendment at Report stage to tidy it up. The principle
156
must surely be accepted now that, if there are large tracts of agricultural land, then they should be shown to be used properly until they are developed.
Lord SANDYS: I do not think that we have started in the frame of mind that some of us intended. We intended to offer Amendments which we believed to be both valuable and worth while to the working of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has used the de minimus argument, and it is not a strong one here, particularly for those of us who have stood by in silent witness in counties where the highways department have been carving off pieces of land and using enormous areas for view lines, et cetera. It is well known that, because of traffic regulations, it is largely due to increased road-widening throughout the country that provision must be made for view lines. The noble Lord has fastened upon a provision where I should have thought it was highly desirable in many counties for the Ministry of Agriculture to be consulted. They have not been consulted in the counties where I live; that is, the counties of Hereford and Worcester. Were they to be consulted in the future, this would be desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said he accepted all but the last two lines of the Amendment. I fail to follow his argument about consistency. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, because it seems to me that the policy that the Government have adopted on this Amendment is inconsistent. I hope that the noble Lord may be able to reconsider this, because otherwise I fear we must press the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 72, line 37, after ("may,") insert ("after consulting with all the authorities').
The noble Viscount said: I hope the Government will be favourably disposed to this Amendment, which is not in any sense meant to be anything but a simple matter. I am asking that the Secretary of State should consult local authorities before he pokes his nose too strongly into their affairs in this matter. The Amendment would cost the Government nothing and would create good will between local authorities and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Viscount will be pleased to hear that this appears to the Government to be an entirely fair and sensible proposal, which we can accept. Unfortunately, the drafting makes the Amendment as tabled unacceptable, but I give an assurance that a correctly drafted one will be brought forward on Report.
Viscount RIDLEY: I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.22 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 95A:
Page 73, line 8, leave out ("to any person") and insert ("without payment to any parish council and to any other person").
The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will find acceptable. It is straightforward in that it seeks to permit a parish council, which also comprehends a parish meeting, to have the opportunity of viewing plans without payment. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I will deal first with the Amendment and then with the thinking behind it. I do not think the Amendment as drafted could work because it seems absurd to single out parish councils to receive copies of plans free. If private individuals can afford a reasonable sum for copies, then parish councils, which have power to levy rates, should also afford to do so. However, the Amendment has brought to our attention the more serious point that perhaps parish councils should receive copies of plans as of right, and this I suspect may be the real point behind the Amendment, although as drafted it would not achieve that aim. Paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 8 requires that an authority passing a resolution declaring a disposal notification area shall send a copy of the resolution and the relevant map to every parish or community council affected. It may well be that a similar provision would be right in respect of land, and I give an undertaking to consider this between now and Report.
Lord SANDYS: While reserving our right to come back to this matter on Report, in view of that undertaking by the noble Baroness, which in the circumstances
158
is acceptable, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [General duties]:
3.24 p.m.
Lord HENLEY Lord HENLEY moved Amendment No. 97B:
Page 16, line 37, after ("functions") insert ("under this Act").
The noble Lord said: I fear that I cannot be as quick in moving this Amendment as others have been in moving the previous ten or so; it may take me a little longer to develop my argument, which I also raised on Second Reading. I will, if it is convenient to the Committee, discuss Amendment No. 104F with this Amendment. I said on Second Reading that there was a conflict in the Bill between land acquisition and land dealing and planning. Clause 17(1) says that
"…every authority shall have regard to…bringing development land into public ownership."
That is under subsection (1)(a) and under subsection (1)(b) it speaks of
"…securing the proper planning of their area."
Subsection (1)(b) does not need any special provision, but subsection (1)(a) knocks at the very roots of our existing planning law and brings into planning an entirely new concept—a new ideology, one could call it—which may or may not be the right way to deal with the question of acquiring land, but which has nothing to do with planning as such.
The question as to who should develop land and whether it should be publicly owned is not what I am talking about now. I am talking about the relationship between that and planning, and I am suggesting that the conflict here will distort planning decisions. This conflict is embedded in the Bill and I am not trying to remove it; the only way to remove it would be by moving wrecking Amendments, which I am not proposing to do. This provision appears in the Bill and that is that.
If it had stopped there, that would have been something of which one could make such protest as one thought fit. But it does not stop there. Subsection (6) of this clause, which I find difficult

159
to understand, means that under the 1971 Act and the other cognate Acts which are mentioned, all authorities must take into account the concept of land acquisition and dealing whenever they make a planning decision. I think this is irrelevant; indeed, I am not sure if it is not improper. It damages the whole basis of planning and does damage to the esteem in which planning on the whole is held. It means that planning is no longer entirely objective, dealing only with matters of planning; it means that decisions on planning are based not on planning merits alone but on something else, and in my view there will be much less public acceptance of planning—and this is very important indeed—if people know that planning matters are being warped by considerations other than planning. What I mean is that planning decisions, instead of being taken on questions of, say, amenity or traffic, will be taken on other considerations in that they must consider using the Bill as a vehicle to promote something quite different, and that is acquiring land. As I say, I am not attacking the concept of acquiring land. I am suggesting that to mix this business of acquiring land with the idea of planning is such that one is bound to get wrong decisions because the wrong criteria have entered into the picture.
Amendment No. 97B tries to confine the functions under the Bill to the Bill alone; that is to say, it adds the words "under this Act" after the word "functions" in subsection (1). Amendment No. 104F cuts out the requirement that in operating the 1971 Act authorities should water down the criteria of planning with considerations which are quite distinct from those of planning merits alone. I do not, of course, intend to press this Amendment because I am certain that the Government regard this matter as of fundamental importance to the Bill. What I tried to do on Second Reading was to point out that there was a very real danger that, in introducing this conflict, we were unwittingly doing very great damage to our existing system of planning.
The Government's answer to that may well be that our old system of planning was a negative one. What I mean by that is that it is an extremely good
160
system if everybody who can work it—local authorities, officers of local authorities and all of us—wishes to make it work. But if we are lukewarm and do not care, nothing much happens. I accept that there is a negative aspect in that, but I do not believe that one renders a system positive by introducing a fundamental conflict between what one should do to achieve good planning and what one should do to acquire land. I do not want to press this point, because I believe that the Government regard it as of paramount importance to their Bill. But I want to stress again what I said on Second Reading, as this was a point which did not get a proper hearing in the Commons: I believe that we are in very grave danger here. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for my absence when he rose to move the Amendment. There has been an agreeable increase in pace in dealing with the Amendments while I have been absent. Indeed, it may well be that my absence has caused that increase in pace. The land scheme is primarily concerned with all land acquisitions by authorities for private development, and Clause 17, which sets out the general duties of authorities under the land scheme, should apply generally to authorities exercising their powers to acquire land for private development under all relevant statutory powers and not simply to their powers under the Bill. This is achieved by the present definition of "functions" in Clause 17(6).
On the planning aspect of the matter which has been raised by the noble Lord, the operations of the community land scheme in Wales and England are to be planning-led and this is implicit in the duties of authorities under Clause 17(1)(b), which states that they must have regard to the desirability of securing the proper planning of their area and introduces the obligation to have regard to the planning considerations under Clause 17(2), which include the provisions of the development plan and considerations which would be material for determining a planning application. Those requirements are reinforced by the provisions of paragraph 1 of Schedule 6, which include an obligation to have regard to the needs of persons carrying on business activities in the area, the needs of persons wishing to carry out

161
development in the area and the needs and obligations of statutory undertakers. These planning provisions and the planning aspects of the Bill have been considered by the Royal Town Planning Institute, and Clause 17(1)(a) and (b) and subsection (2) were framed in close consultation with that body. They have the approval of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
However, I shall certainly study with care what has been said by the noble Lord and it may be helpful to restrict the provisions of Clause 17(6) to the land acquisition functions under the planning Acts. I shall certainly give thought to that possibility, which may meet some of the anxieties of the noble Lord. As I see it, the position is as I have described it and I do not think that there should be any clash between the functions. However, we will see whether an alteration might make matters clearer.
Lord HENLEY: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having said that he will look carefully at this point, and will make sure that no such damage as I feared will occur. I accept what he said about the need for all relevant statutory powers to be considered together, and about the necessity that this should be planning-led. In effect, that was said in the Government's notes which were supplied for our help. They referred to the need to exercise duties in a planning framework. However, my contention is that that is all very well, but that what the authorities are being asked to do here is to exercise their duties in a non-planning framework. I do not want to repeat my arguments, because I feel that that would be a bore. I have said this twice on Second Reading and I have repeated it here, because it seems to me to beof the highest importance; and the fact that the noble and learned Lord has gone some way towards admitting that there could be difficulties here is as much as I can reasonably expect from a Government who have not given way very much. If no one has anything to add on this point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 98, I should point out to the Committee that if the
162
Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 99, 99A or 100.
3.38 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 16, line 38, leave out from ("to") to end of line 43 and insert ("the desirability—

(a) of securing the proper planning of their area and then

(b) of implementing such plans by bringing development land into public ownership and of developing that land themselves or of making it available for development by others.")

The noble Lord said.: The Amendment bears on the point which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has been discussing but tackles it in a rather different way. Earlier on, when we were talking about Wales, in one of the rare interventions by a Back-Bencher on the other side—Back-Benchers on the other side being conspicuous by their physical absence and their lack of enthusiasm for the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Shin well, accused the Government of putting the cart before the horse. At that time, he was talking about devolution. In this case that is, the relationship between land acquisition and land planning—I do not feel that it would be quite true to say that the Government have put the cart before the horse; rather, the Government have forgotten the horse altogether.
When they introduced the Bill—a Bill which is designed to promote positive planning—there was no reference at any of the significant points to the planning process. It was not until May or June —halfway through the Committee stage—that anything was done to put that right. Such is the Government's zeal for the municipalisation of land that they forgot one of the main objects of the Bill. However, in the course of May and in consultation with the Royal Town Planning Institute, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, they recalled that this was rather important and made changes, one of the most significant of which is what now appears in the Bill as Clause 17(1)(b). I should like to point out that that was not in the Bill at all when it was introduced and received its Second Reading, so we can see how much regard the Government had to proper planning at the earlier stages.
It may well be that the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Town and

163
Country Planning Association are satisfied; of course they are satisfied compared with their intense dissatisfaction at the beginning, because the situation is now better. However, I put it to your Lordships that the situation is still not right because, although the Government have remembered the horse, they have only now got it beside the cart and it is not harnessed to it.
The position which the Government say they desire is the one described by the Minister on 14th October at column 1260. He said that the acquisition of development land must be planning led. Certainly we would all agree that if there is to be this kind of acquisition it must be planning led. He went on to say:
"Indeed, it is a cardinal principle that a Bill aimed to promote positive planning must rely upon the planning framework.'
We would agree with that. It is much better to have that in the Bill; it was not in the Bill when first introduced to Parliament.
I put it to the Committee that these sentiments, with which we agree, have to be spelt out in the Bill, but they are not so spelt out at the moment. My Amendment would ensure that these were spelt out by transposing the two paragraphs (a) and (b); putting the desirability of securing proper planning of the area first: and, by the addition of the word, "then", making sure that the acquisition functions followed the planning functions, so that the two did not run side by side but that the planning function led the acquisition function, as the Minister said he wanted to achieve.
That is all that the Amendment does and therefore I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. Before the Government respond, I should like your Lordships to be aware of what the planning framework now consists of. The proper planning of any area is now conducted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, which was introduced by a Labour Government, under much more sensible auspices than this Bill. They achieved a large degree of consensus; there was very thorough discussion in Parliament, and we were able to consolidate it in 1971. Apart from one or two minor changes, such as cancelling the daft idea that each of the 32 London boroughs should prepare its own structure
164
plan, it is more or less as the Labour Government introduced it.
Under that legislation—the 1968 Act—there first has to be produced structure plans by each of the counties and each of the metropolitan districts, but not the London boroughs. The position is that of all those only one structure plan has so far been approved, Solihull and Warwickshire. Some 25 to 30 are with the Department of the Environment awaiting approval. Over 200 are in various stages of production. Some 40 places have not even started work on their structure plans, such is the pressure of other more urgent work; that includes the whole of the South-West. Before they are effective all these plans have to be approved by the Department of the Environment. The target is 1976, but there is no hope of achieving it. That opinion is confirmed by the Town and Country Planning Association which described itself as satisfied with this Bill. Within the framework of the structure plans which are in the condition which I have described—that is, only one having been approved—we have to frame the local plans, which are also behind schedule because they depend on the prior approval of the structure plans. But only a third of them are currently in progress and not one is in its final stage.
That is the proper planning of the area which it is necessary to promote. I put it to your Lordships that if land acquisition proceeds without regard to that proper planning, we shall indeed get the cart before the horse. It is true that there are a number of out of date, old style development plans lying about. Many of them are very out of date and some have not yet been approved. In some circumstances it might be right to have recourse to them. But the general position is that the planning of each area must go much further than it is now before it can be in the proper position to lead the land acquisition that we are talking about. It would be quite wrong, in the meantime, for land acquisition to go on in the guise of promoting the proper planning of an area, when the proper planning of the area has not yet been achieved. For all those reasons—the main one being in order to reflect in the Bill the views of the Minister—I beg to move Amendment No. 98.
Viscount RIDLEY: Before the noble Lord replies—
Lord MELCHETT: I understand that it might be convenient at this stage to deal with the Statement which is to be repeated. Therefore I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

BOMB INCIDENTS: PRESS ALLEGATIONS
3.46 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I would like to make a statement on behalf of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General, about allegations made in the Daily Express on 23rd October to the effect that a politically-motivated veto was imposed on the intention of the Surrey police to charge a number of people with conspiracy arising out of the Guildford and Woolwich bomb incidents, and that this veto resulted in the release of a number of suspects against whom there was a good case. Honourable Members will recall that this statement was promised by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on Thursday.
"I should begin by saying with the utmost emphasis that my right honourable and learned friend is most disappointed at being unable to make this statement himself but he is ill in bed.
"The allegations appeared in an article on the front page of the Daily Express under the banner headline, 'Bomb Police Muzzled' and the words How Government veto let suspects go free'. The article alleged that as a result of political pressure, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary on behalf of the Government decided that there should be no more conspiracy trials and gave orders to that effect, that the Director of Public Prosecutions
166
and my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General accepted those orders and that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions had issued written instructions to the Surrey police who were compelled to drop what they regarded as a good case if conspiracy to murder could have been charged.
"It would, of course, be wholly improper for the Government to interfere with the prosecution process, and in particular to impose a veto of this nature on the activities of the prosecuting authorities. It is also a very serious reflection on the prosecuting authorities themselves to suggest that either my right honourable and learned friend, or the Director of Public Prosecutions, or the Police, or by inference counsel for the prosecution would accept such a veto. In these circumstances, the House may feel it right that I should state the history of this matter in a little detail.
"Bombs exploded in Guildford and Woolwich on the 5th October and 7th November last year. On 10th December the Surrey police formally notified the Director of Public Prosecutions that they had arrested and charged six men and a woman with murder, four men with unlawful possession of explosives, another man with conspiracy to cause explosions (not conspiracy to murder), and another woman with both murder and unlawful possession of explosives.
"There was no intention on the part of the Surrey police to charge a number of people or indeed anyone with conspiracy to murder. Subsequently on the advice of counsel a charge of conspiracy to murder was introduced at the trial in respect of one accused by reason of the particular facts relating to him, and proceeded with.
"Investigations continued and the Police Report and statement were received by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 17th January. He immediately sent them to counsel to advise in the matter. The team of counsel was led by the honourable and learned Member for Merton, Wimbledon.
"After very careful consideration of all the papers, the honourable and

167
learned Member for Merton, Wimbledon, and his team came to the conclusion that the evidence against some of those arrested and charged was insufficient. This advice was accepted by the Surrey police and the Director of Public Prosecutions as the only possible decision in the circumstances.
"Junior counsel appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions before the Guildford justices on 3rd February and offered no evidence against three of the men charged with murder, and against the one who had been charged with conspiracy to cause explosions. They were accordingly discharged. Up to this time there had been no consultations of any kind with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General, nor with the Law Officers Department, except that in accordance with normal practice the Attorney General had nominated counsel for the prosecution.
"On the 14th February my right honourable and learned friend received a request for his consent to proceedings under the Explosive Substances Act 1882 against the remaining accused since for proceedings under this Statute his consent is necessary. Having considered the papers and discussed the case with counsel and representatives of the Director of Public Prosecutions he granted his consent to prosecutions for offences under the Act which could include conspiracies to cause explosions and the charges were preferred. This was the first occasion that my right honourable and learned friend had seen the papers, and this of course was after the decision to offer no evidence in respect of four of the accused had been taken and implemented.
"Neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General has issued any ruling that there shall be no more conspiracy trials, and no written or oral instructions were sent to the Surrey police relating to conspiracy charges in this case. The allegations made by the Daily Express in this regard are therefore totally without foundation and thoroughly mischievous.
"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary rightly described the
168
article by the Daily Express as one of the most false, irresponsible and malevolent Press reports he had ever seen and the honourable and learned Member for Merton, Wimbledon, who, as I have said, led the team of counsel throughout the case, described the article as 'totally false and irresponsible'.
"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary called upon the Daily Express to withdraw the grave and unfounded allegations which it had made. However, far from publishing any withdrawal, the Daily Express on the following day published a leading article the purpose of which could only be to divert attention from the very serious allegations of political interference and which made no attempt to withdraw them. Instead the article put forward a new charge; that is to say that the policy followed by the Law Officers and the Department of Public Prosecutions had been to refrain from charging persons with conspiracy alone—that is to say, not to charge them unless they were also charged with some substantive offence. This allegation is equally untrue. Conspiracy is charged where there is evidence to support such a charge and where it is an appropriate charge to bring. It has in fact been charged on occasions without at the same time charging a substantive offence. The leading article ended by asking for 'confirmation of the authorities' determination to use every constitutional means to smash terrorism'. I can assure the House that all constitutional steps have been and will continue to be taken to bring to a halt that which the Daily Express rightly described as 'that terrorism which is everyone's foe'. It was hoped that the Daily Express might feel called upon to withdraw these allegations. It has chosen not to do so.
"This failure of the Daily Express to make an immediate and specific withdrawal of patently false statements is keenly resented by those referred to in it, the Government, my right honourable and learned friend, the Director of Public Prosecutions, counsel and the police. It also occasions grave and unnecessary anxiety to the public.
"In the light of this statement I am sure that the whole House will agree

169
with me that the Daily Express should now totally withdraw the very serious allegations which it made and do so without reservation."
3.54 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, as I hope other noble Lords will be, for repeating the Statement in this House, because although the Government, as I rejoice to acknowledge, have been able to deny the report as wholly without foundation the charge when made was an exceedingly grave one, and it is for that reason that I asked for the Statement to be repeated in this House. It is of the utmost importance that the process of prosecution should be totally immune from political interference. This is a very well established convention of our Constitution, which I hope we shall preserve inviolate under whichever Party is in Office. I should first like to say that I am sorry to hear that the Attorney General is ill, which I should not otherwise have known, and although of course he could not have been present here I am sorry to hear of the reason which prevented him from being in another place.
Having established the constitutional point, there is only one other point which I should like to put to the noble Lord. Obviously, the charge of conspiracy is one which has aroused a good deal of controversy from time to time and it is exceedingly important that we should understand what we are about in dealing with it. I think it was when I was on the Woolsack that we referred the whole question of conspiracy to the Law Commission, and that came out with a working paper which I think is still under consideration. The most controversial point was nothing to do with recent trials; it was the question whether you should charge a conspiracy in cases where the fact alleged, had it been done by one person, would not have constituted a crime at law. That is controversial and the Law Commission have expressed a tentative opinion, but have acknowledged that you could not just remove that branch of the law without plugging some of the gaps which its absence would create.
But what I think is beyond all question—.and this is the second point which I
170
think is of great importance to your Lordships—is that the charge of conspiracy, except in this disputed field, is of the utmost importance particularly in dealing with cases of terrorism, but also in the case of other serious crimes where more than one person is involved. There are procedural reasons why it is valuable to the prosecution and, if we are to take terrorism seriously—as I hope the whole House will—it is important, whatever is thought about the controversial aspects of the charge in other cases, that the charge of conspiracy should be retained in this field. I was particularly glad to note from what the noble Lord said that this is the intention of the Government. Although, in the event, I do not have much to ask about this Statement, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord for repeating it and I hope that the time of the House has not been thought to be wasted by his having, done so. It is a matter to which I attach very great importance.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I had the unenviable task of being leading counsel for one of the defendants in the Guildford case, and it follows that I was not in any way a party to any discussions that there may have been between prosecuting counsel and the Director. If I may, I would wish to make two observations. First, throughout a five weeks' trial there was never the slightest suggestion of political interference of any sort with counsel who were appearing for the Crown. Secondly, those who know Sir Michael Havers, who led for the Crown, and Mr. Michael Hill, Treasury counsel, who was his junior, will recognise at once that any suggestion that there could have been political pressure which might have persuaded them to select certain defendants, certain charges or certain evidence in a particular way is a piece of outrageous nonsense.
The only other observation which I would venture to add to those made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, is that this trial proceeded entirely satisfactorily, save for one particular instance, without the use of conspiracy charges. I venture to hope that it is generally recognised that the unnecessary use of conspiracy charges where there are substantive charges is something which complicates,

171
confuses, lengthens and greatly increases the expense of these trials.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have just said. I would express my gratitude, too, for what the noble and learned Lord said concerning my right honourable friend the Attorney General, who I hope will soon be restored to health. As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, these were exceedingly grave charges, and that is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary considered it desirable to speak about this matter last Thursday in answer to Questions in another place, and why my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General made his Statement today. They are very grave charges indeed which, if believed, could have a disastrous effect, in my view, in terms of public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.
Turning to what the noble and learned Lord said about the conspiracy laws, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in reply to a Written Question on this subject on 14th October from my noble friend Lord Chorley, said that we hope the Report of the Law Commission will be available in January. Finally, I very much hope that as a result of the exchanges today, and of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have said, the Daily Express will now, rather belatedly, take an early opportunity to make a full retraction of these extremely grave and totally unjustified charges.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not the case that if anybody—any newspaper, any member of the public, or anybody—makes an allegation against a Minister of the Crown, which is subsequently proved to be false and unfounded, the matter can be referred to the Committee of Privileges? Have the Government considered taking that course?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I could not, I think, speak without notice on a question of that sort. My noble friend has great experience in these matters, and I will certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend what he has just said.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I think the position is that the Committee of Privileges concerned would be that of another place, and we could not possibly go into it here.

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
4.3 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 98.
Viscount RIDLEY: I want to say a brief word in support of Amendment No. 98, moved by my noble friend Lord Sandford. I did not say anything when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, moved his Amendment earlier, and it seems to me that both the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said much the same thing. This is interesting to me, because it seems to be the first time we have had the Liberal Party taking part in this Committee stage—or perhaps should say supporting this Committee stage.
Lord HENLEY: I must interrupt the noble Viscount. My noble friend Lord Foot has spoken every day in this Committee, I will not say at inordinate length but at very great length.
Viscount RIDLEY: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I had no intention to detract from his important speeches. What I am saying is that it is the first time the Liberal Party have shown their hand on this matter, and I am glad to see that Members who have so far been conspicuous by their absence at least agree with some of the Amendments moved from these Benches. To return to the subject of the Amendment, I hope we can have some serious consideration of it. Obviously, proper planning is terribly important; and in turning it round the way my noble friend Lord Sandford has I hope that we shall show that this Bill is not concerned purely with bringing land into public ownership but is doing some good to the community which it is meant to serve.
Lord MELCHETT: If noble Lords opposite are not criticising my noble friends behind me for keeping quiet they are criticising the noble Lords on the Liberal Benches for not being here; and,

173
if I may say so, I find both charges totally unjustified—particularly, if I may say so, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I would remind him that the last Division on this Bill was won by noble Lords opposite by a mere six votes, and in view of their huge numerical superiority over my noble friends I think that reflects a completely contrary view to the one which he expressed about the support which my noble friends have given us throughout the Committee stage of the Bill.
To turn to the effect of Amendment No. 98, the Amendment would alter the basic structure of the general duty that will govern the operation of the land scheme. Once the full duty under Clause 18 is in full operation in an area, authorities in that area will have to acquire between them all the land needed for relevant development in their area. The initial general duty set out in Clause 17(1)(a) is designed to start authorities thinking in terms of this ultimate situation, and to provide a smooth transition to it from the present situation. The main point about the drafting of the general duty is that it states clearly the principle of the Bill that development land—that is, land needed for relevant development—should come into public ownership. When the Bill becomes law this will be a matter that has been decided by Parliament. It is the main principle underlying this Bill, and it should therefore come first in the statement of the general duty. I accept that noble Lords opposite are concerned about protecting the planning system, but this is fully achieved by the inclusion of Clause 17(1)(b) and the specific provisions about planning in subsection (2).
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made some play with the fact that the Bill has been altered during its passage through Parliament. This is something for which we have been criticised before. I still find it impossible to understand why the Government should be criticised for listening to representations made to them by the professional planning bodies in this country, and for acting on their recommendations. When the Bill was published, we assumed—and we still feel—that the Bill made it quite clear that it would not interfere with the existing planning system. Indeed, whole chunks of the planning Acts, as we discovered
174
yesterday, are imported into the Bill. However, it was put to us that this should be made explicit in the Bill rather than being left implicit, and we were happy to do that. I really do not think it is fair that we should then be criticised for altering the Bill during its passage through Parliament.
The land scheme is to be a tool of planning, not an attempt to overthrow the present planning system. That is why Clause 17(2) sets out the planning considerations to which every authority must have regard in considering whether land is development land. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, both the Royal Institute of Town Planning and the Town and Country Planning Association have declared their support for this part of the Bill in its amended form. Indeed, the Amendments were drafted in consultation with the Royal Institute of Town Planning. As I understand it, the Royal Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association are fully satisfied with these provisions in the Bill, and the position is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said it was, that they are merely happier than they were when the Bill was introduced. Unless the noble Lord has some further information to which the Government have not been made privy, I think he might reconsider those remarks.
So the fact that the scheme must operate within the planning framework is already made clear by the Bill as drafted. We feel that it is reasonable to draft subsection (1) in the way that it is at present in the Bill, because this is, after all, a Bill dealing with community land ownership and not with planning per se. Given that the two major professional planning bodies support the present provisions and accept that they provide the protection necessary to ensure that proper planning continues, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: I am afraid he will not. My criticism of noble Lords opposite was for forgetting to put planning into the Bill in the first case. I was at some pains on Second Reading to commend them for having thought of it halfway through the stages in another place. I should still like to commend them for their repentance in that respect. I should like to go on to make it clear that it is not our object now to protect

175
the planning framework which is safely on the Statute Book in the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1971, consolidated by us and introduced by them. I see no signs at all that that is insecure. What these Amendments are designed to do is to make that planning framework lead the acquisition powers in the Bill. In seeking to do that, I am doing no more than the Minister in this Government said should be the case. I have quoted his words before and I will repeat them. He said that the acquisition of development land must be planning led. That is all that these Amendments are seeking to do: to write into the Bill the object of the Bill in the terms that the Minister himself has used.
I do this because, like him, I find that acquisition cannot go on sensibly until the planning framework in any place is ready to lead it. Without a proper planning framework it is impossible to answer any of the basic questions: What is the relevant land development in a particular case? Which land is it important to acquire for relevant development and which land should be acquired first? It is impossible to answer any of those questions until the planning framework has been developed to that point; and, as I have just shown, the planning framework has not been developed to that point in a number of places. When it is developed it can be used to lead the acquisition process; but in order to ensure that that is so and that the Minister's objectives are achieved, I am quite sure that Clause 17(1)(b) needs to be modified in something like the way in which my Amendment would secure. Therefore I shall advise my noble friends to support me in pressing this Amendment. If the noble Lord would care to suggest, either now or later, some modification—for instance, of the word "then"—which would make the Amendment more acceptable to the Government, I should be happy to consider it before the Report stage. But, in the light of the reply so far. I intend to press Amendment No. 98.
Lord MELCHETT: If the fact that the two professional planning bodies in this country are satisfied with the Bill as it
176
now is has no influence on the noble Lord opposite, I do not think that anything I can say will affect him. It may be of interest to noble Lords to know what would be the effect of Amendment No. 98. It would enable authorities which did not wish to implement the Bill to argue that public ownership of development land was not necessary to secure the proper planning of their area. In other words, authorities would be able to go on much as they have done in the past. The Government do not intend to allow authorities to proceed on the basis that they managed perfectly well in the past. The land scheme provides a new tool for planning, but it also establishes a new principle of public ownership of development land. When the Bill becomes law it is our intention that all authorities should have regard to the principle expressed in this Bill and agreed by Parliament. This Amendment strikes at the root of the Bill and I think it should be resisted.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Surely words could be found to cover both points! The thing at the moment which ought to be settled—and my noble friend made it crystal clear by quoting the words used by the Minister himself—is that it ought to be planning led. If the Government insist that the principle of public ownership must be adhered to whether or not the local authorities want it, then let them find the words to say both things. To say that this essential planning-led point should not be written into the Bill, when to me it is vital in order to make it clear that it shall be planning led, seems to indicate that the Government are refusing to tidy up their own legislation.
Lord MELCHETT: It is written in the Bill to the satisfaction of the Royal Institute of Town Planning and the Town and Country Planning Association; but, apparently, not to the satisfaction of noble Lords opposite.
Lord SHINWELL: My noble friend fails to convert the other side. I wonder whether I could try. I say this without any condescension at all and without any criticism of my noble friend who, if I may say so, does very well on the Front Bench. But this is not the

177
time for compliments. The noble Lord opposite mentioned my name because I ventured to say in the course of a previous debate that the Government might have thought out some of the details before coming to the conclusion that they should acquire the land. That seemed to be quite logical at the time; but I think that this is a horse of another colour, if I may use the term "horse" in this connection.
I cannot imagine how a Government or a local authority would decide to acquire a piece of land without having some conception of what they were going to do with it. It is obvious to me, and logical. I cannot imagine a local authority deciding to acquire a piece of land, perhaps having a public inquiry about it or being forced to have one at great expense, having to resist the protection protestations of a great variety of objectors and all the rest of the paraphernalia associated with this operation, without having some idea of what they propose to do with the land. Perhaps they want to use it for industrial purposes or for housing accommodation, or recreation purposes or what have you.
Surely that must have occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who is a person of acute intelligence. Therefore, he must have had that idea in his mind. In those circumstances is it necessary to force the Government to introduce into the Bill something which is obvious? It is there; it is part of the Bill; it cannot be made an exception; it cannot be excluded from it. It is the whole purpose of the Bill to acquire for a purpose. If the noble Lord opposite is asking that every detail of the purpose should be stated in the legislation, that is asking too much. I am sure that he is not asking for as much as that. It seems to me in a matter of this sort that there is no point in pressing this at all; for what the noble Lord opposite wants is bound to happen eventually.
Lord HENLEY: Neither the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, nor this Amendment, nor the answer to it from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, go to the root of what I am worried about. It is not that what we are doing here is this planning lead; it is that what we
178
are doing is subordinating planning to it. Nothing that has been said shakes me in my belief. Naturally anything that the two principal bodies connected with town planning say has great weight with me; but I am still worried that they do not seem to have taken up this point: namely, that what we are doing here is subordinating planning to something other than planning.
Lord FOOT: Is there not possibly room for a compromise which would be satisfactory to all parties? I suggest that a compromise solution might be found simply by putting (b) where (a) is and (a) where (b) is. Clause 17(1) would then have the same meaning. It would meet the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in that it would put planning matters in the front, and it would, as I see it, meet any objections that the Government may have to the Amendment because it would be adopting the words which the Institute apparently have advised are satisfactory and we should be merely reversing the order. It is a pity that we should need to divide upon this matter because the Government will not give any indication of a willingness to give way at all. If the Government take that stance I am afraid I will have to go into the Division Lobby with the Tories.
Lord SANDFORD: I have said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and I say it now in response to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that some modification of the rather curt "then" in my Amendment is something I should be happy to consider between this stage and Report. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says about the RTPI and the TCPA. I am delighted they are satisfied so far. Unless we carry this Amendment, I am not satisfied that we have succeeded in importing into the Bill the intentions of the Secretaryof State. There is no question of seeking to wreck the Bill at this point. We are trying to make the Bill reflect the views of the Minister who took it through the other place. He expressed himself in the clearest possible terms at Report stage in another place. The Amendment I believe does that; as it stands at the moment, the Bill does not do it. For that reason, I want to press Amendment No. 98 to a Division.
4.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (N0.98) shall be agreed to?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 128; Not-Contents,59.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton. L. [Teller.]

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Airedale, L.

Exeter, M.

Norwich, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Allerton, L.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Amherst, E.

Fortescue, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Amory, V.

Gage, V.

Powis, E.

Arbuthnott, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gowrie, E.

Reigate, L.

Balfour, E.

Grenfell, L.

Ridley, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gridley, L.

Roberthall, L.

Balniel, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Barrington, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sackville, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Belstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.,

Berkeley, B.

Harvington, L.

St. Helens, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hawke, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Braye, L.

Hayter, L.

Sandford, L.

Brock, L.

Henley, L.

Sandys, L.

Byers, L.

Hereford, V.

Savile, L.

Camoys, L.

Hives, L.

Selkirk, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Carrington, L

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sherfield, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon, V.

Clwyd, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stamp, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ironside, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cowley, E.

Kindersley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cromartie. E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Davidson, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

de Clifford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathspey, L.

de Freyne, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Denbigh, E.

Long, V.

Swaythling, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Tenby, V.

Derwent, L.

Luke, L.

Thomas, L.

Digby, L.

Lyell, L.

Vernon, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Vivian, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wade, L.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L

Effingham, E.

Middleton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monck, V.

Wigoder, L.

Elton, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Paget of Northampton, L

Bacon, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pargiter, L.

Balogh, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Platt, L.

Birk, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Raglan, L.

Blyton, L.

Hale, L.

Rhodes, L.

Brockway, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shinwell, L.

Burntwood, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Slater, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hoy, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Castle, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Crook, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Summerskill, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

McLeavy, L.

Winterbottom, L.

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

Maelor, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gardiner, L.

Melchett, L.

4.32 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 101A:
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("so far as material").
The noble Earl said: We cannot see what is the use of the words "so far as material", because if one reads the clause it says:
"In exercising their functions on or after the first appointed day every authority shall have regard to…
It then refers to various things in Clause 1. Subsection (2) then says:
"in considering whether any land is development land, an authority shall have regard to…the provisions of the development plan…"
Presumably the development plan provisions must be material. We cannot see the point of having these words in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: It is necessary to have these words in the Bill and therefore I must resist the Amendment. By removing the words "so far as material" authorities would be required to have regard to the provisions of the development plan even when they were irrelevant. In fact, subsection 2(a) simply follows the general provisions of Section 29(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act which set out the factors that authorities have to consider in determining planning applications. This requires a planning authority, when dealing with a planning application, to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material. There is no justification for departing from this precedent, which recognises the fact that development plans cannot foresee all likely trends in development, and that there may be cases where a change in circumstances (for example, the exploitation of North Sea oil) means that the development plan is no help at all in considering a specific development proposal.
Lord HAWKE: I wonder whether the noble Baroness, or preferably the noble Lord who sometimes sits on the Woolsack, could tell me what is the force in Statute of the words "shall have regard to". As a mere layman, I would interpret them to mean that the matter would have to he looked at provided only it was relevant to the case in point. Perhaps I may be enlightened on that point.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether or not there was an implied taunt in the observation that I sometimes sit on the Woolsack—I do not think there was—but, "have regard to "means to have regard to, to consider it, to give due weight to, to bear in mind all those processes of the working of the judicial mind. They will have to be applied to considering what is indicated in the provision in the clause to be matter to which the court should have regard. Whether those words give any assistance to the noble Lord, I do not know, but they highlight the fact that the court will take this fully and seriously into account.
Earl FERRERS: I am sure those words of the noble and learned Lord are very material and I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 102A:
Page 17, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) In considering whether any agricultural land is development land an authority shall—

(i) have regard to the need to conserve productive agricultural land, to the needs of agriculture and to the economic interests of rural areas;

(ii) consult with the Ministry of Agriculture before proceeding with any acquisition of agricultural land;

(iii) seek to make the best use of derelict land, committed development land and other land available for development which is already in local authority ownership in the area concerned.").

The noble Lord said: We consider this Amendment to be of material interest to the whole process of the operation of Clause 17, the general duties of authorities. Particular stress in this Amendment is laid upon the need for conservation of productive agricultural land in part (i), in part (ii), consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture before proceeding with the acquisition of any agricultural land, and in (iii), to seek to make the best use of derelict land, committed development land and other land available for development which is already in local authority ownership in the area concerned.
I should like to refer to the proceedings of Standing Committee G in another

183
place on 26th June and to the Ministerial reply, made in this case by Mr. Harry Ewing, at column 1829, because this materially affects our argument here. This is what he said:
"It is the clear intention in respect of agricultural land, which we hold to be very important, that not only will advice be given to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but it will be given in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well.
"As I have said so often in this debate, it is important to continue to use farming agricultural land as such until the need is there for development. We regard that as of prime importance, and we shall ensure that there are no slip-ups on this issue."
It is reassuring to have that statement made by a Minister in Standing Committee G. Nevertheless, so far as the Bill is concerned the only reassurance is that it does appear half-way down Schedule 6. We do not consider that one entry relating to agricultural land and its use—despite the Ministerial assurance given, which I have read out word for word—is sufficient, because when all is said and done the words set out in the Bill are those which count.
I should like particularly to stress the role of derelict land, which is referred to here. I have searched all the way through the Bill—I hope with some diligence, though perhaps with not quite the same diligence as my noble friend Lord Balfour—but have not been able to find a use of the term "derelict land". This is possibly because the phrase does not occur in the Statute. There is no definition, but there is a valuable circular which I understand was issued by the Department of the Environment in May last, which sets out the different categories of derelict land. I shall state only in very general terms what these are; but since the area of land is so large, particularly in England where we understand there are 106,883 acres of derelict and despoiled land, it is a very substantial factor in our considerations.
As we understand it, there are three different categories of derelict land. There are the spoil heaps and excavations, again split into different sub-categories of derelict, abandoned or disused, mineral spoil heaps and waste disposal; and then in another category altogether we have land justifying restoration and, in a third category, mineral working of an area not
184
covered by restoration. This whole area of the land surface of the United Kingdom merits our attention and we commend to Her Majesty's Government, particularly in view of the fact that their policy has a range of grants of up to 85 per cent. in certain cases and up to 50 per cent in others for the restoration of derelict land, that this should be mentioned and dealt with satisfactorily in the Bill.
There is one other factor on derelict land which we have not considered to date. In the White Paper (Cmnd. 5730) one of the factors commended to its readers is the extremely important factor that land is a non-renewable resource. I do not consider this an accurate statement because where land falls out of use and becomes derelict it can surely be renewed and returned to good and valuable use through the expenditure of energy and effort, some of it commended by present Government policy and also the very substantial efforts made in the past by all Governments in this connection. Nevertheless, we feel that this Amendment would have direct benefit to both agricultural land and industrial derelict land as a whole for the community at large. I beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: Despite all that has been said from the Government side both this week and last week to the contrary, there is a very real danger, indeed a probability, that in trying to exercise their powers, and then later to fulfil their duties under this Bill, local authorities will through their acquisition schemes make increased inroads into agricultural land. There is a danger, too, that they will tend to take the land that is easiest and cheapest to develop—land that is flat, easily accessible, well-drained and so on. This is usually the most productive land. I know that we now have in Schedule 6 to this Bill a request to authorities to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry, and I shall refer to that later when we come to Amendment No. 104C. But it is necessary I believe for the new local authorities, whose members and staff are drawn more and more from the urban areas, to be reminded more forcibly of the need—so well set out in the Government White Paper, Land, which heralded this Bill—not to take more land than is absolutely necessary and, when they do take land, to avoid the good

185
land on which our food is produced most economically.
With regard to consultation, referred to in sub-paragraph (ii) in this Amendment, I am sure that there should be a requirement to consult with the Ministry of Agriculture before acquisition. No doubt we shall be told that such a requirement was abolished by a Conservative Government, and indeed I believe that was a mistake. My experience as a member of a planning authority is that the present voluntary consultations between planning authorities and the Ministry are not sufficient. I daresay we shall be reminded that the Government intend to alter the general development order. Nevertheless, I believe there should be a duty to consult written into this Bill to reinforce the forthcoming amendment to the GDO, and in any case I believe that that amendment will refer only to areas of 10 acres or more. I do not think that anybody could quarrel with the requirement under sub-paragraph (iii) about derelict land to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has referred and I shall be most interested to hear what the Government have to say on what seems to be a very worthwhile Amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount GAGE: I should like to support this Amendment. I hope I may be forgiven for speaking in rather general terms. I have to declare an interest, partly as a landowner but more particularly as a farmer. I belong to that class who are always being exhorted by the Government to produce more food for the balance of payments and so forth. I think I am also speaking for the majority of my colleagues in this profession if I say that, although we note those exhortations, we also note that in many other ways the Government seem to be introducing measures to prevent that expansion of agriculture. After all, we cannot expand agriculture unless we expand capital investment in buildings, machinery, stock and so forth. Although we acknowledge with gratitude the efforts that Mr. Peart is making for us in various directions, it is difficult to see how this capital is to be found. It would seem that the benefits Mr. Peart is producing for us are greatly outweighed by various taxes—capital transfer tax, the threat of the wealth tax, and now in this Bill taxation of any non-agricultural value we
186
may have in our land. So, despite any grants we may get, the major part of the expense in expanding our capital investment must come from loans from the bank at 13 or 14 per cent.
On top of this we have a few other burdens such as being threatened with abolition of the tied cottage at a time when local authorities have very long lists of people waiting for housing. The farmers generally in this country are fairly law-abiding compared with some of their opposite numbers in France. Their methods are occasionally a little violent, but that is hardly to be noticed. But they are in a very unhappy frame of mind. I am simply appealing to noble Lords opposite (I am not going into the details explained by my noble friend) and I hope that the Government will do everything they can in this Bill to give encouragement to farmers and to make it possible for them to produce the food the Government want us to produce.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I have listened with great interest to the discussions on these Amendments and support my noble friend Lord Middleton. I have been for years and years in local government and on local government committees of all kinds, and on questions of planning I recall very vividly how very much more powerful was the urban idea and the urban necessity than the agricultural lobby, although I live in what is very much an agricultural area. Any planning should be looked at most carefully if it means taking agricultural land, which can be done quite often in the teeth of the planning authorities. The development people say. "This is much more important than the other proposition which is being put forward"—which might or might not be the case—"in connection with agriculture". We must write into this Bill as strong support for agriculture and for the use of agricultural land as we can because all the forces in local government are more or less against it—perhaps that is too strong a word, but certainly they are biased in favour of urban development and the urban viewpoint. This Amendment puts perfectly clearly, first, the need to conserve agriculture and, secondly, the need not to let people take arbitrary decisions without recourse to the Ministry of Agriculture.

187
When the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, dealt with another Amendment he said that it would be unnecessary to consult the Ministry of Agriculture. May I say to him that there are some very sensible people in that Ministry. If you consult them about something which is unnecessary they will say so at once. If you consult them about something which you think is important but they say is not, it is up to the people concerned to decide who is right. In my opinion, the Ministry of Agriculture is full of very wise people, because they have people all over the country who are well aware of all these problems, and I should like them to be consulted whenever there is any question of controversial, or even non-controversial, development of any kind.
On the subject of derelict land, I agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said. Above all, noble Lords must realise that when one sits, as I have done for years and years, on local government committees one is always being pushed around by the urban or industrial interests. More people live in towns than in the country, and those who live in the industrial and urban areas do not always realise what food production entails. Of course, they complain when the food is not there, but if it is not there it is because they have done something very silly which has prevented the food from being grown. I should like to see stronger emphasis placed in this Bill upon the protection of agriculture in the interests of everybody, not only the farmer.
Lord HAWKE: May I give my support to this Amendment. I have remarkably little landed interest to declare but I, along with all of your Lordships, am an eater and I regard the future food situation in this country as most precarious. Not only is the population of the world expanding but in some parts of the world people are becoming more prosperous and taking food from the people who can grow it. As I see it, we shall have balance of payments difficulties for a long time ahead. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that we in this country grow the maximum amount of food that we can. The amount of agricultural land that we are losing every year to road building alone is frightening, and when you add to that building
188
development it becomes a very serious matter indeed.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Urban authorities always want flat land because it is much easier to develop, and we have got ourselves into such a mess, so far as the housing situation is concerned, that one can understand why. The cost of building houses and of borrowing money is much too high and the result is that unless the land can be made as cheap as possible people will be unable to afford to live in the houses Which are built. That militates against the preservation of agriculture. Every time a new town is built the chances are that the best and the flattest land will be taken on which to build it. Therefore, I hope that some protection will be incorporated into this Bill.
Earl FERRERS: We consider that this Amendment is an important one and that the principle which it contains is important. As my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood has said, it is right that agricultural land should be written into this Bill and be given some degree of importance. What my noble friend Lord Gage said about agricultural output being essential is absolutely correct. The first Amendment, Amendment No. 92A, imposed an obligation on local authorities to use the land which they had acquired for agriculture. This Amendment makes local authorities consider the value of that land for agriculture before they designate it as development land. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will realise that this in no way contradicts the aims of the Government. This Bill is fundamentally urban-orientated, and it is bound to be. This means that it is almost diametrically opposed to the interests of agriculture. I am not suggesting that the one is more important than the other, but the fact is that if something is urbanorientated—and one understands the importance of the interests of those who are living in towns—the interests of agriculture—not only the interests of those who are engaged in agriculture but also the national interest—will, if we are not careful, be subjugated under the guise of the urban-orientated planners.
My noble friend Lord Hawke said that every year a number of acres were lost to roads. That is true; 60,000 acres of agricultural land are already lost every

189
single year. In this Amendment we are suggesting that before one designates land as development land one should take into account the interests of agriculture. Where a local authority is trying to expand one should first make quite certain that there is no derelict land within its confines which could be used. As my noble friend Lord Sandys has said, there are approximately 107,000 acres of derelict land. Of course, that land is not spread evenly all over the countryside, but I believe that Greater Manchester has 8,400 acres of derelict land. This Amendment provides that before more agricultural land is taken local authorities should first see whether or not that kind of land is suitable for development.
There are other large stretches of land which are used for such purposes as mineral workings and so forth, and there are 20,000 acres of obsolete railway land. All of this land could be put to some use. Obviously it would be absurd to suggest that one could use all of the 20,000 acres of railway land for development purposes, but the point is that before land is taken away from agriculture considerations such as these should be taken into account. I believe that this is the first place in the Bill where a local authority would be required to find out first whether derelict land might be used before taking better land. I hope that the Government will extend a sympathetic ear to this Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I did not move Amendment No. 102 because I felt that Amendment No. 102A was very much more to the point. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that 60,000 acres a year are being eaten up by development. May I remind noble Lords opposite that that probably means that we shall need to spend another £1 million a year to buy food in order to feed this nation. I have already declared an interest, but in this case I am unlikely to be affected. Therefore, it does not greatly concern me. Nevertheless, I ask the Government to try to understand the very long-term agricultural programme. Even the rotation of crops may take seven or eight years. If any of the noble Lords opposite get the chance to do so, may I ask them to visit a farm where one tenant farmer is giving up his tenancy and another is taking over. They will then realise how much
190
is involved in terms of the unexhausted quantities of manure and all the other considerations which have to be taken into account when there is such a changeover. Almost invariably it means that the incoming farmer has to spend two or three years getting established on that farm.
One of the problems about a local authority acquiring land too far in advance is that from the moment notice of intent is given the farmer may be seriously affected if he applies for an agricultural grant that otherwise he may have been able to obtain. I should like noble Lords also to realise that those of us who are interested in forestry and plant trees are not doing so for any benefit that we shall ever see in our lifetime; we are planting the trees and planning for the future welfare of the country, regardless of whoever owns that land. It is in these fields, of the longterm grants and the unexhausted manures, that I ask noble Lords in the Government to take this point into consideration, particularly remembering that in legislation there are already other methods of acquisition where it is necessary besides what is available here.
There are already grants to local authorities whereby derelict land can be brought into good use. So again I ask that in this case the derelict land and reclamation of land, for which local authorities already receive grants, should be put to better use, rather than taking land which, after all, provides our bread and butter in this country.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: Before my noble friend replies I should like to add a word or two. I have listened carefully to the arguments on this subject and, without being an agriculturalist myself, I have some sympathy with the need for preserving agriculture; but it seems to me that this Amendment is rather misconceived in this context, and sight is being lost of what this clause seeks to do. All it seeks to do is to provide a definition of "development land". Development land is something which, in the opinion of a given authority, is needed for relevant development. All that subsection (2) does is to say what the authority should have regard to in considering what in its opinion is needed for relevant development. In that context one would have thought that existing use

191
is really immaterial. One is considering whether the land is needed for relevant development and that is all.
It may well be that the matters which have been put forward from the other side are matters which are material to be considered if the authority has to decide whether to exercise its powers to acquire the land; but this is not the issue that arises under Clause 17. Therefore, I should have thought the draftsman was perfectly correct in not specifying existing use, whether agricultural, industrial, mineral, or whatever it may be, in this particular context. For these reasons, therefore, it seems to me this Amendment is inappropriate in this particular place.
Lord CAMOYS: I may well be out of order, in which case I shall be told to sit down, but this is really a question of housing. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will appreciate that. The need is for houses. I should like to ask why a place such as Centre Point is left standing empty year after year when it contains possibly a hundred or two hundred flats.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: We shall be dealing expressly with unoccupied office accommodation at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill.
Lord CAMOYS: I thank the noble and learned Lord.
5.3 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I can assure noble Lords opposite that I gave a very sympathetic ear to everything that was said about the Amendment. I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that I accept all that she said about the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Indeed, I made that point myself when we were speaking on an earlier agricultural Amendment, No. 42A. I said that as a farmer myself, and like all farmers, I have the greatest respect for the advisory capabilities of that Ministry. I agree with the noble Baroness in what she said about it. I did not make the point on Amendment 92A because I had dealt with it earlier in the Committee stage.
May I also make the general point that I entirely accept that many acres of agricultural land are being lost to development every year. I wish it were
192
not necessary. But I have said, in response to exactly the same question which has arisen several times already in this Committee stage, that the Bill will not cause more agricultural land to be used for development. It will not affect the rate of development. The Bill does nothing to affect the rate at which agricultural land will be brought into development. Indeed, as the point is being raised so often, perhaps I may go a little further and say it is quite possible, as the Bill will enable authorities to plan more positively, to bring about a more economical use of land and that less agricultural land will be developed. I, along with most noble Lords who have spoken, would welcome that. I sincerely hope that that will be the case. Certainly I believe it is not the case that more agricultural land will be developed as a result of the passing of this Bill.
On the principle involved there is little, if anything, between us. As I said, and as my noble friend Lady Birk made clear on both Second Readings in your Lordships' House, there is no dispute between either side of the Committee on the need to avoid any unnecessary encroachment on good agricultural land. The LAMS scheme, as I have said, will not result in any major change in the rate of development, so there is no reason why the position of agriculture should in any way worsen.
However, I accept that there may be some misunderstanding in the farming community, and we on this side of the Committee are anxious to reassure farmers that their interests will not be overlooked. In the first place, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton said, the Government have announced their intention to amend the General Development Order so as to require consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture where the development of a substantial area, over ten acres of agricultural land, is proposed. Consultation in this way has been normal practice on a voluntary basis for some time, but the proposed change (which was announced in a Written Answer in another place on 14th May) will ensure that consultations take place as a statutory requirement. I can assure the Committee that the amendment to the General Development Order will be made very shortly. I hope that will be welcomed by noble Lords opposite. Further, as

193
the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, following an undertaking given in Committee in another place, paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 has been amended so as to require specifically that authorities take account of the needs of agriculture and forestry in carrying out their functions of land acquisition under the Bill. That is now written into the Bill.
Amendment No.102A would go a great deal further than the Government think is justified. There are objections on a number of specific points. For myself, I am tempted to ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, just how many extra staff the Ministry of Agriculture will need to cope with the result of all the mass of consultation which is now being forced into the Bill by noble Lords opposite.
Earl FERRERS: Fourteen thousand!
Lord MELCHETT: I will not ask the noble Earl how that staff will break down as between expert and clerical staff, but I daresay it would be helpful to my right honourable friend if the noble Earl could give an indication at least of the breakdown between, say, arable and livestock experts which the Ministry will need as a result of Amendments moved by noble Lords opposite.
Earl FERRERS: I willingly accept the noble Lord's challenge, provided he first gives me the breakdown of those whom the Government say will be required to run the Bill. If he will do that I will willingly make an effort to produce the information for which he has asked.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Earl will need to make an effort, because I believe that at a suitable stage in the passage of the Bill my noble friend Lady Birk will be responding to the point which he raised earlier.
We have a number of specific objections to Amendment No. 120A. For instance, consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture on every proposed acquisition, and not just those over 10 acres, would be unnecessarily burdensome for both the authorities and the Ministry; in other words, the objection I raised to Amendments Nos. 42A and 92A. It was precisely for this reason, as I understand it, that the Conservative Government—I gather without the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, but never
194
theless the Government of noble Lords opposite—removed the old Article 11(2) which required such consultation in certain cases, from the General Development Order, 1973. If a reference to the economic and social interests of rural areas is included, as would happen with this Amendment, I should have thought there should be a parallel reference, at least to the economic and social interests of urban areas. Of course, in logic there should, but both references then cancel each other out and become meaningless.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, mentioned, and other noble Lords took up, the question of derelict land. We had an interesting debate in your Lordships' House, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, will remember, to which I replied and which he initiated, which at the time I felt—and I hope the noble Viscount will not disagree—showed clearly that there is a consensus approach from both sides to this problem. The general view expressed in the debate was that authorities were doing a very good job in reclaiming derelict land and that they were going ahead in many areas extremely well, with assistance where appropriate from the Government.
As I understand it, the only possible point at which the two sides might diverge is in the proposals of the Government for giving a slightly higher rate of grant to authorities than is at present the case. But I think on the whole there is the consensus approach that the authorities are doing as much as they can, and the fact is that a great deal of derelict land is simply not suitable for development. It may well be suitable for landscaping and restoration; much may be suitable for restoration to agricultural land or for use as public open space. But the Bill is concerned with development land. There is also the point that derelict land is often in the area of an authority with no agricultural land to speak of, so it may not be sensible to put the duty on an authority, as would the Amendment. Much of what I have said applies to Amendment No. 104C in the same way. That Amendment in fact makes slightly more sense in that particular respect, but, of course, I have other objections to it which I have already outlined in speaking to this Amendment.
Finally, there is one underlying objection to this Amendment, which is much

195
more fundamental and much more serious. The proper way to protect agriculture is through the operation of the planning system, which contains significant safeguards for agriculture. Anything which weakens the planning system must, therefore, weaken this existing protection. The present Bill has been unjustly accused of being contrary to good planning. It is not. It reinforces and is the tool of good planning, as Clause 17(2) makes clear. These Amendments would have precisely the effect of turning the land scheme procedures into a second and independent planning system. Anything more calculated to wreck the existing planning system—and thus remove the real protection from agriculture—is difficult to imagine. I hope noble Lords opposite will make an exception to this agricultural Amendment, and not press it.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: If an intensive horticultural holding of, say, seven acres, is taken over, is there a requirement to consult the Ministry of Agriculture in this case, or not?
Lord MELCHETT: No. As the noble Lord will know, his Government amended the General Development Order to make it not a statutory requirement to consult on areas less than 10 acres.
Lord SANDYS: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has given his reply, which in parts is encouraging to some extent, and to begin with I shall dwell on those parts. He opened by saying that there is nothing between the two sides of the Committee on the need to avoid encroachment. This is something so basic to the whole approach to this Amendment that we can put a tick against that one. To a large extent, I was worried about his next remark, which was to the effect that there was no reason why the implementation of the Bill should worsen the take of land from agriculture. If this is positive planning then we will have none of it, because what all of us desire is efficient land use. If the effect of the Bill is simply a negative or, shall I say, a neutral position, we would describe it as a disbenefit.
The further comment of the noble Lord on the Written Answer of the 14th May given in another place is a matter which we should like to study in greater depth.
196
My only comment at this stage is that Ministerial assurances are no substitute for what is to be written into the Bill. I think it goes without saying that we shall need to look at this with great attention. One of the points on which we find total disagreement between the Front Benches is the matter of consultation, and here there is a divide between us. However, perhaps on further examination we may not find it as bad as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
I concede to him that the reference to the economic and social interests of rural areas is one which we should, indeed, re-examine. For that reason alone, it would be beneficial if we withdrew this Amendment at this stage. Nevertheless, we regard this Amendment as being of great significance, and we hope that the Government will bear in mind all that has been said, especially by my noble friends who know so much more about the effect that agriculture has in certain rural areas: and my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood referred to Scotland, of which she has great experience. I feel that further work should be done on this Amendment, and we should like to withdraw it and return to it on Report stage. If the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will enter into some consultation about it, it would be to the general benefit. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.18 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 17, line 15, at end insert ("and the Welsh Development Agency").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment, designed to discover from the Government what plans they may have for co-ordinating the activities of the Welsh Development Agency and the Land Authority for Wales. Certain of their powers in regard to land seem to overlap. The Welsh Development Agency Bill provides, in Clause 1(6) for the Agency to have power, among other things,
"to acquire and dispose of land, to manage land and to develop land, and to make land available for use by other persons".
Clause 21 of that Bill is entirely devoted to the acquisition, disposal and appropriation of land by the Development Agency. Therefore, it seemed to me that there is a danger of the two bodies

197
having overlapping powers. I should be grateful if the Government could give me some indication of how these overlapping functions are to be co-ordinated. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It would not be appropriate to require the Land Authority for Wales to consult the Welsh Development Agency in considering whether any land in Wales is development land. The purpose of Clause 17(3) is to require the Land Authority to consult Welsh planning authorities, and the Welsh Development Agency will not be a planning authority. The Agency will itself be subject to planning law. Its needs will be reflected in the planning situation in the areas in which it is operating. Those needs will therefore be taken into account in the activities of the Land Authority through the facts of the planning situation, which the Land Authority are required to take into account in carrying out their functions.
Lord ABERDARE: I should like to study that answer, and for that purpose I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 103A:
Page 17, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert—
("In this Act "development land" means land suitable for relevant development and on which the authority concerned intend themselves to carry out or to promote the carrying out by others of relevant development, within ten years from the time at which they are acting.")
The noble Earl said: I hope that the noble and learned Lord, if he is to reply, will consider this a helpful Amendment. It is an attempt to improve the present definition of "development land" I know that the noble and learned Lord will recognise that the words "in the opinion of the authority" have caused great concern, because this is the first time we have seen this form of words in such a Bill there has been grave suspicion that ft will really mean "in the opinion of the local planning officer". Those who have studied the Bill, as this Committee has done for four days, will have discovered various safeguard sin relation to this definition. Does it mean literally that the local authority may act as it sees fit? Will there be guidelines, and an ultimate appeal to the Secretary
198
of State, by anyone having his land compulsorily acquired, on the definition of "development"? If that is so, and if these words are not as fierce as they look, then I suggest that the wording of this definition is bad drafting.
My Amendment is to leave out the words "in the opinion of the authority". Its purpose is to leave the definition basically the same, but without those words. I am advised that the effect of the new definition would be to put a certain constraint on local authorities in one aspect, and that is where they acquire land for relevant development and subsequently develop it for a non-relevant development purpose. That is a matter which has been debated in this Committee, and it is feared that once a local authority own land they may change the purpose. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment which the noble Earl has moved would introduce three changes as compared with the present definition of "development land" in Clause 17(4). First, and, as the noble Earl indicated, most important. it would remove the qualification that what is development land is decided by the opinion of the authority concerned, in the light of their knowledge of both local needs and the local planning situation. Any attempt to remove this element of judgment and to substitute a question of fact which could ultimately he taken before a court for decision fails, in my submission, to recognise two matters; first, that the decision on what should or should not be development land cannot be a wholly objective one; it depends at various stages on taking judgments and, primarily, judgments about planning issues, the needs of the locality and the circumstances prevailing et cetera. Secondly, with respect, the experience of the last 30 years has shown that the courts are, generally speaking, not very well equipped to take judgments about the merits of planning, although, of course, they are highly qualifi9d to interpret points of planning law, as they do. Planners may be, and indeed are, fallible, but planning is their job and their expertise, and it is interesting that for this reason in 1960 the job of deciding enforcement appeals was taken away from the courts and given to the Secretary of State.

199
The second point of substance is that the Amendment would require the land to be "suitable" and not "needed", as in the subsection, for relevant development. That, when one thinks of it, is a less stringent test, and it is not immediately apparent why there should be a feeling that the definition of development land should be relaxed in this way. If land is needed for development, then presumably it is also suitable for development. Thirdly, there would be a criterion set up by the Amendment based on the intention of the authority to bring the land into development. It is difficult to see how this concept differs from that of land being needed for development. The drafting of this subsection was deliberately changed by a Government Amendment in another place, to introduce the concept of need for development so as to remove any suggestion that an authority's duty might apply to land which was suitable for development only in the very long term. Clearly, if an authority decide that land is needed for development within 10 years, one would expect them to have an intention to see it brought into development in that period. I hope that, in the light of those considerations, the noble Earl may feel that having raised these matters the Amendment should not be pressed to a Division.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for adding some light to this definition. As I said at the start, it has caused some concern outside. I am grateful for his explanation, and I am happy to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 17, line 19, at end insert ("but shall not include any land exempted from relevant development by section 3 or Schedule 1 of this Act, or any land within a green belt area, or any land situated more than two kilometres from an urban or industrial development.").
The noble Earl said: If one goes back to the beginning of Clause 17, it says that:
"(1) In exercising their functions…every authority shall have regard to
(a) the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership…"
We are now dealing with the definition of "development land". I was certainly
200
under the impression that land for somebody's private home or land, which is not relevant development under Clause 3 and Schedule 1 to this Bill, should be excluded from the general duties of the authority in this case.
Again, may I make an appeal in connection with the Green Belt areas, and also in respect of the other part of my Amendment,
"any land situated more than two kilometers"—
in other words, about 1¼miles—
"from an urban or industrial development".
I am sure that many of your Lordships will be aware that it has been said recently that there should not be ribbon development; nor should a local authority acquire a farm, even though it may be at a very reasonable price, say two or three kilometres away from a development, and suddenly start to develop there. There is a serious likelihood of upsetting the agriculture between the two places; in other words, between one development, the town that exists, and another development. There is nothing here that does not permit the local authority, in any case of need, to acquire land far beyond that possible under other legislation. I am concerned to make certain that in the case of development land brought into public ownership, which it is, that should not override the provisions of Schedule 1 and also include non-relevant development under subsection (3). I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I think that both the last Amendment and this one ought to be looked at again with more sympathy, and with the recognition that authorities are not always as objective as we presume they will be, when we are passing some of this legislation. I have a case in mind—and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, may well have in mind the situation I describe—which makes the point. There was need to take over by compulsory purchase a great area of land for good planning, and at that point no one could possibly object. But within that planning, certain developments had to take place, and there were properties and land within the area being compulsorily acquired that as they stood fitted in with the eventual planning that was desired. You had a situation where there was an area which needed to be publicly-owned in order to get the overall develop-

201
ment you wanted, but on the fringe of it there were properties and land which, as they stood, fitted into the general planning need and the eventual plan that the authorities had in mind.
In this instance, the authority acquired it all. They acquired the land they needed, and also the property and land, which had already reached the stage they eventually wanted, merely because they wanted to own it. If planning was the leading factor in this, the planning desire had already been achieved. Merely to extend that in order to get ownership was being unfair and, in the long term, not good for the community. In this instance you had business premises and so long as the people running the businesses owned the freehold they were prepared to go over those periods when they were making losses in the knowledge that they owned the freehold of the property; the enhanced value that flows in these days of inflation more than covered the losses they had to carry. But under the compulsory purchase terms which were insisted upon they ceased to be freeholders and became tenants, with the periodic rent review which took away that safety net which enabled them to go through difficult periods of business and serve the community.
With that point in mind, I hope that the Lord Chancellor will look at this with sympathy to see whether we can get to the point, while in no way wanting to prevent good development and giving powers for compulsory purchase to get it, where within the development area there are properties and land already serving the purpose eventually intended in the bigger complex. They should not he robbed of their freehold and the safety which is necessary nowadays if they are to continue their business.
Lord HYLTON: I listened carefully to the reply of the noble and learned Lord, to the previous Amendment, and I wonder whether he could, now or later on, tell us what remedies lie open to a person who is aggrieved with the opinion of a local authority about development land, and in particular a person who feels that the opinion is not properly related to community needs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I can answer that now. If what is proposed is so manifestly absurd as to indi-
202
cate that it was not an opinion in good faith, I have little doubt that there would be a remedy through the courts. I will not use the words "outrageous opinion", but short of an opinion of that kind it has to be faced that on this matter the opinion of the relevant authority would be conclusive.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I should like to ask what will happen to what at the moment applies in relation to the green belt under this legislation. It is within my experience in my constituency, where I had a concentrated urban area and for 10 years a considerable rural area which was mainly horticultural, that I saw three attempts to make inroads into the horticultural and green belt areas. They were prevented only by an ultimate appeal and by the inquiry instigated by the Minister. In one case, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has said, there was an attempt to link up a very condensed urban area, practically five miles down the road, with a small local community, which would have destroyed the vast green belt between. It was the late Mr. Richard Crossman who decided that this inroad into the green belt should not take place. As I understand it, we shall not have the same protection and appeal to the Minister. What variation will this make in the present powers to protect the green belt?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I be permitted to come back to the question of the noble Lord. I ought to have added that in the event of a compulsory purchase order being sought by the local authority it would still have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. Therefore, the kind of situation that I have indicated would not, in practice arise.
Lord MELCHETT: Maybe I can deal with the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved. I am afraid that I have two objections to the Amendment. First, the reference to Clause 3 and Schedule 1 is unnecessary. This is because development land is defined as land needed for relevant development; and relevant development is defined in Clause 3 as excluding development within subsection (1) of that clause, or within Schedule 1 to the Bill. This definition—in what is after all a definition clause although, of

203
course, it is at the beginning of the Bill rather than at the end—is automatically carried through the Bill, and the cross-reference which the noble Earl's Amendment would introduce is unnecessary.
However, I have a much more fundamental objection to the second part of the Amendment. The references to the exclusion of green belt land, or land more than two kilometres from an urban or industrial development, are another attempt to break the present planning system by turning the land scheme into a rival one. Although as a broad generalisation against encroachment on green belt or urban sprawl this is certainly something which is acceptable, I am sure, by all sides of your Lordships' Committee, this is not acceptable as an absolute constraint because there are circumstances in which development land should be acquired which this Amendment would prohibit.
I suspect that I may be asked what sort of circumstances, and it might be helpful if I gave one example before concluding my remarks. The White Paper, Widening the Choice, published in 1973 by the Government of noble Lords opposite, dealt with the supply of land for housing, and contained something I think popularly called "the 2,000 acre exercise" in paragraph 16, which asked the Standing Conference on London and South-East Regional Planning to look at the London green belt and see whether 2,000 acres which was not serving a useful purpose could be released immediately for housing. That is an example where it may be agreed policy—certainly the policy of noble Lords opposite—that there needs to be some encroachment on green belt land, and the Amendment would have made that exercise impossible.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I will not pursue the matter further, except to say that there seems nothing in my Amendment which would prevent them from taking chunks of two kilometres at a time. But what concerns me is that under the existing provisions in the Bill they appear to be able to take four or six kilometres at a time. However,as I do not intend to pursue the matter further, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
5.40 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 104A:
Page 17, line 19, at end insert ("and which has been identified as such in the Register of land charges of the district in which the land is situated.")
The noble Baroness said: This is one more attempt, which I can describe briefly, to have this land identified for those living in the area so that they may know what is being talked about. This is another way of doing it which I hope the Government will feel able to accept. We have just listened to a debate on some of the principles lying behind this clause, which is clearly one of the most important clauses in the Bill. Having listened to the principles yet again, it seems to me that although my noble friends and I do not agree with them, at least the reasons for the acquisition should be widely known and I therefore hope that the Government will accede to this Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, this Amendment is directed to the need for landowners in an area to know whether or not an authority considers their land to be development land and, thus, whether or not it would be liable to acquisition. This point is already met by the fact that there will be public access to the five-year rolling programmes of land acquisition prepared by the authorities concerned, and these will indicate the policy that each authority intends to adopt towards the operation of the scheme in different parts of their areas. They will be made available for public inspection at town and county halls. But the Amendment goes further because the entries in the land charges register would presumably have to be in terms of specific sites, so the result would be a kind of designation process designating specific areas for compulsory acquisition. So far from simply informing landowners, it would cause vast areas of totally unnecessary blight for which there would be no remedy for the individual because a reference to the status of the land in the land charges register would not fall within the statutory blight categories. I am sure the noble Baroness would not wish that to happen and, in the light of that most unhappy consequence, I hope she will be disposed to withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful for that explanation. Having listened to the noble and learned Lord, I now feel that the Government will accept an Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandford which appears later on the Marshalled List because that seems very much in line with what he was saying. I appreciate the force of the noble and learned Lord's argument about blight, a subject which we must debate much more fully at a later stage in the Bill, and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.44 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 104C:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
Duty of Minister and Authority regarding Agriculture, Forestry and other matters
(" . In the exercise of their functions under this Act it shell be the duty of every Minister and every authority to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment may commend itself slightly more to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, than did No. 102A, by seeking to create a new clause rather than to insert in Clause 17(2) a duty to have regard to agriculture. We had a full discussion about agricultural land when we dealt with Amendment No. 102A and therefore I can be brief. As we heard when we discussed that Amendment, the Government have accepted the case for writing in a specific reference to agriculture, and that appears in Schedule 6, which is the Schedule which extends the general duties that are outlined in Clause 17, and it appears in paragraph 1(1) as a request that in exercising their functions every authority shall have regard to, among other things, the needs of agriculture and forestry. We feel that it is not enough to tuck this away in a Schedule at the back of the Bill. We feel that the duty to conserve the nation's capacity to feed itself is overriding and should be set out in the body of the Bill. Furthermore, we feel that it should be a mandatory requirement, and that is the purpose of this Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: I hope that at least the principle of this Amendment will com
206
mend itself to the Government because, as my noble friend said, there is an obligation in Schedule 6, but we believe it should be in a more prominent and important position—that is, as a separate clause—giving a statutory duty to local authorities to have regard to the needs of agriculture. As I said earlier, this is, of course, an urban-orientated Bill and that is why it is necessary to stress the needs of agriculture for the benefit of everyone. The Countryside Act 1968, which the last Labour Government introduced, was fundamentally a measure which would take into account the interests of agriculture, yet even in that measure it was found necessary or appropriate to insert a section with regard to agriculture. That is Section 37, which says, almost identically to this Amendment:
"In the exercise of the functions under this Act and the Act of 1949 it shall be the duty of every Minister and of the Commission, the National Environment Research Council and local authorities to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas."
So even in a measure which the previous Labour Government introduced and which was agriculture-orientated, it was found necessary or desirable to put that reference in specifically. I suggest to the Government that in this Bill, which is obviously more urban-orientated, the needs are greater.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I agree with what my noble friends have said in support of this Amendment because in the past when we have had the very heavy muscle of a great urban centre—London, Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham—endeavouring to encroach upon and to obtain land which in many cases was green belt or agricultural land, on appeal one always had behind one the Minister, but only in special circumstances is that likely to apply now. It is all too easy to nibble away at smaller plots which will not come into the holy few which will be referred to the Minister, or be regarded as of sufficient magnitude to warrant an investigation by the Ministry. We are leaving smaller country areas and county towns at a great disadvantage if they are not given some strengthening in the Bill, and it is the opinion of a vast number of noble Lords that the interests and value of agriculture to the nation should be enshrined more emphatically in the Bill.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I do not want to repeat what has already been said in support of this Amendment, but the phrase about the interests of rural areas interests me. One cannot exaggerate how the reorganisation of local government has worked. It was done on the basis, so it was thought, of making the urban areas and the towns conscious of agricultural interests and they therefore ran them together in the new local government areas, running together towns and counties so that they became one area. That should have helped the rural areas and made the urban areas more conscious of the rural areas than hitherto had been the case, so they thought. But the opposite is happening. It is happening because far more people live in the urban areas and their interests are paramount in the elections that people have to go through in order to get on to the various types of council.
Admittedly, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said that his sympathies are entirely with us. The noble Lord says he is just as keen as anybody else about agricultural interests, and I believe him; but there is a lot of difference between putting this into the Bill itself—that is, inserting it into Clause 17—and tucking it away in the Schedule. I hope that, because fundamentally we are agreed about this, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will see his way to take this into the main part of the Bill. At this juncture and with the reorganisation so powerful, I believe that this is of the most vital importance.
Lord SOMERS: I should like, from these Benches, to support the Amendment. Time and again in discussing the economy it has been recognised that agriculture is one of our greatest sources of benefit and, very naturally, we have taken every possible measure to support it. However, though some local authorities may think along these lines, many may not. I believe it to be essential that agriculture, which is of such tremendous benefit to our country, should be mandatorily protected.
Lord SANDYS: As I moved the earlier Amendment, I should like to take part in the debate on the present Amendment because the two are inextricably linked. In regard to the Countryside Act 1968, I remember the noble Baroness,
208
Lady Wootton of Abinger, saying during our discussions on the Bill, at a time when she was chairman of the National Parks Commission, that she believed that a declaratory clause could be valuable. She entered the rider that it could mean everything or it could mean nothing. A declaratory clause can indeed mean everything or very little. We believe that it can occupy an important position in the Bill and we also believe that, as we have had the experience of seven years of the Countryside Act, that is surely something to work and build upon.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the Government's White Paper, Land, to which I have already referred. The first sentence reads,
"Of all resources available in these islands, land is the one resource which cannot be increased."
That surely sets the scale of priorities. If that statement in the White Paper is not reflected in some shape or form in the Bill—and we believe that a declaratory clause is a suitable way of doing so—we believe that the Bill will be defective.
5.53 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: We had a debate on an Amendment which was slightly more than inextricably linked with the present Amendment since it was almost exactly the same. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, was good enough to withdraw that Amendment because he wanted to reconsider, in particular, a phrase which occurs in the present Amendment—that is, the reference to the "interests of rural areas". The noble Lord said that the Countryside Act contained a similar provision. It is one thing in an Act which deals specifically with the countryside to make reference solely to rural areas; but in a Bill such as this, which deals not only with rural but also with urban areas, I feel that in logic we must not include a reference merely to the rural areas.
There should be a reference to urban areas and to the needs of industry, for example—and this is something which both sides of the Committee feel should receive due attention. Of course the provision appeared in the Countryside Act for a slightly different reason than has been represented by noble Lords opposite; it was a preservationist measure, and it was necessary to remind people of the economic and social needs of rural areas so that they did not forget that

209
it was still necessary to provide people in the countryside with jobs and homes, and that they must not create depressed areas merely to advance the amenity value. I believe, therefore, that although the phrase may be borrowed from the Countryside Act, it had a different purpose in that Act, and I do not think that it can appropriately be imported into the present Bill without some corresponding reference to the needs of urban areas, industry and a number of other important matters.
I must say that I am profoundly depressed by the contributions of everyone who has spoken on the present Amendment, because nobody has touched on what I said was my fundamental objection to the previous Amendment and which applies equally to the present Amendment. I am not going to delay the Committee by saying exactly the same thing again, but I ask the noble Lord at least to do me the justice of withdrawing the Amendment now and reading in Hansard what I said about my fundamental objections to the previous Amendment which was, after all, very similar to the present Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord said in relation to the first Amendment that he would have been sympathetic if we had not included the last two lines. Would he be equally sympathetic to the present Amendment if we had not included the last line?
Lord MELCHETT: The Amendment I said I was sympathetic to was not Amendment No. 102A but Amendment No. 92A; so it was on a completely different point, as the noble Earl himself pointed out. Our view is that if something is in a Schedule that does not detract from the fact that it is in the Bill itself. We believe that it is unnecessary to write it in all over the place. But I still have a fundamental objection to the present Amendment, as I have to the Amendment we discussed a very short while ago, and that is to the setting up of a dual planning system. I believe that it is that to which noble Lords opposite should address themselves.
Lord MIDDLETON: I remain firmly convinced that a more substantial reminder to local authorities to take account of agricultural requirements should be written into the body of the
210
Bill. However, with regard to the wording of the Amendment, and in particular to the reference to the economic and social interests of rural areas, I take the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in speaking to Amendment No. 102A and the present Amendment, and I am aware that the wording may not be ideal. In view of that and of the discussions which we had on Amendment No. 102A, I feel that we should come back with something better at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [General duties of authorities]:
5.58 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 73, line 28, at end insert—
(" ( ) the needs for ecclesiastical buildings and dwelling houses for ministers of religion, and").
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will see that Schedule 6 begins with a list of needs. Here, we are talking about planning for the future and I would argue that something that needs to be just as much planned ahead as any of this long list is the need for ecclesiastical buildings and dwelling houses for ministers of religion. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am happy to say that I am disposed to go almost all the way with the noble Earl in this Amendment. The Government recognise the Churches' anxiety that they should be able to obtain without difficulty the new land which they require for development so that they can carry out their own functions. The Amendment is wholly acceptable in principle, but not in its present form, since it is the intention of the Government that any special provision made for Churches shall apply equally to all other charities, including schools, about which a noble Lord behind me expressed concern the other day. If, therefore, the Schedule were to be amended in this way, the provision would be too narrow in its application, but I give an undertaking that the spirit and intent of the Amendment will be incorporated into Schedule 6, and an appropriate

211
Amendment covering all charities, including, of course, Churches, will be introduced on Report.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am sure that what the noble and learned Lord has said will be greatly appreciated on all sides of the Committee. However, I should have thought that it was perhaps a question of putting in all the extra pieces as we go along. But as the noble and learned Lord has far more experience in drafting than I have, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: Before the noble Earl withdraws the Amendment, as we are on the question of Churches and charities, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he can give any undertaking that before this weekend we shall have any indications of what Amendments the Government are proposing at Report stage in respect of Churches and charities; because unless the proposals are very simple and include an entire relief of both tax and the effects of the Bill, we shall need time to study them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: We shall be coming to charities again shortly and I shall take instructions on what the noble Lord has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.1 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 73, line 29, at end insert ("and shall draw up and publish annually a five year programme of the development land that they propose to acquire in the course of the following 5 years. The authority shall indicate in the programme the relevant plans or planning factors that support such a programme of acquisition.")
The noble Lord said: The Committee has already heard enough in relation to the rolling programme, and the fact that it is to be published, for me to have some hope that this Amendment will be acceptable. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite would like to indicate that it will be acceptable, in which case I need not make a long and forceful speech. If it is not to be accepted—as now seems to be the case—then I must make a long speech; but I cannot for the life of me see why it cannot be accepted.
The concept of a rolling programme of acquisition was introduced at that happy stage in midsummer when the Government came to the conclusion that perhaps the Bill ought to contain some reference to the planning framework. They announced their conversion to the Committee sitting in another place and published a useful document, which we have had for some time, which explains how a rolling programme of acquisition would form part of the procedures here. So far as I am aware, the concept of a rolling programme of acquisition has not been formally published anywhere and there is no extensive reference to it in any of the proceedings in another place, and so part of my long speech must be a description of what is involved.
I shall read from notes which have been provided to some of us—certainly not to all Members of the Committee—from the noble Lord's Department. The notes read as follows:
"Though authorities will be considering the needs of private development up to 10 years ahead"—
and we have had all that explained—
"they will not need to acquire 10 years' supply of land. They will have to prepare five-year rolling programmes of their anticipated expenditure on development land"—
I think that means on acquiring development land"—
"and these will be approved annually by the Department of the Environment as a basis for borrowing approval. They mill not contain lists of sites to be acquired but will need to be appropriately supported"—
I ask the Committee to bear this in mind particularly—
"in relation to the planning basis on which the authorities concerned are operating."
I see now how necessary my previous Amendment was. The notes go on:
"Appropriate backing would include any of the following:
a regional strategy which has been endorsed by the Government;
a structure plan which has either been approved by the Secretary of State or is in draft;
a local plan or a draft local plan;
an approved old-style development plan or a submitted Amendment;
a non-statutory plan or policy which has been adopted by the local authority concerned, is publicly available, and can be incorporated into a statutory plan as soon as practicable."

213
That is the concept of a rolling programme, and speaking for myself it is a welcome development in the Government's thinking; it is late, but nevertheless welcome. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in replying to my noble friend Lady Young a few minutes ago when she moved Amendment No. 104A, said—and it was not the first time that it had been said—that the rolling programmes will be published and that is welcome. Therefore we are agreed that there should be rolling programmes and that they should be published.
It is also important, if we are agreed to that extent, that provision to that effect should be included in the Bill. This is what my Amendment does, and so far as I know it has not yet been done anywhere else. The notes which I have just been reading to the Committee also make plain that the rolling programmes of acquisition must be based upon planning framework and upon planning factors. In addition to what I have just read, there is a further reference in the notes which were issued last May—in the middle of the Committee stage in another place—which say:
"They would make it clear also that rolling programmes would have to be prepared within the planning framework".
Therefore, as I was saying on my earlier Amendment, the planning framework has to be produced first, and then the rolling programme has to be fitted into it; so—as the Minister put it—the acquisition is planning led. That provision, which is already in the Government's mind, must also go into the Bill. Thus we are agreed that there should be a rolling programme, that it should be published, and that it should be based upon the planning framework. My Amendment does all three of those things, and I cannot see any other provision in the Bill which does that. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I hope that if the noble Lord continues to object to the fact that the Government listened to representations made in another place and altered the Bill in some respects—
Lord SANDFORD: I welcomed that; I did not object.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Lord said, in a rather uncharitable, if not to
214
say snide way, if I may say so, that changes had been made very late in the day and that it was very good of the Government to do that.
Lord SANDFORD: I welcomed the conversion.
Lord MELCHETT: Then he said that we supplied the notes on clauses but only to some Members of the Committee. I hope he will not mind if, when we try to be as helpful and as co-operative as we can, and, secondly, when my noble friend tries to be as helpful and co-operative to Members on the other side of the Committee. I object that both those approaches are not really welcomed in a very open-hearted way by the noble Lord.
However, as he said, the Government have already made it clear that authorities will need to submit five-year rolling programmes of land acquisition and disposal. These will have three functions: first, to provide orderly plans for the operation of the scheme, and to enable the progress being made on its implementation to be assessed; secondly, to form a basis for economic control and the issuing of borrowing approval; and, lastly, to inform local people and builders of the scope of authorities' planned activity. It has also been made clear by the Government in the planning framework document that in submitting their programmes, authorities will have to make clear the planning justification for the acquisitions which they propose.
Rolling programmes are a normal part of the arrangements for programming expenditure in certain spheres of local government—for example, highway construction, school building, and, more recently, expenditure on transport through the Transport Supplementary Grant. Yet there has never been any statutory basis for such programmes—they are required on the basis that the expenditure is the subject of central Government grant, or subject to loan sanction. I am sure that that is something which I do not need to spell out to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who has considerable experience in these matters. For example, take Section 6 of the Local Government Act 1974, one of the last Acts of the previous Conservative Government. This provides for the Secretary of State to pay supplementary grants for transport to county councils and the Greater London Council. But

215
there is no mention whatsoever of the preparation by these authorities of the transport policies and programmes—TPPs—yet it is on the basis of these five-year rolling programmes prepared annually that transport supplementary grants are paid. The Bill is therefore following established practice in containing no statutory provision concerning the preparation of programmes. If I may say so, noble Lords opposite when in Government lived happily with this situation for many years and I think they should accept the same situation so far as the rolling programmes in this Bill are concerned.
Lord HYLTON: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, tells us that it is standard practice to make no mention of rolling programmes, but he has not produced a single reason why it would be wrong to write it into the Bill.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The noble Lord ought not to wonder why some of us are suspicious and disturbed by this Bill. It becomes even more disturbing each time we have a reply from the Dispatch Box. My noble friend is suggesting that we write into the Bill three desires which the Government through their various spokesmen have said they have. They have said, "This is what we believe is right; this is how we expect it to operate". My noble friend very properly has said, "If that is what you think—and we are rather inclined to agree with you—write it into the Bill". I should have thought that anything as clear and acceptable as that ought to he one of the Amendments which would be accepted.
Although I have been in this House for only a very short time I was beginning to feel reasonably at home until the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, came to the Box. He got rather irritated when my noble friend raised a point a second time. If that is not the duty of anybody when dealing with the Committee stage of a Bill, T do not know what the duty of a Committee is and there is no reason why an answer that has already been given has to be taken as an answer to all the other points. That is not the way in which I understand Parliament ought to work. If you do not succeed the first time, you try and try again. His noble and learned friend the Lord Chan
216
cellor will tell him that, when in his other capacity he was in a court, just because he got no answer to one question the system of putting the same question another way in order to get what he wanted is a useful one. That is what one is expected to do and ought to do in the interests of good legislation. Again, I was feeling at home, but this is not the way I thought a Committee stage ought to be dealt with. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will be like when he gets to the age where he has gout, but he shows too much irritation at this stage.
Lord O'HAGAN: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, could give a further answer to these points which have been raised in the Committee. So far as I have been told, I do not think that one of the main purposes of the Committee is for the two main Parties to indulge Party political badinage. I wonder whether he could contribute to the atmosphere by leaving aside part of his argument which relates to telling the Party opposite what they did or did not do and concentrate solely on the merits of the Amendment. If I sound very elderly I apologise, but I should like to hear some arguments against the Amendment rather than Party political badinage.
Lord MELCHETT: I was not indulging in Party political points, I was trying to make it clear that rolling programmes are a normal and accepted administrative procedure which have taken place under both Administrations for many years. There is nothing new about rolling programmes. That was the point I was trying to make. I was not saying that this was something which noble Lords opposite have done and that therefore we could do it, but rather that this is normal administrative practice. That was my objection to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, saying that that was something the Government invented halfway through the Committee stage in another place. I was objecting to a point that the noble Lord raised yet again about our providing him with notes on clauses. That was nothing to do with the point that he was raising on this Amendment which I accept we dealt with before.
My objection to the Amendment is, first, that this is an administrative matter between central and local government and

217
has always been such in any expenditure by local authorities. Financial control must be exercised by local government, and that is what the rolling programmes are for, but this control must be flexible. The control must be able to change as the relationship between central and local government changes. This is something which has been accepted for many years by both Parties. It is for those reasons that I am objecting to the noble Lord's Amendment.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I have listened with some interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said. I agree that this is a common practice, but it does not always happen. I have been for many years in local government and sometimes we get a rolling plan which is put forward and which is known to the county council or whichever group you are working on. But sometimes you do not know. If it is not written in, one may not know it is happening. Suddenly a plan is put before you which you are told has been considered for some time. It has been considered by the officials, but has not come before the elected representatives.
I know that that is possibly wrong and should not happen, but I am saying that it does happen and in order to avoid this both sides of the Committee are agreed that it is not a good idea. It is much better to have a plan, the rolling programme, known to the whole of an elected body whether it is the regional council or the district council. Let us have it put in so that they cannot avoid doing it. I am sure that other noble Lords have had experience in local government and will agree when I say that although it should happen it does not always happen. Why not put it in the Bill? There is nothing wrong with putting it in the Bill.
Lord MELCHETT: Does the noble Baroness know of any authority which has paid a transport supplementary grant without submitting a TPP which was a rolling programme and which arose out of the Bill passed by the previous Government? I am not trying to make a Party point, but I am just reassuring noble Lords opposite that this is not an invention which a Socialist Government has made up. Does the noble Baroness know of any case where that grant has
218
been paid without a TPP being submitted?
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My experience of local government is in Scotland and I do not know whether that ABC description applies. From my experience I know that it is not always known to the county councillors that a rolling programme is in progress until something comes out and then you are told that this is part of a whole thing. Whether the form you are describing ininitials is one used in my area, I do not know. Anyway that is neither here nor there. The point I am making is that, if noble Lords opposite agree that it is a good plan to have this type of programme in the Bill, then that is all right; nobody disagrees about that, therefore why not put it in?
Baroness SEEAR: The Minister's answer to this Amendment is that it is normal practice to have a rolling plan and to have it not written into the Bill. Our reply to that argument is that this is not a normal Bill; it is an abnormal Bill. The Government think it is an abnormally good Bill and some of us think it is an abnormally bad bill; I think it is an abnormally confusing Bill. It is not a normal Bill, and therefore to say that it is normal practice and that that is a good enough answer for not doing what is right is no answer at all. I think there is one very big difference in this case which I am sure noble Lords will agree with, that is, that a very large number of people are affected by these decisions. The ramifications of these decisions are far more widespread than in most of the other cases to which he is referring. It is for this reason that, surely, we want to be absolutely certain that the information is regularly available to as many people as possible, and in such a way that they can rely on it. At the moment, unless the Minister can satisfy me that people will get up-to-date and regular information which is easily available, my feeling is that this provision ought to be in the Bill.
Viscount BLEDISLOE: As I understand the noble Lord, what he is saying is that this is "normal administrative practice", as he calls it. It does not matter in the least whether it is bad practice or good practice; it is normal administrative practice that you do not

219
find something of this kind in other Bills and therefore it should be left out of this Bill. If it is bad normal administrative practice the sooner it comes to an end the better, and this is the moment when it should come to an end.
Viscount RIDLEY: I do not want to introduce a red herring, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not rest his argument on the TPP—a very unfortunate experience.
Lord PARGITER: Before my noble friend replies, may I say that what I feel a little worried about is whether or not this introduces an element of rigidity into the Bill which it would be better was not put in. After all, this is a rolling programme and it may be desirable at some point to say something else, to put something in, which is something you would do normally in a rolling programme. Once you have moved such a provision as this into the Bill, you begin to get somewhere near the law of the Medes and Persians. Because you have it in the Bill you have got to publish it, and you may feel compelled to continue to do something which it is manifestly desirable not to do. That is the reason that I can see for not including these words in the Bill.
Lord HYLTON: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may say that he based his argument to a large extent on financial control of rolling programmes. That is not, as I see it, the purpose of this Amendment at all. The purpose is to give information, not only to elected councillors but also to members of the public who will be affected by these programmes. That is not the totality of the Amendment, either, because so far little attention has been paid to the last line of it, which refers to "the relevant plans" and "planning factors". This seems to me to be most important, because it takes away the highly debatable matters of opinion, and gives rather more certainty, and a more positive content, to the whole operation of the system.
Lord MELCHETT: May I echo what my noble friend said about this? I had tried to make the point that I was not saying that just because this was normal administrative practice followed by both
220
Parties we should therefore do it for no further reason. It is normal administrative practice under both Administrations for, naturally, very good reasons, and those very good reasons are no doubt what swayed noble Lords opposite when in Government to adopt the same policy as we are adopting in this Bill. The good reasons include, as my noble friend has said, the need for flexibility. The relationship between central Government and local government changes over the years, and rolling programmes are a flexible instrument by which central Government have control over local government's expenditure. It is that overriding need for flexibility, and to be able to take account of the changes in the relationship between central and local government, that we believe that this provision should not be included in the Bill.
Of course we accept the need for the planning justification, and I addressed myself, even if other noble Lords who have spoken did not, to that part of the Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will know, when I said that the Government have already made it perfectly clear in a published document that in submitting their programmes authorities will have to make clear the planning justification for the acquisitions which they propose.
In response to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I would say that we have dealt with publicity both for rolling programmes and for land acquisition and management schemes in some detail previously. Both will be publicly available. We have given undertakings to that effect earlier in this Committee stage.
Lord SANDFORD: I do not think I have at any time said that the rolling programme was an evil invention. It is a very welcome concept in development. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said already that the rolling programmes will be published, and that, of course, means published annually, which gets over the difficulty of flexibility and rigidity. Each time they are revised every year, a new one will be published, so there is no difficulty there. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was saying, whatever may be the practice in previous enactments involving rolling programmes the position here is different.

221
It is particularly important that these rolling programmes are published, because the programme of acquisition involved in each and every one of them affects the lives and property of millions of private citizens throughout the country. It would be quite wrong—a dereliction of Parliament's duty—to leave it to the discretion of a Minister, or even to an undertaking that such a programme should be published because it is the normal custom to publish it and if the local authority finds it convenient, and so on. The publication of the rolling programme is a most important factor, and it must be written into the Bill.
I think it is most unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has taken this stand, because the only effect of not agreeing to an Amendment which does
something about which we are all agreed is needlessly and enormously to increase the widespread suspicions that there already are about this Bill. My suspicions are not increased, but they will be increased if this provision is not moved in. It is absolutely essential that the rolling programmes should be created, that they should be published, that they should reflect the planning framework, and that the whole of that should be incorporated in the Bill. I have no option but to press the Amendment.
6.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 107) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 113; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Allan of Kilmahew, L.

Foot, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Alport, L.

Gage, V.

Onslow, E.

Amory, V.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Amulree, L.

Garner, L.

Pritchard, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Grenfell, L.

Reigate, L.

Atholl, D.

Gridley, L.

Ridley, V.

Auckland, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Balerno, L.

Harcourt, V.

St. Davids, V.

Balfour, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Banks, L.

Harvington, L.

Sandford, L.

Barnby, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Belstead, L.

Hayter, L.

Seear, B.

Berkeley, B.

Hereford, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Bledisloe, V.

Hives, L.

Simon, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Somers, L.

Carrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Stamp, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hylton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Killearn, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kindersley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Croft, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Davidson, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

de Freyne, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Swansea, L.

Denham, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Swaythling, L.

Derwent, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Tenby, V.

Digby, L.

Loudoun, C.

Teviot, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Luke, L.

Tranmire, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vernon, L.

Effingham, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Vickers, B.

Elles, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Middleton, L.

Wade, L.

Elton, L. [Teller]

Monck, V.

Wigoder, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Yarborough, E.

Exeter, M.

Netherthorpe, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M

Beswick, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Ardwick, L.

Birk, B.

Burton of Coventry, B

Arwyn, L.

Blyton, L.

Castle, L.

Bacon, B.

Brockway, L.

Champion, L.

Balogh, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Collison, L.

Crook, L.

Janner, L.

Segal, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Serota, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Kissin, L.

Shackleton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

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

Lee of Newton, L.

Slater, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stedman, B.

Gardiner, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L.

George-Brown, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Mais, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale. L.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

White, B.

Heycock, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wigg, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peddie, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Hoy, L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Rhodes, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.35 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 108B:
Page 74, line 1, leave out ("a person applying") and insert ("an applicant").
The noble Baroness said: This is quite a minor drafting Amendment. The words "a person applying" are a hangover from an earlier stage when applications for prior right by people who were not owners were to be made concurrently with planning applications. Now that prior right applications are to be made before all outstanding material interests were acquired. the words "the applicant" are considered to be more apt. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: That little hangover will be nothing to what we face tomorrow!
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 74, line 11, leave out paragraph (4) and insert—
("(4) Sub-paragraph (3)(b) only applies where the application for planning permission was made before the authority acquired all material interest in the land.")
The noble Earl said: I should like briefly to speak to each of the Amendments standing in my name. First, I should like to ask exactly what sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 means. It refers to a person who has applied for planning permission—and that is clear enough—and it goes on:
"…where the application was accompanied by the written consent of the owner of every outstanding material interest in he land which had not been acquired by the authority."
To me this sounds as if before planning application can be granted the person must get permission from all his adjoining proprietors. The words I am seeking to put back were words in the original Bill which stated that sub-paragraph (3)(b) applies only where the application for planning permission was made before the authority acquired all the material interests in the land.
In paragraph 2(3) it states:
"The relevant applications to the authority are those made in the prescribed form before all outstanding material interests in the land had been acquired by the authority"
by a person who owned the land or—as it now reads—by an "applicant" for planning permission. But it goes on:
"being in either case an application for an opportunity…to negotiate the purchase of…the land…or…to negotiate to carry out that development…"
Unless it is referring to adjoining proprietors I cannot see how sub-paragraph (4) can concern the written consent of the owner of every outstanding material interest which has not been acquired by the authority. Because it does not appear to make sense to me, I am trying to put back what was in the original Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment would replace paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 6, as the noble Lord has said, with the original paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 3 to the Bill before it was amended in another place. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 sets out the procedures which must be followed where an authority decides to make land available for private sector development, and where there are relevant applications. Relevant applications are those either by the immediate former owner, or by a person with the former owner's consent

225
applying for planning permission for development of the same class as that for which the land has been made available; and are either to negotiate the purchase of material interest in the land, or to negotiate to carry out the development for which the land has been made available. In either case the terms must be acceptable to the authority.
The Schedule as originally drafted did not require the consent of the owner to a prior right application. Representations were made by a number of bodies, notably the House Builders' Federation, that the prior right procedure as then envisaged would poison relations between developers and land owners, because there was no requirement for the developer to follow the normal practice of obtaining the owner's consent before applying for planning permission. There was also the risk that it would have given rise to malicious application by persons who wished an authority to deprive an owner of his land. To remove doubt about the former owner's position and, in particular, to prevent the prior right procedure from being abused by malicious applications, it was decided to amend the Schedule, as has been done, to provide specifically for the developer to obtain the written consent of the former owner before he could get the benefit of the prior right procedure.
In the Government's view it is extremely important that the owner's position should be safeguarded. I think that, unwittingly, the effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would be to defeat that reasonable purpose. I hope that, in the light of my explanation, he may think that what is new, at any rate on this occasion, is better than what was there before.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I believe we can accept that sub-paragraph (4) should stand. What I am most concerned with is the second line which says,
"accompanied by the written consent of the owner of every outstanding material interest in the land which had not been acquired by the authority".
I feel that this must concern the owner of an adjoining piece of land, not that which is actually being acquired, because it states, "which had not been acquired
226
by the authority"—not "the owner of land that has been acquired".
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The sub-paragraph was amended in another place to bring it into line with other changes in the Bill referring to outstanding material interests; that is to say, interests not owned by local authorities, parish councils and charities. Clause 8 now relates to the acquisition of development land, and to the acquisition of all outstanding material interests in the land. But as is clear in paragraph 2 the present Amendment seeks to substitute the earlier sub-paragraph (4) for the present provision, and no account has been taken of the distinction which is now drawn, between material interests and outstanding material interests.
In any event the requirement that the application must be made before all outstanding material interests are acquired is already in the Bill in the opening words of paragraph 2(3). We think the Amendment would be harmful in removing the existing paragraph 2(4) and unnecessary in duplicating an existing provision. If I have not made the position clear, perhaps I may have a word with the noble Earl to see whether I can enlighten him further. It is not an easy matter but I should be very glad to have another go, if that is the right phrase.
Lord HYLTON: I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this Amendment. I do not intend to speak to the technical side, but I believe it raises an important issue of principle. I ask the Government whether it is their intention that when a local authority grants leases for development purposes the previous owner of the site—if he wants to have it—shall always have priority over other possible developers?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the purpose of the provision in paragraph 2 in the Schedule which is designed to protect the position of the original owner.
Lord SANDFORD: May I make a point? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has relied wholly on Amendments made at Report stage in the other place to this Part of the Bill, and they certainly have had the effect of improving it considerably. There were six Amendments—288, 289, 290, 291,

227
292 and 341—using the final List published in the other place for their Report stage. But the noble and learned Lord will also sec from Commons Hansard (col. 1047) that despite all those there are further points raised by our right honourable and honourable friends which the Under-Secretary was not able to deal with, either to his or their satisfaction, and on which he promised to write further. It is on some of those matters that we still need some reassurance. It might be helpful if before the Report stage the noble and learned Lord could tell those of us who are still interested in this matter what it was that Mr. Oakes undertook to do at that stage in another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly see that what he undertook to do is done, if it has not already been done. I have not conveniently available, as they say in another place, a copy of the relevant Hansard, but I will certainly study the point. If anything has been left undone which ought to have been done, it shall be done.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Will the noble and learned Lord study the words in line 13 on page 74? I believe, "had not been", should have been "has been". I believe we have the wrong tense. May I leave that with him and the draftsmen to check? It is only a technical point. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord because, to a great extent, he has assured me over Amendment No. 110. I should like to withdraw Amendment No. 109.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 74, line 14, at end insert—
" . Any dispute as to the material interest to be disposed of to any person shall be determined by the Secretary of State and any dispute as to the purchase price to he paid by that person shall be determined by the Lands Tribunal, and the purchase price shall be agreed with the district valuer or in default of agreement be determined by the Lands Tribunal."
The noble Earl said: I regret to say that, in spite of all that has been said by both Conservatives and Cross-Benchers, there is little provision any
228
where in this Bill for any dispute to be settled. This Amendment is an attempt to ensure that a person having a dispute with a local authority over land acquisition, or anything else like this, has some provision along those lines. The Amendment is not very well drafted, but I feel that the procedures give unnecessary dictatorial powers to a local authority. I am not running down local authorities; there are many occasions when I will speak up for them on other provisions. I am not certain that everything is fair all the way through. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Guidance will be given to local authorities on how effect should be given to the prior right procedures bearing in mind Ministers' intentions that prior right should in practice lead in the majority of cases to an agreement whereby the land will be made available to the applicant. The judgment on what constitutes "best price" is one that must be made by authorities. In the event of failing to agree on terms it will be possible by competitive disposal procedures to measure the offer made against the market price. It would be very undesirable to set up a new formal process of arbitration when market value can be determined by direct means. This would simply invite many disposals to be referred to arbitration in the hope of better terms, thus delaying disposals considerably to the disadvantage of all concerned. In any really difficult cases when a prior right applicant considered that he was being offered unacceptable terms, it would be possible to investigate the case, and if the Department agreed that the terms offered were unreasonable and the authority refused to modify them, it would be possible for the Secretary of State to intervene, using Clause 44 powers, to direct the authority to make the disposal,
"in such manner, and subject to such terms and conditions, as may be specified in the direction".
So that ultimate control of supervision remains.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The local authority would be bound by the valuation of the district valuer or his equivalent. One comes across so many cases where the local authority, and their officers, feel that the price offered—as a result, sometimes, of the district valuer—is below the true value, taking into

229
account the market trends. The owners invariably have to sell because of the delay occasioned in going to the various appeals and arbitrations involved. The loss of money over such a period is more than made up by the extra they would get if they received their true value. Is there any way for the local authority to influence a district valuer? I suppose it is wrong for me to ask this. Is there any way to influence the district valuer that their indication as to value must be taken into account in the form of second thoughts by the district valuer?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to give thought to this. The district valuer—as has been implied by the reservation the noble Lord was making in suggesting that local authorities should influence the valuer—is an independent person, and any attempt of pressure of that kind would not be desirable.
The Earl of KINNOULL: As a valuer, I should like to spring to the defence of district valuers. I have always found them extremely fair and independent.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I respectfully agree.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.56 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 74, line 14, at end insert—
" . Where an authority decide that land should be made available for development by a housing association they shall dispose of that land for the same price as they paid for it."
The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment, I should like to say how on many occasions I appreciated the advice of district valuers. This Amendment is designed to make certain that those housing associations which are not run for profit and which are backed by the Government, such as the Scottish Special Housing Association, are able to acquire land for the marvellous work that they do for virtually the same price as the local authority pay for it. I feel that this is only fair. I was in touch with the Scottish Special Housing Association. They were not altogether happy (although they are a Government Department) that their interests were protected, and I have
230
no doubt that there are many housing associations, other than local authority associations, run on exactly the same lines. I do not want them to be in the position of being penalised. I have raised this question before, but I have not had any encouragement in any of the answers that I have been given.
While I am on my feet, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 113. So far as I can see, under paragraph 2 the Authority may have disposed of land for a private development and then changed their mind and bought it back again. I feel that this is not in our interests. An authority may have disposed of land under paragraph 2, which has been partially or wholly developed in the class of development for which it had planning permission. But if the builder goes bankrupt or there ceases to be a demand for houses, the authority should not then have the right compulsorily to acquire the land which has not been developed just because something may have gone wrong. I feel that there is a serious risk within this Bill that where land has passed through the hands of the local authority and has not been fully developed, the authority have the right to change their mind and take it over. I have read the Bill carefully and there is nothing which satisfies me that this point is in any way safeguarded. I beg to move Amendment No. 113.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Champion): I called Amendment No. 112. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, also spoke to Amendment No. 113, but I will put Amendment No. 112.
Baroness BIRK: There are two separate points here. As the noble Earl has not yet moved Amendment No. 113 (though he has spoken to it) and as the House will be hoping to resume shortly, I will refer now to Amendment No. 112. I appreciate very much what is behind the noble Earl's Amendment and what his motivations are so far as housing associations are concerned. I think he would get a certain amount of support for what he is trying to do. But I point out to the noble Earl that his Amendment will not achieve the results he wants.
He says that he has not had a clear answer on this. The intention here is plainly to give housing associations

231
favourable prices when buying from an authority. The Amendment is unacceptable for several reasons. First, it would apply to any land whenever acquired by the authority. Old land would thus often be transferred far cheaper than ever at its current use value. This would deprive the development value from accruing to the community in the shape of the Bill authorities and would thus conflict with a central principle of the scheme. Secondly, local authorities are obliged by Section 123(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 not to dispose of land at less than the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained except with the specific consent of the Secretary of State, and this consent is given only in exceptional circumstances.
Thirdly, the Amendment could cut against the financial interests of a housing association. This is perhaps the point which the noble Earl overlooked or did not realise would come out of his Amendment. Land prices have generally fallen since the boom period of 1971–73, and land bought then and sold now to a housing association or anyone else at cost price would be unacceptable to the purchaser. So here the housing association would be in a worse position.
Following these points, there is another objection, which is that this type of arrangement would cause planning distortions, because wherever the cost price differed from the valuation required by the compensation code in being at the time—that is, whether it is market use value or even current use value—it would favour either the disposing authority or the prospective customer. An authority is not likely to sell land to a housing association if it can get a better price from someone else—indeed, it is not allowed to do so—and a housing association is not likely to buy from an authority when it can get a cheaper price elsewhere. In either situation, desirable housing development just would not happen, so although the idea is a good one it would simply not work out in practice.
Apart from these arguments there is also the practical point that the Amendment could be of no financial benefit to housing associations anyway because housing associations, as I am sure the noble Earl is well aware, are supported
232
through the Housing Corporation or local authority by Government grants equal to 100 per cent. of the deficit expected to arise from the capitalised difference be-between their expenditure and rental income. Therefore even if the associations were to get land more cheaply because of this Amendment, there would be a corresponding drop in the grant and they would be no better off.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation, and I am sure that many other Members of the Committee will be, also. If I may say so, her explanation has completely cleared my mind and indeed, has very much relieved it. I apologise for having perhaps unduly stressed this point, but I have felt strongly about it for a long time and I am therefore very grateful for the assurance which has been given. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord JACQUES: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

SOCIAL SECURITY PENSIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
7.3 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th October, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, which was laid before this House on 26th September 1975, be approved. This Order has been made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974, which empowers Her Majesty by Order in Council to make laws for Northern Ireland during the interim period within the meaning of that Act. By reason of urgency the Order has been made without a draft having been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. If it is to continue to have effect, the Order must therefore be approved.
In the field of social security it is the policy to maintain exact parity between cash services in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain, and the Order maintains that principle. The content of the Order, therefore, is for practical purposes the same as that of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, together with the re-enacted provisions of the Social Security Act 1973, which I shall explain later. Generally speaking, the Order will come into operation on the same dates as the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. The main provisions of the Order should therefore come into operation in April 1978 but, as in Great Britain, provisions dealing with administration, in particular with the operation of the Occupational Pensions Board, the contracting-out of occupational pension schemes and the making of Regulations need to have early effect and have of necessity to come into force much earlier. A large part of the work of the Board in relation to contracting-out must be completed before the main Appointed Day. It was to enable this work and the preparation of subordinate legislation to go forward in step with that under the pensions scheme in Great Britain that the Order was made under the "urgent" procedure, without a draft having been approved.
The Order enacts for Northern Ireland provisions corresponding to those of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. Its main purpose is to improve State pensions by providing for additional components based upon earnings above a specified amount. Provision is made for maintaining the value of pension rights earned, and of pensions, once they have been awarded. The Order introduces for Northern Ireland the new non-contributory benefit to be known as mobility allowance for persons within certain categories who are unable, or virtually unable, to walk. The Order also provides for employers with good occupational pension schemes to be able to contract their members out of the full State scheme and thereby take over responsibility for a part of the pensions that would otherwise be provided by the State. In return, employers and employees will pay contributions at a reduced rate.
Under the Social Security Act 1973, the Secretary of State for Social Services appointed the Occupational Pensions Board to serve the whole of the United Kingdom. This Order restates the Board's
234
existing functions in relation to the preservation of benefit under occupational pension schemes and their modification and winding up, and for this purpose repeals and re-enacts in their application to Northern Ireland the appropriate parts of the Social Security Act 1973. The result will be that the constitution and internal procedures of the Occupational Pensions Board will continue to be fixed by the Social Security Act 1973, but the Board's functions in relation to schemes operating in Northern Ireland will he conferred by this Order. The Order also allocates to the Board functions for ensuring equality of access to occupational pension schemes for men and women.
As noble Lords may be taken to be already familiar with the details of the corresponding legislation enacted for Great Britain in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, I do not think I need go through this Order article by article, but it is a complicated and important Order and so I shall summarise its content and draw attention to its main provisions. Part I is general and relates to title, commencement and general interpretation of the Order. Part II deals with contribution changes. Part III sets out the benefit changes and introduces mobility allowance. Part IV deals with contracting-out. Part V deals with the right of women at work to enjoy the same access to occupational pension schemes as their male colleagues, and makes other arrangements in relation to such schemes. Part VI is general and technical and contains supplementary provisions.
In effect the Order amends, rather than replaces, the existing legislation which is contained in the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975, and it is that Act which the Order refers to as the "principal Act". Much of the basic framework of that Act, particularly the general contribution structure, remains unaltered. The Order provides for the lower earnings limit for liability for Class 1 employed earners' contributions, to be set at the level of the basic component of the retirement pension, £11.60 in April 1975 terms, and for an upper earnings limit of seven times that amount. There will be a contribution of 6½ per cent. for employees and 10 per cent, for employers to replace the figures of 5½ per cent. and 8½ per cent. which came into operation last April.
The Order improves State pensions for retirement, widowhood and invalidity by providing for the contributor with a full record a pension in two parts: a basic component and an additional component on earnings which exceed the qualifying earnings level. The basic component will be the flat-rate pension in force when the new arrangements begin—£11.60 per week, in April 1975 terms. The additional component will represent 11 per cent. of earnings above £11.06 and up to a ceiling of seven times that figure—that is slightly over £80 per week—for each year of contributions under the scheme. After the scheme has been in operation for 20 years, the additional component will amount to a 25 per cent. return on earnings between these two amounts. Thereafter there will be no addition to the figure of 25 per cent., but the pension will be based on the relevant earnings in each contributor's best 20 years of employment. I repeat that the pensions will be protected against inflation. There is provision to increase pensions in Northern Ireland in line with any increases awarded in Great Britain.
The Order abolishes the contribution option for married women and widows but provides for special arrangements for the woman who is married or widowed at the appointed day. Women will pay the same contributions as men with the same earnings and qualify for the same rate of benefit. Women who do not stay in employment but spend the greater part of their lives as housewives will, as now, be entitled to a pension based on their husband's contribution record. A woman entitled to benefit on both her own contributions and her husband's will be able to draw the larger of the two basic pensions and will in either case be entitled to any additional component which she herself has earned. Where a person, usually, but not necessarily, a woman, has to leave the employment field to stay at home and bring up a family or look after an elderly or sick relative, the new scheme will provide for her pension rights to be protected during the years in which she has responsibilities at home. On retirement a widow will be able to draw both her own earnings-related pension and that to which she is entitled by virtue of her husband's contributions, although she will not be able to receive
236
more than one basic component which is £11.60 in April 1975 terms. Nor will she be able to draw more in total than the maximum pension payable under the scheme to one contributor. The Order makes the same sort of provision for men, so that a man whose wife dies when she is over 60 years and he is over 65 years will be entitled to both additional components in the same way as a widow subject to the same limits and the same maximum as I have outlined as applying to widows.
I shall now deal with the contracting-out provisions. The Order provides for employers with good occupational pension schemes to contract their members out of the full State scheme and thereby take over responsibility for a part of the pension that would otherwise be provided by the State. There will be no provision for contracting-out of the State pension scheme on the lowest band of earnings which count toward the basic component, but employers will be able to contract out of the additional component. The two main conditions that an occupational pension will have to satisfy in order to contract out are, first, that it must provide personal pensions, based on final salary or average salary revalued in line with the growth of earnings generally, available not later than age 65 for men and 60 for women, with an annual accrual rate equivalent to at least 1/80th of the pensionable salary. This corresponds to the rate of accrual of the additional component under the State scheme. For widows a pension must be provided equal to at least half of the husband's pension at the time of his death. Secondly, the pension of each scheme member must not be less than a minimum—the guaranteed minimum pension—at least equal to the pension he has foregone in the State scheme. For widows the scheme must provide a guaranteed minimum of at least half the husband's guaranteed pension at the time of his death.
Where members leave a contracted-out scheme after less than five years of contracted-out service, or where a scheme ceases to be contracted-out or has to be wound up, there are arrangements for the scheme to reinstate or "buy-back" members into full State pension entitlement by means of a payment of a premium to the State scheme. The Occupational Pensions

237
Board will decide whether an employment is to be treated as contracted-out and will issue certificates where they are satisfied that conditions for contracting-out are satisfied. I made it clear earlier that the Board will continue to serve the United Kingdom as a whole. The Board will also exercise supervision over the funding and solvency of contracted-out schemes. Both members of contracted-out pension schemes and their employers will pay a reduced contribution to the State scheme on earnings between the lower and upper earnings limits. The rates will be 2½ per cent. less for the earner and 4½ per cent. less for the employer.
As I mentioned at the outset the Order enacts, for Northern Ireland, legislation corresponding to that recently enacted for Great Britain. It maintains the principle that there should be exact parity between cash social services in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain. I apologise for the length of this explanation. The contents of the Order are non-controversial, but it is a matter of the greatest importance to a large number of people. Therefore, I thought I owed the House a fairly full explanation. My Lords, I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th October, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his thorough explanation of this immensely complicated Order which is based upon the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. It is true that that Act had a large measure of agreement, except that from this side of the House in both Houses we argued that the second pensions scheme could have been linked with the tax credit plan. With that proviso, and as the Order cannot be amended, I agree with the noble Lord, that although it is quite right that he should give the thorough explanation he has, there is no point in going into great detail on both sides of the House on matters which were the subject of very lengthy Committee stages both in another place and in your Lordships' House.
238
There are two general points I should like to be allowed to put to the Government. Undoubtedly, the arrangements for the scheme represented by this Order will be very expensive. In the last few days we have heard announced the raising of the National Insurance contributions. Under the Government's new scheme there will be no savings to fund the second State pension; instead, contributions are to be used at once to pay for existing pensions. Also, with inflation running as it still is, I cannot believe that the Government's statistical assumptions when the scheme was originally introduced will be anywhere near accurate.
Those two points alone lead me to the conclusion that eventually this plan is bound to be more costly than was originally envisaged. As a consequence, I want to ask the noble Lord whether the Government intend that the undertaking, which the noble Lord gave at the very beginning of his statement, for parity in cash social services between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, should indeed hold good not only for this scheme but for the future and in general. This undertaking stems originally from the White Paper on constitutional proposals which were made in 1973 under the previous Government, that in matters of social security Northern Ireland will be treated equally with the rest of the United Kingdom. I can envisage a future Government looking wtih startled eyes at the pension expenditure figures, and saying that some savings for Northern Ireland ought to be made to balance the cost of other services, for security, for unemployment which runs so tragically high in Northern Ireland, for industrial development—those sort of things which can be exceptionally expended upon within the Province.
I therefore ask the noble Lord to consider a single simple question: that the Government renew the unequivocal undertaking that in matters of social services for the future Northern Ireland and Great Britain are to continue to be treated equally within the United Kingdom.
7.20 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his acceptance of this rather complicated Order. I can

239
answer his question very easily. I said at the beginning of my speech that in the field of social security it is the policy to maintain exact parity between cash services in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain. The Order maintains that principle. I give an absolute assurance that that is this Government's intention, and I think it binds future Governments.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, since he mentioned parity, may I ask the Minister whether the earnings rule which applies to retirement pensioners in Great Britain applies equally to Northern Ireland? Also, is the mobility allowance dependent upon the withdrawal of the tricycle, or do they not have that scheme in Northern Ireland?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, to answer the second question first—without notice, so I will write confirmation—this allowance is not dependent upon the tricycle. Would the noble Baroness repeat her first question?
Baroness PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords. The Minister referred to parity in what is given. I wondered whether those concerned equally had parity with what is taken away. I refer to the earnings rule, by which if one earns more than a certain amount the retirement pension has to be repaid.
Lord DONALDSON of K1NGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the answer to that question is, yes. There is parity on both sides.

CHILD BENEFIT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
7.21 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Child Benefit (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th October, be approved. My Lords, the Order has been made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974, which empowers Her Majesty by Order in Council to make laws for Northern Ireland during the interim period within the meaning of that Act. By reason of urgency the Order has been made without a draft having been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. The Order, if it is to
240
continue to have effect, must now be approved.
The Order enacts for Northern Ireland provisions corresponding to those of the Child Benefit Act 1975. It therefore abolishes family allowances, and introduces child benefit, a cash benefit which, unlike family allowances, will be payable for every child. Child benefit will also progressively replace the present tax relief given for children. Regulations will prescribe the weekly rate of child benefit and different rates may be prescribed in different cases. Payment of child benefit will begin on a day—expected to be in April 1977—appointed by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland. This will be the same as the appointed day in Great Britain. The Order provides that before the appointed day for child benefit, and beginning on a date to be specified by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, an interim benefit will be payable to the heads of one-parent families at the rate specified under the Family Allowances Act for one child, at present £1.50 per week.
The Order in effect extends the benefit of family allowances to the first or only child in these families for this interim period. We expect that the operational date will be in April 1976. This child interim benefit, as it is termed, will thus be payable for one year: from April 1976 to April 1977. The Order also provides for the abolition of the supplementary benefits wage stop in Northern Ireland in line with the abolition of the wage stop under the Great Britain Act.
The Order maintains the principle that there should be exact parity between cash social services in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain. For all intents and purposes, therefore, the content of the Order is the same as that of the Child Benefit Act 1975. It is further intended that the Order and the Great Britain Act will come into operation on the same dates. The Order was made under the "urgent procedure" without a draft having been approved so as to enable the necessary administrative arrangements to proceed step by step with the arrangements in Great Britain. Noble Lords will no doubt appreciate that a considerable amount of preparatory work is necessary in anticipation of the implementation of the legislation.

241
As your Lordships are already familiar with the details of the corresponding legislation enacted for Great Britain, and as this Order virtually reproduces similar legislation for Northern Ireland, I do not propose to go through the Order Article by Article. However, I feel that I should draw attention to its main provisions. Part I of the Order is general and relates to title, commencement and general interpretation. Part II of the Order provides for child benefit to be paid to a person for any child for whom he is responsible and contains definitions of both "child" and "person responsible. "It enables regulations to prescribe circumstances in which child benefit will not be payable and specifies exclusion from title. Where there is more than one claimant rules for deciding priority are set out. It is provided that child benefit shall be payable at such weekly rate as may be prescribed in regulations. The treatment of polygamous marriages will also be covered by regulations. This Part also makes provision in the case of persons who have been absent from Northern Ireland, and specifies the standard requirements as to presence in Northern Ireland, which must be satisfied for an allowance to be payable.
Part III makes provision for child interim benefit to be payable to the heads of one-parent families for a period beginning with a day to be specified by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland and ending immediately before the appointed day for child benefit. Part III also provides for the discontinuance of the wage stop provision in the Supplementary Benefits Scheme. This provision restricted the amount of supplementary benefit to the amount of the net weekly earnings which a person would receive if he were engaged in full-time work in his normal occupation. Part IV is general and contains provisions of a supplemental nature. The Child Benefit Order, unlike much social security legislation, is reasonably intelligible to the non-expert and the provisions which it contains are largely self-explanatory. I hope that this short explanation will give noble Lords an adequate outline of the main provisions of the Order. As I mentioned earlier, it maintains the principle that there should be exact parity between cash social services in Northern Ireland and those in Great
242
Britain. My Lords, I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Child Benefit (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th October, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
7.27 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I support this Order and, as with the previous Order, I do not question the fact that the urgent procedure needed to be used in this case. It is particularly necessary that this Order should be agreed and be effective in Northern Ireland, where unemployment continues at a very high rate. I take the opportunity to ask the noble Lord whether he has an up-to-date figure to give to the House this evening of the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland at the present time. I welcome the fact that the child benefit is to be paid to the wife. This is something which we on this side of the House have always thought would be right, and the Government have indeed implemented it. It would, of course, be naïve to believe that child benefit will not be misappropriated in certain families still, but in principle I am sure that this is a step forward.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reception of this Order and for giving me notice of the question he was going to ask, which I can now answer fairly fully. The current unemployment rate of all employees is 9.8 per cent. in the Northern Ireland Province. Of all male employees it is 11.2 per cent.; of all female employees, 7.7 per cent. If school-leavers are excluded the overall figure of 9.8 per cent. comes down to 8.5 per cent. The school-leavers number something under 1 per cent. and adult students about one-half of 1 per cent. I think that is about as detailed an answer as the noble Lord expected.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.45 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.29 p.m. until 7.45 p.m.]

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
7.45 p.m.
House again in Committee.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 74, line 14, at end insert—
(" . Where an authority have disposed of any land under paragraph 2 above and that land has been partially or wholly developed in the same class of development for which that land was made available the authority shall not have any rights to compulsorily acquire such land.")
The noble Earl said: I will explain very briefly the reason behind this Amendment. It is that where an authority have disposed of any land under paragraph 2 of this schedule and that land has been either partially or wholly developed according to the planning permission that was granted, the authority shall not have any rights compulsorily to acquire such land again. So far as I can see, there is no provision in the Bill to prevent land from passing through the hands of the authority more than once. This is the reason behind the Amendment and I beg to move.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: As the noble Earl has explained, the effect of this Amendment would be to prevent an authority from using compulsory purchase powers to acquire land which it had acquired and disposed of under the scheme where the land had been partially or wholly developed for the class of development for which it had been made available. In disposing of land under the scheme, whether to prior right applicants or to others, authorities will need to buy it to ensure that the development for which the land is made available is consistent with the planning objectives for the area as a whole. In practice, this means that only on very rare occasions would they seek to reacquire land which they had already acquired and disposed of.
Nevertheless, there may well be cases where plans are changed and where a different kind of development will be required. For example, if a new road needs to be routed through land which had already been disposed of under the scheme, it would be quite wrong and inconsistent with the objectives of the scheme to deprive an authority of their
244
powers compulsorily to reacquire that land.
Moreover, the Amendment would prevent authorities from using compulsory purchase powers to undertake redevelopment in the future, even up to about 60 years later. Therefore the Amendment would restrict the prohibition on the use of compulsory purchase powers to the period when the development had wholly or partially taken place. But this limitation does not affect the objections to the Amendment which I have outlined. For planning reasons, authorities must retain compulsory purchase powers even when the land has been disposed of and wholly or partially developed.
It may also be the intention of the Amendment—I am not sure about this—to restrict the limitation to cases where the land had been disposed of to prior right applicants. I am not sure whether the noble Earl had that in mind, but as worded it applies to all disposals under the scheme. However, even if the Amendment applied only to prior right applicants the objections to it would still remain, because the main ones are of a much more general nature. If an authority re-acquired land that it had already disposed of, it would of course have to compensate in the normal way whoever it was to whom the disposal had been made. I hope that the noble Earl will accept this explanation. It is important that there should be this provision, even though for all sorts of practical reasons. of which I am sure anybody conversant with local government will be well aware, it will probably be very rarely used.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I think my noble friend has raised an important point. Let me take the case of, say, industrial development. If planning permission is granted, and the local authority sells to a developer, and it is then discovered that the developer, through a variety of ways, could increase that planning permission with the permission of the local authority by, say, more than 10 per cent. and it would therefore be deemed to be a development, would the local authority then have to purchase that site again? I have not followed whether or not they have the right to say that they do not wish to repurchase, or whether they have to say that they have to repurchase, as one tends to feel under the designated areas.
Baroness BIRK: I think I can set the noble Earl's mind at rest about this point. They would have to start the whole process again. They would have to repurchase and set the whole operation on the road again. This would act as a further safeguard. if the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is concerned that this might be used for any reason which is not quite honourable, I would say that this just could not take place, because they would have to start the whole process over again with, if necessary, an inquiry so that any objections might be made.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the explanation she has given, which I have no doubt covers what is intended. But I should point out that this is bound to have the effect of frightening people away from developing once this Bill comes into force. Furthermore, I very much doubt whether people would get adequate compensation after the second appointed day. Provided that any prospective developer is fully aware of the answer to this problem—and I am very glad that I tabled this Amendment—then fair enough, but this is just the sort of case that will lose tremendous confidence in the development of land in the future by anybody but a local authority. This is something which the noble Baroness must expect to happen. But having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, because it is clearly defective.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 74, line 14, at end insert—
(" . Where an authority decide that land should be made available for development by persons other than any authority, they shall in determining what material interest in the land to dispose of to such persons, (a) have regard to the requirement of such persons to obtain finance on the security of the land and (b) shall unless it would be unreasonable in the circumstances to do so, dispose of the freehold interest in the land or a lease for a term of not less than 150 years.").
The noble Baroness said: In one way this is a probing Amendment, because it would be useful to find out before we reach Clause 41 what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the disposal of land by local authorities.
246
Clearly this is an issue of enormous importance to a great many people. It is of importance to those who are building houses, who may well want to borrow money on the land that they hold, and will therefore need to know its value. It is important to industry to know in what way a local authority will dispose of land; whether it is to be freehold or leasehold and, if leasehold, how long the lease would be. It is also very important to pension funds.
The words "material interest" are defined in Clause 4 to include either a freehold or a leasehold interest. Reading the Report of the debate on a somewhat similar matter in another place, one sees that the Minister, Mr. Oakes, said on 24th June, at column 1491, with regard to the terms of leases:
"But with regard to the terms of years of lease this is still a matter of negotiation as to the length of term on which the best balance can be struck between community interests and industrial and commercial interests. These discussions are continuing and what I say now does not prejudice them."
What it would be useful to know is whether the Government can now give any indication of their thinking on this matter. A great many organisations have said that in informal discussions with the Department and Ministers concerned a term of 60 years is being talked of. For a variety of reasons this is far too short a term to be of real use to a great number of people. I therefore tabled this Amendment with a term of 150 years to try to determine what is in the Government's mind, and I shall be most interested, as will many other people, to hear their view of this matter. I beg to move.
Lord GRIDLEY: In supporting my noble friend in what she has just said, I should like to cover the points in rather more detail. The present position in regard to the development of land in this country, so far as the private developer is concerned, is that he finances his operations on the security of the land and many big institutions which have been mentioned in that connection such as financial institutions.
What I see as being important in this Amendment is the fact that it more or less outlines what is going on at present before this Bill comes into operation, and I would go along with my noble friend Lady Young in regard to the fact that

247
this is a probing Amendment. We should like to be sure that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to; the operations in the development industry which exist at present, regarding the financing of their operations on the security of land, and I should like some assurance from the Government that they will give sympathetic consideration to that point.
Lord HYLTON: In supporting this Amendment, I should like to recall that at an earlier stage of this Committee the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned that consultations were going on as to appropriate terms for leases and disposals of land by local authorities, and I should like to draw his attention to the memorandum submitted by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in December 1974 in reply to the White Paper, and in particular to paragraph 2.24, which touches on this question of land as an asset against which loans can be raised, and which can therefore be used for financing industrial, manufacturing and commercial developments of all sorts.
Lord MELCHETT: Paragraph 56 of the White Paper on Land said that local authorities were being encouraged to offer it to builders on licences with the plots being conveyed directly to the house purchasers. Building agreements or licences are the preferred method for the disposal of building land, as they ensure that the authorities retain the maximum control of development while giving builders the right to have the freehold of individual plots conveyed to the eventual purchaser. Discussions are at present going on between the Department and the local authority associations and the clearing banks on the sort of agreement which would be acceptable both to the authorities and to the financial institutions.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, that I will draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the remarks he made in that respect this evening. However, other methods of disposal to builders have not been ruled out. Speaking to the House Building Federation Annual Conference on 17th October this year, my right honourable friend Mr. Silkin said his mind was open to other methods of disposal to builders within the principles of the land scheme, provided these are
248
associated with adequate provision for assuring the scheme's positive planning objectives were safeguarded. So no one's mind is closed on this matter at the present moment.
The White Paper said:
"The disposal of land for commercial or industrial development will be on a leasehold basis with provision for rent revisions."
This policy is designed to ensure that the community retains a share of future increases in value and is basic to the positive planning aspects of the scheme. The precise length of leases to be granted raises a number of complex issues which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, are still being discussed. I mentioned this at an earlier stage. Discussions are still continuing with those likely to be directly concerned. We think that authorities should not be required to grant leases on terms unacceptable to them. However, the Government are well aware of the need to grant leases of a reasonable length, and this will be dealt with in guidance to authorities. Everything noble Lords have said this evening will certainly be taken into account while these discussions continue.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like to mention two points here. First, it seems to me that any question of property, whether it should be freehold or leasehold, under this Bill clearly splits into two areas. The first area is housing. It seems to me that, if the Government are seriously considering long leaseholds for housing, this will go against recent legislation on the virtual abolishment of the leasehold reform system. I should like all houses for builders to be freehold.
Lord MELCHETT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but he seems to have misunderstood what I said. I dealt with two separate situations. I spoke first of building land and said that, in that case, we would have building agreements or licence arrangements where the freehold would be transferred direct to the house purchaser. My remarks on leases were confined to industrial commercial development.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful for that clarification. Coming to the commercial development, again what has already been said is absolutely true. The

249
property market, the development market, at present is under extreme pressure to encourage finance houses, banks, insurance houses, and pension funds to put up funding for these developments. It is a ludicrous argument as to whether the local authority should consider 60, 70 or 80 years as a suitable period. What really matters is whether property developers can attract funds to get the developments.
I think that the Government should be far more forthcoming as to what are their intentions. They say they are consulting various bodies. So far as I know, the Government have been consulting for a great deal of time. Can the noble Lord not tell us what has come out of the consultations? Can he tell us what views the local authorities are giving? What issues are the Government thinking of at present? This is a very vital issue to the whole sphere of commercial development.
Viscount RIDLEY: Can I speak for a minute about the industrial side of this question to which the noble Earl referred? It is absolutely critical that we have some indication of where Government thinking is going. Obviously a leasehold, if it is a long one, in effect is a freehold, as we know. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would agree with that. But, if it is too short, we put ourselves into a difficult position, particularly where we are trying to attract new industries to certain regions of this country.
My experience, which is by now not inconsiderable in this sphere, leads me to think that most industrial concerns are keen to obtain the freehold, or if not the freehold, as long a lease as possible. At the moment I do not think it is good enough to say that the Government are thinking in terms of 60-year leases, or perhaps a little longer. May I press the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to give us his reaction to the figure of 150 years mentioned in the Amendment, because this may or may not be long enough. To many industrial people this figure may be too short. It is important we have some knowledge before we leave this subject.
Lord SANDFORD: I was going to raise this on the Question, Whether the Clause shall stand part?, but as the debate is ranging fairly widely on this Amendment, perhaps I can raise it now. The Government have been saying all along—from the Committee stage in another
250
place to the Report stage in another place, to the Committee stage now—that they are having negotiations. They are having negotiations on the matters referred to in Schedule 6, paragraph 2(3)(b)(i); that is the terms on which the material interest should be purchased. They are also having negotiations as to Schedule 6, paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii), the terms on which the development should be carried out. We have now reached a stage when we are within a few weeks of Royal Assent, when it is not any longer appropriate for noble Lords opposite to say they are having negotiations. The terms on which these material interests can be disposed of, and the terms on which the development can be carried out should now have been settled.
Of course, it is a virtue at an early stage, a year ago, a month or so after the White Paper was published, to be approaching the matter with an open mind; but it is not a virtue any more, in that people's minds should have been made up, and their views and intentions should be made clear to Parliament, otherwise we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We are being asked to approve in this Schedule matters about which the Government at the present moment are entirely vague. Before the next stage of the Bill, we must have a better indication of the terms under which the Government think that the material interests should be disposed of in relation to building land for housing, development land for industrial and commercial purposes, and the terms on which builders are to carry out the development on land which is not passing into their own ownership. These are crucial links in the whole of this enterprise, which we regard as totally unsatisfactory anyhow. At present we are devoting ourselves to seeing that the system works; but unless the Government tell us what their intentions are, I do not see how we can possibly discharge our duties.
Lord MELCHETT: I spelt out what the objectives of the Government are.
Lord SANDFORD: Objectives are one thing, but there are also ways and means.
Lord MELCHETT: I was about to say that I would not prejudice discussions going on with regard to particular figures. I have not mentioned a 60-year, 80-year,

251
99-year or even a 120-year period—nor do I intend to. Of course, I am well aware—and so are the Government, and we have made this clear all along—of the need for people to raise finance. That is the purpose of the discussions. Discussions are being conducted with interested parties so that arrangements can be arrived at which will be suitable to all, and which will enable people to raise finance on the leases granted. But I regret to tell noble Lords opposite that I am not prepared to prejudice the discussions which are still continuing by being drawn on particular figures.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Can the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, go further, then, and tell us how often these discussions happen? Who is in charge of the discussions? Who is being asked to discuss anything? When will the discussions come to an end? There must be a timetable. However sensitive the situation is, it is equally sensitive to the Opposition, who simply want to know the terms on which the leases would be granted, in order to make a judgment. This is a very important matter, and I hope the noble Lord will consider this, as my noble friend has said, because it seems to me—and I will repeat this again—that the funding for commercial development is quite essential for a spur to the whole of the development of the areas. If you are going to damage that through this Bill you are going to damage positive planning.
Viscount RIDLEY: May I pursue this further. Only last week I met the managing director of a very important transatlantic company who wished to purchase land from my county council—land which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be glad to know was derelict for some time. He told me that they wished to purchase land in the North of England to expand a factory to create jobs, and unless they know that they would be able to have a long lease, they were not going to develop this factory. That is why we want to know.
Lord MELCHETT: In answer to the noble Earl's question, I am advised that banks, local authorities and financial institutions are involved in the discussions. I think it would be unwise for any
252
Government to enter into this sort of discussion with a fixed timetable. We should be accused of holding a sword over the heads of the institutions if we seta definite limit. Of course, my right honourable friend is well aware of the urgency and the need to come to some definite conclusion about this. I should hope that we would have some more information before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
Lord SANDFORD: That is a considerable advance. It would be much better if the noble Lord would say that we have some information before we come to the Report stage, because to wait until Third Reading will make it very difficult for us to consult with the people with whose views we are having to deal. I should have thought that unless the noble Lord can give some indication before the weekend—if he cannot do it now perhaps he can write to us—it will be impossible for us to consult with the people concerned about this. My noble friend Lord Ridley has given an absolutely straightforward example of why it is important to get this clear and on the record. Perhaps my other questions to the noble Lord were not specific enough. I can make them specific.
Is the Department, for instance, in touch with the Pilcher Committee? If so, what has been the outcome? That is a question that his right honourable friend was asked last May and the Minister did not answer it then. Perhaps the noble Lord can answer it now. Onthe question of the agreements under which development will proceed when the ownership of land passes not to the builder but direct to the subsequent freeholder, are the Government relying on Section 52 agreements under the Local Government Act? If so, what assurances can we have that they will now be operative, that the builders are now put in an entirely different position? If they are not relying on Section 52, what sort of formula are they relying on? We are absolutely in the dark as to how this vital link in the operation of this Bill is going to operate. It really is not constitutionally right that Parliament should be asked to pass this legislation without having some sort of answers to these questions
The Earl of KINNOULL: I took a note of what the noble Earl said about who was being consulted. I think he said banking interests, financial institutions and local authorities. It seems that there is one gap there, and that is developers. Is there not a body which represents developers, the British Property Federation or some such body, who could be consulted? I should have thought that they should have a say in this. It is not only the financial whizz-kids in the City, but those who are actually doing the development who should be considered. Would the noble Lord consider including them in the discussions?
Lord MELCHETT: I am always prepared to consider including additional bodies in the consultations, but if I am asked on the one hand to get some information by the weekend and on the other hand to include more bodies in the consultations, I am afraid I really do not know which way to turn; I cannot possibly satisfy both the noble Lords opposite. If I may say so, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Viscount, have a rather better point; that is, the urgency of this matter. Certainly I will convey to my right honourable friend the noble Lord's wish to have an answer to this if possible by Report stage. The Government have, of course, been closely in touch with the Pilcher Committee and will bear their views closely in mind when coming to decisions and making representations to local authorities. I understand—and this may set the noble Earl's mind at rest—that developers have given evidence to and been in touch with the Pilcher Committee, so it may be that we are aware of their views by that means.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, reverted to the question of transferring freeholds in relation to housing. I do not think this is a question of using Section 52 of the Local Government Act. We went into this at Second Reading in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Building agreements are something which have been used for many years in new towns. If he wishes I will be happy to explain the mechanics of this to the noble Lord. It will be exactly the same as building agreements which are currently used in new towns. Of course here again there is the question
254
of payment by the builder. It may be helpful if I said a word about that. Payment for building agreements can be phased; in other words, it can take place at the start of development or earlier or later, so there is flexibility in that area. Here again discussions are taking place with the Local Authority Associations and the clearing banks on the use of building agreements and the security that building agreements can provide for builders to raise finance for construction. So in this area, too, discussions are going on with the relevant bodies to make sure that finance is available.
Viscount RIDLEY: Does that imply that Section 52 of the Local Government Act—the noble Lord will be glad to see I have now armed myself with it—is still going to be in force after the passing of this Bill?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, Section 52 will still be in force after the passing of this Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: If the Section 52 agreements are not going to be used, and building agreements that have been used in new towns are going to be used instead, where is there in this legislation something which empowers local authorities to use new town powers outside new towns?
Lord MELCHETT: I confess that I am not conversant enough with the Bill to be able to give the noble Lord the reference at this moment. Perhaps when we come to the passing of the Schedule he would revert to the question and I may be able to answer it then.
Baroness YOUNG: I think this has been a very useful debate. I hope that at the end of it the Government will realise that there are a number of people who are extremely concerned that at this late stage we simply do not know the Government's view of what they are going to do about the disposal of land. As I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, told us, it was really what was in the White Paper, which of course we knew before we came to this debate at all, and he cannot give us any more definite information than is stated there. We know that discussions are going on, but we do not know, as it were, what the parameters of that discussion are, and we

255
do not know what the Government are saying about this.
I welcome the noble Lord's remark that we are going to have possibly something more by Report. I should have thought that that was very much in the Government's own interest. After all, the key to the success of any of this will be whether or not anybody is going to make any money out of this—local authorities in particular. They are certainly not going to make any money out of it if nobody knows what they are going to be able to do. If nobody knows what they are going to be able to do, nobody is going to buy, because they will not know what they are getting. So we shall find ourselves in a perfectly ridiculous position.
I am bound to say that I find it quite extraordinary that yesterday we could be debating at great length that local authorities would be perfectly able to produce their land acquisition and management schemes by 31st December, while the Government, on the disposal side of this bargain, which is crucial to the whole thing, can give no indication as to what they are supposed to do when they produce the scheme and start to get it into operation. when the Bill is due to become law within a matter of weeks. It is a matter of urgency, and by Report we shall expect something much more definite than we have had this evening because we shall undoubtedly return to this subject. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 6, as amended, shall be a Schedule to the Bill?
8.21 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: I was not going to speak on this Question, but as the noble Lord has said that there might possibly be made available some advice from which he would like to answer my last question, I give him the opportunity to do that. I shall understand if he prefers to leave it.
The Earl of KINNOULL: May I ask the noble Lord two questions on the prior right procedure, and, first, about the words, "shall have regard to" in paragraph 2(2). The noble Lord will recall that when the local authorities are disposing of land they shall have regard first of all to the owner, then perhaps the
256
developer, with written consent, and then others. The question I wanted to put to the noble Lord is whether "shall have regard to" is a strong enough phrase in the Bill. Is that phrase sufficient to implement what the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord said earlier, that the owner will always have the first opportunity to re-acquire the land? My advice is that the words "shall have regard to" are very woolly, and that it would be better to put in the words "shall afford an opportunity to".
My second question concerns white land. Where land is acquired by the local authority as white land and may not be developed for perhaps ten years, and then they decide to dispose of it, is this factor covered under the prior rights procedure? In other words, is the original owner of that land consulted, or is it only when land has attracted planning permission that the prior right procedure operates? I hope it occurs in both instances, and I should be grateful for elucidation.
Lord MELCHETT: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for giving me an opportunity to respond to the point that he made. I think that I was not quite right in what I said earlier about Section 52 agreements. They could be used as an alternative to building agreements. I was right in saying, in response to the noble Viscount, that Section 52 will remain in force, and I understand that this matter constitutes part of the discussions which are proceeding. Local authorities do not need new town powers in this Bill because the power to enter into a building agreement is part of the general disposal powers which authorities will have.
To turn to the points raised by the noble Earl, I regret that there is nothing I can add to what my noble and learned friend said—and I would hesitate to deviate from what he said; namely, that "shall have regard to" is perfectly adequate; indeed, I am advised that it is the strongest term we can import into the Bill. It means that they must do this. I hope that that will set the noble Earl's mind at rest. To the final point the noble Earl made, the answer is, Yes, the prior right will apply to white land.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am afraid that that does not set my mind at rest.

257
I think that the noble and learned Lord went on to say that the Government would issue not regulations but guidelines to local authorities on these prior right agreements. If he was present I do not think that he would regard the words "shall have regard to" as a binding commitment to local authorities that they must on the first occasion ask the original owner to repurchase. I hope that the noble Lord will have a look at that matter again and perhaps we can deal with it on Report.
Lord MELCHETT: Maybe I was putting it a little strongly. "Have regard to" is, in our view, strong enough, and I do not feel disposed to tell the noble Earl that we could alter this wording. Prior right cannot be absolute, but there will be a very strong presumption that prior right applicants will be able to undertake the development. Even if it has taken a little time I think I am at one with my noble and learned friend here.
Lord FOOT: May I ask a question about this? I may have missed something. When the noble Earl spoke of the Lord Chancellor having earlier expressed a view as to the meaning of the words "have regard to", I do not know whether he was then referring to the question asked, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in connection with Clause 17(2). I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who asked the Lord Chancellor the meaning of the words "have regard to" in that connection. The noble and learned Lord gave his answer, and said that they meant they were to consider and bring into consideration. In this connection, where in this Schedule the words in paragraph 2(2) are:
"…the authority shall have regard to any application which has been so made.",
they deal with a different matter. I agree with the noble Earl that those words do not require the authority to give precedence to the original owner. They require them only to consider the fact that he has made an application, and it imposes no requirement on them that I can see that they shall give precedence to that person when they come to consider the disposal of the land.
Therefore, whatever the Lord Chancellor said about the meaning of the words "have regard to", I do not think they are of much use to us in this connec
258
tion, and they ought to be strengthened. I am attracted by the words—I have forgotten what they were—which the noble Lord used, although I think he would need to amend the further words in the sentence in order to make it grammatical. I do not think this gives the original applicant, or the original owner of the land, that precedence which it is apparently the intention of the Government that he should have.
Lord HYLTON: I think it was in reply to a question of mine that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seemed to be quite categoric that it was the Government's intention that the previous owner would have definite preference when it came to disposal by the local authority. I should like the Government to consider whether the wording in the Bill is as categoric as the noble and learned Lord said it was.
Lord MELCHETT: It is true that the previous owner will have a preference but, as I understand it, the wording deliberately does not make it an absolute right.
Lord SANDFORD: I have had an opportunity to study the powers in the 1965 Act relating to the disposal of land and the reference there is to 99-year leases. Is that the limit which the Government have in mind in referring us to the New Towns Act, or is there some other model? I am still not satisfied that the powers provided for in Section 18 of the New Towns Act 1965 can be, as it were, appropriated and used by any other local authority, but for the moment I take the noble Lord's word that that is so, although it surprises me. If he intends to lift those out and apply them for the purposes of this Bill, then a 99-year lease is what we are talking about and it would have been easier if he had said so in the first place.
Lord MELCHETT: I think the noble Lord misunderstood what I said. I understood him to be asking me about building agreements; this is where a builder builds houses and the freehold in the land is transferred direct to the eventual occupier of the house. I was not talking about disposing of leases in commercial or industrial property. That was a separate matter. As I understand it, the power to dispose of an interest in land in this

259
way—that is, by a building agreement where the builder builds the house and the eventual occupier then has the freehold transferred directly to him—is in Section 123 of the Local Government Act.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Comprehensive acquisition of development land]:
8.32 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 17, line 31, after ("may") insert ("after consulting the authorities concerned").
The noble Lord said: I am sure the Committee will be glad to hear that this is a far more straightforward point. This is the first Amendment dealing with the full duties which will eventually be available to local authorities under order by the Secretary of State, and they are very far-reaching. I do not intend to go into any of the broader arguments about the principle of the Bill, except to say that it seems to me, and I think it would seem to my noble friends behind me, unthinkable that the Secretary of State should apply an order relating to these duties without first consulting the local authorities concerned. That is so important that a provision requiring him to do so should be in the Bill at the point and in the way my Amendment provides for.
Baroness BIRK: As the note on Clause 18 explains, orders imposing the full duty on authorities will be made progressively, and they will have to be made in that way because it is necessary that authorities have the ability and resources before this can come into force. It has always been the Government's intention to consult the authorities concerned before making an order, as, of course, the Secretary of State would have to satisfy himself that they were capable of fulfilling the duty he intended to lay on them. The Amendment, by making this consultation a statutory requirement, would make no practical difference to the administrative arrangements that would in any case have been necessary in order to carry out these consultations, and it is not, therefore, strictly necessary. However, if the Committee thinks it would be helpful to have this spelt out in the Bill, the Government see no reason to object to the Amendment.
260
But I cannot accept it as drafted because it is slightly defective; the drafting would not fit very happily into Clause 18(2) where the authorities concerned are set out in detail. But I undertake that the Government will bring forward an Amendment on Report to achieve the required effect.
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the more of that we can have during the passage of the night the happier and easier the proceedings will be. With that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 17, line 38, at beginning insert ("Subject to any necessary consents for borrowing under the Local Government Act 1972 being available to defray the cost of any acquisitions.")
The noble Viscount said: I hope the noble Baroness remains in a co-operative frame of mind. The purpose of this Amendment is simply to see that in acquiring land under the Bill local government has adequate powers to borrow the money to do so. As the Committee will no doubt be aware, the Local Government Act 1972 specifies that local authorities' borrowings for capital expenditure must be approved by the Secretary of State. He exercises this control through procedures relating to the key sector and the locally determined sector in accordance with circulars he has recently issued. There are in this Bill no special provisions at all about the borrowing to perform the functions of the Community Land Bill, and the Secretary of State has stated that such borrowing would be covered by a special key section allocation. We do not know what the special sector allocations will be, nor has there yet been any indication of how much money might be involved. It seems to me that if the community land council is to get going at all under the Bill, there will need to be this special arrangement and borrowing will be needed not only to cover the expenditure for the purchase of the land, but also for such ancillary matters as the cost of staff and so on to get the scheme under way.
It is safe to assume that it will be several years before many areas are in sufficient surplus to generate enough

261
money to obviate the need for borrowing and there is, therefore, a vital need to link the authorities' duties to purchase with the authorities' availability of loan consents from the Government to do so. It seems, further, that in practice it is extremely likely that because of the national restraints on public expenditure, which is not the subject before us tonight, there will have to be some rationing of the special key sector allocation, which has been the pattern to date. I do not see that it will be in any sense easier in the foreseeable future for money to be borrowed for this kind of purpose. It seems, therefore, that in assuming that the Bill has unlimited capabilities conferred on local authorities to borrow to start their schemes, it would be more realistic to assume that in practice the situation will be such that the relative demands on the public and private sectors will override all other considerations and may well lead to the total available borrowing powers for the key sector being severely restricted. The purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is simply to say that local authorities should not be forced to purchase land when they do not have the authority to borrow money to do so. I ask the Government to give some indication of how they intend to cope with this problem.
Lord MELCHETT: I assure the noble Viscount that the Government arc fully aware of this point and, if I may tell him this, I do not think the situation has been fully thought through. I think the noble Viscount is assuming that all the necessary funds for land acquisitions will come from borrowing. That will certainly be true in the earlier years, but, after that, authorities will have funds from disposal receipts to use for land acquisition, and once an authority is in cost surplus all the funds will normally be generated in this way. So once disposal receipts start coming in, any criteria for introducing the full duty based on borrowing approval would not make sense. In any event, tying the making of the order to the availability of borrowing approval would only ensure that the approval was available at the time the order was made.
It does not guarantee that funds will be available the following year or even that the approval will not be subject to public expenditure cuts the following day.
262
As we know, that happens all too often now. In other words, it may turn out to be so poor a safeguard as not to be one at all. The simple answer to the point is, in considering whether to bring in the duty, the Secretary of State will need to consider whether the necessary finance will be available both when it is brought in and in the future. He would not make such an order unless he considered that funds were likely to be available either from the surplus in the land account or from borrowing.
Lord HYLTON: I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has made a very interesting and rather important admission. He has implied that in the medium term—perhaps, in five to 10 years from now—the sums that are recovered by way of betterment will immediately be reinvested in acquiring more land and in continuing the process. If so, betterment will not be available for spending for other purposes. We shall never have it in the bank.
My second point arising from the noble Lord's reply is to ask him whether he can enlighten us on the Government's priorities for expenditure in the short-term between the passing of the Bill and five years ahead? What priority will the Government give to land acquisition as compared with the long list of other desirable things which everyone else wants to see done in the statutory sector, including housing, education, health, and so on? Where, in the Government's priorities, does land acquisition, which will require borrowing in the immediate two, three, four or five years ahead, come?
Viscount AMORY: My noble friend Lord Ridley setout clearly the anxieties of local authorities on this point. I listened attentively to what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said and I was glad to note that he admitted that there were problems in this field and to hear that his right honourable friend was very conscious of those problems and that local authorities would not be pressed to go ahead if the money was not likely to be available. Can I ask the noble Lord whether he would agree, having said that these problems might occur in the earlier years but that they would not occur later on—and that may well be true—that there will be wide variations between local authorities as to the time when the

263
money will come in and that in some cases it may be quite a time before that happens and they are in a position to finance these schemes? The timing is always difficult because local authorities have no idea yet what the key sector allocations are to be for next year and it is difficult to make positive plans until they can see at least some way ahead in this matter.
I believe that I was right in detecting that the noble Lord was saying that his right honourable friend was conscious of these difficulties and I very much hope that he will bear them in mind because, in my opinion, they are real difficulties for particular local authorities in enabling them to feel that they can push ahead with these schemes with confidence that they will not be frustrated in the short-term through lack of borrowing facilities.
Lord MELCHETT: I do not feel that it would be right for me to try to preempt the publication of the next public expenditure White Paper, which will normally be published at the turn of the year. The size of the key sector borrowing so far as the land scheme is concerned will, as my right honourable friend has more than once said in another place, be settled in the context of public expenditure as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is quite right to say that disposal receipts will be invested in new purchases to achieve positive planning, which is the aim of the scheme. I am not certain that I said that all the surpluses achieved by all authorities in the next 10 years would automatically be reinvested and that there would therefore be no surpluses for distribution in any other way. We shall have to wait and see what happens as the scheme progresses.
In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, there will of course be differences from area to area, and that is the great advantage of the flexibility which is built into the scheme. The duty can be imposed to a different extent by area. Different areas will have different levels of duty at different times and this will of course take account of the financial situation of the authorities at the time in question.
Lord SANDFORD: I should like to raise a question not about the general
264
position, but on the position in one area where the Secretary of State introduces an order. When he does that, the local authority concerned will be under an obligation to set about making acquisitions in accordance with the first year of its published rolling programme. It is conceivable—and the noble Lord has already instanced this—that, shortly after issuing an order that a particular local authority was to set about acquiring particular bits of land in accordance with the first year of its five year rolling programme, there might be some development in the national economic situation which would lead to cuts in what had been intended to be available to local authorities. Can the noble Lord assure us that, in those instances, those owners of property who at that point would be in a position to serve blight notices and to require local authorities to purchase property which had been affected will receive priority? It will be bad enough if local authority programmes, having been approved and set forward, have to be reined back because of the national economic position. It would be quite unfair and unacceptable if private owners who were in a position to serve blight notices and had had such notices accepted were not able to sell their properties to the local authorities. It would be helpful if we could have an assurance that, at any rate, borrowing to cover that would be available in all circumstances.
Lord MELCHETT: It might be going a little far for me to commit all future Governments to make funds available in all circumstances, however deserving the cause. I certainly feel that the Secretary of State would have regard to this matter and of course it will always be open to the Secretary of State, in exceptional circumstances, to remove the duty from an authority if the financial situation gets so bad that the authority is not in a position to carry out the functions it is obliged to carry out. If the owner is in a position to serve a blight notice, he can make the local authority acquire the property, so I feel that this point is adequately covered.
Lord SANDFORD: I put the question in a strong and direct form and I appreciate that the noble Lord could not accept it. May I put it this way? Will the guidance be that, in cases where

265
local authorities do not have consents sufficient to carry out the programme approved, priority will be given to the acquisition of property in respect of which blight notices have been served rather than the prosecution of a programme of acquisition in accordance with their rolling programme? I believe that, if we knew that the guidance was that private individuals affected adversely by the cutback would have precedence over the public acquisition programme, we should be satisfied.
Lord MELCHETT: I have dealt with the position where the private owner can serve a blight notice. If the private owner can serve a blight notice he can force the local authority to acquire, so that automatically takes precedence. I am reinforced in my view that that is the correct opinion to give to the noble Lord.
Viscount RIDLEY: I should like to thank the noble Lord. I am sure he appreciates that the Bill as it stands on this matter could be extremely expensive and extremely worrying for local authorities, and I think he has the point clearly. Opinions differ as to how long may elapse before an area might come into surplus. Some people think that it may be a very long time, not even within the lifetime of your Lordships' House perhaps. I should like to make it quite clear, and I withdraw the Amendment on the assurances I have had from the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.52 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 18, line 5, leave out ("ten") and insert ("five").
The noble Earl said: According to the Bill, the authority is not under a duty in respect of land which is not needed for relevant development within 10 years from the time at which it is acting. On every occasison that I have had anything to do with local authorities I have found that their long-term forecasts have been worse than weather forecasts; and that is saying something! Furthermore, I should like to remind your Lordships that under Part I of Schedule 7—which is concerned with planning permission for relevant development—the authority abandons its power to purchase for a period of only five years; and planning permission holds good
266
for only five years. We should work on a five-year cycle, remembering that planning can be added to that development every year but it should not be put at more than five years ahead.
Again I ask your Lordships, please, to bear in mind that every time lands come within this provision—particularly in the case of agricultural land—those lands are no longer eligible for agricultural grants of any kind, and in many ways they are frozen. I also ask noble Lords to realise that planning ahead more than five years very often means that a piece of land becomes nothing more than a glorious rubbish dump. It can become a frightful sight with all sorts of rubbish. On the basis that this is not a duty, I recommend working on a period of a five-year cycle. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As my right honourable friend explained in response to a similar Amendment moved at the Committee stage in another place, 10 years is regarded as the maximum period needed to ensure orderly development and to create the required degree of certainty in the development industry and in agriculture, which the noble Earl mentioned, as well as forestry. This 10-year period is a limitation on the scope and the duty and does not mean that an authority must immediately set out to buy all the land needed for designated relevant development within that period. I have made that point previously during the Committee stage.
However, in putting forward their acquisition proposals authorities will work on the basis of a five-year rolling programme, and the Secretary of State will not normally give consent for acquisitions of land needed beyond this five-year period. But to restrict authorities to looking only five years ahead at any time would preclude them from dealing with many major schemes where the assembly of the land, and its disposal for development, might well take more than five years to accomplish. I hope that with those assurances and explanations the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: The only reason why the Government wish to have a 10-year programme is for major schemes, because they have already said that they will not normally give local authorities consent to purchase beyond a

267
five-year programme. Would the noble Lord agree that when the assembly of major schemes is carried out by a private developer it does indeed take ten years? It could take longer because a private developer does not have any powers. He has to negotiate, he has to wait and he has to plan. Surely in regard to local authorities with compulsory purchase powers—and indeed their very speedy powers under this Bill—this argument about how long it takes to assemble a major development site does not hold water. Would the noble Lord look at this again? Perhaps he could give examples of what he has in mind, and why it would take 10 years. Such examples might help us.
Lord MELCHETT: Certainly, we on this side have tried to emphasise that wherever possible, we should like—as I am sure would all authorities—to proceed by agreement. We do not see the compulsory purchase powers as something which authorities will go around brandishing, like a big stick, which I am afraid may be the view which the noble Lords opposite take. We should like authorities to have time to assemble land for a major development by agreement, just as a private developer does. I confess that I am not entirely at one with the noble Earl in thinking that private developers have absolutely no powers, but this probably is not the time for a philosophical discussion about the powers of wealth and other matters.
I hope that that has answered his question. We hope that local authorities will proceed by agreement and, as the noble Earl says, it may be that the 10-year period is a little short. If he would like me to consider extending it I will do so.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should have thought that if a local authority was able to acquire land by agreement—which I am all in favour of—as part of a development which will not be developed for 10 years, the ratepayers might consider what is going on, because it all comes into the costs of the development.
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, it comes into the cost of development, but the cost does not fall on the rates. It is borrowed in the land account.
The Earl of KINNOULL: That has completely floored me!
Lord HYLTON: The whole Committee should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for putting down this Amendment. There has been a useful debate on this question of how long the period of years should be. If it could be shortened it might help to take out the unpredictable and always debatable matter of the opinion of a local authority. It might help to relate the land acquisition programme much more closely to existing proven needs.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am grateful for the explanation given and for the support I have received from my noble friends. I do not at this time particularly want to divide the Committee on this matter, but I wish to take up a point with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Although a local authority acquires the land by borrowing from the land bank, or whatever it may be, it still has to meet the interest on the money borrowed. Your Lordships can take it from me that land never earned anything by just being there. It is not until it is developed or something is done with it that it earns a penny. Large capital expenditure is involved in buying land. Not only is it the most expensive thing in the world to buy, but it gives an extremely small return when one buys it. That is the point I want to stress. Otherwise, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.0 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 18, line 13, leave out from ("land)") to ("or") in line 15.
The noble Earl said: Subsection (3)(c) reads:
"…land a material interest in which has been disposed of by an authority…,and in which immediately before the disposal there were no material interests outstanding".
If there had been "a material interest outstanding", the authority could not have disposed of it. You cannot dispose of something that does not belong to you. Here we are not dealing with "under any duty". But let us go through it again:
"The authorities…shall have regard to any relevant land acquisition and management scheme and shall not be under any duty as

269
respects…land a material interest in which has been disposed of by an authority…".
I cannot see the relevance of the words:
"…and in which immediately before the disposal there were no material interests outstanding…".
Even if they let it, they still cannot dispose of it. I feel that, unless there is some sound reason for it, the words, if left in. are misleading particularly to anybody acting on behalf of the local authority. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I can assure the noble Earl that there is a good reason for keeping these words in the Bill. Clause 18 is based on the principle that once the full duty is in operation, the authorities in an area will be able to exercise their powers to plan positively because all relevant development will take place on land which is in or has passed through, public ownership. The only exceptions are where the land is not needed within 10 years, where all the authorities have lost their compulsory purchase powers by virtue of the procedures in Clauses 19–20, or where the land is the operational land of statutory undertakers.
Thus the Amendment is unacceptable in principle, because it attacks the principle of the Bill. It would disapply the duty even where the land had not passed through full public ownership. It would mean that the requirement of public ownership could be satisfied where an authority had only a relatively minor interest (provided that it was an interest that came within the definition of material interest). This could mean, for example, that a substantial amount of development value could accrue to the private sector.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has it right. Here is a case where we are dealing with land which has been disposed of by an authority. It is not simply let. I think there is a distinct defect here, unless the authority can dispose of land of which they were the tenant at some time. At this stage, I must leave that, but I think the drafting of this provision is not right. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.5 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 121A:
Page 18, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Land which is the subject of a written agreement between an Authority and a person having a material interest in it where—

(i) The person having a material interest in the land has planning permission for its development.

(ii) The written agreement provides for the land to be developed in accordance with the planning permission within a period acceptable to the Authority and for a bond to secure its enforcement; and

(iii) The Authority has satisfied the Secretary of State that there is a good reason to allow land to be developed without the Authority first having to acquire it.")

The noble Earl said: The Committee will recall that when it comes into effect Clause 18 imposes a duty on all local authorities to acquire all development land within their area subject to the definition of development land, except those as specified in subsection (3) of the clause. The exceptions to this duty are very limited. They consist of land not required within the 10 year period for designated relevant development; land already owned by a statutory authority or land which has been abandoned by another authority.
There has been a great deal of criticism of the rigidity of this clause; a word which has already been used many times and which the noble and learned Lord has countered many times. I think the case under this clause is very strong. There may be times when it would not be in the interests of the local authority to be bound to purchase a property and then to have to resell it, possibly to the owner, to get development under way. There may be times when it would be a lossmaker to the local authority and against the interests of the ratepayers. The cases I have in mind would be old type property which would come within the definition of development land and has to be refurbished. It is very specialised and skilled work which perhaps the particular owner may have the skill and the requirement to do. As I see it, under this clause the district valuer would have to advise the authority what the value of the old property was. The authority would then purchase it and would then have to resell it and the district valuer may find it difficult to resell at the purchase price already given

271
when all the time the owner was prepared to proceed with development.
I have given that example to show the sort of anxieties that have been expressed. This Amendment, which has been very carefully drawn and is by no means a wrecking Amendment, would allow an authority flexibility to reach written agreement with an owner and to keep within the principle of the Bill. In the Amendment this written agreement would be conditional: first, that in the agreement between the two parties (that is, the authority and the individual) the individual would be the person who owns the land and has planning permission for the development. The second condition is that the development will be carried out in accordance with the conditions of the planning permission, that it will be completed within a period of time which is acceptable to the authority and that, what is more, there is a bond to secure its enforcement. Finally, the authority will have to satisfy the Secretary of State that there is a good reason to allow this land to be developed without the authority having first to acquire it. I do not think the Committee could consider this an unreasonable Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will be as convinced as I am that it would give very valuable flexibility under this clause in regard to the future powers and duties of the authorities. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, as the noble Earl has indicated, would remove the full duty where there was a written agreement between an authority and the owner of a material interest, subject to certain conditions, which are mentioned in the Amendment, and to the approval of the Secretary of State. There is a technical difficulty about the Amendment which I should mention. It would not achieve its objective. Although it would remove the full duty from an authority in the circumstances set out in the Amendment, it would still be impossible for the land to be developed, because the Amendment does nothing to lift the automatic suspension of planning permission which would occur under Clause 21. However, no doubt that could conceivably be remedied, and I would turn to the objections
272
and issues of principle that arise on the Amendment.
I should make clear at the outset of my observations on this matter that there may well be circumstances in which, even where the full duty is operating, it may be right for development which is within the duty to proceed without public acquisition; for example, where a compulsory purchase order is made and some overwhelming grounds of hardship arise. But we believe that cases of that type will be very limited. This is because the full duty will be carefully phased in, taking account of the ability and resources of the authorities concerned. So authorities will never be put into the position of holding up development because the full duty has been introduced and they cannot cope with it. Given the basic philosophy of the scheme that all development land should pass through public ownership, it will be very rare for development which has been designated to go ahead without public ownership.
Secondly, the procedure that is suggested is too loose and open-ended. It does not make clear why and in what circumstances the proposed agreements should be used, and it gives very wide and discretionary powers to the Secretary of State. In effect, it enables him to decide without any procedure of any kind whether or not the full duty should apply to a particular development proposed, without regard to the fact that it was within the scope of a duty which had been brought in by an order subject to Parliamentary procedure—and that goes very wide, even in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State under the Bill. In the very exceptional case where there may be a case for letting development out of a duty already imposed, the Government's Amendments Nos. 157 and 158, which we shall reach in due course, appear to provide an answer. These enable the Secretary of State to allow development to proceed without public acquisition if he decides not to confirm a compulsory purchase order. But this can happen after all the issues have been considered through the normal compulsory purchase procedures.
These Government Amendments provide a proper framework for the exercise of a very limited discretion, and in the light of the existence of these proposals and the room for a very limited discretion

273
to meet, I think, the kind of cases that the noble Earl has in mind, perhaps he will be disposed to withdraw the present Amendment. We shall have an opportunity to consider the Government's Amendments in due course. If he is then still displeased, we can revert to the matter again.
Baroness YOUNG: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I could say that one sees the point of the Government Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 which we shall debate later; but, as I understood the noble and learned Lord, he said that my noble friend did not explain the circumstances in which this Amendment might be applied. But that was exactly what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull did explain. He showed that there could be circumstances in which a local authority might find, for one reason or another, that it was uneconomical for them to develop the land and that therefore it would be better for somebody else to do so. This was the kind of circumstance that he was describing. He felt that it could arise and that if it did, and there was not this Amendment, all that would happen would be that either the taxpayer or the ratepayer, or both, would have to pay for the loss on the development.
It seems to me that this is a matter of some consequence in that it has identified a gap in the provision. As I listened to the noble and learned Lord describing how he thought this section of the Bill would work and that in a sort of continual and steady flow, without any difficulties at all, land would be acquired and development would take place, I am bound to say that it seemed a triumph of hope over experience. I should have thought that anybody who has been in local government and who knows the difficulties of combined development by local authorities and developers would realise that there are constant troubles in the nature of things. To imagine that the scheme will flow into the indefinite future without difficulty is really stretching the belief of this Committee too far.
All that we are seeking in this one Amendment is that this one precise difficulty that has been identified clearly by my noble friend, who is an expert in this matter, should be considered by the Government. I think that to brush it aside
274
because it may be technically faulty is not good enough.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly did not do that. The noble Baroness does me less than justice; because, having mentioned the technical difficulty and indicated that the technical difficulty can be brushed aside, I then turned to what seemed to be the most important matter. I hope that at this hour the noble Baroness will not permit herself to succumb to temptations of the kind to which she is so unhappily submitting herself at the moment. Her expression about the "triumph of hope over experience" was the way in which, I believe, the great Dr. Johnson described a second marriage. He called that a triumph of hope over experience. I have no personal knowledge of that situation; but what I say is that we believe that this marriage of bringing the land to the community and good planning at the same time, will be a happy one. But we have provided in this Bill for the contingencies that I have referred to in the later Amendments and certainly we are willing to look at this whole problem again in the light of discussions on the matter when we reach that point.
The Earl of K1NNOULL: I should like to thank my noble friend for her support on this. I would decline to say that I am an expert I am certainly not so. Without prejudging what the noble and learned Lord may be saying on Amendments Nos. 157 and 158, would I be right in saying that the Government's Amendments under Clause 21 would do precisely what one is trying to achieve under Clause 18? Secondly, does the noble and learned Lord accept—and this I think is the most important part of this Amendment—that there may be cases in the future when a local authority should not enter into this duty and have to purchase knowing that it may lose money in doing so, when it need not do so, because it could be developed by the owner?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: On the second point, that contingency, if it should arise, will be provided for. I shall check my answer on that. I would hope that the later provisions would he relevant to the point that the noble Earl has raised. If I am wrong, I will immediately indicate a correction. I am

275
now advised that I am able to stand, for better or for worse, on what I have just said.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful for that assurance and for the patience of the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.20 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 18, line 16, at end insert—
("or
(e) the operational land the material interest in which was vested in an industrial undertaking before the commencement of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: Clause 18(3) says:
"The authorities in acting under this section shall have regard to any relevant land acquisition and management scheme, and shall not he under any duty as respects—(d) the operational land of statutory undertakers."
I am asking about those words
"the operational land the material interest in which was vested in an industrial undertaking before the commencement of this Act."
We went through the Industry Bill and the Scottish and the Welsh Development Agency Bills this year and stressed the importance of public sector and private industry. If private industry is to expand on land which they already own, then at least this may give them a small safeguard. I certainly did not think that in Amendment No. 122 I was asking anything beyond what is perfectly reasonable or was not in the interests of that industry. May I remind your Lordships that if industry is not developed time will leave it behind. I feel that under the provisions of this Bill, where an industry may perhaps be able to acquire nothing more than a lease of seven years, it would be only just enough to prevent that industry from developing or improving its production. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: On this occasion the noble Earl, who has initiated a number of interesting and illuminating debates during this Committee stage, is being unduly pessimistic. Clause 18 is based on the principle that once the full duty is in operation, the authorities in an area will be able to exercise their powers to plan positively, because all relevant
276
development will take place on land which is in, or has passed through, public ownership. We are back to one of the two important principles underlying the entire Bill. The only exceptions are where the land is not needed within ten years; where all the authorities have lost their compulsory powers by virtue of the procedures in Clauses 19 to 20, or where the land is the operational land of statutory undertakers. On this point we have had a number of debates during the Committee stage.
The Amendment is unacceptable in principle because, as I have already indicated, it attacks the fundamental principle of the Bill. Industrial development—and I stress "development"—on land owned by an industrialist on White Paper day would be outside the full duty by virtue of the treatment proposed for such development in the excepted development regulations, to which I have drawn the noble Earl's attention in previous Amendments which he has moved. Again, as has been explained—and I had the opportunity to do so in earlier debates—we do not have to exclude land, as opposed to development, from the scope of the power or the duty. As the noble Earl is aware, there is of course no definition of an industrial undertaking in the Bill, nor any concept of industrial or operational land except in respect of statutory undertakings.
I suggest that this issue is straightforward and clear. I do not foresee or expect the gloomy consequences which the noble Earl prognosticated when he moved his Amendment. Perhaps now that I have cleared up a few of the doubts and explained it more clearly, he will be more satisfied with the situation.
9.25 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: May I ask what is to be the criteria? We are putting a duty on local authorities which are not particularly experienced or equipped to deal with these matters. If the land is about to be acquired by a far-sighted industry, and if there are competitors to obtain that land, on what criteria will the local authority decide whether the sitting firm or some other firm will be allowed to develop it? This is a highly important matter for industry and exports, and for the whole background of industry. A prudent industry that may feel it will expand and go

277
ahead will find that its land is on a short lease or even that it has to fight several local competitors for the land, with the decision being made by a local authority which is not well-versed in the industrial potential and value of the undertakings. I am very concerned that the prudent firm which wants to look ahead and do the very thing which this Government are asking them to do—invest and expand—are now to have a lease at the choice of local authorities which may have no knowledge of their company or industry.
Lord GRIDLEY: I cannot follow my noble friend entirely in her arguments about local authorities. My experience is that when developers are developing in an area they are in constant touch over many weeks, months and even years with local authorities. Local authorities come to know the people who are carrying out the developments in an area. From the knowledge they have obtained over a considerable time, they will be in a position to judge the people with whom they are dealing. I do not say that in any derogatory sense, but that is the position from my own experience.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I do not think I have had an answer that entirely satisfies me. First, I must explain that this Amendment would concern only land belonging to an industrial firm before the commencement of this Act, which could be in three weeks' time. If a miller producing flour owns a piece of land before the commencement of this Act, he is likely to be able to hang on to the land until he puts in for planning permission and decides that instead of having one grinder he will have two. He then has to go through the full provisions of this Bill, and before he is granted planning permission the land has to be sold to the local authority and then acquired back again, which may be on nothing more than a lease.
I am arguing that he may have planned a development for many years, but did not go ahead with it until he obtained the best machinery available. Unless he is unfortunate enough to have the machinery on order, the very fact that he will never own the land upon which he is to put this expensive machinery may put him off bothering to develop at all. If the local authority wants to acquire the land, that is fair enough—it can do what
278
it likes with it. Industries which have planned years ahead for their own development should be allowed, before this Bill becomes an Act, subject of course to planning permission, to build on what will remain their own land. If they dispose of it, then that is another matter. Therefore I should like to have a few more words from the noble Baroness.
Viscount HANWORTH: It seems to me that, as with a great part of this Bill, we are putting tremendous faith in the local authorities. I am sure they are very efficient, but one knows something about bureaucracy and it seems to me that this Amendment highlights the fact that we really should not put too great a burden on the decisions of the local councils. One has to get an interplay between commercial interests and those of bureaucracy. If not, one is simply going to end up in the kind of situation one has in Russia.
Baroness BIRK: What has been said seems to lead to one conclusion which is manifestly untrue—that industry, running in the way it is today, is absolutely perfect and that it works perfectly on all occasions. This is one of the false undertones of what has been said on this particular Amendment. We all know that this is not so and therefore we are not "rocking"a perfect situation, if we were talking only about industry—which we are not, because it is part of the whole scheme. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, who took up one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith. The noble Baroness referred to somebody on the spot having to deal with competitors. I find the idea of this dislike or fear of competition coming rather oddly from a Member of the Party opposite. Nevertheless—
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I am sorry, but I think the noble Baroness has, perhaps unwittingly, misread what I said. I was maintaining that, while in open competition they might have got the land, thenceforward the new scheme could lead to people perhaps getting land from the local authority which the prudent company had already provided for their own use, which is a very different thing. When they have taken land or sought to take land from their own development and the local authority can then override them and give it to somebody else, that is quite different.
Baroness BIRK: With great respect to the noble Baroness, it may not be what she intended to say, but in fact she used the phrase, "to come up against other competitors". But that is by the way. The local authority will need to have regard to prior right applications; they will also need to have regard to the factors in Schedule 6, and also the requirement to get the best price. In any case, we have discussed earlier at great length and very exhaustively the point that statutory undertakers are required by Statute to carry out their public duties whereas industrial concerns are not.
Running through many of these Amendments is this differentiation between statutory and industrial undertakers. On the point made by the noble Earl, I think he overlooked the fact that the duty applied only to land needed for relevant development. All industrial development on land owned by an industrial undertaking on White Paper day will be excepted, because this will not come within the definition of "relevant development". Indeed, I am possibly right in saying that the example of the mill extension given by the noble Earl would probably be excepted. In any case, if it contained less than 15,000 square feet of floor space, it would certainly be excepted. It seems to me—
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am sorry, but I must interrupt the noble Baroness. What must be taken into consideration is whether on the one hand the land was owned before White Paper day and, on the other, whether planning permission has been sought. Both things come into the question of an industrial development. They may have owned it long enough, but the question arises when they seek planning permission to be able to develop the land they own. That is the point I am trying to get at.
Baroness BIRK: They have the right to seek planning permission, and then it goes through the usual procedure which has been outlined. If I understand what has been said, the concern is that industrial undertakings should take place on land that is leased but not owned. Nevertheless, this situation has worked extremely satisfactorily in new towns, and there is simply no reason why it should not work that way doing it
280
through the local authority. In fact, in many ways there have been a great many advantages for the industrialist in knowing where he is in the situation and being able to work it out; and also knowing, because of the planning, which is one of the linch pins to this Bill, exactly what are the planning requirements and what will be the planning structure of the area in which he is operating. Many of the fears which have been raised on this Amendment are needless and are really, if I may say so, taking up rather small points which it is not necessary to be concerned about in this context.
Lord HYLTON: If the Government can assure the Committee about an industrialist who owns freehold land on White Paper day, who has not yet applied for planning permission and who wishes to extend his premises by more than 15,000 square feet—that is what we are worried about—then the Amendment can be forgotten. If the Government cannot give that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment, even though it may be defective in the form in which it is drafted.
Baroness BIRK: Yes. I can give that assurance. What the noble Lord said is quite correct, the answer is, "Yes".
The Earl of BALFOUR: In view of that answer, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.38 p.m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should advise the Committee that if Amendment 123 is agreed, I shall not be able to call Amendment 124.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 18, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 123, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 124, and make it clear at the outset that these are two small probing Amendments. Through the medium of the first one, I should like to question the necessity for this subsection to be in the Bill at all. Is it not a matter which should be included in the original land acquisition and management schemes? Am I not right in

281
thinking that these have to be sent to the Secretary of State not for his approval but so that he can look at them and, if he thinks necessary, to ask that they be revised. Could he not at that stage secure what is being sought under this subsection? Could he not at that point make sure that arrangements are being made between the authorities for one of them to mop up the outstanding material interests?
That is the first point. Secondly, could he not also at the same time make sure that the arrangement that he wants, whatever it is, conforms with the land acquisition and management scheme? Or, the other way round, if he can foresee that he wants to have one authority that is responsible for mopping un the outstanding material interests, could he not see that the land acquisition management schemes are revised accordingly when they are first submitted to him? It is not that I object to having it in the Bill, but it does not seem to me very sensible to ask for land acquisition and management schemes to be made, and at some subsequent stage to upset them or take powers which could upset them in the way that is proposed in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Lord is quite right. The LAMS have to be submitted to the Secretary of State, as he said, but of course they are not approved by him. As I understand it, it would be quite possible for authorities to put in their LAMS who is to be the residual authority. As I think the noble Lord acknowledges, there must be one residual authority with the duty, as he put it, to mop up any land which is not occupied and where there is a duty in that area to acquire the land. The provisions are in the Bill, first of all, because it will not necessarily be usual for this to he set out in the land acquisition and management scheme. Secondly, we feel that it would be desirable for the Secretary of State to be able to see, once a scheme is working, which authority is doing most of the acquiring in an area, if there is one authority, and where it would make sense for that authority to be designated as the authority to do this mopping-up operation.
Lord SANDFORD: We must not spend too long on this matter, because we have a long way to go. But I do not think
282
that is very satisfactory. I should have thought that it was much better for the Secretary of State, who is to have the opportunity of scrutinising these schemes, to make sure that they conform with his intentions initially. It will not be very good if the authorities produce schemes, send them to the Secretary of State, start off on the assumption that they correspond with his wishes, and then, after they have been operating for some time, receive an order which runs counter to the whole basis on which they have been working. But I do not want to make a great fuss about it now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT: I spoke to Amendment No. 126 with No. 78. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 28, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("made").—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount SIMON: May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, whether there is a misprint in line 4 of page 18. Should not the word "it" be "is"?
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Viscount may well be right. I am grateful to him for drawing this matter to our attention and we will see that it is put right at a later stage.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
9.44 p.m.
Lord CASTLE Lord CASTLE moved Amendment No. 129A:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Agreements for development or use of land
"(1) Without prejudice to the exercise of their functions under any other enactment, an authority may enter into an agreement with any person—

(a) for the purpose of securing the carrying out of works on any land in the area of the authority; or

(b) for any other purpose which involves facilitating, restricting or regulating the development or use of any land within the area of the authority, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement: or

283

(c) for any other purpose which, in the opinion of the authority, is calculated to facilitate or is otherwise connected with or conducive to the exercise of their functions under this Act;

and any such agreement may contain such financial or other provisions as appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the agreement.
(2) Where an agreement entered into under this section is made under seal, section 126 of the Housing Act 1974 shall apply in relation to that agreement as it applies in relation to any such instrument ac is referred to in subsection (1) of the said section 126 and as if the definitions of "local authority" and "principal council" in the said section included any authority within the meaning of this Act."
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will realise that I am understudying for someone who could present this Amendment with much greater knowledge of the implications of its contents than I have, but unfortunately my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead is away ill. Therefore, at very short notice, and with very little briefing, I have undertaken to move an Amendment with which I entirely agree, but I trust that your Lordships will accept my apologies for the inadequacies of my presentation of the case. I shall be as brief as I can be, in the hope that the noble Lord who replies from the Front Bench can satisfy some of the real doubts that exist in the present arrangement.
Those who are more able than I am to analyse and distil legal verbiage will recognise that the effect of this clause is to seek to establish the right of an authority to enter into an agreement with a person to facilitate or restrict the development of land, and to enter into the appropriate financial arrangements. This includes an authority taking shares in a company or joining in the promotion of a company. Noble Lords from nearly all quarters of the House, together with those who have been following the proceedings on this Bill and who are acquainted with the modern tendency of collaboration between Government and private industry, will recognise that there is nothing reprehensible in this aim.
The question I ask is whether such powers exist in the present legislation. I am assuming that it would be the will of the Committee that they do, but there is a difference of opinion among those who advise local authorities and local authority organisations on legal matters as to whether or not the provisions of this Bill
284
do exactly what I am asking. There is an assumption, for instance, that the powers already exist in present legislation, and cited in defence of that assumption is Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. This section certainly enables the "local planning authority" to do so, but not all authorities, as defined in the Community Land Bill which we are now discussing, are local planning authorities for the purposes of the 1971 Act.
Strangely enough, among those who are aggrieved is the mammoth, very powerful, Greater London Council, a number of county councils in Wales and England and joint boards which would be unable to operate the provisions of the existing Act. The Greater London Council is the planning authority for its comprehensive development areas and for certain isolated kinds of large-scale development. I am advised that they are not catered for by the provisions of this clause. Surely it would be advantageous and would promote the underlying intentions of the Government in their approach to the ownership and development of land, if all authorities had the kind of powers which are at present provided for—so it is said by Government legal advisers—in Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act. However, even those powers provide only for agreements—that is, agreements between local authorities and developers or individual companies —for the purpose of restricting and regulating, "the development of the use of land".
Your Lordships will recognise, and I am sure our Front Bench will recognise, that this is a negative form of control, whereas the major objective of this Bill is to encourage and promote development. It is because this seems to me to be a desperate need in the reorganisation and amendment of this Bill to make it function in the way the Government have in mind that I recommend this Amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure noble Lords will be very sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, is ill and we would all wish our noble friend an early recovery. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Castle, on his magnificent performance as a stand-in for the noble

285
Lord. He has dealt with high technicality with great force and clarity, but I regret to say that my answer will not fully meet his wishes.
The Amendment that has been proposed raises a number of legal issues relating both to the interpretation of existing provisions that local authorities like the Greater London Council have and the drafting of the new clause, but I think the principles which are involved here come down to two main issues. First, the proposed powers in the Amendment are intended to be very wide-ranging indeed. They are intended to cover all agreements relating to the development or use of land; in particular, purely financial agreements. It is this point that is unacceptable in principle. It would allow authorities to take a financial share in any development project for no reason other than to make money out of it. In the view of the Government there must be serious doubts about allowing local authorities to enter into attempts at commercial money-making, using ratepayers' money in this very generalised way without it being tied to any clearly defined and clearly desirable objective. But even if there were not these doubts it would be wrong to deal in the present Bill with what is essentially a general matter of important local government policy.
However, the Government full accept that local authorities must have power to enter into agreements to facilitate or be conducive or incidental to the discharge of their functions; this, of course, includes their new functions under the present Bill. But the Government's view is that authorities do not need any new powers for this purpose. They already have them, first, in the form of Section 111 of the Local Government Act of 1972, which is in broad terms. Section 111 reads:
"Without prejudice to any powers exercisable apart from this section but subject to the provisions of this Act and any other enactment passed before or after this Act, a local authority shall have power to do anything (whether or not involving the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions."
My noble friend has mentioned a power to take shares. A power to take shares exists under the terms of that section if the shares are taken for the purpose of facilitating the discharge of the authority's functions. That applies not only to the
286
Greater London Council, but to other authorities. Then, there are the powers which exist under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. That enables local planning authorities to enter into agreements and I quote:
"for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of land."
Agreements can include financial provisions, and Section 52 is, in fact, used by authorities to require, for example, the making of payments by developers towards the cost of infrastructure. The Greater London Council itself is a local planning authority for the purpose of Section 52, so are all county councils and the joint planning boards.
Therefore, I hope that my noble friend, and those for whom he has so ably undertaken the heat and burden of this matter, will be satisfied in the light of the assurances I have given that the powers which are really needed already exist, and that what is now sought is not necessary for the performance of the duties and functions which this and other legislation imposes on local authorities.
Lord CASTLE: I am very much obliged for my noble and learned friend's reply, but I ask him to accept the fact that the inspiration of this Amendment is to enable local authorities fully to function in the way that the Government intended in their legislation. This is not like some other Amendments which have preceded it, where there was an attempt to restrict the operation of the Bill and its intentions.
I must once more direct the attention of my noble and learned friend to Section 111, which of itself, in the view of high legal authorities, does not confer new substantive enabling powers, and it should not be looked upon as having done so. There is the possibility that if, in pursuing this Bill, such authorities as the Greater London Council, some county councils, joint boards and some Welsh authorities act as though they had powers within this provision of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1971, they are liable to court proceedings, and councillors are open to surcharge. If I could be satisfied on those matters, with the greatest pleasure and no reluctance whatever I should be prepared not to pursue this.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be inviting trouble if I were to give a

287
broad general immunity. All I can say is that the best legal skills that the Government can bring to bear—I will put the claim no higher than just stating that they have applied what they are pleased to call their minds to this matter—lead us to the opinion that the powers that presently exist are adequate. If there is any particular aspect of the matter, or any part of the provisions which worry the authorities, of course we would be able and willing to look at it again. But I give the assurance, with the best of my judgment of the matter, that what I have said previously ought to reassure them.
Lord CASTLE: My noble and learned friend will recognise that, despite the high authority with which he speaks, it may be that in the absence of the Amendments which I am proposing it may be incumbent upon a local authority to test in a court of law whether or not this is a valid argument.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: No doubt the wide-open doors of the courts will be available for that purpose, but I do not really recommend it.
Baroness YOUNG: Before the noble Lord, Lord Castle, withdraws his Amendment, if that is what he proposes to do, I should like to comment on what is, after all, the very first Amendment to come from the Government Back-Benches in the long Committee stage we have had. We are really, as I understand it, centring on a legal dispute between two sets of lawyers, those no doubt advising the Greater London Council and those advising the Government on this matter. I have read with great care the similar debate which took place in another place, and I have tried to seek the opinion of the local authority associations, who are also divided upon this matter. I think the only comment I would make on it, as I do not intend to take sides, tempting as it might be to do so, is to say that it does give point to the extreme complexity of this Bill. It gives added point to my Amendment yesterday about legal aid on just one small part of it. It goes to show that this scheme, and the Bill, which is just a framework, is very difficult to understand. I think we need all the time to have spelled out in much greater detail than we have heard, the Government's intentions.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: If this does present a complexity it is certainly a refreshing one, because it is caused by even greater enthusiasm and zeal than the Government have shown, to fulfil even further than the Government have in mind the full functions and purposes of the Bill. To that extent its inspiration is welcome, and it is a matter of great regret to me that I have to give the view that I have expressed. The argument is really not so much about the Bill at all; it is not the complexity of this Bill that is presenting problems, it is doubt about the width of the 1972 Act; and I am not the sort of politician to remind noble Lords that that was passed by the previous Administration.
Lord CASTLE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Permission before relevant date: applications before first appointed day]:
10.3 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 19, line 23, after ("Act") insert ("or under the Act of 1971 or the Scottish Act of 1972").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 130, to Clause 19(4). That subsection gives a most desirable and important assurance to the private owners of land, that where local authorities with power to acquire their land abandon their power to acquire their land, those same local authorities cannot again exercise that power conferred by this Act in respect of that land for another five years. Let me say straight away that we welcome that provision and we strongly endorse it. But we want to go on and make that effective. I would put it to the Committee that it will not be effective because, without our Amendment, a local authority that changed its mind about the exercise of that power to acquire that land and decided afterwards that it wanted to proceed with the acquisition, could do so by applying the powers conferred by Section 12 of the Town and Country Planning Act for exactly the same purposes as granted under this Act.
There was an Amendment moved in another place which used the words, "any other Act" in place of the words

289
we have chosen. That, of course, would make the assurance doubly sure. But we appreciate that that would be going too far because that would deprive the local authority of a power to acquire that land for something such as highways, which was a different purpose from the purpose conferred upon them by the Community Land Bill or the Town and Country Planning Act, each of which gives the power to acquire land in order to promote the better planning of the area. I hope that this makes clear the purpose of our Amendment, and that the noble Lord will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
10.6 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: The procedures in Clauses 19 and 20 give authorities an opportunity to consider whether or not to acquire land in certain circumstances; in particular under Clause 20, when they are dealing with a planning application for relevant development. Given the fact that the Bill gives authorities an opportunity to do this, and to suspend a planning permission where they do wish to acquire, it is reasonable that where they do not pursue acquisition, they should lose their powers under the Bill for five years.
The abandonment of powers under the Bill is particularly important as a means of giving certainty to developers. When an authority are considering an application for private development they must make up their minds at that time, whether they intend to buy the land, or whether they are prepared for the development to take place without the land coming into public ownership. If they decide not to acquire, it is essential that there should be an abandonment of powers; otherwise the owner will be in a perpetual state of uncertainty, and will not know whether to carry forward his or her plans, and I think that that state of affairs is welcomed by the noble Lord.
However, it does not follow from this that failure to pursue acquisition under the procedures in the Bill should lead to abandonment of powers under the planning Acts. There is always the possibility of an owner's land being required for public development, and there are well-established procedures for dealing with the issues that then arise. There is no reason why the coming into operation of the Community Land Bill should
290
remove a flexibility which local authorities already have in operating their existing powers.
I should emphasise, however, that if a local authority seek to buy land under their existing powers the normal procedures for consideration of objections will apply, and it will be possible for the Secretary of State to consider whether it is reasonable for him to confirm a compulsory purchase order in respect of land which a local authority have quite recently said they did not wish to acquire. Abandonment of powers under the Bill is an essential corollary of the new opportunities which the Bill gives local authorities to consider whether to acquire development land (and if they do, to suspend a planning permission). There is no reason in logic for extending the abandonment of powers beyond the power contained in the Bill, as this could mean that local authorities would be put in a more difficult situation than exists at present when they are seeking to acquire land for their own development, perhaps to meet a need which has arisen suddenly and which could not have been foreseen.
Lord SANDFORD: I am afraid that I cannot accept that. The local authorities have plenty of powers to acquire land for their own purposes, such as highways. I have already said that I see the force of the argument used in another place when the noble Lord's right honourable friend sought to resist an Amendment which, in place of the words we have used, used the words, "any enactment." That, I agree, was asking too much. But I believe that we have struck the right balance here between the private individual owner of land affected by one of these schemes and the local authority which cannot make up its mind as to what acquisition it wants to pursue in the next five years.
The assurance which is conferred by the operation of subsection (4) is, in my view, not worth the paper it is printed on—that is, unless this Amendment is accepted—because a local authority will have no difficulty whatever in getting exactly what it wants by resorting to the powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I should have said at the outset, to save the time of the Committee, that my remarks on this

291
matter apply to Amendment No. 153 and I hope that I shall not have to repeat them again. In view of the noble Lord's reply, I feel that I shall have to press the Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I accept the distinction which the noble Lord is making between the Amendments moved in another place when the words "any enactment" were included. We have, of course, made it clear that the Secretary of State would not normally confirm a compulsory purchase order made under other powers following the loss of powers under the Bill, unless there were exceptionally good reasons. As the noble Lord indicated—and I think this is something which we could accept—such exceptionally good reasons would usually be the need to buy under legislation other than the planning Acts, and I think that is the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment. As the noble Lord said, it may be that he has struck the right balance here. I can undertake to consider this with the view possibly to coming forward on Report with an Amendment of our own.
Lord SANDFORD: That is fine. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance and I am sure that it will be all the better for having been scrutinised by the Government. I look forward to them producing an Amendment in this sense, but I must make it clear to the noble Lord that we will not be content with leaving things as they are. It is perfectly true that the Secretary of State will be able to consider a compulsory purchase order brought forth under the exercise of Section 112 of the 1971 Act, but it is asking too much for an individual private owner to be subjected to all this twice over when the local authority has decided to abandon its power in the first instance. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance he has given and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.13 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY Lord GRIDLEY moved Amendment No. 130A:
Page 19, line 27, after ("election") insert ("for the period of three months from such date during which period the authorities bound
292
by the election shall notify the person making the election whether or not the authorities bound by the election intend to purchase the land and (in the event of a decision so to purchase)").
The noble Lord said: This Bill confers on local authorities considerable powers to do certain things. The object of this Amendment is to protect the development industry. In the ordinary course of their business they acquire development land. The powers given to authorities include bringing into operation all development land in this country, eventually bringing it all into public ownership. At present there are various areas of land which the building industry has acquired, and it is relevant to note that Clause 19(2)(a) and (b) says:
"A person who—

(a) has a material interest in the land covered by the planning permission, or

(b) has entered into a binding contract for the acquisition of such an interest and is entitled to possession of that land,

may make an election under this subsection by notice in the prescribed form served on any of the authorities…"
This is the election of his interest by notification. My Amendment would insert after the word "election":
"…("for the period of three months from such date during which period the authorities bound by the election shall notify the person making the election whether or not the authorities hound by the election intend to purchase the land and (in the event of a decision so to purchase)")."
I shall not press the Amendment, for I do not wish to delay the Committee. We want to get on as quickly as possible, but the whole intention of bringing this to the notice of the Government is that if it could be written into the Bill this would avoid any dispute between people in the building industry and local authorities when we want them to work amicably and—though we dislike the Bill—we want them to make it as great a success as possible in the interest of producing houses. It is in that light that I propose the Amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I am grateful to the noble Lord and I am sure that it is the view of all of us that the Bill should be made to work as well as possible and, in particular, to encourage more house building. I confess that what the noble Lord said about his Amendment

293
did not make it very much clearer to me. It seemed to be aimed at ensuring that the suspension of planning permission in an election case under Clause 19 ends after three months, unless one of the local authorities notifies its intention to acquire the land. However, that is precisely what the Bill provides at the moment. The Amendment is therefore defective, hut maybe with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness YOUNG: Before my noble friend replies, can I seek a clarification because this is a rather technical point? Doubt has been expressed as to whether or not the Bill makes it quite clear that the suspension of the planning permission following upon the election under this clause would come to an end three months after the election if the authority had not decided within those three months to proceed with the purchase. As I understand it, that is what the document which the Department of the Environment issued last March indicated would happen, but some doubt has been expressed as to whether that is what the Bill means. From what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, I understand that this is exactly the same as the document, but perhaps he would confirm that so as to clear up any misunderstanding?
Lord MELCHETT: I am happy to give the noble Baroness that confirmation.
Lord GRIDLEY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 131:
Leave out Clause 19, and insert the following new clause—
"19.—(1) A person (in this section referred to as the owner) who has a material interest in land covered by planning permission (granted after 12th September, 1974 and before the first appointed day) for relevant development and is either entitled to possession of that land or has entered into a binding contract for the acquisition of such land may after the first appointed day serve on all or any of the authorities a notice in the prescribed form—

(a) specifying the land in which that interest subsists (in this section referred to as "specified land") and the planning decision in consequence of which the notice is served, and

294

(b) requiring all or any of the authorities to elect whether or not to acquire the specified land.

(2) Within three months after the date on which the owner has served on all or any of the authorities a notice under subsection (1) above, they shall serve on him a counter-notice stating either that they do or that they do not propose to acquire the specified land:
Provided that a counter-notice issued by any of the authorities under this section stating that they do not propose to acquire the specified land may, if that authority think fit, be expressed to be subject to the condition that the relevant development for which planning permission was granted is begun or completed within such period as may be specified in the counter-notice or to such other conditions as may be so specified.
(3) Where a counter-notice under this section states that one of the authorities propose to acquire the specified land, then—

(a) that land shall be suitable for relevant development; and

(b) unless before the end of the period of twelve months from the date of service of the counter-notice that authority have entered into a binding contract to purchase the owner's interest in that land the authority shall before the end of the period prepare in draft a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition of the specified land under this part of this Act.

(4) Where any one of the authorities are required to serve a counter-notice under this section and either—

(a) they serve a counter-notice stating unconditionally that they do not propose to acquire the specified land, or

(b) they serve a counter-notice stating that they do not propose to acquire that land but the counter-notice is expressed to be subject to one or more conditions specified in Schedule 7 to this Act and those conditions are complied with, or

(c) the authority do not serve a counter-notice as required by this section,

the authority shall not have power to acquire the specified land, or any part of that land, compulsorily in pursuance of a compulsory purchase order made before the end of the period of five years from the date of the service of the counter-notice or in the case falling within paragraph (c) of this subsection from the date on which the time allowed for serving the counter-notice expires.
(5) Where under this section any one of the authorities serve a counter-notice stating that they propose to require the specified land, and have not, before the end of the period of twelve months from the date of service of the counter-notice, entered into a binding contract to purchase the owner's interest in that land, then, unless notice that a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition of that land has been prepared in draft by that authority before the end of that period subsection (4) of this section

295
shall have effect as if the authority had served a counter-notice stating unconditionally that they do not propose to acquire the specified land."
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will note that I am suggesting at the beginning of the Amendment that Clause 19 should be left out, and I ask your Lordships to look at the wording of that clause. The best way to understand it is to look at subsection (2), which starts off:
"A person who…has a material interest in the land covered by the planning permission, or…has entered into a binding contract for the acquisition of such an interest and is entitled to possession of that land, may make an election under this subsection by notice in the prescribed form served on any of the authorities; and the authority on whom the notice is served shall as soon as practicable send a copy of the notice to each of the other authorities."
So far so good. There is no indication whatever in the clause as to what on earth this notice is about. Subsection (3) goes on:
"No notice of election shall be served…before the first appointed day and…before the grant of planning permission."
There is absolutely no indication what the notice is or what is being referred to. Subsection (1) of the clause says:
"If an election is made under subsection (2)"—
that is obviously by the person who owns the land—
"this section applies to planning permission for relevant development which is granted…before the first appointed day…and…after 12th September 1974."
What on earth is the person electing to do? There is absolutely no indication here as to what he is supposed to be doing, or what this is about.
We can go a little further into the clause; it still obviously has something to do with planning permission. There is a reference to paragraph 2 of Schedule 7, and so we disappear into the Schedules. But before we do that, I should like to remind your Lordships that this is not a legal point; it is not a matter which will involve a number of lawyers. It will concern ordinary people who may have planning permission, and this clause will apply for a very short period of time. It will become obsolete within a very short time.
Therefore, I argue that, before this Bill becomes an Act, it should, at least where it applies to individual people, be clear
296
and precise. Individual people should not be expected to delve into the Schedules. I can see what will happen to an unfortunate individual when he looks at subsection (5) where it refers to paragraph 2 of Schedule 7. He will wonder whether the reference is to paragraph 2 at the bottom of page 74 or paragraph 2 at the bottom of page 75 of Schedule 7. He will get himself into a thorough mess. He will first probably get hold of the point about the expiration of a period of 12 months beginning with the service. That will make him thoroughly worried. Then, on looking at paragraph 2 at the bottom of page 75, he will see that the suspension of planning permission applies to both Clauses 19 and 20 of this Bill.
There is all the difference in the world between the two, and the Government, in the process of this Bill, have made the position even worse. If the individual turns over to page 76, he will see that at long last there is a tiny indication as to what this matter is all about, where it states:
"It shall be the duty…of the authorities to serve on the person making an election under section 19 of this Act a notice stating that the authority intend, or do not intend, to acquire the land to which the planning permission relates."
In the first place, what is the individual electing to do? He can go to the local authority and ask whether or not it wants the land, but at no point within the provisions of the Bill is he told to do that. There is not a word about that. It is not the person who elects what he is to do; it is the local authority. It is the local authority which elects whether or not it will take over a piece of land. Where does the word "elect" appear in legislation? It appears in some of the Finance Acts, where a person can elect to pay his income tax one way or another. But in such cases he has a choice, which is binding on the income tax authorities, as to what he does.
The only other case that I have managed to discover of where the word "elect" appears in legislation—and it is relevant in this case—is in Section 22 of the Land Commission Act 1967, Chapter 1, which, as your Lordships will be well aware, was repealed. It was from that section that I decided to rewrite this clause, to try to make the matter specific to cover all the relevant points. Let me

297
explain again what Amendment No. 131 seeks to do. A person who is the owner of land covered by planning permission, granted between the 12th September 1974 and the first appointed day,
"for relevant development"—
and that is what we are talking about here—
"and is either entitled to possession of that land or has entered into a binding contract for the …land"—
that is taken straight out of Clause 19—
"may after the first appointed day serve on all or any of the authorities a notice"—
and here is what is needed—
"…specifying the land in which that interest subsists…and…requiring all or any of the authorities to elect whether or not to acquire the specified land".
Subsection (2) of the clause I am recommending should be inserted is almost exactly the same as paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 7, but I have added the proviso, which is exactly the same as appears in the Land Commission Act, that where the authority does not acquire the land at least the owner must proceed with the development for which he has planning permission. This new clause also provides for the position where a counter-notice is served by the authorities; and it is as tightly and as clearly worded in this one clause as I could find words to cover it. But one thing I hope I have satisfactorily proved to all your Lordships is that Clause 19 of the Bill is not worth the paper it is written on. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As I understand it, the noble Earl's Amendments are by way of drafting Amendments: they are not attacking the substance of the clause, but merely the way it is drafted. I must say that I am extraordinarily impressed by the care and trouble which he has taken over this very difficult task. However, I must tell him, as I suppose might be expected when redrafting a fairly lengthy new clause, that there are drafting errors in what the noble Earl has produced. For instance, the new clause covers only planning permissions granted between the 12th September 1974 and the first appointed day, thus excluding someone who has made an application before the first appointed day but does not receive planning permission until after
298
that day. The clause would also prevent a freeholder with a tenant in possession from being able to make an election, and would require a notice to be served on each authority if the person wished to cover all eventualities. These last two errors, I should immediately admit, were in the Bill as it was first introduced, but they were corrected by the Government as a result of pressure from the Opposition in another place.
I accept that the noble Earl has copied this new clause from one of the provisions in the Land Commission Act, but unfortunately it simply does not fit in with the concepts in this Bill. The main deficiency in the new clause is that it does not provide at all for the suspension of planning permission, which is of course quite unacceptable to the Government. The noble Earl may feel that there are some criticisms of Clause 19, and that his own new clause is simpler, but I think that may be because his new clause does not cover quite as much ground as the existing clause in the Bill.
I accept that the noble Earl does not like the way that Clause 19 and Schedule 7 go together. However, there are many provisions which now appear in Schedule 7 which are required for both Clause 19 and Clause 20. If we were to set out Clauses 19 and 20 in full in the way that his Amendment sets out Clause 19, the clauses would be unnecessarily long and repetitious. The noble Earl has not set out Clause 20 in the same way. I am not for a moment suggesting he should undertake that major task; but I have to tell him that if his Amendment were accepted it would cause considerable anomalies between Cluases 19 and 20.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am not at all satisfied with that answer because Clause 20 applies to planning permission for relevant development which was granted before the relevant date. Here we are talking about planning permission granted before the first appointed day and after September 12th 1974. That is the first point. There is a considerable delay here. Development is suspended for three months under subsection (2) of my new clause. I should have thought that, if the local authorities could not indicate within that period what they

299
want to do, there is something wrong. Furthermore, the proviso says:
"Provided that a counter notice issued by any of the authorities under this section stating that they do not propose to acquire the specified land may, if that authority think fit, be expressed to be subject to the condition that the relevant development for which planning permission was granted is begun or completed…"
This is encouraging development to take place. My drafting may not be absolutely perfect, but it does make more sense than Clause 19. Can the noble Lord explain exactly what is meant by "election" in this clause? What is the person electing in the clause as it stands and exactly what notice is supposed to be served? I have been through the Bill quite thoroughly but it is not indicated there.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Earl may include people between September 12th and the first appointed day; but, as I pointed out, he does not include in his new clause someone who made an application before the first appointed day and who does not receive planning permission until after that day. This is one of the points his clause leaves out.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Will the noble Lord look at the first part of Clause 19 where it says:
"…the application was made before the first appointed day and…the planning permission was granted after 12th September 1974."
I have not tried to change anything in my new clause.
Lord MELCHETT: I accept that the noble Earl has not tried to change anything. I am trying to convince him that in practice, inadvertently, and quite unintentionally he has changed the clause in a very substantial way. This is one small example. I have said that the main deficiency in the clause is that it does not provide at all for the suspension of planning permission. That is my legal advice on his new clause.
The noble Earl asked two specific questions. One was about the form of a notice. I think that in the clause it says that it will be prescribed. That means that we will prescribe the form of the
300
notice. The other question was on the meaning of "election". I can say that "election" means that the owner elects to bring himself within the procedure as set out in the Bill. I do not think that there is much I can add. This is a drafting point and I must rely on my advice from Parliamentary draftsmen on this matter. I have to tell the noble Earl that, whatever his dissatisfaction with Clause 19 as it stands, his attempt to redraft it is quite unacceptable to the Government because of the minor and major technical difficulties.
Lord HYLTON: I wonder whether the noble Lord can see his way to agree to take away my noble friend's Amendment and, while excluding its defects, incorporate its good points into Clause 19, and maybe into Clause 20? It seems that my noble friend's Amendment has the great merit of making clear who has to serve a notice and who has to make an election.
Lord MELCHETT: Another of the problems of this attempted redrafting of the Bill is that it tackles Clause 19 but not Clause 20, and it is to both those clauses that Schedule 7 applies. Again my advice is that if we were to attempt redrafting on such lines both clauses would have to be much longer. I will certainly examine Clause 19 to see whether, as it is now drafted, its content can be made clearer, but I could not consider redrafting it on the lines suggested by the noble Earl. As I mentioned earlier, the noble Earl's redrafting may appear to be clearer, but that is because it tells only half the story of the contents of the present clause.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Will the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, explain one point? Under Clause 19 as printed, how long would planning permission be suspended (a) in the case of the local authority who acquired the land, or (b) where it decided not to acquire?
Lord MELCHETT: I confess that I am not certain about the answer to either question. If the noble Earl will raise the matter on whether the clause shall stand part? I might then have a chance to study his questions and give him an answer.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Then I shall answer the point myself. Looking at the bottom of page 74, it is at the end of a period of 12 months. I believe that is an appalling period for anybody to have to wait to find out the local authority's intention. It states clearly:
"Planning permission to which Section 19 applies."
I am not arguing about Clause 20. It is quite a different point applying to different times and procedure. I think that the drafting of Clause 19 is such that perhaps one is entitled to ask—and this is the only additional question I want to put to the noble Lord—was it the intention in drafting Clause 19 to make certain that nobody took advantage of its terms? That could well be the case.
Lord MELCHETT: I resent that suggestion. It is unfair of the noble Earl. I am doing my best to help him. He must not impugn us with those kind of motives. As I understand it, Clauses 19 and 20 are complementary. Once a notice of election is served the procedure is then the same for either clause. The noble Earl is also straying on to ground which we shall cover shortly in further Amendments. We have Amendments specifically to reduce the time period of 12 months to three months, and it might be better to leave that discussion until later in our proceedings.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am sorry to return to the point, but I must repeat that a person has a chance of election under Clause 19 while under Clause 20 he does not have a choice of any election.
Lord MELCHETT: Perhaps I should say again that once a notice of election is served, the procedure is then the same for either Clause 19 or Clause 20 cases.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I reserve the right to come back to this on Report. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to look at this again, because it is not clear and people will not understand it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Planning permission for relevant development]:
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 74, line 23, leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").
The noble Earl said: Having allowed the local authorities 10 years in which to plan ahead, to allow a developer, where land has passed through the hands of the local authorities, five years' security of occupation appears to me to be a most unfair and short period of time. The developer may have gone through all the trouble of acquiring the land from the local authority for development and then, so far as I can see, a mere five years later the authority can decide to take it over if he has not finished his development. This is limiting the chances of development to a very great extent. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: Your Lordships will be well aware of a previous Amendment, which was moved on Clause 18 by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, which was somewhat similar in content but related to a totally different matter—where authorities acting under that clause shall have regard to any relevant land acquisition and management schemes. In that Amendment we dealt with a totally different point where the noble Earl wished to strike out "ten years" and insert "five years". We have now the inversion of this principle, and when the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, spoke to this Amendment, he was speaking in regard to a five-year rolling programme. What we should like to know is whether this five-year rolling programme, which we assume is relevant in this case, is what the Government have in mind. We feel that 10 years is the minimum period which should be accorded to that person who has an interest in this case.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Earl has made clear the motive of his Amendment and I will not waste time by explaining it again. There are three circumstances in which an authority lose their powers of compulsory purchase under the Bill. These are as follows. First, when they state (under paragraphs 4 or 5 of the Schedule) that they do not intend to acquire the land—or fail to serve a notice within the time laid down, or subsequently withdraw an earlier notice of intention to acquire; secondly, when, having stated

303
an intention to acquire, they fail to acquire the land or to make a CPO within 12 months; thirdly, when, a CPO having been made and confirmed, they fail to serve a notice to treat within 12 months of the CPO becoming operative. The Bill provides that the loss of compulsory purchase powers in these circumstances should last for five years and it is this period which the Amendment seeks to extend to 10 years.
The reason for providing for their loss of powers is to enable an owner or developer to have certainty that, once the authority have decided not to acquire the land, he will be able to implement the planning permission and get on with the development without fear of acquisition. The period of five years is thought to be ample, even in the case of a major project, to enable development to get under way. Indeed, if it were not started by the end of that period the planning permission would generally lapse anyway, by virtue of Section 41 of the 1971 Act.
The argument that if the authority are looking up to 10 years ahead they should acquire the land if itis likely to be needed within that time and, if not, there is no reason why they should not lose their powers for a similar period is one which overlooks one important factor; that is, that authorities will not be buying at once all the land needed up to10 years but will phase their purchases in accordance with their five-year rolling programmes. It would be quite wrong for an authority to be unable to step in for ten years where, perhaps because of a change of circumstances, the land was found to be needed for development by, say, the seventh year and the owner had taken no steps to develop it.
My noble friend Lord Pargiter who has great experience in local government, as your Lordships will know, has on several occasions previously made the point that one needs to have this amount of flexibility: otherwise one can get tied down by plans which may have to be changed. Once rigidity of the kind suggested is written into the Act, it is extremely difficult to adjust things over this period of time, and to tie this down to 10 years is far too much. On the
304
point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, this is not an inversion, because he really was not comparing like with like. I would ask the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 133A:
Page 74, line 38, column 2, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("three").
The noble Earl said: Clause 19 deals with the initial period that any owner will find himself in when the Bill becomes an Act. The situation one is looking at is one where an application for planning permission is made before the first appointed day and planning permission has been granted after 12th September 1974. Under Clause19 of the Bill an individual may elect to serve a purchase notice on an authority, and the authority then has 12 months in which to apply, whether or not it is to purchase. The Amendment seeks to reduce that period from 12 months to three, as this is a blight on the property and 12 months is far too long, whereas three months is quite realistic. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Earl knows, the steps leading up to the making and publishing of a compulsory purchase order are complex and, in cases of multiple ownership, can be extremely time consuming. First, the authority have to decide whether the use of compulsory purchase powers will be necessary or whether the acquisition can be achieved by agreement; hopefully, of course, it can be. Then they have to identify all the owners, occupiers and lessees of the land. The exact extent of the land has to be ascertained, and its component parts indentified and referenced. Arrangements have then to be made for the publication of the making of the order, if acquisition is to proceed by compulsory purchase, and notices have to be sent to the owners, occupiers and lessees. Where the acquisition is to be by agreement, negotiations must take place with all the owners, occupiers and lessees, and binding contracts must be signed. Clearly, it would be impossible to achieve all this within

305
the period of three months, as suggested by Amendments Nos. 133A and 133B. Indeed, in many cases even 12 months will create a very tight timetable for authorities if they are not to lose their compulsory purchase powers.
On the suggestion that the period for the issue of notices to treat following on a compulsory purchase order becoming operative should be reduced from 12 months to three—and that is Amendment No. 134A, which it might be convenient to deal with at the same time—this Amendment would also face authorities with a very short time in which to act. The compulsory purchase order becomes operative when it has been confirmed by the Secretary of State and the authority has published notices of such confirmation, which they must do as soon as possible. The period normally allowed for other purposes is three years, but an Amendment was made at Report stage in another place reducing this to 12 months for the purposes of this Bill only. So in this respect there has already been a reduction for the purposes of this Bill. I have to tell noble Lords opposite that any further reduction would be quite unacceptable to the Government. In addition to all this, a period of three months would produce severe problems if an order were challenged in the courts, because, as I understand it, there is a period of six weeks available for somebody to challenge an order in the courts, and at least half the period of three months might be lost in that way.
The Earl of KINNOULL: As regards Amendment No. 134A that is a different point from the one I am making in No. 133A. Perhaps I have got it wrong, but what I am saying in No. 133A is that where a person elects to serve a notice on the authority to ascertain whether or not it will purchase—I am not suggesting that at this stage it should be a compulsory purchase order—the authority has 12 months in which to decide whether or not it intends to proceed with the compulsory purchase order. That is very different from the point I wish to make in No. 134A. What I am saying is that the authority should reply, make a decision, within three months rather than 12. I am not saying that the service of
306
a notice to treat should be three months on this issue. I am saying that the authority should reply and give an undertaking that it will proceed. I am not sure whether the message which is coming to the noble Lord is on that point, but I would ask him to answer.
Lord MELCHETT: It may help the noble Earl if I say that I understand that the local authority has three months in which to serve a notice.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I do not see that in this Part of the Schedule. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell me where this is. As the noble Lord says it is three months, I will have to accept it and beg leave to withdraw.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, one can accept the judgment that three months is not long enough, and it ought to be at least 12 months. All the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, gave are very interesting, because the first half-dozen of the reasons he gave, as to establishing ownership and all the general conditions applying to the land, are invariably in the hands of the authorities concerned long before they contemplate wanting to make use of them themselves. I would accept the judgment of what is the right length of time.
Lord MELCHETT: Before the Amendment is finally withdrawn, may I ask the noble Lord to look at paragraph 2 of Schedule 7, and I think he will find the answer he seeks.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am much obliged.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 75, line 17, leave out ("or later period").
The noble Earl said: On page 75 of the Bill it is said, regarding planning permission to which Section 20 applies:
"The expiration of—
(a) a period of 12 months…unless the authority have completed the first step

307
towards acquisition of the land before the end of the period…".
The words I want to cut out are, "or later period". It really must not be allowed to delay things indefinitely. This is the reason behind this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I am advised that the removal of the words "or later period" would only give rise to ambiguity. They do not in any way extend the time beyond the 12 months allowed in the case. I can give the noble Earl an extremely technical explanation of why the phrase "or later period" is needed, if he would like me to.
The Earl of BALFOUR: It is a late hour, but perhaps we might meet outside the Committee at some time, on a friendly basis. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 134A:
Page 75, line 21, column 2, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("three").
The noble Earl said: This is a probing Amendment. Under paragraph (4) it is said in regard to the making of compulsory purchase order:
"Completion of first step towards acquisition of the land by making and publishing notice of a compulsory purchase order."
Am I right in saying that completion of the first step is service of notice to treat, because until that has been served I think I am correct in saying that the local authority have no obligation to proceed. In other words, it is by that time an unconditional contract. It is not clear in my mind on reading this provision what completion of the first step means, and I should be grateful to have an explanation.
Lord MELCHETT: I think the answer to the noble Earl's question may be contained here. A compulsory purchase order becomes operative when it has been confirmed by the Secretary of State and the authority has published notice of such confirmation, which they must do as soon as possible after the Secretary of State has confirmed it.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Before I beg leave to withdraw, may I ask whether that is correct?
Lord MELCHETT: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me a chance to correct myself. Probably the first step towards acquisition is either a contract or the making of the compulsory purchase order. I may have been telling the noble Earl something on a slightly different point.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful and beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.58 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 75, line 40, at end insert—
("(6) Where in respect of any land notice is served by an authority of its intention to purchase that land under the provisions of this Schedule and the first step towards the acquisition of the land has not been taken the provisions of Part X of the Act of 1971 or the Scottish Act of 1972 shall apply to such land as if that land were included within one of the classes of land specified in Section 192(1) of the Act of 1971 or 181(1) of the Scottish Act of 1972.").
The noble Earl said: I am afraid there has been a slight misprint here. The Amendment should refer to Part IX of the Act of 1971, not Part X. Part IX deals with acquisition; Part X concerns roads. The object behind this Amendment is that where a local authority serves notice of its intention to purchase land under the provisions of this Schedule, and the first step towards the acquisition of the land has not been taken, the provisions of Part IX of the 1971 Act or the Scottish Act of 1972 shall apply to such land as if it were included in the owner-occupier provisions of Section 192(1) of the 1971 Act.
I feel there is far too much vagary here where the authorities have not taken action, have not done anything about it. I apologise for the drafting error here which may have upset the noble Baroness. If she feels she cannot answer the point, I understand. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I will not upset the noble Earl; he does not upset me. However, his Amendment contains another

309
error. It should read "Schedule 7, page 75. line 41", not line 40. It is a quite minor point, but I thought that I should draw it to his attention.
The effect of the Amendment would be to provide that where an authority had served a notice of intention to purchase any land, under the provisions of Schedule 7 the blight provisions of the 1971 Act would apply. This would allow an owner-occupier to serve a blight notice on the authority forcing them to acquire in advance of requirements rather than to wait for the authority to take the first step towards acquisition.
As the noble Earl is probably well aware, an identical Amendment was tabled by the Opposition at Report stage in another place. It was pointed out then that a Government Amendment had also been tabled which would meet the point. This provision is now to be found in Clause 22(6), and it applies to all cases where planning permission has been suspended. By contrast, the Opposition Amendment, which is very similar to that of the noble Earl, would not apply where planning permission was suspended under Clause 21 because suspension there does not depend on the service of a notice of intention to purchase. Therefore it would provide less protection to the owner-occupier. The Opposition Amendment was therefore withdrawn in another place. I very much hope that the version of it which has been moved by the noble Earl will also be withdrawn since it achieves nothing that is not already covered by the provisions of Clause 22(6).
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am informed that so far as line 40 is concerned my Amendment is perfectly well drafted, but that is by the way. I apologise for having missed Clause 22(6), and clearly realise that this Amendment is unnecessary. I am, therefore, grateful for that reply and to learn that this provision is included in the Bill. When one is drafting Amendments for oneself it is sometimes very difficult to know exactly where they should go. However, I see that the Government have done it for me. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 75, line 44, leave out ("when (a)") and insert ("(a) when").
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl and I have had our differences on drafting matters this evening. I am happy to toll him that should 1 obtain his assurance that he will move his Amendment No. 139, which strikes at exactly the same point as my Amendment No. 138, I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment. I fully accept that he has drafted his Amendment in a better way than I have drafted mine. In the meantime, I beg to move Amendment No. 138.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am sure that we can co-operate over this matter, and I shall be very happy to move Amendment No. 139. To save time, I shall move it formally.
Lord MELCHETT: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 138.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 138A:
Page 75, line 45, leave out ("all the authorities") and insert ("the authority").
The noble Baroness said: This is an Amendment for clarification of this subsection. I am not absolutely clear about what is meant here. I appreciate that we are talking about the suspension of planning permission when Clause 19 or 20 of the Bill comes into force, but the definition that all of the authorities have abandoned their power to purchase land means that under the duties contained in Clauses 18 and 19 there would be more than one local authority with the option of buying land and that an indefinite number of authorities could decide to acquire the land before the matter was settled. I want to know whether that is the understanding of this or whether I am not right. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Baroness is right: it is fundamental to the scheme that all the authorities concerned in an area should have powers under the Bill. It is therefore necessary

311
that all of them should have an opportunity to consider whether or not to acquire the land, and consequently the suspension needs to run until all of them have made up their minds, or of course until the time allowed for them to do so has run out.
It is true that by virtue of Schedule 5 the authorities concerned will be making arrangements between themselves in their land acquisition and management schemes as to the service of notices and which of them will normally be the acquiring authority; but LAMS are essentially concerned with the exercise of functions and do not in any way affect the powers of authorities, which are exercisable concurrently. So it is necessary to allow for this situation by providing that the suspension of planning permission must remain in force until all authorities have abandoned their powers. The suspension can, of course, come to an end when only one of them has purchased the land.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Lord for that explanation; not, I may say, that I feel any better as a result of it. I should like to ask him further whether there is any time limit set on when the authorities must make up their minds whether or not they are to purchase the land and whether this is the time limit of one year.
Lord MELCHETT: I will correct this if I am wrong, but I think for all the authorities the time limit is the 12 month period.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Lord and with that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I beg to move Amendment No. 139.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 47, leave out ("when")—.(The Earl of Balfour.)
11.7 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 139B:
Page 75, line 47, leave out from beginning to ("purchase") and insert—
312
"(b) when the authority specified by the relevant Land Acquisition and Management Scheme".
The noble Baroness said: Again this Amendment is designed to make clear what this sub-paragraph actually means. We have had a definition of sub-paragraph (1)(a) of paragraph 2, and I now understand that any of the authorities in the land acquisition and management scheme can consider purchasing the land in question and the owner must wait until they have all decided whether or not they want to purchase before the planning permission reverts. On sub-paragraph (1)(b), is not the authority in question the one that would be specified in the relevant land acquisition and management scheme, or is it another authority outside the scheme? I do not understand how it could be, but perhaps the noble Lord would explain to me what the difference would be. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: May I first correct something that I said in response to the noble Baroness on the previous Amendment? I was wrong about the 12 months period: it is in fact three months. The notice of intention to acquire has to be served by all the authorities within three months. I think I covered this point in responding to the previous Amendment. It is three months unless it is a Clause 20 case, in which case it is two months. So we are going down all the time: if I stay on my feet long enough we might get something less!
The land acquisition and management schemes are essentially concerned with functions and they do not affect the powers of the authority in that area. There may well be an authority designated in the land acquisition and management scheme, but that will merely be a matter of dividing the functions between the authorities and it cannot have the effect of depriving any of the authorities of their power to acquire the land.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful for that explanation. I think I had better study what is in Hansard, for my own education at any rate, to see whether I have further questions to put down. But for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.10 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 141A:
Page 77, line 27, after second ("land") insert ("within 3 months").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the sub-paragraph in which it is the duty of an authority to notify a change of intention. The Committee will have seen that an authority can, indeed, change their mind; having issued a notice to say that they wish to proceed with a purchase they may change their mind. Apparently there is no time limit—but, of course, there will be a time limit under certain provisions—as to when they can change their mind. Indeed, what they are saying is, "as soon as practicable".
This Amendment seeks to put in a time limit of three months from the date when the authority has served a notice that they wish to purchase, and a subsequent Amendment seeks to delete "as soon as practicable". One has to recall that in the event of an authority changing their mind, they are offering—as it appears from the sub-paragraph—no compensation to the owner of the land who might well have made other plans by that time. The owner may have entered into a contract to purchase other property. There is no compensation at all and, indeed, it seems that unless there is a time limit which is binding on the authority so that they cannot change their mind, the position seems totally unreasonable.
Lord MELCHETT: I was a little unclear about the purpose of this Amendment. May I just make clear with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that he is taking Amendment No. 141B with this one? I had thought that Amendment No. 141A was intended to be consequential on Nos. 133A, 133B and 134A. Those Amendments sought to reduce the period within which an authority must make a compulsory purchase order, or enter into a binding contract to acquire the land. As I understand it, the wording of the Amendment that the noble Earl has now moved ties the three months to the decision not to acquire, and not to the original intention to acquire.
Moreover, I am advised that the Amendment could be read to mean that
314
if the authority decided initially that they would not be acquiring the land within three months, then they would be under no obligation to notify a subsequent change of intention, and that is clearly not what the noble Earl intends. I do not think the Amendment would be of advantage to anyone. If I may just deal with Amendment No. 141B, as the noble Earl was kind enough to say he was taking that with this one, the effect of that Amendment would be to give the authority an unlimited amount of time within which to serve a notice of change of intention, and that, I should have thought, was also clearly undesirable.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble Lord. The purpose of this Amendment is that an authority can decide that they wish to proceed with the acquisition, and serve a notice on the owner to say that that is their intention. Then we have a certain time period in which the compulsory purchase order provisions will operate. It may be within three months or two months under Clause 21, but up to that period there is no time specified in this sub-paragraph when the authority can change their mind. What I am not clear about is that we may be dealing with situations of agreement; not of compulsory purchase. If the authority led the owner to believe that they wished to acquire under this part of the Bill, and then changed their mind, there is apparently no compensation and no time limit. I think there should be a time limit. Could the noble Lord address his mind to that?
Lord MELCHETT: On the time limit point, I think we are striking at a point we covered in an earlier Amendment. Local authorities have always had a right not to proceed with a compulsory purchase order once it has been made. Under the present law the time period during which that operated was three years, and for the purposes of this Bill it has been reduced to one year. As I said, I do not think we could possibly envisage it being reduced any further.
The Earl of KINNOULL: So the local authority under this part of the Bill, where they can change their intention, would have 12 months in which to do so.

315
They could serve the notice on the individual; the individual then takes it upon himself to make other arrangements, and 11 months and three weeks later the authority serve a notice to say that they do not intend to proceed. There is no compensation at that stage. Surely the noble Lord would think that would be reasonable over what is really quite a long period of time.
Lord MELCHETT: The compensation point is something I should like to take advice on, if I may, and possibly we could come to it on the question that the Schedule be agreed. It may be helpful if I say that the authority would also have to acquire by agreement within one year or they would lose that power, so the one year period applies in that case as well.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.17 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 77, line 37, at end insert—
"(3) Where an authority decide to abandon a compulsory purchase order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, any person who has made an objection under this part of this Schedule shall be entitled to recover his costs of and occasioned thereby as between solicitor and client from that authority."
The noble Earl said: What I am concerned about is the case where a person has gone to an awful lot of trouble in connection with a compulsory purchase order and then the local authority decides to withdraw. I must draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 7, just below the Amendment we are talking about, and particularly the top of page 78, where a person may be involved in going to the High Court or the Court of Session. I feel that in this case the person concerned should certainly be entitled to recover some of the expense involved. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of the proposed Amendment which the noble Earl has moved is somewhat uncertain, because it is. I think. defective.
316
The only thing approaching a right of objection in this part of Schedule 7 is the right contained in paragraph 7(3) to question by application to the High Court a condition imposed by the authority in their notice of intention not to acquire the land. This is not connected with the making or subsequent withdrawal of a compulsory purchase order, but what may be intended is that when someone has objected to a compulsory purchase order which the authority then decides to withdraw he should get his legal costs of objection reimbursed.
A similar Amendment to Schedule 4 was moved by the Opposition at Committee stage in another place, and was withdrawn on the basis of an assurance given by the Minister that he was prepared to look generally at the whole question of costs of public inquiries; but he could not accept the Amendment because it would cause anomalies if it were to apply to the limited circumstances of compulsory purchase orders arising out of the land scheme and not generally across the whole planning field.
In relation to compulsory purchase proceedings, the only circumstances in which costs are paid are where an inquiry has been held, and then in circumstances which I shall indicate. I am delighted to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is back full of freshness and vigour after a temporary absence and ready to give us assistance on these matters within his experience. The Minister normally makes a favourable award of costs on application by an owner, lessee or occupier (on whom statutory notice of the making of the order has to be served) and who, following an inquiry, had his objection sustained by the Minister's refusal to confirm the order, or to do so in respect of the whole or part of the objector's property which was in question at the inquiry. The award is made against the authority who made the compulsory purchase order.
Where a successful objector receiving costs has been legally represented, then if agreement cannot be reached between the objector and the authority the Minister makes an order for the payment of the objector's costs at the inquiry, such costs to be taxed in the High Court in default of agreement. The Report of

317
the Council on Tribunals on the Award of Costs at Statutory Inquiries in 1964 dealt with the position of parties who have no legal right to appear at the inquiry. The Council came to the conclusion that it would be unreasonable, save in exceptional circumstances, to award costs against a third party, with the logical consequence that third parties should also not be eligible to receive costs. It may be helpful to deal with this matter generally at this stage, because it arises in other parts which are relevant under this Bill. The Amendment proposes that any objector (that is, without any qualification at all as to his status) should be entitled to recover his solicitor's costs of making an objection on his behalf. This would mean that if the Secretary of State should not hold an inquiry such costs would still be recoverable. Furthermore, such costs would be recoverable, inquiry or no inquiry, even if the objection was not sustained.
The Amendment must be resisted in so far as it would cover solicitors' costs of third parties and of objectors whose objections are not sustained. The remaining question is whether statutory objectors (owners, lessees and occupiers) whose objections are sustained (by the Secretary of State's refusal to confirm the order) without an inquiry or hearing being held should be entitled to an award—provided the objection was not one which the Secretary of State was entitled to disregard.
The first point here is that it would be unprecedented to provide a statutory entitlement to recover the costs of making an objection to a CPO where there has been no inquiry. The second is that it is the choice of the objector whether he employs a solicitor (or other professional agent) to formulate grounds of objection, and there is no logical distinction between the objector who does so and the objector who makes his objection unaided.
On these points it might be argued that, because of the possibility that an inquiry might not be held, it will be all the more necessary for an objector to ensure that his case is stated fully and effectively, and that for this reason he may feel that professional advice is essential. But if it is accepted that costs should be awarded only to successful objectors, an objector
318
always takes the chance that he may have to bear his own costs of professional representation; if he is successful without an inquiry being held he would probably consider the expense of professional advice as money well spent, and he will not have to make a decision about laying out further money on professional representation at an inquiry. The fact remains that it is entirely for the objector to decide whether to employ a solicitor; and all objections will be given the same consideration, whether made by the objector direct or through a solicitor.
For the reasons I have indicated—which will, no doubt, require reading for their full significance to be appreciated —and because as I indicated at the outset of my observations it is technically defective, the Amendment should be resisted; that is, unless, in the light of what I have said and the Minister's assurance in another place that he is prepared to look again at the whole question of costs at inquiries—and I have given a rough idea of what the problems and circumstances are—it is felt that it would be appropriate to withdraw the Amendment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: The noble and learned Lord is right; I come refreshed. I have been to the land of the noble and learned Lord's fathers, which is a very refreshing place to be. I hope the Committee will appreciate that there is in fact a real problem about the circumstances when an acquiring authority decides to abandon its compulsory purchase order. I have had this happen and I have been asked by the acquiring authority, "What are we going to do?", because the authority appreciates that the person from whom it thought it would acquire land has expended a considerable amount of money and the authority has thought it fair and proper that he should be reimbursed. The difficulty is that there are singularly few powers under which it may do so.
The noble and learned Lord said that his right honourable friend in another place gave an assurance that he would look at this question again. What rather worries me is whether, if he does look at it and decides that the thing should be dealt with as it is now—by a circular

319
setting out the criteria on which costs will be awarded—there are powers in Statute law which would enable that circular to be given effect to. My recollection of this, and I may be wrong, is that for the purposes of most of these things we have attracted the provisions of what used to be the Local Government Act 1933, but which I think are similar provisions in the 1972 Act, and they give certain powers to award costs but only, as the noble and learned Lord said, when there has been an inquiry. That does not, of course, meet this point, and however much the Government may like to reconsider this matter they will not be able to give effect to the assurance because, so far as I know, there are no legal powers to enable them to do so. I appreciate that it is difficult and that a quite major consideration of the matter should be given, but would it not be right for us to consider whether enabling powers should not be provided somewhere, perhaps in this Bill, to allow the Government to give effect to the undertaking after they have had that consideration of the matter?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: That raises an important though rather different point, but I certainly think it should be considered, and I give an assurance that that will be done, along with the general consideration which the Minister has undertaken to give to the problem of costs and inquiries generally.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I do not think my noble friend Lord Colville of Cuirass raised a new point. He raised precisely the point of this Amendment. Is that not the case?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount raised a new point in that he was asking the important question whether, assuming the maximum of good intent and good faith, there was still in existence a statutory power to give effect to what the Minister might have in mind. To that extent it was a new point, but it is a point that will be considered.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say that he hoped he would be able to extend the undertaking given in the other place to cover this
320
point. If so, we should be perfectly happy; if it is not so, I feel that the special circumstances of this point ought to be borne in mind and should be on the Record.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I have said that I will look into this, and see that it is looked into by the Minister.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.32 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 78, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
The noble Earl said: I should like to come back again, and first thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his excellent explanation, which has certainly helped me. I am just about as mystified as I could be here and this is purely a probing Amendment. Sub-paragraph (4) reads:
"Except as so provided a condition shall not be questioned on that ground in any legal proceedings whatsoever."
I feel that, in respect of the High Court and the Court of Session, this leaves anyone who wants to do anything without a hope. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Paragraph 7 of the Schedule provides that notices stating that an authority do not intend to acquire the land may be expressed to be subject to conditions, and paragraph 8 sets out the kinds of conditions which may be imposed. This Amendment would remove the provision in paragraph 7(4) that a condition shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings.
Paragraph 7(4) is a standard provision in situations of this kind and is to be found, for instance, in Schedule 1, paragraphs 15 and 16, of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946. It is designed to give certainty to both authorities and the persons receiving conditional notices. The effect of the Amendment would be to enable a person to challenge a condition imposed in strict accordance with the Statute (for instance, paragraph 8 of the Schedule) and to do

321
so at any time—even after land had been acquired under a compulsory purchase order made after powers had been restored following breach of a "condition ". As I say, this is a standard provision, and I hope that, in the circumstances and in view of that explanation, the Amendment will he withdrawn.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: With the greatest respect, it is not a standard provision in this context. It is a standard provision where one has the sort of circumstance in which one can only appeal to the High Court on the grounds that there was a procedural inaccuracy or some other technical failure; or, alternatively, where there is a completely different appeal procedure set out, such as in the case of enforcement notices. Even then, one is only debarred on certain grounds from questioning the decision on a later occasion in the High Court.
The difficulty is that the noble and learned Lord is talking about a series of things which look to me uncommonly like planning conditions. They are in many ways attracted to the planning condition procedure and they are remarkably similar in their contents. It has never been standard procedure under the planning Acts that one should be debarred from questioning the validity of a planning condition. Indeed, there has been some very rich litigation on this subject—and when I say "rich ", I mean rich in terms of the learning which has been deduced from it. There have certainly been three cases which have come to this House sitting in its judicial capacity and it is a question which is not yet solved. We still do not know what happens in some cases when ordinary conditions attached to a planning condition are found to be invalid. It is certainly not standard that one is debarred from questioning it in any legal proceedings, unless one takes out an appeal within six weeks.
If the noble and learned Lord will look into this, he will find that he has been misadvised about the parallels that he has been given. If these are indeed conditions of the kind in paragraph 8, then I suggest to him that he ought to
322
consider whether there is some other method to get over what I think is a practical difficulty of this matter being re-opened at a much later date, when the process has proceeded a good deal further and land has been sold, or changed hands, or something of that nature. I ask the noble and learned Lord very seriously to look at this. Of course there are precedents for the provision, but if the noble and learned Lord looks at them he will see that they are not really apt to be used as analogies for this set of circumstances.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The conditions that are set out in this paragraph are not planning conditions as such. The noble Viscount recognises the difficulty that I have mentioned that, unless there were some time limit for questioning, a subsequent compulsory purchase order might be invalid. But I am very willing to look at this matter. It is a piece of high technicality which certainly I ought to look at. I am always very nervous of calling in aid the fact that something is a technicality, since the occasion when I appeared before the House of Lords judicially and I observed that the matter raised was a mere technicality. I was told by one of the noble and learned Lords:
"Ah, yes. A technicality is a point of principle that your opponent has remembered and you have forgotten."
I will certainly look at the point, and return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.36 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 78, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph 2.
The noble Earl said: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 145 as well as Amendment No. 144. This is a much different matter from that contained in the last two Amendments and is much more in my field. I invite your Lordships to look at paragraph 8(1) 2; that is, at page 78, line 12. I argue that the second condition is identical to the first. I ask your Lordships to look at the first condition while

323
I read out the second, until we find a difference:
"A condition that no relevant development is carried out on the land except in accordance with"—
so far that agrees with the first—
"a planning permission specified in the notice (being permission granted before service of the notice)."
I argue that that must have been the originating planning permission; it could not possibly have been anything else. Hence I wish to move that this condition be left out.
We are talking here about notice, and so let us consider the third condition as set out in the Bill at this point. It reads:
"A condition that the development is begun not later than the expiration of a period specified in the notice."
I am not sure that "notice "is right there; it should be the originating planning permission, because that surely would have included the notice. These are technical points of drafting, but I argue that conditions 1 and 2 are identical. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: As we observed in dealing with the last Amendment, paragraph 7 of the Schedule provides that notices stating that an authority does not intend to acquire the land may be expressed to be subject to conditions, and paragraph 8 sets out the kinds of conditions which may be imposed. This Amendment would remove the second condition that no relevant development is carried out on the land except in accordance with a specified planning permission granted before the notice was served. Condition 2 in paragraph 8(1) would be appropriate when an authority, while content that development could go ahead without its intervention, nevertheless wished to ensure that the development should be in accordance with an earlier (specified) planning permission, rather than under the permission they were presently concerned with. There can be two or more planning permissions in force for the same land. If this condition were removed it would mean that many authorities, in order to achieve the sort of development they wished to see on the land, would feel obliged to acquire the land, though in all other respects they
324
would have been content to allow development to proceed. It may well be, therefore, that the noble Earl will think that it is not desirable to force an authority into such a position as that which this provision is intended to prevent. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I think I am beginning to see some of the answer, but the problem is that the originating planning permission must have been withdrawn at some stage before the next planning permission in connection with the notice was in existence. Otherwise, I have a feeling that one could have two or three planning permissions virtually covering the same thing. I know that this happens; it is one of my criticisms of the planning law. I certainly should not like to press this Amendment further at the moment—the position seems to be highly technical, anyway—but I just wondered whether, in this case, we were quite clear as to which planning permission we are talking about at which time.
If we go on to line 22 we see that it says:
"A condition that the development permitted by the originating planning permission or other planning permission specified in the notice is completed within a period specified in the notice,…".
That is all right; but when you get something which is dealing with the beginning of the development, as you do in paragraph 3, that is something that should have been put in the planning permission rather than in the notice. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.43 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 145C:
Page 78, line 27, leave out ("to").
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 145A go together, and I may say that I am grateful to the assiduous Clerks of your Lordships' House for pointing out that I had made a mistake and for allowing me to put down Amendment No. 145C to correct it in the drafting. The noble and learned Lord said just now that the

325
conditions in paragraph 8 are not planning conditions. I appreciate that they are not planning conditions pure and simple, but I can tell the noble and learned Lord this—and I am sure he knows it already—that No. 1 is in a form which is commonly imposed upon planning permissions, so is No. 2, so is No. 3 and so is No. 4, and No. 5 is, I think, rather unusual but might occasionally be. My quarrel is with No. 6. I should be very grateful to know—I have not seen this explained anywhere—how this is to work. Could the noble and learned Lord give us some examples of the sort of circumstances where the Secretary of State would give his consent to some other condition—not one of those listed here but some other condition? What sort of condition?
There are various problems about this. First, if we allow paragraph 7(4) to stand as we have just been discussing, then you cannot challenge this sort of condition at all unless you do so within the requisite time of six weeks. But how are you to know that the Secretary of State has given his consent to some condition which is not one of those listed as Nos. 1 to 5? And if you do know that he has given his consent to it, are you then allowed to challenge it on the grounds that it is ultra vires; or can he give his consent to just any other condition, whatever it may be? Has it to be connected with planning? Has it to be connected with the Bill? What has it to be connected with; and what are the criteria that the Secretary of State is to bear in mind when he decides to give these consents?
Thirdly, will he give them individually or will he give them by way of some circular which can then be referred to, so that the local authorities can apply such one or other of them as they think fit and the Secretary of State's consent will be deemed to have been given by the circular? The whole thing is terribly strange and vague. The ordinary rules whereby you can impose conditions require that they shall be connected with the function of the local authority as a planning authority. With what function are these to be connected? Apparently they are not pure planning although they look like it. We have no guidelines to see whether or not they are within the terms of what is
326
proper. Therefore we are faced with a situation where not only are you tied down to six weeks as the period within which you can object but you are given absolutely no guidance as to the grounds on which you can object within that period.
I think the Committee is entitled to a little explanation of this. I have seen none. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would give us a little more information about this so that we may be satisfied that this power is one that can be given by the Secretary of State as a mere matter of consent. Rather than to leave it out—for I do not believe that would be helpful the Government must have something in mind here—we should have it done by regulation, so that everyone can see what were the extra kind of conditions which the Secretary of State decides to give consent to. Everyone would then know, it would be public knowledge and it could be tested for validity in that you could take the regulations themselves to the High Court. This, I think, would do for most people. You would have some certainty. At the moment it seems to be a completely unfettered power and one where protest is going to be very limited. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The intention of adding the six conditions listed in paragraph 8(1) is to provide flexibility and to deal with a situation where the authorities concerned may think that further acceptable conditions, in addition to conditions 1 to 5, will emerge with experience. The conditions at 1 to 5 are already identified as being acceptable but it may be that when there has been experience of the scheme in action further acceptable conditions will emerge. Condition 6 will enable the Secretary of State to extend the list as necessary. That would normally be done by promulgation in a circular after consultation with the local authority associations and others concerned.
I cannot be more specific than that at this point of time, but certainly it does not seem necessary to provide that if such additional conditions are deemed to be useful and necessary to add, that that must be made by regulations. There is plenty of precedence for the indications of a Secretary of State's consent being

327
given without the necessity of regulations to give effect to it. There is the Local Government Act 1972, for instance, where the Secretary of State's consent is required to the appropriation or disposal of land in certain circumstances.
I gather that that is not really the point that the noble Viscount is on. On the point of the lack of precision and identification of what the new condition might be in condition 6, as I have said, the intention of including that general provision is to provide for the contingency where the local authorities and associations concerned might require another condition to be added which the Secretary of State in those circumstances would then be empowered to add by the inclusion of condition 6.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: That is most unsatisfactory. Could the noble and learned Lord apply his mind to two specific points? First, if the Secretary of State gives his consent by circular, is that consent going to be admissible in the High Court in the case where somebody wishes to challenge the condition on the grounds, say, that it is not within paragraph 8? Can one produce a circular in the High Court and say that this constitutes the consent of the Secretary of State, and therefore the matter is intro vires? I should have thought that was unusual. The High Court might be surprised if the learned Treasury junior were to come along with a circular in his hand, saying, "Here is the Secretary of State's consent. "All he has to do is publish a circular and produce it to your Lordships. I think your Lordships might be perplexed about it.
Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explain a recent case about a planning condition imposed by a local authority? It granted planning permission for residential development of land and imposed a whole string of conditions. Their last condition for this private development was that all the houses should be made available for occupation by people on the local authority's housing list; in other words, they were constituting the private development to be a council housing development.
It may be that that was a good idea; it may be that it was not. I do not very
328
much mind. What the High Court said was that the conditions were ultra vires, because it had nothing to do with planning. But under the provision of paragraph 8 of this Schedule the Secretary of State could say, "I hereby give consent to any condition which allows one of these developments to go forward in private hands, provided all the houses built are made available for council tenants." Perhaps that is what he wants to do. But is it legal? Can it be challenged either on the ground I have just mentioned, or on the ground that that is not the type of condition that is in line with the general type of those listed as conditions 1 to 5? I will try to avoid using the Latin phrases and the noble and learned Lord will know what I mean.
Are we to try to collect from those listed conditions the kind of genus of conditions outside which the consent of the Secretary of State cannot go? This is the issue I seek to raise. Otherwise, we give absolutely unlimited powers to the Secretary of State to impose any kind of condition. I should not think we ought to do that in quite the debonair way in which the Bill is drafted today. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will apply his mind to this serious point.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course I will consider the point as to the effective legal force of the condition. I would anticipate that such a condition could be imposed if the Secretary of State consented to it. The initiative in the matter would emanate from the local authorities concerned. There is no genus that I can identify. I suppose the alternative is that the local authority would acquire the land. I am willing to examine the point to discover whether there are any further safeguards that need to be imposed. I should have thought, as I have indicated, that what is set out here is precedented in earlier legislation like the Local Government Act and other provisions. But I will examine the matter in case something has been missed.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross used the words "unfettered power" in moving the Amendment. As I understood it, the noble and learned Lord said in reply that the Secretary of State could impose conditions which he had not thought of when he drafted the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope I did not say that; I am sure I did not. What I said was that circumstances might emerge where local authorities might think it desirable that a further condition should be added.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Not being a lawyer, that was how I interpreted what the noble and learned Lord said. Therefore it would almost be possible to redraft the whole of paragraph 8(1) as meaning any condition to which the Secretary of State has given his consent. That seems to me to be a perfect definition of unfettered power. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord has calmed my doubts on the subject. I had no intention of intervening, but that seemed to me to be what he said.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want any air of mystery or of new tyranny here. These powers exist for Secretaries of State. There are plenty of precedents for this in measures like the Water Act 1973, which has many examples of the Secretary of State being given power to give directions without any specific Parliamentary control. These powers are necessary to enable measures of this kind to become effective. There must be room for flexibility. I am surprised from that point of view that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is finding what is proposed offensive. I agree that there may be legal problems involved in giving effect to it which I am willing to look at. But this is part of the machinery of statutory supervision in areas where public authorities have to operate.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: In this case, is it not a question of whether it is flexibility which any reasonable person would want to give to any Government, or whether it is unfettered power? I should have thought, in the absence of having it clearly defined, that it has to do with planning and has certain boundaries. Any other condition which goes beyond flexibility becomes unfettered power. In this instance, affecting so many people in so many detailed ways, past precedents which do not cover such a wide front make it different.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: The difficulty is that the Water Act is
330
not the best point to take, because at the present moment your Lordships' House sitting judicially are considering whether a major set of regulations made under the Water Act, under exactly these powers, were or were not ultra vires. I do not know what their noble and learned Lordships will say about it, but perhaps we could have chosen a better ground on which to battle. In the Amendments which I have put down I have attempted to be constructive and have tried to make this Bill, in so far as we have to have it, a workable one. I dislike it very much, but if we arc to have it, then let us make it workable. The difficulty is that we are not dealing with general powers of Ministers to give consent to all local authorities to dispose of land for certain purposes under Section 123, or whatever it is, of the Local Government Act; we are dealing with individual sets of conditions which are to apply to individuals carrying out individual development on individual pieces of land. There is nothing general about this; it will be tailor-made for the individual case in point.
I think I heard the noble and learned Lord say that there was no genus that he could find in the set of conditions in conditions 1 to 5 in paragraph 8 of the Schedule. If that is so, I am surprised. I started off my remarks by saying that they were familiar to those who deal with the planning world. If the noble and learned Lord says that there is no genus to them, that is of course the intention of the Government—there is no genus. If the local authorities attempt to impose conditions which are wholly unfamiliar to people who are used to dealing with planning, which bring in completely different concepts, completely different powers, completely different functions of local authorities—"Yes, you can carry it out so long as you build five miles of dual carriageway adjoining the site" or something like that (to take an absurd example)—people will complain and litigate.
Unless we can get some certainty into what the range of material that these extra conditions are to be bounded by, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said, there will be interminable litigation. The noble and learned Lord does not want that—none of us does. We

331
want to find out the bounds of the powers that this Bill is giving to the Secretary of State. I would ask him most earnestly to look at this again to see whether he can make it more clear; otherwise, we shall be laying up trouble which none of us wants. I do not ask him to reply again, because he has said very kindly that he will look at this. But I would reinforce my remarks about this, because I believe there is great substance here.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: The noble and learned Lord is very kind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 147, I must point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 147A.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 78, line 43, leave out head (b).
The noble Earl said: If I might, to some extent, join my noble friend Lady Young on the following Amendment, I would argue here that,
"A condition may at any time be relaxed—"
is fair enough, but not,
"a condition cannot be relaxed after a failure to comply with the condition."
I am sure your Lordships are well aware that occasionally the developers of land meet an unforeseen snag so that the persons carrying out the development may have, unwittingly and unintentionally, broken one of the conditions. This can arise because of all kinds of strange circumstances. An excellent example which springs to mind was where a new school was being erected not so very far away from my home. They dug the foundations for the buildings and were all set to pour in the concrete after the weekend, but when they came back again they found one of the foundations had sunk 6ft. because of the mine-workings underneath. This is the kind of snag which can upset timetables. Therefore,
332
I recommend that sub-paragraph (5)(b) at the bottom of page 78 is very unkind. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Subparagraph (5) is needed to give flexibility to the operation of conditional notices. It allows an owner who has received such a notice to come to the authority and ask for the condition to be relaxed. This might be appropriate, for example, where a developer has been unable to comply with a time limit imposed by conditions 3, 4 or 5, owing to circumstances outside his control.
In considering the Amendment, it is important to bear in mind that the breach of a condition imposed on a notice of intention not to acquire leads to a revival of the powers of the authority which they abandoned when they served the notice, but it does not mean that the authority necessarily have to exercise those powers. The planning permission remains unsuspended, so the position remains the same as it is now where a wide range of CPO powers are available. Breach of a condition is, however, an important matter, and it is reasonable to expect a developer who has received a conditional notice to see that he complies with the conditions. If he can see it is likely that he will not be able to comply with the condition—for example, because a time limit is running out—then he ought to go to the authority in good time with a request for a relaxation of the condition.
Allowing conditions to be relaxed after they had been broken would. I submit, be wrong in principle, and could open the way to evasion. That danger does not arise so much on the conditions concerning time limits, but in relation to conditions 1 and 2—the condition that no relevant development is carried out on the land except in accordance with the originating planning permission, or the condition that no relevant development is carried out on the land except in accordance with a planning permission specified in the notice—a developer could, unless there were some control of this kind, deliberately start development which was not in accordance with the original planning permission, or the second type of planning permission I have indicated, and then seek a relaxation of the conditions

333
substituting a different planning permission for the one allowed by conditions 1 or 2.
It is felt, therefore, that this provision in (5)(b) is a necessary protection. As I say, if the developer is in difficulty, he can have conditions relaxed on application, but to seek to treat the imposition of conditions as something of no real significance, which could be relaxed after a failure of compliance, would really be wrong in principle and in practice.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply, but I hope that the Amendment of my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, is accepted because here they are asking for only a few words, "except with just cause". From all that has been said, I feel that a little protection needs to be given here, and I hope that that Amendment can be considered. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.7 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment 147A:
Page 78, line 44, after ("condition") insert ("except with just cause").
The noble Baroness said: After what my noble friend Lord Balfour has said, I hope the Government will look favourably on this matter. Unless I have misunderstood sub-paragraph (5)(b), it seemed to me on looking at this that,
"a condition cannot be relaxed after a failure to comply with the condition",
is a statement which does seem very hard, and I should have thought that the words, "except with just cause" are commonly inserted into these kind of conditions because something may have arisen which had not been foreseen to cause the developer to break one of the conditions. This is not unknown. In those circumstances, it seems very hard that this paragraph should apply where it might not be the developer's fault.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I indicated in my earlier observations on the previous Amendment that paragraph (5) allows an owner who has received a conditional notice to come to the authority and ask for the condition
334
to be relaxed. That is provided for in sub-paragraph (5):
"A condition may at any time be relaxed by a subsequent notice served in the same manner as the previous notice…"
So that if there is, to use the phrase, "just cause", then the matter can be rectified in that way.
What is suggested is that even if there has been non-compliance which could be aningenious way of effective evasion of planning control, it would be wrong to permit that to happen. But even if the use of the words were acceptable in principle, the Amendment is, I submit, defective as it introduces the concept of just cause but does not provide any means for establishing what should constitute just cause as between the parties. Therefore, I am afraid that I find this Amendment as unacceptable as the previous Amendment. I am sorry.
The Earl of ONSLOW: On the previous Amendment, the noble and learned Lord was saying that the Secretary of State might find things that had arisen on which he could impose planning permission which had not been dealt with in paragraph 8(1), 1 to 5. Surely, what this Amendment is doing is saying that if a private developer, a private builder, is building something and something arises in exactly the same way as was arising to the Secretary of State on his original imposition of conditions, the Secretary of State is allowed an "out-wriggle" but the private developer or private builder is not, even though his failure to comply with the planning condition may be not his fault and completely beyond his control. There is an element of truth in what I am saying. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be happy to contradict me.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: There is no parity between the two situations at all. Here we are considering a developer who has obtained planning permission to carry out a development on terms which are set out by the planning authority. He defies and breaches that condition and then when it is discovered he seeks a relaxation of the condition. Well, it is not "on". Planning control would disappear. If he finds himself in genuine difficulty, for instance on the time aspects, that is a circumstance where, if he goes straight to the authorities to apply for

335
relaxation of the condition, it would be permissible. But a generality of permission of conduct of defiance of conditions would render planning control impossible.
Baroness YOUNG: I am not sure that we have had an answer to the point I raised. I quite see that it is possible for a developer to apply for relaxation of conditions; and that is quite right. I entirely accept that if a developer or owner has deliberately broken the planning conditions then of course that ought not to be accepted. We are speaking about an occasion when he may not have applied for a relaxation but nevertheless he has failed to comply with the planning conditions through something which has occurred in the meantime which could not have been foreseen and for which he could not have been blamed. It was with that particular situation that I was concerned. I cannot see that the question has been met. However, this is not a matter that I intend to press, so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.14 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 148A:
Page 79, leave out lines 21 to 36 and insert—
"10.—(1) A notice under paragraph 4 or 5 above stating that the authority intend to acquire the land shall be a local land charge.
(2) If the authority subsequently serve a notice under paragraph 6 above stating that they have decided not to acquire the land, then, if they are not a local authority keeping a local land charges register, they shall, as soon as practicable thereafter, send a copy of the notice to every local authority keeping such a register whose area comprises any part of the land.
10A.—(1) In relation to any time before the coming into force of the Local Land Charges Act 1975, paragraph 10 above shall have effect subject to the following modifications.
(2) For sub-paragraph (1) there shall be substituted—
"(1) As soon as practicable after serving a notice under paragraph 4 or 5 above stating that they intend to acquire the land, the authority shall send a copy of the notice to the proper officer (for the purposes of section 15 of the Land Charges Act 1925) of every local authority whose area comprises any part of the land; and as soon as practicable after receiving the copy of the notice, the proper officer shall register the notice in the local land charges register in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under section 19 of that Act."
(3) In sub-paragraph (2) the words "then, unless they are a local authority keeping a local land charges register" shall be omitted and for the words "every local authority keeping such a register" there shall be substituted the words "the proper officer (for the purposes of section 15 of the Land Charges Act 1925) of every local authority".
(4) At the end there shall be added the following sub-paragraph—
"(3) In this paragraph "local authority" does not include a county council or the Greater London Council."."
The noble and learned Lord said: This group of Amendments—and there are a considerable number of them—taken together simply take account of the fact that the Local Land Charges Bill, which is at present before Parliament, will make certain changes to the procedures concerning local land charges registers and that these changes will need to be reflected in this Bill. This situation has led to my putting down Amendments Nos. 148A, 148B, 181D, 181E, 183A, 183B, 185A, 185B, 187A and 187B. Dealing with them together will at least have the merit of clearing the decks a little, in view of the fact that we are already after the witching hour of midnight.
Amendments Nos. 148A and 148B make the changes needed in respect of notices served under Schedule 7 planning applications. Amendments Nos. 181D and 181E make the necessary changes in respect of disposal notification area resolutions under Schedule 8. Amendments Nos. 183A and 183B do the same for notices by the Secretary of State in respect of disposal notification areas under Schedule 8. Amendments Nos. 185A and 185B deal with the notices required on the termination of a disposal notification area. Amendment No. 187A deals with the transitional situation concerning DNA notices before the Local Land Charges Bill comes into force by replacing the existing provisions until that time. Finally, Amendment No. 187B is a consequential drafting Amendment.
There are several references in Schedules 7 and 8 to the Bill to notices being registered in the local land charges register. As the law now stands, the provisions in the Bill relating to the registration of notices in the local land charges register are standard provisions. However, when the Local Land Charges

337
Bill which is at present in another place comes into force it will introduce technical changes affecting the registration of local land charges, which in turn will affect the drafting of this Bill. As it is not yet clear which of the two Bills will come into force first, it is prudent to make provision in this Bill to cover either eventuality, and this is what the Amendments do. If I may say so, there is nothing sinister in what is proposed. It is purely machinery for the registration of these matters in local land charges registers. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his explanation of all these Amendments. I feel sure he is correct in saying that we need not worry about them. It is bad enough having to consider one Bill without having to consider a second that interlocks with it! I am, therefore, most grateful for that explanation.
The Earl of BALFOUR: The Local Land Charges Bill is, strictly speaking, a Bill that deals only with England. I am wondering whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would consider providing for similar registration in the Register of Sasines in Scotland.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The registration of sasines is a most fascinating idea! I do not know whether the procedure for registering local land charges in Scotland is similar to that in England. It may be that the piece of paper that the Chief Whip has happily presented to me in the nick of time is the answer.
The Register of Sasines is solely a register of proprietoral or possessory rights; in other words, ownership. As these notices do not confer ownership, they cannot be so registered. We have provided for them to be registered in the planning register. At present, it is common practice in land transactions for searches to be made of planning registers —indeed, it would be an unwise conveyancing solicitor who did not do so—and these registers are freely available to the public for inspection. I hope that that answers the question of the noble Earl. If it does not, I do not know what the answer is.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
12.20 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 148B.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 38, leave out ("paragraph 10(1)") and insert ("that paragraph").—(The Lord Chancellor)
Lord MELCHETT: In moving Amendment No. 149 I will speak also to No. 151. These two drafting Amendments simply bring the wording in subparagraph (1) into line with the rest of the paragraph. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 4, after ("to") insert ("applications for")—(Lord Melchett)
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 80, line 4, leave out ("(for development of any description)") and insert ("for relevant development").
The noble Earl said: Here we are talking about planning permission for development of any description. I feel that we are still to a great extent dealing with planning applications for relevant development, and as we have been mostly dealing with relevant development in Schedule 7 I should like an explanation as to whether this covers all types of planning permission, or whether the relevant development under Schedule 1 and Clause 3 is also included. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The reason for providing that authorities receiving planning applications should send copies of all such applications to the other authorities concerned is that each of the authorities has to decide whether or not the proposed development is relevant development, and thus whether they should seek to acquire the land. It is not sufficient, therefore, for the receiving authority to decide which application should be transmitted and which should not.
Paragraph 12(3) however, provides that the other authorities can direct that they do not wish to see all applications, and we expect that the LAMS will contain a provision that only relatively few

339
copies will need to be sent in this way; that is to say, normally the ones where the other authority is likely to be interested in acquiring the land. As I take it the noble Earl was moving this as a probing Amendment, I hope that the explanation has satisfied him and that he will now withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am still a little concerned about the householder, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 151.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 5, leave out ("granted in pursuance of an application").—(Lord Melchett.)
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 151A:
Page 80, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) An authority receiving an application for planning permission shall as soon as may be after receipt of the same notify the applicant and the owner in writing if that authority is not the authority specified in the relevant Land Acquisition and Management Scheme as the acquiring authority for the area to which the application relates and shall supply the name and address of such acquiring authority within one month.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a relatively small point, but it has been put to me that this kind of procedure would be a great convenience, particularly to some developers for housing. I hoped that it might be considered as something which would be helpful both to the local authority and to the prospective developer. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: Although authorities will have concurrent powers of acquisition under the scheme, in practice the land acquisition management scheme for an area will define at least in broad terms which authority is normally to be the acquiring authority. We also expect that authorities will make provision for the issuing notices under the scheme by one authority on behalf of the others, thus avoiding a multiplicity of notices being sent to the applicant. These and other matters will become public knowledge, as there is provision in sub-paragraph (5) of Schedule 5 for LAMS to be made available for public inspection.
340
In addition, the Department will be giving guidance to authorities on the way in which applicants for planning permission should be informed of the effect of the Bill, and this will include advice on the handling of applications, and the procedure for giving notices to require authorities to send out additional notices —as would the Amendment of the noble Baroness—specifying which authority was the acquiring authority, would not only give rise to a substantial increase in work, but would also give rise to considerable uncertainty. The vast majority of planning applications will not be concerned with relevant development, and there will be no question of the land being acquired, or the planning permissions being suspended. Therefore, it will not concern most applicants whether or not the authority receiving the application is the acquiring authority, and it may cause unnecessary alarm and despondency if applicants for planning permission are given this information when it is not strictly necessary.
Baroness YOUNG: I do not know that anybody would necessarily feel despondent if they had some information they did not feel was strictly necessary. At the end of the day, they might be glad to have had it. However, I am glad to have had the explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Permission before relevant date: applications on or after first appointed day]:
12.27 a.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 153:
Page 19, line 41, after ("Act") insert ("or under the Act of 1971 or the Scottish Act of 1972").
The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment to confirm that this is something we want to see in the Bill. I will not press it now, because the noble Lord has already given an undertaking to look at this in respect of Clause 19. I imagine that assurance goes for Clause 20 as well. With that assurance I do not propose to move this Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT moved Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 20, line 1, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 2 and insert ("Where planning permission to which this section applies is granted before").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 en bloc. Clause 20 and Schedule 7 are based on the principle that where a planning permission is granted for relevant development, the authorities concerned should have the opportunity to consider acquisition of the land before the development covered by the permission is started. In the normal course of events it is expected that the decisions on acquisition and on the planning application will be made at the same time. But it could be that a decision not to acquire is made before the permission is granted: and where this happens there is no need for the suspension ever to take effect. But it is arguable that the Bill as drafted would bring about suspension m these circumstances.
The Amendments cure this flaw by re-drafting the wording of subsection (3) so that the suspension operates only where planning permission is granted before acquisition has taken place or before all the authorities have abandoned their power to purchase. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 156.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 3, at end insert ("it shall be suspended, when granted, until the end of that period").—(Lord Melchett.)
Clause 21 [Permission granted on or after relevant date]:
12.30 a.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 20, line 12, after ("subsection") insert ("(2A) or").
Page 20, line 12, at end insert—
("(2A) This subsection applies where—

(a) an authority make a compulsory purchase order as respects the land on which the relevant development covered by the permission will be carried out, and

(b) the Secretary of State serves notice on the authority that he does not intend to confirm the order as respects that land, and

(c) that notice contains a direction that this subsection shall apply.")

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I will now move Amendments Nos. 157 and 158. These Amendments provide that where the Secretary of State decides not to confirm a compulsory purchase order made after the relevant date for designated relevant development—that is, when the full duty is in force—then the suspension of the planning permission covering that relevant development shall be lifted from the land in question if the Secretary of State so directs.
Once the full duty is in operation, authorities in an area will have to acquire between them all the land needed for designated relevant development. The exclusions from this duty set out in Clause 18(3) are deliberately very limited since the whole purpose of the Bill is that all land needed for relevant development should pass through public ownership. Therefore, any widely drawn exclusion is unacceptable in principle, though there might be very limited circumstances in which, even when the full duty is operating, the authority ought not to acquire land even when they consider it is needed for designated relevant development. For example, there could—true, very exceptionally—be a case where the Secretary of State might decide that when an authority made a compulsory purchase order, the owner of the land had made a special case—for example, on grounds of hardship—for saying that the development should go ahead without public ownership.
Therefore what is required here and what these Amendments provide is a very limited power to cover special situations and not a general provision of the kind proposed by the Opposition in their Amendment No. 121A. The Amendment, therefore, works by enabling the Secretary of State to remove the automatic suspension of planning permission where he refuses to confirm a compulsory purchase order. The procedure associated with an order will enable the Secretary of State to consider any special circumstances which might justify refusing to allow development to proceed without his confirming the order. Thus where the full duty is operating, relevant development without public acquisition can occur only after full consideration of all the issues. Given the principles of the land scheme, this must surely be the right approach.
The Earl of KINNOULL:May I put a question to the noble Baroness, because she did refer to Amendment No. 121A. It is a little late to be asking this question, but am I right in saying that the broad principle or the purpose of the Amendment the noble Baroness is moving is that it relaxes this duty under Clause 18, and that with the consent of the Secretary of State local authorities will not be bound always to purchase as a duty where it is in the interests of the local authority and of the owner not to do so?
Baroness BIRK: I think the point is that there may be limited circumstances, even when the full duty is operating, where the Secretary of State will intervene and decide that the owner of the land had made a special case. This is really in the interests of the owner of the land. I think the noble Earl will agree the point goes wider than Amendment No. 121A, and therefore gives, in the sense in which he was proposing No. 121A, rather more protection.
The Earl of KINNOULL: In that case I very much welcome it.
Baroness BIRK: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 162 and 164. I spoke to these Amendments on Amendment No. 6 at Clause 1.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 43, leave out from ("authority") to end of line.
Page 21, line 2, at end insert—
("(10) Any reference in this section to an authority of a given class means the authority of that class whose area includes the land.").—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Whether Clause 21, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDFORD: I wonder whether I could draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the note on subsection (6) of this clause. This is the note issued by her own Department, which has been so helpful to us. The comment reads:
"The giving of the certificate effectively lifts the suspension from the Planning Commissioner and enables the development to be carried out. However, the primary function of enforcing planning control rests with the district councils except where county matters are involved, in which case either the district
344
council, after consultation with the county council, or the county council may act. Where the district council are not the acquiring or disposing authority they will not have issued the certificate. They will however wish to know whether or not a commission is still suspended, and the subsection therefore requires the disposing authority to send them a copy of the certificate."
I think the Committee will see that that is a sensible provision. But it relies on the assertion that the primary function of enforcing planning control rests with the district councils—and so it does in most cases. But I think the noble Baroness will agree that it does not do so in the case of the 10 National Parks where development control is in the hands of the National Park committees, which are committees of county councils or, in the case of the Peak Park, is in the hands of the Peak Park Planning Board.
Therefore, would she agree that there should be provision for districts disposing of land in the National Parks (which they might easily be doing) and counties, too—six counties with territory in the else of the Peak Park—to be required to issue certificates to the National Park Committees and to the Peak Park Planning Board? If she could agree that an Amendment to provide accordingly was required, I should be happy. I much prefer that she did the drafting of it, because although the point is simple the drafting may be rather intricate.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is quite right, and he has made a valid point. In the case of a National Parks board, the planning control function rests with the board and not with the district council, so it is necessary to provide that where an authority, other than one of the boards, issues a certificate it shall send a copy of the certificate to the board. He will be pleased to hear that we propose to bring forward an Amendment on Report to try to put this right, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out this omission.
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She used the word "board" several times, which of course is right in so far as the Peak Park goes. I hope she means the National Park committees in respect of the other nine National Parks.
Baroness BIRK: Yes.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Suspension of planning permission: supplemental]:
12.39 a.m.
Lord GRIDLEY Lord GRIDLEY moved Amendment No. 165A:
Page 21, line 13, after ("land") insert ("(unless the relevant development or part of it is utilised by an authority or its successor in title)")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved in the interests of the development industry. Clause 22(1) deals with the suspension of planning permission. This Amendment is designed to prevent this subsection—which enables local authorities to acquire development carried out while a planning consent is suspended at a price which disregards the value of the development—from applying in those cases in which the relevant development, or part of it, is subsequently utilised by the authority. Such an Amendment is obviously desirable on grounds of fairness to developers who might be affected in this way.
Lord MELCHETT: I am afraid I cannot accept that the Amendment is desirable on grounds of fairness. The provisions of Clause 22(1) to (5), are intended to provide a means of backing up the suspension of planning permission which is provided for in Clauses 19, 20 and 21. They do this by providing that development carried out on the basis of a suspended planning permission is to be treated in the same way as development carried out without planning permission for the purposes of the enforcement provisions of the planning Acts. Thus, any development actually carried out while permission was suspended will not be reflected in the price paid for the land if it is publicly acquired. These provisions are, of course, designed to provide an effective penalty where the suspension of planning permission achieved by the Bill is ignored. They do this by building on the enforcement provisions of the planning Acts. Development carried out without planning permission would not, at present, generally be reflected in the value of land on public acquisition, because the market would not necessarily pay for development which was within the scope of enforcement action.
346
It may be argued that it is wrong to provide a valuation penalty in the new situation created by suspended permissions under the Bill. In general, when local authorities enforce against development carried out without planning permission, it is because they are opposed to development of the land and they wish to see the offending development removed. This may also be true where development is carried out on the basis of a suspended planning permission; for instance, an authority may have granted permission for housing development which was not in itself objectionable on planning grounds, but they may have suspended the permission not with the intention of buying the land for the development in question, but in order to acquire the site for inclusion in a more comprehensive housing development.
Of course, an authority may suspend a planning permission and then acquire the land and make it available for development in accordance with the planning permission. In these circumstances, it might be argued, the authority would be benefiting from the development carried out in terms of the price that it gets for the site and it ought, therefore, to pay the developer for it. This argument would be based ona misunderstanding of the purpose of Clause 22. Clearly, if planning permissions are to be suspended there must be a credible sanction to prevent development being carried out on the basis of a suspended permission; otherwise, the whole purpose of suspension is lost, and it is that which the provisions in the clause are designed to achieve.
Lord GRIDLEY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation and I assure him that we will study it very carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.44 a.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 22, line 11, at end insert ("or
(c) land where the material interest belonged to an industry before the 12th September 1974 and that industry is granted an industrial development certificate under section 67 of the Act of 1971 or 65 of the Scottish Act of 1972 for the further development of that industry").
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will be aware that in many cases there are Government grants for industrial developments. Are they, too, to be held up for the same length of time as planning permission is suspended under the provisions of this Bill? I feel that these industries run a serious risk of losing the benefit of these grants, for in many cases they are payable only if the development is started before the end of the financial year, and it is in this context that industry could be extremely detrimentally affected.
Baroness BIRK: It appears to me that the Amendment is based on two premises: first, that industrial expansion generally ought to be encouraged and not impeded; secondly, in particular, that where an industrialist has prudently and in ignorance of the Government's intentions acquired land for his own future expansion before White Paper day, then he should normally be allowed to carry through the plans that he had made on this basis. We have discussed this on other Amendments so the Committee should be aware that the Government would not only entirely support both these premises, but would go further and say that any bona fide industrial development on land owned by an industrialist before White Paper day should normally be allowed to go ahead without public ownership, whether the development is for the use of the industrialist who owned the land on White Paper day, or for another industrialist. This further provision is necessary so as to ensure that an industrialist who, on White Paper day, owned a factory together with land for expansion should be able to sell to another industrialist with the benefit that development of land held on White Paper day would be excepted development.
However, the present Amendment is not the right way to achieve this policy. First, it works in a rather curious way. It removes industrial development on the land from the mechanism for suspending planning permissions, thus ensuring that the industrialist can obtain an unsuspended planning permission and be free to undertake the industrial development. But it does not remove such development from the full duty under Clause 18 once that has been introduced. So although the development could go ahead without
348
public intention, an authority would still be under a duty to acquire the land where it was needed for relevant development. This could only lead to grave uncertainty, as I believe the noble Earl will agree, and is presumably not what the Amendment is intended to achieve.
Secondly, the restriction to cases where there is an industrial development certificate is undesirable. Small extensions do not, of course, need an industrial development certificate and would not, therefore, benefit under the Amendment. More important, industrial development certificates are not required in development areas. It was presumably not the intention of the noble Earl in drafting this Amendment to give a benefit to industry in the South-East and West Midlands, but not in Scotland. I do not feel he could possibly have meant to do that.
The Government's view is that the right way to achieve what is required is to include industrial development on land owned by an industrial undertaking on White Paper day within excepted development, and this proposal is included in Annex A to the document on the scope of the community land scheme setting out the content of the proposed regulations as it intends to do. I shall not take up the Committee's time by reading it out, as I presume the noble Earl has it. This will get over the problems I have mentioned and will ensure that the development can normally go ahead without public intervention. On the basis of this explanation and assurance, I feel sure that the noble Earl will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I should just like to ask the noble Baroness one question. She said that land which belonged to an industrial undertaking, and which was sold to another industrial undertaking after 12th September 1974, was also excluded from these provisions. On that point, I do not believe she is right, because that is surely a change of ownership and the new person acquiring the land would then apply for the planning permission. I should be very interested to know whether what she has said is correct, but I believe that there is a difference here.
Baroness BIRK: As I understand it, the further provision is necessary. That is the provision which I said we needed to

349
ensure that an industrialist who owned a factory on White Paper day, together with land for expansion, should be able to sell to another industrialist with the benefit of the exclusion. With regard to the other question raised, concerning the timing of grants, this is not immediately connected with the suspension of planning permission, and I should like to consider this and write to the noble Earl.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Perhaps the noble Baroness would let me know about that. I should be very much obliged if she can let me know. The matter will obviously concern industry quite considerably, but I will not press it any further now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Disposal notification areas]:
12.52 a.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 22, line 21, at beginning insert ("Subject to the arrangements established under section 16 above.")
The noble Lord said: We now come to Clause 23 which contains one of the more pernicious provisions in this Bill which we dislike so much. At this stage, due to the fact that we have much ground to cover, it is our general intention to deal fairly gently with the clause as a whole, merely asking some questions here and there; with perhaps a little more in one or two places. But I hope that noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite will not assume that we are going to leave it at that. We are reserving our position for the next stage in the interests of making some progress tonight.
This Amendment is not very formidable. Its object is merely to ensure that the designation of disposal notification areas should be done in conformity with the land acquisition and management schemes. The terms of subsection (2) to which it refers are broadly drawn and do not confine any one authority in any way at all. It seems to us that where there is a land acquisition and management scheme the resolutions declaring disposal notification orders ought to con
350
form to them. I should like at this stage to have an assurance from the noble Lord who is to answer that this is the Government's intention. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I think that I will be able to satisfy the noble Lord about this. The general intention behind the Amendment is broadly acceptable to the Government. LAMS must contain arrangements for the co-ordination of action by the authorities in each county area, and that is set out in Schedule 5, paragraph 3(1)(a). I do not know whether that alone is enough to satisfy the noble Lord. I can go into some considerable detail on the effects of his Amendment, if he wishes.
Lord SANDFORD: I do not think that there is any need to do that. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State will get these land acquisition and management schemes, and if, in the course of scrutinising them and, where necessary, revising them, he will give a sufficiently strong indication that the powers Ito be exercised under Clause 23(2) are to be exercised in accordance with the land acquisition and management scheme, that —speaking for myself—will be satisfactory. I beg leave to' withdraw, the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 167A:
Page 22, line 22, at end insert ("provided that no dwelling-house occupied as such at the date of the resolution shall be included in any such area unless the occupier at that date has first given his consent in writing to such inclusion").
The noble Baroness said: In view of what I believe to be Amendment No. 185, a Government Amendment, which almost meets the point that I am raising here, I shall reserve any remarks that I want to make until we reach that Government Amendment. I therefore do not propose to move Amendment No. 167A.
12.57 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 167B.
Page 22, line 22, at end insert ("provided that in the case of land on which there is at least one dwelling-house such resolution shall not be passed unless the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a)-(c) of section 12(1) of the Act of 1971 (publicity in connection with the preparation of plans) have in the opinion of the

351
authority been adequately achieved by the steps taken by the authority.")
The noble Baroness said: As my noble friend Lord Sandford has already said, we on this side of the Committee find Clause 23 one of the most objectionable clauses in this Bill. It introduces a totally new concept, that of the disposal notification area, and, as is the case with so many of the things which we dislike, we know so little about the real reason for wanting to give local authorities these powers. The only reason that is given is that they may obtain information about disposals of development land in these areas. The idea of a disposal notification area is something which is quite new, and this is the only reason that is given for it.
Unlike a housing action area under the 1974 Housing Act, which is, I am told, one of the comparisons that may be made with it, where of course a great many reasons are given, virtually no reason is given in this Bill. Indeed, sweeping powers are given to local authorities. Subsection (2) says:
"An authority may pass a resolution declaring any land in their area to be a disposal notification area".
We are not even given any limit on its size. So far as I can see, it could be the entire area of the authority, or just a very small area indeed. We simply do not know what is meant by it.
It therefore seems to us only right that there ought to be much more consultation about this, and not just the provisions which are written into Schedule 8 concerning the publication of notices about an area. On looking further at this, we believe that the provisions which are contained in Section 12 of the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act would afford the kind of opportunity which would be helpful to people in the area by letting them know what is going on.
These provisions suggest, first, that there should be adequate publicity given to any relevant matter arising out of a survey of the area; and, secondly, that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity to make representations should be given an adequate opportunity to do so. These seem to me the kind of basic safeguards that ought to be written into such a clause as this. They are the kind of matters which I should have thought any Government interested in promoting public participation, and
352
making public participation a reality, would accept.
It may well be argued that, because of a later Government Amendment which will, as I understand it, take out from a disposal notification area owner-occupiers, this Amendment is totally unnecessary. But, of course, the fact is that even if the owner-occupiers are not included in the disposal notification area, they will inevitably be affected by what goes on around them. So I do not think one can say that simply because their properties are not to be included they need not be consulted about what is to happen, and that therefore this Amendment is quite unnecessary, because I simply do not think that that is the case. We on this side of the Committee think very much that in order for there to be any public understanding at all about what this concept is to be, let alone any hope of making it work effectively, the local authority must carry members of the public with it, and if it is to do that it must go through the kind of procedure laid down in former Acts of Parliament. With that, I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in an appeasing mood, indicated that this Part of the Bill would be dealt with cursorily and gently, but he could not refrain from the adjectival attack in describing it as "pernicious", which does not sound exactly like a gesture of appeasement to me; and it is obvious that the process of attempted education which was undertaken in another place on the significance of disposal notification has to be re-attempted in the course of our deliberations on this clause. I understand that Amendment No. 167A was not moved and we shall probably return at some later stage to consideration of this. At the moment we are discussing only Amendment No. 167B and a consequential Amendment No. 181C.
Amendment No. 167B provides that an authority could not declare a disposal notification area which would include any dwelling house unless they had first carried out adequate public participation, as defined in the 1971 Act which deals with publicity in connection with the preparation of local plans. Schedule 8 to the Bill provides for the publication of a notice of a resolution declaring a disposal notification area and this, in itself,

353
will enable all those with an interest in the area to know what is afoot. In view of the limited functions and purposes of the disposal notification area provisions which are primarily to enable an authority to safeguard the position in an area where they are considering an acquisition and the key purpose of which is to identify the land in a planning sense, in our view this publication of the notice of a resolution declaring a disposal notification area would bring the matter to the attention of the public.
Public participation on the lines specified in Section 12 of the 1971 Act is relevant only where there is some important decision to be taken either by the local authority or by the Secertary of State; but the declaration of a disposal notification area is not an important decision in that sense. It is simply a mechanical decision which follows from planning and acquisition decisions which will already have been made before there is any question of declaring a disposal notification area.
In the light of those facts and those circumstances, it is not felt that the procedures recommended under the 1971 Act would be appropriate in the circumstances of DNAs.
Baroness YOUNG: I was very surprised to hear that reply to my Amendment. To say that the publication of a notice as set out in Schedule 8 would be enough is to misunderstand entirely what people who are going to be affected by this would think. Then to go on and say that passing a resolution to declare an area to be a disposal notification area is not an important decision, I should have thought ran counter to all that the Government are saying: that this is an important provision in the Bill. If it is an important provision, it is obviously of importance to the people in the area who will find themselves in a disposal notification area.
The noble and learned Lord has said that it is only of limited function. I am bound to say that I am deeply suspicious of the limited function because it is easy
to see in effect how this could work. A local authority could declare an area a disposal notification area; and I am glad that the Government have seen fit to say that the owner-occupied houses in that area will be excluded from its provisions. Nevertheless, as soon as one is declared, every owner-occupier (although they are to be excluded) will immediately wonder what is afoot. As the noble and learned Lord said, the local authority are considering acquisitions in that area. The first move will be to unsettle everybody who may not have thought of moving at all. But they will now wonder whether the local authority are considering acquiring their property, although the Government have said that this will not be the case.
It is a kind of softening-up process. Should anybody doubt what I say, I recommend them to read an interesting document called The Hillingdon Experiment. I will not take up the Committee's time in reading some of the letters that have resulted, but clearly in that case the local council has taken to writing a sequence of letters to people asking whether they would sell property to the council, unsettling everybody in the area. Eventually somebody decides to sell. other neighbours follow, and the entire area is taken over.
It is misleading the Committee to suggest that this is a minor provision in the Bill about which we should not be concerned. It is an important provision. The Government regard it as important. Because they do, we regard it as important that the people affected should know what is going on. For that reason we request what we believe is a reasonable provision, that the application of the 1971 Act should apply and that people should be consulted before they find themselves in a disposal notification area.
1.7 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 167B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Balfour, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belstead, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Campbell of Croy, L

Cowley, E.

Arbuthnott, V.

Carrington, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Atholl, D.

Clinton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L

Auckland, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

de Clifford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandford, L.

Digby, L.

Hylton, L.

Sandys, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kindersley, L.

Savile, L.

Effingham, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Elles, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elton. L.

Long, V.

Exeter, M.

Lyell, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Falmouth, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Stuart of Findhorn. V.

Ferrers, E.

Middleton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gainford, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Swansea, L.

Greenway, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Teviot, L.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Hanworth, V.

Vivian. L.

Harvington, L.

Newall, L.

Wise, L.

Hayter. L.

Nunburnholme, L

Yarborough, E.

Hereford, V.

Onslow, E.

Young, B.

Hives, L.

Ridley, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Gardiner, L.

Melchett, L.

Arwyn, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Morris of Kenwood, I

Bacon, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Beswick, L.

Hoy, L.

Peddie, L.

Birk, B.

Hughes, L.

Raglan, L.

Brown, L.

Jacques, L.

Segal, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Castle, L.

Kissin, L.

Stedman. B.

Champion. L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

White, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Willis, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Winterbottom, L.

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

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
1.16 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 167C:
Page 22, line 22, at end insert ("Any area so declared shall not exceed 2 hectares in size").
The noble Baroness said: I put down this Amendment to see whether the Government can give any indication as to what size they think disposal notification areas are likely to be. It seems to me, as I said previously, that they could be the size of a whole authority, or they could be much smaller. I should like to know the Government's views on the matter, and I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I take it that when the noble Baroness said she was putting down the Amendment in order to ask about these areas, she accepted that it was totally unrealistic to limit the size to an area as small as 2 hectares, or approximately 5 acres. There may be many cases where a wider area would be affected by a development or redevelopment programme. The purpose
356
of having DNAs is to enable authorities to find out about impending private transactions in areas where they are considering acquisition. It would be ludicrous if an authority could apply these provisions only within a site of 2 hectares, even if they were contemplating the acquisition of, say, 10 hectares. This difficulty could, of course, be overcome by an authority declaring five DNAs of 2 hectares each; but this would nullify the Amendment, and if noble Lords opposite were to carry their point they would presumably want to try to stop up this loophole—assuming that it would be possible to draft a provision to achieve this. Secondly, the limitation of a disposal notification area in this way would limit the area within which owners had the benefit of the blight provisions in subsection (9).
The other principal reason for having disposal notification areas is to provide a way of protecting the interests of owners in an area where acquisition by an authority is imminent, by attracting the blight provisions. The Amendment would deprive some owners of such protection, for even if it were public knowledge that

357
an authority were contemplating the acquisition of 10 hectares, they would be able to apply the DNA procedure to only 2 hectares, subject to the point about evasion of the Amendment made above. It would be grossly unfair if those owners with land within the 2-hectare area were able to invoke the blight provisions through subsection (9), while those owners with land outside the 2-hectare limit were not able to do so. Therefore, I think even the noble Baroness will agree that this is not a very viable Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to have an answer to my question as to whether or not the Government believe that a disposal notification area could be the entire area of a local authority.
Baroness BIRK: No. As I understand it, it would never be the entire area of a local authority. The Government Amendments which I shall shortly be moving specify the areas that are reserved for dwelling-houses; but as far as the DNA is concerned, it would not be the whole of the authority's area.
Baroness YOUNG: Could it be the whole geographical area, except the dwelling-houses? And if it cannot be the whole area, where does the Bill say that it cannot be the whole area?
Baroness BIRK: As I understand it, the Secretary of State would not allow a whole area to be declared a DNA, because in any case we are discussing areas which would be ripe or ready for development to take place. The whole area of an authority could not possibly qualify for that. It would be quite impossible for this to happen on practical, geographical and every other ground. It just would not make sense.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Is the noble Baroness saying that if a local authority sent under Schedule 8 a copy of a resolution declaring the whole of their area to be a DNA, apart from the dwelling-houses, what they would do would be to send a notification under paragraph 2(3)(b), excluding a great deal of the local authority's area? It would be as well if we knew what as a matter of policy the Secretary of State was going to do about that. Is that what he is going to do?
Baroness BIRK: They could send it forward, the Secretary of State would then examine it, and it is very unlikely that the whole area would he acceptable. They would have to be able to prove their case, so it is not a question of whole are as everywhere being DNAs.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Is that right, that the local authority, therefore, will not only have to send a copy of the resolution, and a copy of the map under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 8, but also a full argued case why they want the area to be a DNA? It does not say so in the Bill. At the present moment, I have no idea what will go on behind the scenes. I do not suppose any of the public will ever find out what goes on behind the scenes, and we are going to set up this apparatus. It would be useful if the Government could tell us now.
Baroness BIRK: If the noble Viscount will read further along that same paragraph, he will see that the area declared to be a disposal area is no longer such an area, that some land can be excluded from the disposal notification area, and that the Secretary of State may require more time to consider the authority's resolution.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: That was exactly the point I drew to the noble Baroness's attention a few moments ago. I am now asking about paragraph 2(1). In addition to sending a copy of the resolution and of the map, has the local authority also to send a fully argued case? What she told us a moment ago is that if the Secretary of State received notification whereby the whole of the local authority's area, apart from dwelling-houses, was to be a DNA, he would be very unlikely to confirm it or fail to use his powers to modify it, unless the local authority put forward a very strong case. Will they have to argue this case? If they are to have to argue this case, the next thing I want to know is: are the public going to be allowed to see the argument?
Baroness BIRK: As the noble Viscount knows very well, the DNAs have to he examined against a planning background. Therefore, although it need not be a fully argued case at that stage, the Department will already have received a great deal of planning information

359
and will have also received the planning programmes.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: It does not say that it will be dealt with against a planning background. Is this another piece of administrative advice? I am sorry if I am not following the noble Baroness very well. I do not think it says anywhere in the Bill that a DNA has to be based on a planning background. It may be that I have missed some statement that has been made somewhere, though I do not think I have. Can the noble Baroness tell us what the planning background is to be? Is it land that is allocated as an action area in a local plan? What sort of planning background has she in mind?
Baroness BIRK: If the noble Viscount will turn back to the original clause which we are discussing, Clause 23(1), it says:
"An authority may exercise the powers conferred by this section for the purpose of obtaining. information about disposals of development land",
and all this lays the background for the development and the planning concepts. It does not actually spell out the details that the noble Viscount is asking for; it is true that those are not spelled out word by word in the Bill. As I understand it, the background will be spelled out in guidance which will emanate from the Bill itself.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I do not want to pursue this, but development land takes us back to Clause 17(4) —land needed for development, and relevant development, if I remember rightly, takes us back to land considered suitable by the local authority. So one does not have to have planning permission, or anything in the development plan, or anything in the structure plan, or anything in the local plan. All one has to have is an opinion by the local authority. That is not a planning background, so I do not think Clause 23(1) helps the noble Baroness on this point.
Can the noble Baroness tell us this? If the local authority are in certain circumstances—say, where they do not have a planning background already decided —going to have to satisfy the Secretary of State that there is good reason to set
360
up a DNA, will the public be allowed to see the argument?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, as I understand it, they will. But what the noble Viscount is doing is taking out one part and, as he knows perfectly well, not putting it in the context of the whole Bill which is concerned both with acquisition and with positive planning. DNAs are a mechanism by which a private seller informs the local authority of his desire to sell whatever it is. This is a mechanism and certain things follow from it.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Am I right in saying that she has now confirmed that the public in the area will be able to see the submission that the local authority sends to the Secretary of State with the notification of the DNA? If so, will she please tell us how the public gets hold of it and where it is provided in any of the illustrative material? It is a very great advance. I am extremely grateful to her. Will she confirm that this is definitely so? And how do we get hold of it when one of these DNAs occurs?
Baroness BIRK: The noble Viscount knows perfectly well that they will have the opportunity to see the land and also the other planning procedures as the plans are being worked out and developed. They will not see this particular argument, but they will have the other information. This matter was dealt with in paragraph 13 of the Planning Background Paper, a copy of which was put in the Library of the House. This point was covered and it has, I am quite sure, come up before. Maybe the noble Viscount was not here at the time.
Baroness YOUNG: What started off to be, as I thought, a relatively straightforward question that the noble Baroness could answer, has obviously led to a great deal of other information which I think we find it most useful to have on the Record. It is obviously a matter to which we shall be returning on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.29 a.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 168:

361
Page 22, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 28 and insert ("apply from").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 have to be taken together. Once again I ask your Lordships just to consider what is being said in subsection (3) of Clause 23. This subsection reads:
"The resolution shall specify a date as the effective date for the disposal notification area, and that date shall not be earlier than—

(a) the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the passing of the resolution, or

(b) the first appointed day."

So far as I can see from the wording, it could be either at the end of the period of three months after the passing of the resolution or the first appointed day, whichever is the earlier. What I am seeking to do in my Amendment is to change it round.
If my words were accepted, this part would read as follows:
"The resolution shall specify a date as the effective date for the disposal notification area and that date shall apply from the end of the period of three months beginning with the passing of the resolution or the first appointed day, whichever is the later".
I feel that people require a reasonable amount of warning. I feel also that as this part is drafted, it could be "whichever is the earlier". I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I do not think that it could. Taken together, the Amendments do not alter the substance of Clause 23(3), nor do they improve on the drafting which I am advised is quite clear and unambiguous as it stands. I am also advised that to say a date shall apply from another date is not English. It may be Scottish, but I am advised that it is not suitable language to include in the Bill. If the date is not earlier than either (a) or (b), it is quite unnecessary to add the words "whichever is the later". With that additional clarification, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw these Amendments.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Is it the Government's intention that if a resolution were passed by the local authority a disposal notification area could be brought in without any interval after the first appointed day? That is a question which I must ask.
Lord MELCHETT: I said that the noble Earl's Amendments did not alter the substance of the clause, so what he intends to achieve is already achieved in the Bill. I should have thought that would satisfy him.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I shall study this point carefully and will reserve the right to come back to it at Report stage if I am not satisfied. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): If Amendment No. 170A is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 170C, 170B, 170D or 170E.
1.34 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 170A:
Page 22, line 34, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment which once again gives us an opportunity to find out what are the Government's intentions with regard to this clause. Presumably as they now intend to exclude owner-occupiers from it, this subsection will not apply to any owner-occupier. Does that mean that every other owner of land who is now in the disposal notification area has to notify the local authority of his intention to dispose of a piece of land? I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could explain this to us. I beg to move.
The LORDCHANCELLOR: The position of the owner-occupier is that owner-occupied houses are not totally excluded from the provisions of the clause. Owner-occupiers can give notice of intention to dispose of the property if they want, and they need not do so if they do not wish to do so. But from their point of view it could probably be the case that they would be well advised to do so from the point of view of their own interest and benefit. The machinery of disposal notification areas, so far from being a pestilential loss to those affected within the area, will benefit them in the various ways which perhaps before the morning is out we shall be able to explain.

363
There is clearly a failure of understanding of what the function of intention of the disposal notification area proposals are which we hope we will be able to put right before the night is out. As it stands, this Amendment is clearly a wrecking Amendment. The whole purpose of the clause is to enable authorities to publish information about intended disposal of development land within a disposal notification area, and the requirement as to notification is contained in this subsection. There are references to it in most of the other subsections to the clause. Without it the clause is meaningless. Naturally, this Amendment must be opposed, but we shall be coming back in greater detail to some of these general propositions I have just made before we part with all the Amendments.
Earl FERRERS: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could explain one thing. If you are in a disposal notification area, and if you are the owner of a house, or the owner of a smallholding, or the owner of a small farm, and you wish to divest yourself of the ownership of that property and pass it on to your wife or to your son, are you not in fact disposing of a material interest? In that case, would you not be obliged to offer it to the local authority first before disposing of it to your son or to your wife?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: In that precise, limited disposition, from one member of the family to another, I do not know whether that would apply. I would like notice of that question. I do not know. We are thinking of a sale and a disposal which should be notified. A transfer of that kind I should not have thought was a disposal within the meaning of the provisions of the clause, but I should certainly like to look at it.
Earl FERRERS: The noble and learned Lord will, of course, appreciate that this is a very important point, because nowadays, where a disposal of interest to another party, or to another generation, involves liabilities to capital transfer tax and so forth, if a person is going to dispose of his interest he may wish to do so by passing it on. But if it so happens that his property falls within a DNA, if he has to offer the property first to the local authority, this
364
will put severe limitations on his ability to pass on what is his own property.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: On that point, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might like, in his researches, to look at the definition of "disposition"—I know it is not quite the same word, but it comes from the same verb—in what used to be Section 99 of the Land Commission Act, because that I think covered the point that my noble friend raised. The effort of the last Labour Government at dealing with disposals and dispositions would deal with what my noble friend Lord Ferrers was afraid of. It may not be that the word can be interpreted in the same way as in this Bill, but there is at least a precedent for the use of a similar word to cover something that would probably be a gift.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am bound to say that my thinking on this matter was that the Bill was concerned with the transfer for value, but if I am asked, What is the position of a transfer from husband to wife or from parent to the children?", or whatever, I should like to see what the implications are of that. I should not have thought that that was the kind of transaction that was contemplated, but I will look at the point.
What we are principally concerned with is the owner of property who is proposing to sell it, and we require him in those circumstances to give notification of it so that it may be acquired by the local authority for the saving of all concerned, giving to the owner of the property precisely the same amount of money as he would get from the ordinary sale which he was contemplating. But I will have a look at the point. I must say that it is a new one so far as I am concerned, but we will consider the relevance and the effect of a transfer not for value of the kind the noble Earl has mentioned.
Earl FERRERS: While I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will look at it again, he did say that he considered that on the whole this referred to the case where a property was sold; that was the intention. But one of the aspects of the Bill which causes concern is what is written in the Bill, and as it is written at the moment it seems that disposal of a material interest would seem to mean disposing of it by sale, or by passing it on to another. I am

365
grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will reconsider this. I hope that if we return to it at Report stage he will be able to give some very definite facts as to what this means.
Baroness YOUNG: Again, I am glad that I introduced this Amendment, which has provided this much-needed information. I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord will look at this matter again. We shall, of course, be returning to this clause on Report, and if this matter is not covered we shall be putting down an Amendment on the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.42 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 170C:
Page 22, line 35, after ("of") insert ("or acquire")
The noble Baroness said: Again, this Amendment is really to look at the other side of the question, at somebody wishing to acquire a material interest in a disposal notification area. Is this to be possible at all, or may no one acquire a material interest in a disposal notification area? If, as we have heard, this could be almost the whole area of an authority—not quite, because the Secretary of State would not approve thewhole area; but it could be a very large area—would this mean that no one could acquire a material interest in any land in that area? I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: These Amendments would provide for double notification of an impending land transaction within a disposal notification area, so that not only would a person intending to dispose of a material interest in land be required to give notice to the authority, but also a person intending to acquire a material interest in land would be undera similar statutory obligation. The Amendment is thought to be unnecessary, and would merely complicate the land scheme procedures. The purpose of enabling an authority to find out about impending private transactions in areas where they are considering acquisition—and that is the key matter, of course, in this domain—is fulfilled by notification from the vendor, since one of the
366
purposes is to buy land at the time when the vendor is willing to sell. The blight provisions are not relevant to proposing to acquire land, and no further purpose is fulfilled by such notification. For that reason we oppose this Amendment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: As a matter of fact I ought to declare my hand. I think I drafted Nos. 170C, D and E and they were all intended to go together. It was intended to be a relaxation whereby either the purchaser or the vendor could, if they wanted to, ask for the information to be given, whether or not the property was in the disposal notification area. Am I right in thinking that the purchaser will now be able to get the necessary information as a result of Amendment No. 181E, because when a solicitor puts in the local search he will find that the wretched thing turns up on it and he will go and find a house somewhere else?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like notice of that. I will come back to it in a moment.
Baroness YOUNG: This is a matter to which we can return on clause stand part. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 23, line 1, leave out ("to (a)") and insert ("(a) to").
The noble Baroness said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 171, and also speak to Amendments Nos. 174, 176 and 185.
These Amendments exempt from the requirement to notify an intended disposal of land in a disposal notification area, the case of the disposal of a private dwelling-house on a plot of up to one acre, which is the owner's only or main residence. The disposal can be notified voluntarily if the owner-occupier wishes. Amendments Nos. 171, 174 and 176 pave the way by adding to the existing exclusions from the notification requirements a new category of transactions which is set out in Schedule 8. Amendment No. 185 inserts a new Part HA to Schedule 8 which defines the type of disposals—that is, of owner-occupied

367
houses on plots not exceeding one acre—to which the notification requirements need not apply.
Clause 23 enables an authority to declare any land in their area to be a disposal notification area. As the note on the clause explains, this is to enable them to obtain information about development land in an area in which they expect to be active in acquiring land under the scheme. As the note on the clause explains, one aim of disposal notification areas is to enable an authority to endeavour to buy land at an early stage, so that the cost to them is not increased by the building up of high base values for development land tax purposes. It should be emphasised that this does not mean that the original vendor gets less. He gets the same as he would have got, after tax, if he had sold privately. But the local authority benefit from cutting out the "middle man", because the original owner may well have a low base value for tax, whereas the middle man will be able to use as his base value the price that he pays to the original vendor.
At the same time, the declaration of a disposal notification area can be helpful to owners of land in an area where an authority are proposing to acquire, because it provides them with an opportunity, if the land is "blighted" and if they qualify within the terms of Section 192 of the 1971 Planning Act, to require the authority to purchase. If an owner does this the amount that he gets is protected, as in other blight situations, by Section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1931, which provides that the compensation in circumstances of this kind is not to be reduced by the fact that values on the open market may be affected by the threat of compulsory purchase.
Now that substantial progress has been made with the drafting of the Development Land Tax Bill it is clear that it is unlikely to be any benefit to authorities, in terms of avoiding the building up of high base values, if they are informed of sales of owner-occupied houses which are the sole or main residence of the owner and which stand in up to one acre of ground. This arises because such sales are to be exempt from development land tax. At the came time it would not be
368
right to take away from the owners of such houses the potential remedy for blight that is inherent in the declaration of a DNA. It is therefore proposed to exclude from the mandatory notification provisions the sale of such owner-occupied houses, but to leave the owners of such houses the option of notifying if they wish to do so. This will not only provide them with the opportunity of serving a blight notice if acquisition is intended, but also enable them to reassure a prospective purchaser where an authority does not wish to acquire, even though the property lies within a DNA, and serve a counter-notice accordingly in response to a disposal notification.
Amendment No. 185 to Schedule 8 defines the extent of the exemption from notification. It follows the proposed exemption from DLT as set out in draft Clause 12 of the DLT White Paper of August 1975 and covers, first, the disposals by an individual of a material interest in land which is the whole or part of his sole or main residence—material interest is defined in Clause 4 as being the freehold or a lease with seven years or more to run; and, secondly, the disposals by trustees of such an interest held in trust for a person who is entitled to occupy the house as his sole or main residence. The exemption extends not only to the house itself but to the garden or grounds occupied with the house up to an area which, including the house itself, does not exceed one acre. This, at least in part, answers the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
One of the main reasons for having the DNA procedure is to enable an authority to step in and buy undeveloped land, which is about to be sold, before a new owner establishes a high base value for DLT purposes. In the case of the owner-occupied houses covered by the Amendment, there would be no DLT payable anyway, so there would be no advantage to the authority in buying at that point in time. There is, therefore, no need for such sales to be notified under the DNA procedures, so these concessions should be welcomed by noble Lords opposite.
Baroness YOUNG: We welcome this concession and are grateful that it has come about. During these Committee

369
proceedings, we have been criticised on a great many occasions for stirring up trouble—that is the way it has been but —but the fact remains that we were quite right to be apprehensive about the owner-occupier, particularly in disposal notification areas, and we are grateful that the Government have recognised this point and have moved this Amendment to exclude the owner-occupier, if he so wishes to be excluded, from the disposal notification procedure. It would be churlish of me not to say that we are glad that this concession has been made —somewhat late in the day, but nevertheless it is a concession—though I would not like to say that we are entirely satisfied with it. It has, as I say, come rather late and one has not had time to make all the inquiries and consultations that one would have wished.
For example, it seems to have an area which is now delimited by one acre which may just catch some houses and not others—those which may be just outside that area—and that is unfortunate, particularly as these DNAs could be very large areas indeed and could seriously affect a number of people. Further, it seems that the problem of blight will remain. Once a few people decide to sell to the local authority, not necessarily because they wish to leave their houses but because, for one reason or other, they feel that pressure is being put on them to sell to the local authority, we will soon find that the local authority, if it intends to redevelop, will let the property go. That is the first thing that happens and we get the spectacle of this all over towns where local authorities have acquired properties for redevelopment and do not do them up. Although one has the right to remain in one's house in a disposal notification area, in fact it becomes blighted simply because of the effect of the property around it.
I do not feel that the Government have met this point at all, so I cannot say that we are in any way satisfied with the provisions on the disposal notification areas. This, again, is a matter which we shall want to look up in the Official Report to see exactly what the noble Baroness has been saying in her explanation, because some of it was rather complicated and I should not wish to comment on it without having had the opportunity of studying it.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am sure that it is very rash of me to comment on it, but I wonder whether the noble Baroness could tell us a little more, because, while I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lady Young has said and welcome the new Amendments which have been put down, I am interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, describe them as a concession. According to the enlightened view of DNAs held by those on the Government Benches, which is to be further explored by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is to tell us more of their glories in the hours before morning comes, I understood that they were wholly beneficial to all those who owned property within them.
The noble Baroness has said that there are advantages to two sets of people. First, there is an advantage to the local authority, in that somebody will not do something evil about increasing base values. I am sorry that, at the moment. I have not entirely followed how this would happen or what the effect would be, but the noble Baroness will tell us in a moment, because that is one of the things we need to know. The other type of person who will be greatly benefited by the disposal notification area and the process of finding out whether the authority is to buy the property is anybody who happens to own property in that area, because he will immediately be able to get rid of that property not to the person who actually wants to buy it, but to the local authority.
Dealing with the second point first, if the owner-occupier is to be given the option whether or not to reap the benefits of being in a DNA which have been so highly praised by noble Lords opposite, why is the same opportunity not being, given to everybody, whatever sort of property they own? Why is it that those who own, for instance, commercial or any other sort of property apart from a house which they happen themselves to live in, are not also given the option? I do not understand why, if this is considered to be suitable and to fit in with the benefits to the owners of property in DNAs, we do not have a general provision that the notification is optional. That is what the Amendment which I put down proposed to do, and it seems

371
to me to be entirely in accord with the Government's Amendment No. 185C.
If, however, this cannot be done, what is the danger to the local authority that I touched on just now? It cannot relate to somebody who wishes to buy and sell commercial property in the ordinary way on the market, because if they do that they will do it at the market value and that will not run up the bill to the local authority at all. Is there some special sort of property transaction which the noble Baroness has in mind as being likely to go on in DNAs and nowhere else, which will specifically not be of the ordinary market type but will run up large bills which the local authority will have to pay in due course; and, if so, will the noble Baroness be so kind as to tell us how it works, because I am longing to know?
Baroness BIRK: The noble Viscount has raised a number of points. First, let me make it clear that, when I used the word "concession", I meant to try to undermine the fears which have been grossly over-expressed by the Opposition in another place and through the media. The situation has never been as they have described it. This is a wholly beneficial spelling out of the Bill, and it makes absolutely clear, without any doubt, the position of the owner-occupier in a disposal notification area.
There is no question of pressure from the local authority, to which the noble Baroness referred; I am talking now about the Government Amendments which I have been moving. It is an advantage from the point of view of both a vendor and a purchaser to know exactly what the situation is. The short and complete answer is that the owner-occupier is exempt from development land tax in any case, whether it is in a DNA or otherwise. Therefore, this fits in closely and neatly with that. In answer to the noble Viscount's question as to why it is such an advantage to a local authority to buy direct, I must say that I still have the feeling that I am continuing this rather needless seminar for him—
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I looked at paragraph 13 of the document to which she referred,
372
and it was not particularly explicit on that point. I should like to ask her to continue, because I feel that I am not being quite as stupid as I thought I was.
Baroness BIRK: I should never suggest that the noble Viscount was stupid. But I should like to leave paragraph 13 for a moment and deal with the point he raised on the question of buying. Here I am going over what I explained in moving the Amendments. The difference to the local authority as regards benefit accruing to the community is where there is a question of buying direct from the vendor, or from a middle man in between. Perhaps it would help the noble Viscount if he would bear with me, while I give an example which might be helpful to him.
Let us suppose that A sells to B, and B pays £110,000, £80,000 of which goes as tax. Person A gets £30,000, and B then sells to the local authority and, if the market value is £120,000, then the base value is £121,000. There is no development land tax and there is no further value. The local authority would in this case have to pay £110,000, and so there would be no advantage to the local authority at all. It would not get anything net of tax, because there had been somebody in between buying it and selling it. If A sells direct to the local authority, he still gets the £30,000, but the local authority pays £110,000, and it does not have to pay the tax of £80,000. So far as the local authority is concerned, this is a much better way of buying, and the benefit then accrues largely to the locality. Those are the two ways of doing it.
As I have explained, where there is a middle man, there is no question of pressure, and anybody has a right to buy or sell in that way. But it is obviously to the benefit of the local authority if it wants to acquire a piece of development land to do so direct, if it is able. With regard to the notification, I understand from inquiries I have made personally that local authorities attach great importance to this, because it gives the people in the area the opportunity of knowing what the local authorities are doing, and it gives local authorities an opportunity of knowing what is going on.
It is completely voluntary, as the Amendments spell out, but—and I am

373
sure the noble Viscount will recognise this now—it is to the advantage of both the vendor and the purchaser to give this information. But nobody is forcing them to do so at all. In fact, I should have thought it would make the transaction easier. It may be that it would cut down the work for lawyers, but it would certainly make it easier for the purchaser or the vendor.
2.5 a.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am told by those who normally deal with conveyancing that the process is likely to hold that exercise up and make it even more lengthy than it normally is, and they are worried about it in that respect. I think we shall have to study this, but will the noble Baroness confirm this? In the example she gave we were plainly talking about land with a very substantial development value. We were not talking about the transfer of, say, an existing shop or garage, or of some small commercial premises, from one person to another. We must have been talking about an example where there was substantial development value; otherwise, those circumstances would not have arisen.
Is the answer not simply this, that the requirement to notify gives the local authority the opportunity to buy, in the way that the noble Baroness says, net of development land tax? There will in fact, either way, be no loss to the community because if they do not do it that way the community, through the Inland Revenue, will get the development tax the other way. So there will be absolutely no loss to the community as a whole, whichever way you do it. Is that not right?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, but I thought I said—and if I did not stress it I was quite aware of that point—the area or the local community. The noble Viscount is quite right and the community would get the benefit either way, whether it is spread over from the Inland Revenue or the local community. But since this is also tied up with the whole concept of positive planning and working out the structure of the local area, then it would be to the advantage of the local community as well.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Yes, but in order that we may assess what we should do about this in future, the noble Baroness has very kindly confirmed that there will be no disbenefit to the community as a whole if we made all transactions of this sort optional. The only thing which would occur is that there could be a financial advantage to the local authority, which would then presumably result in a financial disadvantage to the Exchequer. That is the only shift which would occur in the circumstances we are talking about. I think the noble Baroness has been most helpful, and it seems to me to be an extremely powerful reason why we should make all these notifications voluntary.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if I ask an occasional question tonight, because it helps to keep me awake. On the Amendment which she has moved so ably, I notice that the property of the dwelling-house is limited to one acre. This is an area which has always interested me. I have never understood why there should be this magical figure of one acre. Why can it not be the garden appropriate to the house? It seems illogical that we should be putting into this good Amendment this limitation of one acre. I hope the noble Baroness can give us a reason why it should be one acre. Someone very interested in market gardening may have one-and-a-half acres, or may be 0.8 of a hectare, and may therefore not be covered. It seems very irrational.
The other point I wanted to ask the noble Baroness is: does this new Amendment cover the absentee owner? Does it cover, again, the case where a member of the Armed Services is serving abroad and has let the house? Does it cover a member of the staff of the Foreign Office who is serving abroad and who has let the house? Again, I think this is a most important point. Finally, I should like to ask the noble Baroness about the definition in her Amendment, under "dwelling-house". That, it is said, includes part of a dwelling-house. Does it include a flat? I do not think a block of flats could necessarily be termed a dwelling-house. Would all those flats be covered under this definition? This is very important, for I am sure that it is

375
the wish of the Government that they should be covered.
Baroness BIRK: The point about the one acre is that it is linked to the one acre which is free of development land tax. It is a question that I have myself put on many occasions. The noble Earl will find it in other similar legislation. So far as "dwelling house" is concerned, the definition certainly includes flats.
Going back to the point made by the noble Viscount, he is right in saying that there is a benefit only where there is a substantial development value. He is right, also, in saying that it goes over the whole community. This is a Community Land Bill and the point is that the cost of land to the local authorities should be reduced. The whole procedure of the Bill is angled through the local authorities. The owner-occupier should have the choice the Amendments offer. As the noble Viscount said, it does not make any difference so far as the benefit to the community as a whole is concerned. There is an incentive for local authorities to acquire without going through a middle-man in order that they can extend the benefit within their own area to the people in their own area. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, also asked about temporary absentees. This would not matter if the house remained the absentee's only residence, or his or her main residence.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I do not wish to split hairs, but the noble Baroness referred to this one acre coming within the bounds of the development land tax. But we have not yet discussed that subject.
Baroness BIRK: We were discussing earlier the owner-occupier and the exemption of one acre. The noble Earl asked what it was tied to and, with great respect, I do not think that when he gets a correct answer he should reply that we have not yet discussed it. He may feel upset that we are not discussing them simultaneously, but he asked a question and got the right answer.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am not getting upset, and I hope that the noble Baroness is not getting upset. What I was going on to say when she intervened was that she had cited the development
376
land tax, but that what we are discussing here is the exemption of the owner-occupier from the DNA. This has nothing to do with development land tax. The point I want to make is that if we have a house with 0.9 acre of garden the owner may or may not be able to use the benefit of this Amendment. If he has a property which has 1.1 acres of garden it seems to me that the exemption will not apply to the 0.1 acre. Can the noble Baroness answer that question?
Baroness BIRK: I can make the first point clearer by saying that because a house with up to one acre is exempt from development land tax, it means that by making it one acre in the DNA proposals as well, the local authority still do not lose any more. The position remains constant. So far as the other detailed points are concerned, to argue about whether it is just below or above an acre is analagous to saying that somebody is a little bit pregnant!
The Earl of KINNOULL: The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that the local authority would not lose any more. Frankly, I am not interested whether local authorities lose any more. I am interested in the owner-occupier and in this Amendment. Will the noble Baroness answer my question? I will give a better example. What happens in the case of an owner-occupier who perhaps has two acres of land? That position is not covered by the Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: It would not be covered because there would not be an exemption for tax. If the noble Earl wants me to read the relevant material again, as it is in the Amendment: "disposal" includes a contract for a disposal; "dwelling-house" includes part of a dwelling-house; an individual's "private residence" means land comprising a dwelling-house which, at the date of the disposal is that individual's only or main residence, and land which at that date he has for his own occupation and enjoyment with that dwelling-house as its garden or grounds up to an area which, when aggregated with the area of the site of the dwelling-house, does not exceed one acre.
Frankly, and as conscientiously as I can, I cannot take this point any further. I suggest the noble Earl waits to read it in Hansard. I appreciate that it is com

377
plicated. I have said a great deal, but I do not think we will progress further because I can only give the same answer which I can assure him is correct. I suggest we stop now and he reads the details.
Lord SANDFORD: Since Command 6195 on the development land tax was published in August, we have known from draft Clause 12 that the financial gains accruing to an individual on the sale of his sole main residence, provided it did not exceed one acre, would be free of development land tax. We have known all along that the development land tax and the Community Land Bill were vitally linked, to use the Government's phrase. Therefore, I should have thought it was obvious that the buying net of development land tax, which is what local authorities will be able to do, would not have been of any advantage to local authorities in the case of the properties we are discussing.
It would have been absurd if these Amendments we are now receiving from the Government had not been incorporated into the Bill. What I think is regrettable is that we have not seen them sooner because we are now faced with this significant change in the Bill without the other place, which is responsible for financial affairs, having had any chance to discuss it either at Committee or Report, and with ourselves, who are not particularly responsible for financial affairs, left with little more than a week-end to consult the interests concerned about the merit and effect of what is being done. Clearly, it is a welcome development that there is such an Amendment, but it is leaving it extremely late and hardly gives us any chance to have any consultations; and the other place has had no chance whatever.
Baroness BIRK: I am going to take what the noble Lord has said as an expression of his gracious thanks for the Amendment.
Lord ELTON: May I ask for consideration to be given before the Report stage as to whether we are laying up for ourselves a great deal of unnecessary work in conversion by referring to "acres" instead of "hectares" in which most transactions will inevitably shortly be made?
2.20 a.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 173 and also speak to Amendments Nos. 184 and 186. All three are minor drafting amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 2, leave out ("which relates to all the land and") and insert ("for that disposal")—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 174. My noble and learned friend spoke to this with Amendment No. 171.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 5, leave out from ("(b)") to ("to") in line 7.—(Lord Melchett.)
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 175A:
Page 23, line 9, leave out ("can") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: This is a probing/ drafting Amendment. I say "drafting" with some hesitation; I am not happy with the word "shall". I am advised that the word "can" in this particular sub-paragraph is very ambiguous and not at all helpful. Knowing that the noble and learned Lord is particularly averse to any ambiguity in law, particularly when he is piloting a Bill through the Committee, I hope that he or his noble friends may consider what word should replace "can".
Lord MELCHETT: I hope that I can convince the noble Earl that we should keep "can" in the Bill. The noble Earl feels that the drafting would be improved by the replacement of "can" with "shall". As drafted, the subsection says that where there is a contract before the effective date, the notification requirement can apply to the conveyance. It will apply only if the conveyance is after the effective date. If this Amendment were made—in other words, if "can" were replaced by "shall"—the notification requirement shall apply to the conveyance; in other words, it will apply to it even if it is before the effective date. It thus would have undesirable results not wanted presumably by noble Lords opposite as well as on this side of the Committee. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful for that explanation, and I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT: My noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 176 with Amendment No. 171. I beg to move Amendment No. 176.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 10, at end insert—
("or
(c) to a disposal, of a contract for a disposal to any authority or to the Crown;
and as respects any transaction to which Part HA of Schedule 8 to this Act applies notice may, but need not, be given under subsection (5) above.")—(Lord Melchett.)
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 23, line 20, at end insert ("and if the authority do not wish to acquire they shall not be entitled to do so for five years but if they do wish to acquire then the authority shall be required to give notice to treat within four weeks")
The noble Earl said: Subsection (8) reads:
"The authority shall serve on a person who gives notice under subsection (5) above—

(a) a written acknowledgment of receipt stating the date of receipt, and

(b) not later than 4 weeks after that date of receipt, a counter-notice in the prescribed form stating whether or not the authority propose to purchase the land to which the notice relates…

Acknowledgment shall be as soon as practicable, and shall indicate that the counter-notice will follow."
I seek to add these words:
"and if the authority do not wish to acquire they shall not be entitled to do so for five years but if they do wish to acquire then the authority shall be required to give notice to treat within four weeks".
I do not think either of these provisions are anything outside the full capabilities of the authority. They know the disposal notification areas and are completely up to date on what is going on—if not, they should never have made the order in the first place. I think it is only reasonable that a person wishing to sell should have a firm decision from the authority in quite a short time, or if they decide not to do anything about it then they should be able to go ahead and do whatever they want. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: The DNA procedures do not give the authority a preemptive right to acquire the land. I know this is one of the misconceptions to which my noble and learned friend will want to refer, but perhaps I can stress that. The procedures give the authority no special rights to acquire land. If the authority 'do wish to buy it they must, in the absence of agreement with the vendor, make a compulsory purchase order and go through the usual confirmation procedures before being able to serve a notice to treat. We have been through the compulsory purchase orders at earlier stages of the Bill and as I told the noble Earl on the Amendment to Schedule 7, the process of going through the compulsory purchase order procedures will take a considerable time. Clearly this could not be done in four weeks, and indeed we were talking in terms of varying periods of up to twelve months. I think the noble Earl may have based his Amendment on the assumption that the DNA in some way gives the authority special powers to buy. It does not. They have to go through the compulsory purchase powers and the time limits—which we have already discussed at great length—which apply to compulsory purchase orders should apply in the usual way.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Perhaps I might draw attention to paragraph (d) of the next Amendment, No. 178, to save time. What happens where land is gifted from one person to another? Does that have to go through the same notification as everything else?
Lord MELCHETT: I should be grateful if the noble Earl would stick to Amendment No. 177 and deal with No. 178 when we get to it.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Very well; then I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.28 a.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 23, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) Where a person serves notice on the authority in accordance with subsection (5) above, nothing in this section shall permit that authority

(a) to have any right of pre-emption on that land, or

(b) to obtain that land at a lower price than the highest price offered, or

381

(c) to vary the conditions of sale, or

(d) to acquire that land where it is gifted, except by that authority obtaining a compulsory purchase order".

The noble Earl said: I think to some extent this point has been partially answered. This is where a person serves notice on the authority in accordance with subsection (5) to ensure that,
"…nothing in this section shall permit that authority
(a) to have any right of pre-emption on that land"—
that has already been explained—
"(b) to obtain that land at a lower price than the highest price offered."
A very common way of selling land is to give a local authority first refusal on certain occasions. What I am much more concerned about is that the local authority, with its extremely wide powers under the Bill, should not have the power to vary the conditions of sale, as, for example, if a person sells a building with the condition that that building shall not be used for licensed premises or some purpose like that. Often conditions of sale are put in, and I do not see why a local authority should be treated any differently from anybody else. The last point is: what is the position where a house or a building has been gifted from one person to another, or perhaps even inherited? How does one stand in that case on the question of notification? I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: These Amendments bring together a number of misconceptions about the disposal notice area provisions. It may be that some of the misconceptions have been dispelled in the discussion, but the fact that the noble Earl still has them makes it necessary for me to deal with them. The Amendment would provide, as the noble Earl has said, that where there was a notification tinder subsection (5) this would not enable the authority concerned, first, to have any right of pre-emption on the land; secondly, to obtain that land at a lower price than the highest price offered; thirdly, to vary the conditions of sale and, finally, to acquire that land where it is gifted except by that authority obtaining a compulsory purchase order.
These Amendments are based on a misunderstanding. Amendment No. 180 would provide that an authority acquiring
382
land under this clause should serve a notice on all adjoining holders. That is another misconception, as I hope I shall be able to explain, which I will deal with. Another Amendment talks of land being acquired. I cannot emphasise too strongly that a disposal notification area is simply a way of enabling authorities to learn of private transactions in an area where they are proposing to acquire anyway. If there is a notification and the authority wish to acquire, it would be for them to negotiate with the owner. Presumably he will be willing to sell by agreement as he was putting the land on the market anyway. But in case of difficulty the authority could make a compulsory purchase order.
It follows from what I have said that the points in Amendment No. 178 are misconceived. I will take them in the order in which they are set out in the Amendment—and I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is not here now. First of all, on paragraph (a), the clause does not give an authority any right of pre-emption. This was indicated clearly in another place, and we are really traversing ground that has been threshed over hour after hour in another place—and it is our right to do so here, of course, even at this hour. But the clause, as I have said, does not give an authority any right of pre-emption.
As it was put by my right honourable friend in another place, the purpose of having a DNA is not to give the authority a pre-empted right of the sort that is part of the law of Sweden. He believed it to be wrong and unnecessary, and that it would cause the greatest possible difficulty and anxiety. It follows from this that the authority are not in any sense attempting to step into the private transaction that might otherwise have taken place.
This head in the Amendment clearly assumes that the private transaction will have already reached an advanced stage so that the owner has already received offers on the basis of a private sale. We would not expect the procedure to work in this way. The clause does not require a vendor to have any particular disposal in mind. No doubt, therefore, owners of land in a DNA would serve notification at an early stage, and would go to the trouble and expense of attempting to find a private buyer only when they had found

383
out whether or not the authority would be seeking to purchase.
When one comes to paragraph (c) in the Amendment—whether the authority could vary the conditions of sale—the same applies. This head assumes that there would already be a private sale and that the local authority would be stepping into the shoes of a prospective purchaser who would have reached agreement with the vendor. That is not so. Paragraph (d) assumes that a disposal notification area, and this machinery under it, is a new method of acquiring land. It is nothing of the kind. As was indicated by my noble friend Lady Birk a few minutes ago, it is simply a way of identifying intended private transactions, so that the authority may seek to purchase the land direct from the original owner rather than from somebody who has bought the land from that owner. If the original owner is unwilling to sell to the authority, which seems unlikely in practice as he is intending to put the land on the market in any case, there will have to be a compulsory purchase order, with all the procedures that arise from that.
To sum up the matter, a disposal notification area is a far more limited operation than the noble Earl appears to assume. Having heard him, I see now why his view of the matter is worrying him. I have to repeat that it is a misconceived view. The DNA machinery is simply a way to find out about intended disposals of land. It does not create a new acquisition procedure, nor does it create any right of pre-emption of the kind that exists in other countries—indeed, of the kind that is included in the recent French proposals relating to land. Where an authority want to buy land following a notification, they will have to negotiate or make a compulsory purchase order, as appropriate. The amount that they pay will then be settled in accordance with the compensation code in the normal way. Section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 and the equivalent Scottish provision ensure that the price will not be depressed by the fact that the land is in a DNA.
Now that the true nature of this machinery has been explained, I hope that not only will the noble Earl be disposed to withdraw these Amendments, but that the misconceptions which his Amendments have highlighted and which
384
have been manifested in other discussions on this procedure will have served a useful purpose in enabling anxieties to be dispelled.
Earl FERRERS: The noble and learned Lord has tried to persuade us that there is nothing to worry about in these DNAs. He has said that this has been threshed out hour after hour and I hesitate to thresh it out, even for a few minutes longer. However, I am bound to say that I am worried about one thing. The noble and learned Lord said, as did the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that there is no right by the local authority of pre-emption of the land in the DNA. However, if you wish to sell a property which is in a DNA and you enter into negotiations with a person to sell it, you are obliged to let the local authority know of your intended sale. Under Clause 23(8)(b), the authority lets you know whether they propose to purchase the land. If they propose to do that, presumably they have the right of purchase over and above the sale which you would have under normal treaty. Surely that gives them the right of pre-emption?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The local authority would give an indication in those circumstances whether they wished to buy the land in any event, and that would be the nature of their intervention.
Earl FERRERS: Yes, but surely that means the original sale you were intending to undertake would not come about; in other words, the local authority therefore has the right of purchase.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: If the vendor was not prepared to sell to it, the local authority needing to acquire, and deciding to acquire that land would intervene by compulsory purchase procedures, and that would be an exercise of the powers of the local authority to acquire land by means of compulsory purchase procedures. The vendor would get the same price as he would have wished to sell to the purchaser in the normal course of events.
Earl FERRERS: If I could put it down to an example—which, of course, is always a tricky thing to do—if I had a house to sell and asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether

385
he would purchase it, and he agreed to purchase for a sum of, say, £20,000, then if it was in a DNA I should be obliged to let the local authority know. If the local authority said, "Ah, that is a house which we would wish to purchase", they would give one notice under (8)(b) that they intended to purchase, in which case the noble and learned Lord would say, "Well, if they want to purchase it, I am dropping out". In that case, the local authority must surely purchase it, in which case they have the right of preemption.
The Earl of KINNOULL: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his interesting comments just now that we were under a grave misconception on the whole principle of the DNA. It seems from what has flowed tonight—not before, but tonight—that the real reason and purpose of the DNAs is not what I had originally thought, which was for housing. Of course, we have now exempted the owner-occupier of a house, and he will not come within the DNA. It must be for some redevelopment areas, or for some grey areas which require the specific overall control of the authority. The noble and learned Lord said that this would be a limited power, as, indeed, has been said on many occasions in another place. But, as my noble friend said earlier, there is nothing to say why it should be a limited power. There is no indication other than the good offices of the noble and learned Lord to advise us that it should be a limited power. I wonder whether before Report he could look at this again, and identify the real purpose of the DNA, which is confusing. What is the purpose? It surely cannot be just a taxation purpose to assist local authorities, as the noble Baroness said on one occasion. What is the real purpose? Is it for development areas, or for housing action areas?
2.44 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I say this with no disrespect to the noble Earl, but perhaps reading tomorrow morning the Report of what I have just said will help to answer the dilemma which is clearly troubling him. The DNA procedure is modelled, at any rate to some extent, on that used for housing action areas under the 1974 Housing Act, and the factor which is really relevant is this.
386
As the title of "disposal notification area" implies, the machinery is primarily concerned with ensuring that authorities are informed of prospective sales in an area in which they expect to be particularly active, and where they expect and intend that development should take place. There is nothing in the provisions enabling an authority to prevent an intended transaction taking place. In the illustration that was given earlier, the vendor need not sell to the local authority unless he wants to. But if the local authority wants to acquire the land in those circumstances it will have to make a compulsory purchase acquisition of it and the provisions regarding that would take effect.
The main need for the machinery arises from the arrangements by which authorities will be buying land net of development tax during the transitional period, and that, I think, was explained by my noble friend earlier. By identifying prospective private transactions, authorities will be able to step in and buy before high base values have been established. This does not affect the net amount which the prospective vendor will receive from his sale; the price which he will receive will be the same whether he sells to the authority or to someone else. So far as the vendor is concerned, his benefit from the transaction remains precisely the same.
Furthermore, DNAs in no way affect the rights of objection to a compulsory purchase order; nor do they affect the price that an authority will pay for the land it will acquire. That is governed by the provisions of Section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which makes it clear that no account is to be taken of any depreciation in value attributable to possible compulsory acquisition. This is pure machinery. It is not, in view of the safeguards that are contained in the scheme, damaging to owners in the area. On the contrary, given the existence of the scheme when in operation, it will be beneficial to them.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am sorry to press this point, but he said it is not damaging to the owners in the area. I know we shall be coming on to blight. That is surely not an argument he can put forward with any great weight. One of the great concerns

387
in this whole DNA procedure is the blight problem, and surely one cannot say, even at ten to three in the morning, that it will have no damaging effect on those owners in the area; of course it will. We understand the machinery, but what is the kind of area which is to be acquired? Is it redevelopment land? Is it housing action areas'? What is the purpose of it?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It is the areas, as has been said several times, where development is to take place within the period that is indicated. If the noble Earl desires me to discuss the blight situation and its impact on this, perhaps we can discuss it at another time; indeed, we will very soon come to it. I do not want to blight the argument in advance.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I should like to ask one further question before we leave this point. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for having joined me. If I have a factory and decide to give it to my noble friend Lord Ferrers, am I liable to a fine of £400 under subsection (10) if I do not notify the local authority that I have done so?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: We said earlier that we were looking into transactions about value, and it is an interesting point. No doubt the noble Earl hopes that the mood of generosity indicated in the hypothetical illustration will not remain merely hypothetical.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am glad that it is being looked at. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I have to point out before I call Amendment No. 178A that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 178C.
2.51 a.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 178A:
Page 23, line 24, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("is in a disposal notification area.")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment, because I think the moment has come, or will come when we discuss whether this clause or Schedule 8 should stand part, to get from
388
noble Lords opposite a run-down on the people who will qualify under this Bill to serve a blight notice. Noble Lords may prefer to take this occasion to receive notice from me that we should like to have this information when we discuss clause stand part, unless they are ready to give it straight away.
This is the point in the Bill where it is stated in subsection (9) that people within the area of a DNA will qualify to serve blight notices. That is one category. In Clause 22(6) it seems to me there is a subsection covering all those people who, under Clauses 20 and 21, have their planning permissions suspended. They can also serve blight notices. Earlier on, in Clauses 17 and 18 and Schedule 3, we were dealing with the rolling programmes, and my understanding is that anybody with property falling within the areas covered by the rolling programmes can also serve blight notices. At some stage, either now or when we discuss Clause 23 stand part, or Schedule 8, I should like confirmation that I am right in supposing that all those categories of people will qualify to serve blight notices in those circumstances. Perhaps at this stage one of the noble Lords opposite would like to say at what point it will be convenient for them to give us that confirmation.
Lord MELCHETT: Maybe I could deal with the position of the owner-occupier, which arises specifically on the Amendment. It might be convenient to deal with the other points on Clause 23 stand part, if they have not arisen on a previous Amendment. I gather that there are some Amendments before then which will be dealing with blight.
The Amendment to which the noble Lord has spoken is unnecessary, because the provision that it seeks to replace already provides the owner-occupier with a clear right to the blight provisions of the 1971 Act. All he or she has to do is serve a disposal notification on the authority. If the authority reply that they do not intend to acquire, the blight is lifted. In other words, the owner-occupier can serve a blight notice requiring the authority to acquire the land in advance.
Lord SANDFORD: I think I explained that this was a probing Amendment. The noble Lord's remarks would

389
have represented an interesting and helpful answer if I had indicated that I intended to press it. The noble Lord knows what we are after now in moving this Amendment, and I will wait until we come to the clause stand part. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.56 a.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 178C:
Page 23, line 29, at end insert ("and as if an interest qualifies for protection notwithstanding its failure to comply with section 192(4) of the Act of 1971 or section 181(4) of the Scottish Act of 1972").
The noble Viscount said: This is a narrow point on blight notices, but I should be grateful if the Government would consider it, because the way in which blight notice legislation has grown up is in danger of leaving us, at any rate in this part of the Bill, in a ridiculous situation. One would have thought, to hear the discussion so far, that anybody with property in an area of this kind would be able to serve a blight notice if he discovered that the local authority wished to buy his property, but of course this is not so because there are limitations on the scope of blight notices, one of which is a rateable value limitation. If one's property has a rateable value above £2,250—I think that is the figure —one cannot serve a blight notice at all and I suggest that in some of our larger cities comparatively modest commercial properties have rateable values above that figure.
The problem is comparatively simple and I hope my Amendment will go some way towards curing it. Supposing one has a reasonably sized commercial property—say, a garage or small industrial works; probably a non-confirming user—just the sort of thing a local authority would like to buy for the purposes of redevelopment. Perhaps one wishes to sell it; because one is old and wishes to retire, or one is moving to another part of the country, or, because of the present Government, one wishes to emigrate. One then serves the disposal notification on the local authority, who reply, "Yes, we will be delighted to buy your property. It is just the sort of thing we want. "But then, unfortunately, nothing happens; the local authority do not get in touch with
390
one's solicitor, they make no move whatever, they have said they want to buy but unfortunately they do not have any money. In that situation there is absolutely no recourse. One cannot serve a blight notice because one is disqualified by one's rateable value and, of course, nobody else on earth will buy it. One is therefore left with property one wishes to sell but which, as a result of the intervention of the local authority, one cannot sell except to them, and as a result of the inactivity of the local authority one cannot sell to them.
These are the circumstances which, if the disposal notification areas are to be found by the great British public to be as beneficial as we are told, should not be allowed to continue. Whether or not it is right to retain this sort of artificial limitations, which are a matter of history now, for other sorts of blight notice, I suggest that the only course of consistency open to the Government, if they really believe in their disposal notification areas, is to make a change and allow the blight notification procedure to apply to everybody who falls within it. This has nothing whatever to do with people who wish to develop, with middle men, with tax, with anything. It is a question of bringing pure and simple justice to people whose land is locked up by the operation of this scheme, and I hope the Government will be sympathetic over this.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Would my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross agree that with commercial property it is not only the rateable value limit but also whether it is occupied?
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Viscount says, the blight does not apply to everybody and there are limitations. These categories are designed to protect those who suffer the greatest hardship from blight—in other words, the residential owner-occupier who needs to sell his or her house because he or she has to move to another area. As I understand it, it has always been accepted up to now that the protection of the blight provisions should not be extended to other categories —for example, the absentee landlord—which are not affected to the same extent by blight. The noble Viscount said that these provisions were very much a matter of history. I know how unpopular it is if one mentions Acts passed by previous

391
Administrations, but since he did say that this was a matter of history, may I remind him that it is very recent history? —because the categories could have been extended in the Land Compensation Act 1973, Part V of which contained a number of important provisions concerning blight. So history it may be, but it is recent history.
I am glad that we did not have the argument about DNAs lowering values generally because, as the noble Viscount knows, the Land Compensation Act 1961 quite specifically covered that point. I believe that the only issue at stake is, therefore, whether landowners who are outside the present blight categories should be able to force an authority to acquire in advance of requirements. We cannot accept that there is any justification for extending the blight categories generally; still less would it be acceptable to do so only in disposal notification areas, as the Amendment proposes. There is no difference between blight in a DNA and blight arising in any other case outside a DNA which could possibly justify such an anomalous distinction being made. The blight provisions should continue to apply uniformly through the country. I have to tell the noble Viscount that his Amendment, although it may, as he said, seek to make matters fairer, is not acceptable.
There is one further point which I might make about disposal notification areas and which may still not be entirely clear. These are, as my noble and learned friend said, areas where the local authorities expect to be active in buying land for development. It have no doubt that that is something which the Secretary of State will consider when proposals for a disposal notification area come before him. So I believe that the likelihood of the local authority not being in a position to buy when the owner wants it to is small. What it is doing here is going into an area which it wants to develop and, to make things easier both from its point of view and from that of the owners of land in the area, it will announce that the area is one where it intends to buy most and possibly all the land for a development scheme and that it is letting everybody know by making a disposal notification area so that, when somebody intends to sell of his own volition, it can step in
392
at that stage and buy the land, which it would anyhow have bought for the development scheme in question.
I believe that the noble Viscount's hypothesis that this could well leave people unable to sell their land is, given the context in which disposal notification areas will work, unlikely. I repeat that we have a general objection to altering the blight provisions specifically to deal with this particular area.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULCROSS: The noble Lord has a touching faith in local authorities which I, who have had to deal with blight notices, am unfortunately unable to share. It just does not work like that. There are all sorts of reasons why, though it may have the best intentions in the world, a local authority cannot summon up enough money or energy or something actually to get on with buying. I believe the noble Lord said that the affect of my Amendment would be to make the procedure more fair—
Lord MELCHETT: I did not. I said I thought that that might have been the noble Viscount's intention.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULCROSS: I thought that that was what the noble Lord said, and I an now going to ask him why he thinks it would not make it more fair, because I explained that it would apply the benefits of the DNA to everyone, without any exception at all. The noble Lord, with a certain characteristic choice of the people to whom his remarks might be suitable, mentioned absentee landlords. Of course the noble Lord is right that it would not do for absentee landlords, but why not deal with the case which I put forward—that of the owner of a reasonably sized commercial premises who wants for some reason to sell and move out? Why not face up to that? Surely it would be fair for that man to have his property bought from him as a result of one of the benefits of a disposal notification area. The noble Lord must admit that that would be fair and all I am doing is trying to get the Government to do something about it. The noble Lord could have got out of it in another way, but he did not.
Are the Government not even prepared to consider the limitations on blight notices in general? Are they simply saying that because at one stage it was so

393
ordained that there was to be a rateable value and owner-occupiers were to be in a special category, therefore this must be the same for ever? The noble Lord said that we had an opportunity to do it in 1973; and so we did. Have the Labour Government set their faces against ever doing anything about it themselves. Are they not prepared to consider it? Is the noble Lord simply going to sit there and allow us to say that something which is totally unfair will be perpetuated for ever? Is he not going to make any positive contribution to this at all? Is he simply going to sit there and allow this injustice to go ahead? I invite the noble Lord to be a little more constructive about this.
Lord MELCHETT: That really is getting a little over-excited, if I may say so, even if it is a little late at night and the noble Viscount wants to wake everybody up. I said that the categories are designed to protect those who suffer the greatest hardship. That is what they have been designed to do since they were introduced, as I understand it. That is what they were designed to do in 1973 when the noble Viscount's Party left them as they were. At the present moment we see no general reason for altering these general categories, and that is the position. If the noble Viscount wants to be personal and rude about it and say that I am sitting here and doing nothing about it, he is, of course, at liberty to conduct the debate in that way.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: The noble Lord knows very well that I did not mean anything personal. I was addressing him as the embodiment of the whole wisdom of his Front Bench.
The Duke of ATHOLL: Surely it could be argued that the people suffering the greatest hardship are those who happen to own a business—say, a small or medium-sized hotel—in which they have invested all their money, and which just happens to go over the limit of £2,250 rateable value. Such people have a very appreciable sum of money—probably a large bank overdraft—bound up in this property. Like my noble friend, I have had, I think, two occasions when I have tried to persuade a local authority to act on grounds of blight. Unless the local authority acts, there is very little hope of getting one's money out. Therefore, I should have thought that it was only fair
394
that, so far as these development areas are concerned, the rateable value limitation should either be increased or done away with completely. I support my noble friend in his Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: Neither the noble Duke nor the noble Viscount have dealt with my general point about the purpose of disposal notification areas. These are areas where the authorities have announced that they are going to have a disposal notification area merely because they intend to be buying a great deal of the property in that area for the purposes of development. If they do not want to buy the property, then of course blight does not arise. As the local authority has made its disposal notification area merely because it wants to buy a lot of the property for development, not only do we see no general case for altering the blight categories, but it might well be said (were one wanting to make a meal out of this which, of course, I do not) that there is even less of a case in DNAs for extending blight categories than there is anywhere else.
The Duke of ATHOLL: If the noble Lord has this great faith in local authorities, why will he not accept this Amendment? It is not going to make any practical difference. My noble friend and I have had personal experience where the local authorities have not come up to scratch in the way that the noble Lord appears to think they always do.
Lord MELCHETT: I dealt with that point in my original reply, and I said that we do not feel that there would be any justification for making the blight provisions different for this one particular area.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like to support whole heartedly my noble friend. Indeed, I think that the answer we have been given so far has been so poor that I hope my noble friend will consider taking this matter further. The case seems to me to be really on one issue; namely, does the DNA produce special blight situations? In my submission to the Committee, it does. I do not think I have heard anyone who does not agree that the DNA situations which we see in this Bill produce, not untouchable blight but blight of a very wide

395
nature. It is very sad that on an occasion like this, when one knows that the existing blight provisions are far too narrow, and when there is a general movement to try to get them improved, the noble Lord cannot take this opportunity to improve them.
Lord MELCHETT: I am fascinated to hear that there is a general movement to get them improved. It may be that the noble Viscount, the noble Earl and the noble Duke can tell me whether this general movement was in existence two years ago, when the Land Compensation Act was passed, what part they played in the general movement at that time and what the response of the then Government was to this general movement.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: One of the answers to that question is that the Government which were in power at that time mercifully had not thought of a thing called the Community Land Bill and disposal notification areas under it. Had we done so, I suspect that we might have been prepared to rethink the question of limitations on blight. However, fortunately, the question would not have arisen.
I am afraid that the noble Lord has been wholly obdurate in this. I can understand when he says he does not particularly welcome the opportunity to pick out this kind of blight and treat it on its own, but he gives absolutely no indication that he recognises there to be any problem at all. I think the noble Lord will find, if he asks his advisers, that there are hard cases where local authorities have failed to buy and where the blight notice provisions are excluded. The noble Lord nods his head, and I am glad he accepts that, because I can assure him that it is so.
I would have expected the Government, in response to this, to say very much what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about costs a little while
ago. He said he recognised that there was a general problem (or, rather, that his honourable friend the Minister had already done so in another place and he was repeating it) and that they wanted to look at it. But not so. The noble Lord says, "No, this is not the time. We are not prepared to do anything about it". I am going to send this back, with a bit of luck, to another place to see if they can.
Lord MELCHETT: It may be that I can make it absolutely clear. Of course any Government would want to do this where there are cases of hardship, and I accept that there have been cases of hardship under blight provisions for many years. This is not something new. This Bill has not invented blight; and I think it is really not a sufficient answer for the noble Viscount to say that the previous Administration had not invented disposal notification areas. I have tried to indicate—and the point has not been answered at all—that the blight, if it exists in disposal notification areas, may well be less of a problem than in some other instances. Of course I accept there are hard cases.
I have made two points. First, I think that if there is any distinction which can be made in the case of disposal notification areas, it is that blight will be less of a problem and not more of a problem. So there is no justification for making a special provision—I repeat, a special provision; all the rest of the blight is to be left untouched—in disposal notification areas. Secondly, it may well be that the general categories of blight should be looked at, but this Bill is not the place to do it and this is not the time to do it.
3.14 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 178C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Clinton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Effingham, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Elles, B.

Arbuthnott, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Atholl, D.

Cowley, E.

Elton, L.

Auckland, L,

Crawshaw, L.

Falmouth, V.

Balfour, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

de Clifford, L.

Gainford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Carrington, L.

Digby, L.

Gridley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harvington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hives, L.

Newall, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kindersley, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Swansea, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Onslow, E.

Teviot, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Ridley, V.

Vickers, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sandford, L.

Vivian, L.

Long, V.

Sandys, L.

Wise, L.

Lyell, L.

Savile, L.

Yarborough, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Young, B.

Middleton, L.

Stanley of Alderly, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Arwyn, L.

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

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Bacon, B.

Melchett, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gardiner, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Beswick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Birk, B.

Greenwood of Rosendale, L.

Peddie, L.

Brown, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Raglan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Castle, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

White, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.22 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 23, line 37, leave out ("£400") and insert ("£200").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to reduce the maximum fine under the DNA from £400 to £200. I understand that the magistrates' power is up to £400. I assume that is why this figure has been included. I do not think this matter requires much explanation, but in view of the fact that there may be cases in which, unwittingly, an owner falls foul of the DNA, I hope that the Government will consider £200 as a maximum is sufficient. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the fine, as the noble Earl explained. The fine of £400 is now a standard figure for this type of summary offence—that is, not complying with statutory procedures—and is well precedented in planning law. Section 89 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 specifies a fine not exceeding £400 on summary conviction for non-compliance with an enforcement notice. Section 90 similarly provides for a fine not exceeding £400 for non-compliance with a stop notice. Section 98 also specifies a fine not exceeding £400
398
for non-compliance with a listed building enforcement notice.
It should be remembered that the fine is one not exceeding £400, so that if there are mitigating circumstances magistrates may well impose a fine which is considerably less. In fact, from my own experience as a magistrate, I know that the maxima are not taken as the average or the norm. However, the amount specified is far from excessive and is well precedented. If the amount of the fine on summary conviction were reduced, it might lead authorities to take proceedings by indictment in which case there would be no limit to the fine. As the noble Earl appreciates, it would probably go to another court instead of being dealt with summarily, and it is obviously desirable that, where possible, proceedings should be before the local magistrates.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT: My noble friend has already spoken to this Amendment with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move Amendment No. 181:
Amendment moved—
Page 23, leave out lines 41 to 43.—(Lord Melchett.)
3.26 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDFORD: I wonder whether the noble Lords opposite would care to answer my general question at this stage about who qualifies for blight?
Earl FERRERS: Also on this point, a person who does not give notice to the local authority of an intended sale is guilty, or liable to be guilty, of an offence for which the fine is £400. Is it up to the individual to discover whether they are in a notification area, or is the local authority under any obligation to state to people whether they are in a notifica-area and, if so, how does the authority do it?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: There are substantial provisions for publicity for these matters. First of all, as DNA's will be restricted to areas already accepted as suitable for development in planning terms, there will have been the usual publicity and public participation at the planning stage. Secondly, DNA resolutions must be advertised locally, copied to local parishes and registered in the local land charges register, so there will be ample opportunity for all concerned to get to know about them. Those arrangements ought to be adequate for the purpose.
The Earl of KINNOULL: If a case arose where the owner of a commercial property was about to sign the contract with the purchaser before they in fact had instructed solicitors to make the usual searches, he would have broken the law without in fact having been advised by his solicitors what the DNA provisions held. This is one of the points my noble friend was making. I wonder whether it would be worthy of thought that when a DNA is made, it would only be a limited area anyway, and all those ratepayers who are in that area should be notified at the time their next rate demand was sent out.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: In view of what I said earlier about the fact that this will become very widely known in good time, I should not have thought that additional means of publicity would be necessary. There are limits to the amount of public expenditure and ad
400
ministrative problems one wants to cope with; I should not have thought that, in view of all the adequate publicity which will already exist after the full planning phases and the publication in the local land charges register with advertisements locally, copied in the usual way, anything further was necessary.
Lord MELCHETT: Regarding the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I think this was regarding rolling programmes. That certainly would not give anybody the right to serve a blight notice. It would not be specific enough as to particular areas of land. However, suspended planning permission and DNAs are two categories in the Bill, as are people in areas covered by CPOs which have been made; and of course the people who will be able to take advantage of the blight provisions are those who can do so at present.
Lord SANDFORD: That is a rather extraordinary answer, if I may say so, because noble Lords have been spending a good deal of time trying to reassure us, in discussing Clause 23, that DNAs did not trigger off any sort of acquiring process. They were designed to provide information to the local authorities about transactions that were impending in the areas designated—and yet the existence of a DNA surrounding your property qualifies you to serve a blight notice. Well, we are glad of that. But to go on to say that when you are embraced in a rolling programme, which is specifically a programme of acquisition covering the next five years, you cannot serve a blight notice, seems to be illogical in the extreme. It may not be possible in every case to show from a rolling programme that you would be affected, but I should have thought that if a rolling programme contained a reference to a particular area and your property was in the middle of it, there is no doubt at all that you should qualify—certainly you should qualify under that, if you qualify under a DNA.
Lord MELCHETT: I think we went into some detail on this when discussing rolling programmes earlier. My recollection is that it was stated clearly then that it was extremely unlikely that a rolling programme would refer to particular areas. Rolling programmes were going to speak of likely expenditure and likely areas of total acreage of land. We had

401
a very similar discussion, unless I am mistaken, earlier in the proceedings.
Lord SANDFORD: I said earlier that we were going to skate over Clause 23 and Schedule 8 at this stage of the Bill. We have, but it deserves it, particularly if we get answers of this kind, saying that a DNA qualifies people embraced in it to serve blight notices, and the rolling programme, which is specifically a programme of acquisition, does not. However, we will leave it for now and return to it on Report.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 181B:
After Clause 23 insert the following new clause:
Notice to be given to owner
".An authority shall not, in respect of any planning application made after the 12th September 1974, by a person who is not the owner or authorised agent of the owner of the land to which the planning application relates, entertain the planning application or exercise its powers under this Act in respect of the land to which the planning application relates without first giving to the owner not less than 28 days within which to make representations to the authority."
The noble Lord said: We now examine the question of third party applications. Up to now we have been considering the situation of two parties where there is the authority, the person with a material interest, and now we should take into account that rather shadowy object, the third party application. In this Bill it is possible for a person with no material interest to apply for planning permission. We believe that very clear instruction should be given whereby the provisions of two clauses—Clause 26, which deals with publication and notices of application, and Clause 27, notification of application to owners and agricultural tenants —of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 should apply.
We believe that the Government have down three relevant Amendments at a later stage in our discussions: Amendments Nos. 218EE, 218FF and 218GG. But it occurs to us that this Amendment would fulfil what we desire in a better manner. The reason is this. If we refer back to the Amendment of my noble friend Lady Young, No. 167B, when she referred to the same Act, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, Clause 12(1), we may recall that she believed, as we do
402
in this Amendment, that it is desirable that the previous provisions of the existing planning regulations should apply. I beg to move.
3.36 a.m.
Baroness BIRK: This Amendment, as the noble Lord explained it, would prevent a local planning authority from entertaining—that is to say, accepting—an application for planning permission from anyone not the owner or authorised agent of the owner of the land unless and until the owner had had not less than 28 days in which to make representations to the authority about the application. As the Amendment is retrospective to White Paper day, most planning applications made since then, and consequently their determinations, would be invalid since the requirements of the Amendment are seldom likely to have been met under existing provisions.
Under Section 27(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, a local planning authority are already prevented from entertaining an application unless it is accompanied by a certificate indicating either that the applicant is the owner or tenant of all the land or that he has served notice of the application on all owners. For this purpose "owners" includes anyone with not less than seven un-expired years of a tenancy—this was amended from ten years by paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 to this Bill.
Under Section 27(4), the application for planning permission cannot be determined until 21 days after the latest notice served according to the certificate, so that owners must at the present time have at least 21 days in which to make their representations. We do not consider it necessary to give owners 28 days before the application as well as 21 days from the receipt of notice to make their views known. There is a practical difficulty here in that an owner would have to have access to details of the proposed development 28 days before the applicant could submit them to the authority. This would mean that all applications would have to be delayed by at least one month, and as we have heard so many comments about delay I should have thought this would have made it a rather unattractive proposal.
It is considered to be advantageous all round for the owner's representations to be made following the lodging of the ap

403
plication when full details are available in the planning register and within a period during which the authority can be processing the application—for example, consultations with other interested bodies in other ways.
The basic aims of the Amendment, that owners should be informed of any application made by a third party and should have an opportunity of making representations to the authority, are met by the existing procedures, and for the reasons I have given there seems no benefit in altering these. I think I should re-emphasise that the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 will apply. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, raised a doubt about that. Planning applications will continue to be made under the 1971 Act as now and not under this Bill.
Briefly, the essential point here is that under Section 27 of the planning Act local authorities are already prevented from entertaining planning applications from people who are not owners unless the owners have been given at least 21 days to make written representations. Therefore, all that the Amendment would do—I am afraid in a technically defective way—would be to increase the 21 days to 28 which, as I have explained —and I hope I have convinced the noble Lord—is unnecessary.
I should add that we are aware that there has always been a slight deficiency in the Section 27 arrangements, in that an applicant can comply with the requirements by submitting certificate A, being the owner or tenant. There may be other people with interests in the land which would qualify them to be notified, as envisaged by certificate B. Therefore, the present certificate A on its own is unsatisfactory. The noble Lord will perhaps feel satisfied if I point out that the Government's Amendments—218EE and 218JJ—correct this and provide a new certificate A which an owner can use to show that no person other than himself is the owner of the land. In view of that long, full and very satisfactory explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: The noble Baroness has given us a very full explanation of the working of Clauses 26 and 27 and of
404
the need for certification. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 [Disposal notification areas]:
Lord MELCHETT: I should like to move Amendment No. 181D. In view of the fact that my noble and learned friend spoke to it with Amendment No. 148B, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I moved Amendments Nos. 181D and 181E en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 81, line 11, leave out from ("map") to ("to") in line 13.
Page 81, line 11, leave out lines 16 to 21 and insert—
("(2) The resolution shall be a local land charge.").—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT: My noble and learned friend spoke to Amendment No. 183A with Amendment No. 141B. Again it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I moved Amendments Nos. 183A and 183B en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 82, line 18, leave out from ("map") to ("to") in line 19.
Page 82, line 20, after ("council") insert ("and (if they are not a local authority keeping a local land charges register) to every local authority keeping such a register"). —(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT: I spoke to Amendment No. 184 with Amendment No. 173. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 32, leave out ("estate or"). —(Lord Melchett.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment No. 185 was discussed earlier in connection with the other Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 45, at end insert—

PART IIA
Disposals of which notice may, but need not, he given
3A.—(1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a disposal by an individual of a material interest in land which is the whole or any part of his private residence.
(2) This Part of this Schedule also applies to a disposal by trustees of a material interest in land held in trust where—

(a) that land is the whole or any part of a person's private residence, and

(b) that person is entitled, under the terms of the trust to occupy that residence or to receive the whole of the income derived from, or from the proceeds of sale of, the material interest.

3B. In this Part of this Schedule—
"disposal" includes a contract for a disposal,
"dwelling-house" includes part of a dwelling-house,
an individual's "private residence" means—

(a) land comprising a dwelling-house which, at the date of the disposal, is that individual's only or main residence, and

(b) land which at that date he has for his own occupation and enjoyment with that dwelling-house as its garden or grounds up to an area which, when aggregated with the area of the site of the dwelling house, does not exceed one acre;

and a person's "private residence" shall be construed accordingly.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment No. 185A was discussed when the local land charges were dealt with. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 185A, together with Amendment No. 185B.
Amendments moved—
Page 83, line 13, leave out from ("map") to ("to") in line 14.
Page 83, line 15, after ("council") insert ("and (if they are not a local authority keeping a local land charges register) to every local authority keeping such a register").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.45 a.m.
Lord MELCHETT: Amendment No. 186 went with Amendment No. 173. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 19, leave out ("the") and insert ("any")—(Lord Melchett.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment No. 187A again relates to the local land charges provisions, along with Amendment No. 187B. I beg to move both Amendments Nos. 187A and 187B.
Amendments moved—
Page 83, line 35, at end insert—
("Transitory provisions
6A.—(1) In relation to any time before the coming into force of the Local Land Charges Act 1975, paragraphs 1(2), 2(6)(b) and 4(2)(b) above shall have effect subject to the following modifications.
(2) For paragraph 1(2) there shall be substituted—
"(2) As soon as practicable after passing the resolution the authority shall send a copy of the resolution and of the map to the proper officer (for the purposes of section 15 of the Land Charges Act 1925) of every local authority whose area comprises any part of the disposal notification area and as soon as practicable after receiving the copy of the resolution the proper officer shall register the resolution in the local land charges register in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under section 19 of that Act.
In this sub-paragraph and in paragraphs 2(6)(b) and 4(2)(b) below "local authority" does not include a county council or the Greater London Council."
(3) In paragraphs 2(6)(b) and 4(2)(b) for the words from "(if" to "a register" there shall be substituted the words "to the proper officer (for the purposes of section 15 of the Land Charges Act 1925) of every local authority".")
Page 83, line 37, leave out ("(2) and (3)") and insert ("and (2)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Assumptions as to planning permission on or after second appointed day]:
Lord MELCHETT: Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 were spoken to with Amendment No. 20. I beg to move Amendments Nos.188 and 189 en bloc.
Page 24, line 25, after ("during") insert ("the whole of").
Page 24, line 27, leave out from ("has") to ("and") in line 28 and insert ("been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout)").—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 189A:
Page 24, line 28, after ("charity") insert ("or an approved pension scheme").—
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 189A. But before doing

407
so, I wonder if I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as we are now moving on to an issue which includes the word "charity ", whether I understood him aright when earlier on this evening he indicated that before the end of these proceedings he might be in a position to give us some indication of what the Government were proposing as a result of the deputation they had a few days ago from the Churches and the charities. If fie could do so, it would be useful for those of us who are still taking part in the proceedings to know at what point he is going to raise it, so that everyone concerned—which would be most of us—could be in the Chamber when he did so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no statement to make tonight, but I hope that before the night is out I shall be able to show the noble Lord the Amendments that it is proposed to put down on Report stage, arising from some of the matters we discussed in relation to the charities. I am afraid that the pressure of the last two or three hours has made it difficult, but before we part this evening I hope to have some copies available.
May I take this opportunity, as the matter of Churches and schools has been raised, to refer to something which I said during our discussion—it seems like years ago, but it was obviously only a day or two ago—on an Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, to Schedule 1. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, how schools of any variety would stand under the Bill, and I should now like to explain the position rather more clearly than I did on that occasion, and perhaps even more accurately than I did then.
It is not the case that only Church schools will receive special exemption. The advancement of education is, of course, one of the four purposes recognised as being charitable. If a body such as a school is a charity, because it fulfils that purpose—and I suppose if it is worthy of the name of a school it ought to be doing so—it will qualify for the special provisions relating to all charities which were announced by the Minister in another place on 15th July.
Lord SANDFORD: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and the Committee will
408
indeed be glad to know that before we part later on this morning we will have drafts of the Government's proposed Amendments at Report stage relating to Churches and charities. We look forward to those with eager anticipation. I will leave it now to my noble friend Lady Young to explain the purpose of her Amendment No. 189A.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the fact that we are to have this information about the Amendments on Churches and charities. While speaking to Amendment No. 189A, I should like at the same time to refer to Amendments Nos. 191 and 191A. The purpose of these Amendments is to put pension funds in the same position as charities. Pension funds are responsible for other people's money, in many respects in a similar way to charities, and the results of their investment will, of course, decide what the incomes will be on which people will be able to retire.
In talking about pension funds, we are talking about enormous numbers of people. It is estimated that about 12million people are now in occupational pension funds, and that does not include wives and families; the total numbers covered could be as high as 24 million people. So we are talking about a great many people who will be affected by this Bill and by these Amendments. It will be readily clear that pension funds frequently invest their money in property and that much of their property will have been bought at a price which reflected its development value in the future. It is therefore very necessary to look at how they will be affected by this Bill.
On the first appointed day, land values will probably fall slightly, but may well remain fairly steady—although of course we cannot be certain about this—until the second appointed day. But what many people will wonder is why a local authority would choose to buy land between the first and second appointed days, because, of course, after the second appointed day it could get the land at current use value, and then the value will drop immediately. In the case of charities the Government have agreed, and I am very glad that they have, to preserve the rights of charities in respect of land investments made by them before

409
12th September 1974, for reasons which I do not think it is necessary to repeat and with which we absolutely agree. What I am suggesting in these Amendments is that pension funds are in a position somewhat similar to charities, in that they are not there as private individuals making a profit or interested exclusively in their own affairs, but to look after the value of other people's money, and therefore they must consider very carefully the investments they make.
If the Bill remains unamended, it could be said that this is retrospective legislation, in that it will apply to inevestments made in land before 12th September, at a time when, before the publication of the White Paper, no one could possibly have expected the Bill to come. Certainly, even if they had ever thought there might be this kind of Bill they could not have known its detailed provisions. Therefore, it bears hardly on people who bought land before 12th September and who need to maintain the value of their investments in order to secure for millions of people their proper income in retirement. I hope that I have explained the purpose of my Amendment, which is on this matter of compensation to bring pension funds into the same category as charities. I beg to move.
3.56 a.m.
Lord MELCHETT: As the Amendments have been moved, it might be a convenient moment for me to reply. I have to tell the noble Baroness that the Amendments are not acceptable to the Government since it is not the intention of the Government to make similar provisions for pension funds as have been made for Churches and charities. As the statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister in Committee stage in another place on 15th July made clear, and as my noble and learned friend has repeated here, the Government regard Churches and other charities as being in a unique category. I do not think I need —just as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Baroness did not feel the need—to go into that in any detail.
Unlike pension funds, Churches and charities are not acting like commercial and industrial companies and undertakings. Pension funds in particular are free to invest where they
410
will, and to transfer assets as they wish. So far as the latter are concerned. the issues have already been discussed at great length, and the Government have made their position clear. Pension funds will in any case have the benefit of being able to rebuild within a 10 per cent. tolerance of existing floor space, without going through the duty prohibition, and the benefit of compensation, taking into account Schedule 8 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 redevelopment rights.
With respect to the duty prohibition provisions, property owned by pension funds will not necessarily be devoted to use for the benefit of the community. The provisions in favour of Churches and other charities are based on the need for such organisations to continue to provide services to the community without the superfluous need for their land to pass through public ownership. Land belonging to pension funds does not come within the same category. This is a matter which was touched on at some length in a certain broadcast recently, and it might be helpful if I put on the record some of the Government's responses to the facts as stated in that broadcast.
First, in the broadcast it was stated that pension funds have invested £1,500 million in land and buildings, and this we accept is a fairly accurate reflection of their holdings in land, real property and ground rents. But, in fact, the sum represents only about 15 per cent. of the total assets of pension funds, whose interest in property has, in the case of private funds at least, become significant only in the past 10 years, increasing particularly during the boom in land prices in 1972–73 in common with a great many other financial institutions and insurance companies, and so on.
Land and property are therefore neither an inflexible feature of pension fund portfolios nor an absolutely essential one. The land scheme will not, as I think has been claimed by noble Lords opposite, cause a sharp drop in income of the funds. Existing holdings and the income from them will be unaffected, and they will fall due for redevelopment only at a very gradual rate, while under the proposed excepted development regulations rebuilding within a tolerance of 10 per cent. of the existing floor space will not

411
come within the duty to acquire. This tolerance is, in our view, a reasonable reflection of that for which planning permission could now be expected, and this touches on the part of the noble Baroness's remarks when she said she felt that this was retrospective in some way.
As I say, the tolerance of 10 per cent. is a reasonable reflection of what planning permission could now be expected to give. In addition, where the land is acquired, compensation will include rights contained in Schedule 8 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, so they are a fair reflection in our view of existing expectations, regardless of the Bill. Thus, the Bill will affect the policy of pension funds only towards future investment in new development or major alterations and extensions, where they will be treated in the same way as any other developer or property investor.
Baroness YOUNG: I was about to say that I was very disappointed in that reply, but perhaps I should have expected it. The Government are at present having discussions, as I understand, not simply through the Pilcher Committee but directly with the pension funds, to whom they are looking to finance the land scheme itself, and it would seem to me, if they are looking to the pension funds to help them in this way, that they might at least offer a helping hand to the pension funds. To say that it will be satisfactory and that they can rebuild within the 10 per cent. tolerance is not good enough, because, for the reasons I gave when we debated this matter previously, the 10 per cent. tolerance may not keep up with existing values, because the kind of requirements that would need to be included would come over the 10 per cent. tolerance, and therefore they would not stand the benefit of having this excepted development.
The noble Lords said that the Government could not accept the Amendment because, unlike charities, pension funds were not benefiting the community. I do not know who the 12 million people are who benefit from them. If they are not the community, they must be a large part of it. I am told by them that each person who is in an occupational pension scheme has a wife or husband and probably one child. So we are really talking about 24 million adults and possibly 12
412
million children, which is a great many people, and if they are not part of the community I do not know what they are. I feel that this is something which, if not in exactly the same bracket as the charities, is certainly distinct from commercial and industrial undertakings and others and it seems reasonable that they should be treated equally on this question of compensation. I did not find the noble Lord's answer satisfactory, and unless I hear something more satisfactory I shall feel inclined to press this Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I do not think I said—unless I said something I did not mean to say—that pension funds did not provide a service to the community, although of course it would not be the community in the sense that we mean it, which is of course all ratepayers and taxpayers, the generality of people in the country; they apply to particular categories. What I did say was that Churches and charities are in a unique position, and I should have thought that that had been accepted by noble Lords on both sides of the Committee. The noble Baroness said that the 10 per cent. tolerance is not satisfactory, but my understanding is that this is a reasonable reflection of what planning permission is likely to be granted for at the present time. Thus, investors in commercial and industrial property will not be in a different position under the Bill, so far as those existing investments are concerned, from what they would have been in had the Bill not come into force. Of course I accept for the future that discussions should continue. We touched earlier on the point that investment may well be needed from pension funds and that is why discussions are taking place, but that is a different point.
Baroness YOUNG: I do not find this argument convincing. We have already discussed what is mean by "the community", and this merely goes to show that it is a word which is very difficult to define. If the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, thinks it means the ratepayers, he should by now be far better informed than I am of the fact that one of the great criticisms of the rating system is that not everybody in an area pays rates. We are not even talking about

413
all the people in a local authority area, so I do not feel that it is a good analogy. We are talking about a great many people and I am not suggesting that all the Government Amendments concerning Churches and charities should apply to pension funds; I am talking about the particular case of compensation and I
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.13 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 en bloc. These were discussed initially with Amendment No. 20 and subsequently with Amendments Nos. 188 and 189.
Amendments moved—
Page 24, line 31, leave out ("not").
Page 24, line 31, leave out ("otherwise than").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 191E.
Amendment moved—
should like to test the feeling of the Committee on this point.
4.7 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 189A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L,

Abinger, L.

Elton, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Falmouth, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Arbuthnott, V.

Gainford, L.

Ridley, V.

Atholl, D.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandys, L.

Balfour, E.

Hanworth, V.

Savile, L.

Belstead, L.

Harvington, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hayter, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Carrington, L.

Hives, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Clinton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kindersley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Sudeley, L.

Cowley, E. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Swansea, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Vickers, B.

de Clifford, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Middleton, L.

Wise, L.

Digby, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Effingham, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, I.,

Young, B.

Elles, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

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

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Arwyn, L.

Melchett, L.

Bacon, B.

Gardiner, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Bernstein. L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peddie, L.

Birk, B.

Harris, of Greenwich, L.

Raglan, L.

Brace of Donington, L.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Castle, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Cudlipp, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

White, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.,

Lovell-Davis, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Page 24, line 32, after first ("charity") insert ("or an approved pension scheme").—(Baroness Young.)
Lord MELCHETT: I am advised that this Amendment is otiose as the noble Baroness has already sought to include the words "or an approved pension scheme" after "charity "in both places where it appears in line 32 of the clause in her Amendment No. 191A.
Baroness YOUNG: If, as I understand by that reply, my Amendment is quite unnecessary and I put it forward in an excess of enthusiasm for my cause, I apologise, and beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 191A.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 32, after ("charity") in both places where it appears insert ("or an approved pension scheme").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG: This Amendment, No. 191B, is consequential, defining what is meant by "approved pension scheme". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 33, at end insert—
("(c) in this section "approved pension scheme" means a retirement pension scheme approved by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue under section 222 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 or a superannuation fund approved by the Commissioners for Inland Revenue for the purposes of section 208 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.")—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 191C and 191D. These would insert into the Bill a new concept of replacement development, which is defined in Amendment No. 191D. We discussed this concept on an earlier Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 24, line 42, at end insert ("or replacement development").
Page 25, line 30, at end insert—
("(7) 'Replacement development' means development that fairly and reasonably represents the replacement or adaptation of an existing building or buildings by the construction of a new building or buildings or the carrying out of works (whether or not entailing the demolition of any existing buildings) to provide buildings in which the existing use of the land can be carried on being development which does not increase the cubic capacity of the buildings concerned beyond that of the existing building or buildings to a greater extent than is reasonable having regard to current levels of building costs and rental values as may be required to meet the best current development standards including appearance, methods of construction, heating, ventilation and other service facilities precautions to be taken against fire and other safety measures and such other factors as may reasonably be called for having regard to the nature of the accommodation to be provided"). —(Baroness Young.)
Lord MELCHETT: I think we covered this matter on Amendment No. 11, and it is my recollection that Amendment No. 11 was withdrawn by the noble
416
Baroness. I do not know whether she intends to withdraw these Amendments. If she would like me to reiterate, at some length, the arguments which we went over then and, in particular, to refute convincingly the arguments which she put forward on that earlier occasion in this Committee stage I should be happy to do so, but perhaps she will give me some indication as to what her intentions are as to these Amendments before I spend some time doing that.
The Earl of KINNOULL: While my noble friend is looking at her papers, perhaps I could recall that I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that Amendments Nos. 11A and 15C were designed to replace the existing tolerance contained in Schedule 8 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I think the advice which my noble friend has received—and, indeed, I have received a copy—is that that is an incorrect assumption. The 10 per cent. tolerance contained in Schedule 8 to the 1971 Act applies for valuation purposes, it does not affect an owner's right to rebuild; and these two Amendments were designed to allow an owner to carry out replacement development. I think that is the point my noble friend particularly wanted to pursue.
Baroness YOUNG: I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee, but I had temporarily mislaid my papers on these Amendments. This was in fact the point we debated at an earlier stage, and at this time I will withdraw these Amendments. I will consider the whole question, including what the noble Lord said earlier, and, if necessary, come back with an Amendment on Report.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 25, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDFORD: This is the clause which deals with compensation, and I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who I understand is to deal with this, about the way in which the rate of compensation is effected now that we have Schedule 1 in the Bill and these concepts of exemption and exception under Clause 3. The noble Lord will know that this was an issue discussed during the Report stage in another place (column 1214 of the Official Report) when this clause, which was then Clause 27, was discussed.

417
The position is that certain things are exempted from the operation of this Bill according to whether or not they are in Schedule 1 or whether or not they are buildings within the terms of Clause 25(3) (b) and according to whether or not they are exempted by the Secretary of State by regulations under subsection 3(c). In all those cases, it seemed to me that the compensation should be adjusted as well. I should like to know whether my understanding of that is correct.
Lord MELCHETT: As I understand it, all exempt development and the potential value of exempt development will be included in current use value; that is, any value that would accrue to
a piece of land with the benefit of any exempted development would be included and the valuation based on current use value. Excepted development does not come within current use value, but it will be excluded from development which is within Schedule 8 to the 1971 Act which is therefore exempt development.
Lord SANDFORD: That is helpful. Can we refine it one stage further? The noble Lord remembered that I asked a question about the operation of Article 4 directions which are local and special variations of the general development order. I hope that I am right in assuming that where those are operating the compensation values are not affected.
Lord MELCHETT: I confess that I have forgotten what response was given to the noble Lord when he asked that question before and who gave it. My recollection is that it was said that this would not affect the valuation basis. At the present time I see no reason to revise that judgment.
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
4.23 a.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 191H:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Compensation for dispossessed farmers
(1) This section shall apply to compensation in respect of every compulsory acquisition of an interest in agricultural land in pursuance of a notice to treat served on or after the second appointed day.
(2) The compensation payable to any owner or occupier displaced from any agricultural land acquired after this enactment shall be such sum as will be equal to the loss or expense which such person sustains by reason of the resulting disturbance of his trade or business, or is put to by reason of having to quit agricultural land.
(3) The provisions of this section shall be in addition and not in derogation of any enactment or any rule of law relating to compensation for disturbance.
(4) For the purposes of this section, owner shall mean the estate owner in respect of the fee simple of any agricultural land and occupier shall mean any person entitled to a tenancy thereof.
(5) In the above subsection "tenancy" has the same meaning as in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
The noble Baroness said: During the Second Reading debate of the No. 2 Bill on August 4th (in cols. 1411 and 1412 of the Official Report) I mentioned the anxiety felt by the farming community in regard to compensation should farmers be displaced by compulsory acquisitions, many of whom have farmed their lands for several generations and others who have decided to take up farming as their career.
In Paragraph 52 of the White Paper it was promised that the Government would consider whether the switch to current use value meant that any special provisions were needed to protect working farmers. The conclusion was that the ability to apply to the financial hardship tribunals for an additional payment was considered the best way of providing that protection. However, in Hansard of 27th October last (col. 18) the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied to his noble friend Lord Shinwell:
"As my noble friend has indicated, we have not yet established equality before the law. At present the poor man very often does not have equality under the law."
So, again, the farmer may be left without any real protection.
Having originally put my Amendment down to follow Clause 27, I hope I am in order in mentioning the financial hardship tribunals, as they may be needed in regard to Clause 25 compensation in respect of every compulsory acquisition of an interest in land (whether under this or any other enactment). The basis of my new clause is to allow valuers—as is done in Holland and France, two of the European Economic Community countries—to deal with each case on its

419
merits, and then come to an agreement with the farmer whose land is being compulsorily purchased.
Having served on the Local Government Committee of the Council of Europe, I know that the methods in Holland and France have shown that there appears to be less difficulty in the compulsory acquisition of land for community purposes than in other European countries, including Britain. It is essential to realise that what is worrying the farmer is that his livelihood, which may have taken his life-time or generations to build up, and which is the only profession he knows, may be taken from him and he will not be allowed to continue with his family—and I want to emphasise this—on an equivalent farm.
I might mention that in various water authorities, in the South-West in particular, the principle of equivalent reinstatement has been accepted. The water authorities have recognised that even at market value compensation farmers may not be able to re-establish themselves especially at a time when there is considerable competition for land. In regard to the proposed reservoir development, assurances have been given that compensation will be paid in such a way as to guarantee that the farmer is in no worse a position after dispossession than before. When physical reinstatement is not possible, then the equivalent financial payment is made. This is a discretionary payment by the water authority under the 1963 Act and also under the Clewedgog Reservoir Act. For a farmer to get equivalent financial payment, the cost of the land is not the only factor to be considered. His workers, whom he has trained to his type of farming, may need rehousing and the stock will have to be moved. Should his mother, for example, have a cottage on the farm, she will also require other accommodation, and there are many more domestic matters that have to be considered.
A farmer in his sixties may not consider it worthwhile starting again, and I should like to know whether he will get adequate compensation so that, for example, he can buy an annuity? In other words, the farmer who has had his land compulsorily purchased, should in justice be in no worse position than before his land was taken. One of the other matters
420
which worries me is that most of the land taken for development is likely to be from agriculture. We have heard of butter mountains and wine lakes, but now, regrettably, there might be land banks and also the creation of widespread non-statutory blight.
The terms "agriculture" and land "are both found in the interpretation part of the Bill, and "agriculture" is in Section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. So subsections (4) and (5) in my Amendment have been tabled to try to cover the problems of interpretation of phrases which do not appear to me to be covered in this Bill. The farm loss payments introduced in the 1973 Land Compensation Act might help to solve the difficulties of re-instatement. However, this is not satisfactory as I consider that all dispossessed farmers—whether tenants or owner-occupiers—should have equivalent value for their farms. I want to stress that. The 1973 Act improved compensation payments, but these were not equivalent reinstatements for which I am now asking.
The technical quibbles about the definition of working farmers, were, I understand, the main reasons for an Amendment similar to mine being dismissed in another place; that after the second appointed day dispossessed farmers would not normally be in any worse position than at present. Secondly, at the proposed financial hardship tribunals, which arc meant to act as a safety net, it is now known that there will be no legal aid, so that many farmers may not be able to afford to go before a tribunal.
Farming could and should be one of Britain's major industries. The more that is produced on the land the more the balance of payments will be helped. More consideration should be given to the problems of agriculture, and the more self-supporting this country can become in regard to food supplies, the better for all concerned. This is called a materialistic age. Many commodities could be dispensed with, but food and water cannot, if one is to keep a healthy community.
For this reason, I hope that the Government will accept my Amendment, so that whatever the people of Britain may have to do without in the future, they can be assured of the maximum amount of home-grown food that Britain can produce. This can be done only if

421
farmers have confidence in the Government, which the Bill before us does not give them. Equally, I consider that Clause 27(4) is too vague in regard to financial hardship tribunals. There it is stated:
"… in accordance with the provision of the said regulations…"
This is one of the worrying things about this Bill: so many of the regulations are still unknown, and this gives the farmer no confidence. Without being disrespectful, I hope that I shall not receive the standard answer given during debates in another place: that the farmer can purchase agricultural land elsewhere at no extra expense, and can appeal to the financial hardship tribunal. I do not think that answer should be given tonight.
What about the price of land which is "saved "from development and the time lag between finding another farm?—both of which could lift farm prices above current use value. Therefore I hope this new clause will be acceptable. If it is not acceptable in this form, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister could guide us to the type of Amendment which could be put down, which would safeguard the future of the farmers. I beg to move.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I should like to support my noble friend Lady Vickers in her plea for fairer compensation for dispossessed farmers—though I must agree with noble Lords opposite that this is not the time to go into a full review of compensation terms. This Bill actually highlights the problem. and that problem was raised in Standing Committee G by Mr. Clegg on the 2nd July at column 2111, when the Government suggested in their notes that the way to deal with the problem was by means of the financial hardship tribunals. I should like to ask a few questions on this point.
I think I am correct in saying that legal aid may be given for preliminary assistance, but no aid is available when one is appearing before a financial hardship tribunal, even though the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appeared to be in favour of this. May I ask whether this legal aid for preliminary assistance could include the services of a chartered surveyor? I do not understand why you can get legal aid for
422
divorce, which is a self-inflicted wound, but not for a State-inflicted wound when your farm is taken away from you.
I would point out that compensation is a very sore point with farmers. They consider it to be inadequate; and it is a cause of their producing less food, when they anticipate dispossession. Inadequate compensation causes a further loss of food production. I feel that the principle should be that the more land that is taken for development the better the compensation should be, to enable the farmer to produce more food off a smaller acreage of land.
Therefore, will the Government look sympathetically at this problem of compensation for the dispossessed farmer? Will they say that when the farmer appears before the hardship tribunal consideration will be taken of the points raised in subsection (2) of this Amendment? What will happen, I ask, if the compensation code is inadequate between the first and second appointed days? Will encouragement be given to local authorities to exercise their discretionary powers to make good the losses?—I think they have a power here under Section 22 of the Agricultural Miscellaneous Provisions 1963. Can the noble Lord or the noble Baroness who will answer me tell me whether he or she would consult with the agricultural organisations, the National Farmers' Union and the county landowners' associations, on the composition of these hardship tribunals? Will the hardship tribunals be given guidance on the kind of agricultural hardships which may arise? Will agricultural assessors be appointed to sit with these hardship tribunals?
These are questions to which we really would like to know the answer. I am not asking them destructively. It is what we should like to know. It would give us great confidence if we could be given some of the answers. Please do not give me the answer that these difficulties should not arise, because under the second appointed day, as my noble friend has said, we shall all be at existing use or current use (I think it was called) and therefore all is well. It does not wash, that one. I am sorry to ask all these questions, but farmers are worried about these points, and worried farmers like worried children, do not produce of their best. If these points could be cleared up

423
for us either now or at Report stage, it would be of great assistance to the agricultural industry.
4.37 a.m.
Earl FERRERS: There is a very real problem here. The Amendment deals with the problem of compensation and of reinstatement of farmers whose land is taken from them. If land is within a disposal notification area or within a development plan, and the owner finds that his land is thus devalued, of course he can serve a blight notice upon the local authority which will enable them to make up the difference between the devalued value of the land and its normal value. But that does not mean that he will be in a position to find himself reinstated elsewhere. The danger, as I see it, is this. As a result of these notification areas there may well be a situation where land somewhat away from notification areas will be at a premium simply because of that fact. Therefore, a farmer who is compensated by virtue of his position will nevertheless find that he cannot reinstate himself elsewhere. That is the problem. To put it in a graphic situation, land within a notification are a might be, for instance, of the value of £500 per acre, yet if someone were to try to find a farm elsewhere because his farm had been removed from him he would have to pay £800 an acre. It would seem on the face of it that that is not a fair or a just state of affairs.
Then we get to the situation where maybe a farmer who is farming a reasonable acreage finds that he has three or four fields taken away from him and instead of farming, say, 300 acres he finds 60 of them are removed for development and so he now farms only 240 acres. All his overheads are therefore spread over a lesser acreage. I would suggest that it might not be fair to reimburse him only for the cost of the land which he has lost, because in fact the viability of his enterprise has been diminished.
If one then imagines that happening to several farmers within an area, so that several farmers find that part of their land is taken from them, they will all be disadvantaged; and if some more land is made available and comes on the market close at hand there will be competition from all those farmers who have
424
had their land removed from them to obtain this extra land. Again, may I suggest that if compensation is paid solely on the basis of the value of the acreage removed from them, it will be inadequate to enable them to reinstate themselves in the position that they were in before this came about.
It is perfectly true that hardship tribunals are set up under this Bill to deal with hardship cases. However, I hope that the Government may think that this is not the correct way to deal with it, and that written into the Bill there should be something which we would all wish to see; that if, through no fault of his own, a person is dispossessed, either in whole or in part, of his livelihood, he should be compensated in such a way as to enable him to continue his livelihood in the same way as he would have done had he not been dispossessed of it.
4.41 a.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I deeply regret being dragged into what has in the past been a private fight between the National Farmers' Union and the previous Administration of noble Lords opposite. I have to resist this new clause on a number of grounds.
Earl FERRERS: I am sure that that will be very helpful and informative, but perhaps the noble Lord could explain exactly what he means by that remark? This was supposed to be a helpful Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: If the noble Earl will give me a moment I will certainly explain what I mean by it. I have been on my feet only for a moment or two. I have to resist the new clause on a number of grounds. First, the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for remedying alleged defects in the compensation code. We have already dealt with changing the compensation code, and I have made the point that the Land Compensation Act was passed in 1973, only two years ago. That Act introduced a number of fresh benefits for farmers, in particular farm loss payments. I am advised that the provisions of the new clause have no relevance to the Bill. Clause 25, which changes the basis of the compensation code to current use value, merely eliminates the development value from agri

425
cultural land. Such land still retains its agricultural value, and as at that stage of the scheme all agricultural land everywhere will be at current use value, regardless of whether it is sold privately or to an authority, the position of a displaced farmer who wishes to reinstate himself elsewhere will be no different from what it is at present. Indeed, it will be rather better, for at present the value of land still in agricultural use may well be forced up by an element of hope value; namely, hope of development gain in the future. That, of course, will not be the case once we move to current use value.
Secondly, even if it could be accepted that such provisions had any place in the Bill, the additional benefits which the new clause would impart are quite unacceptable and would have to be resisted, both because of their implications for public expenditure and because they would put farmers in a better position than any other category for compensation—better off, indeed, than they would have been if their land had never been acquired, for it is unlikely that they would ever get such benefits from a private sale.
Not only would they get the kind of disturbance compensation to which they may be entitled under the existing compensation code—which covers removal expenses, cost of alterations to equipment, and so on, to fit a new farm, loss on the forced sale of live or dead stock and the value of inexhausted manures, incidental expenses incurred in securing an alternative farm, such as advertising and travelling and such legal costs as would be appropriate in acquiring a comparable interest in a farm like the one they are being displaced from—but they would get all of these benefits twice over, because of the provisions of subsection (3) of the new clause.
Moreover, because subsection (2) of the new clause seeks to put in statutory form a right to disturbance compensation which is largely contained in case law and precedent, it is impossible to predict how the courts would interpret it. It could well result in farmers being compensated for items not covered by the existing code, including, possibly, alleged losses only indirectly related to the displacement, or even the cost of reinstatement which the present compensation code does not provide, except where there is no general market for the
426
land for the purpose to which it is devoted. That cannot be said to apply to agricultural land.
Such an open-ended and uncertain liability to compensation is, I regret to say, totally unacceptable in the terms of public expenditure, and also quite contrary to the general principles of the compensation code, which the Administration of noble Lords opposite—and this is the point which the noble Earl was asking about—defended very vigorously, I am told, when in Government, against similar attempts by the National Farmers' Union to widen it in favour of farmers. So I hope the noble Lord will accept that what I said when I started was accurate.
I was asked one or two specific questions by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. He asked about legal aid for people at hardship tribunals. This is a matter which will be settled when the time draws near for the tribunals to be set up, which may be some time away. It will have to be attuned to the regular practice in respect of tribunals generally at that stage, if a coach and horses have not been driven through the reasonable policy of treating all tribunals alike when it comes to assessing the requirements of the legal aid scheme. The noble Lord also asked for guidance on what is hardship to farmers. As I understand it, Clause 27(10)(c) provides that the criteria for deciding questions of this kind will be presented by regulations. I hope that that answers the questions asked by the noble Lord, and also indicates quite clearly why, regrettably, the Amendment is not acceptable.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, indicated absolutely clearly why it was not acceptable, but I am bound to say that I think he had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for arguments. The noble Lord says, "Here is this Bill, but we really cannot, for reasons of public expenditure, give farmers the proper compensation when they are dispossessed". Yet this whole Bill involves colossal public expenditure. The whole premise behind the Bill is that these vast profits made out of land are to accrue to the community. Yet out of these vast profits, apparently, it is not possible to pay reasonable compensation. I am bound to say I find that quite extraordinary.

427
Then, when the noble Lord went on to say that there is no point in doing this because the value of the land will not be the same as there will be no hope value, he missed the whole point of my argument, which is that I ventured to suggest that he will find that land away from those areas will be at a premium, because it is away from these areas. I was not asking the noble Lord or the Government to give the agricultural community any superior benefit. What I am trying to point out is that if people have their livelihoods removed from them for purposes not of their own making, they should be in a position to be reinstated. It may well be that they could be reinstated at the same price as the current use value in the area where their farm happens to be.
The point I was also trying to make was this. If you are in a notification area and your livelihood is removed from you, so you are obliged to move away, and the compensation which you are given is inadequate to enable you to get a new job and a new farm, then that will be unfair. I am quite amazed, not that the noble Lord should turn it down, but that he says he does so for reasons of public expenditure. That is the most unsatisfactory answer of the whole lot.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am afraid the noble Lord did not answer my questions. Perhaps I should learn from my mistakes and ask only one question. The noble and learned Lord said on Monday that we would get legal aid for preliminary assistance. Will this include a chartered surveyor?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Under the Green Paper scheme for those who qualify—below a certain income they would qualify—all persons are entitled to go to a solicitor to receive advice and assistance before the hearing. That would apply to a hardship tribunal, but it would not cover legal representation before the tribunal itself.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERNEY: I accept that, I fully understand that. But the first person the farmer will go to is a chartered surveyor and he will ask, "Have I got a case? "This will be a preliminary before going to the hardship tribunal. Will that be covered?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The Green Paper scheme applies to the taking of advice from solicitors only, I am afraid.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: Listening to the noble Lord's reply, I am not quite clear. Is it a fact that people dispossessed by this Bill, whether from a factory or house, will be entitled to compensation, but if it is farming land being taken, or roads are being driven through it, they are not entitled to compensation? Or are they entitled to compensation under another Bill altogether? It seems to me that the argument of my noble friends made an absolutely cast iron case for the farmer to be treated in the same way as others. It is exceedingly difficult to move farming land. It is not like moving a house. It is a large area, and farming land is very difficult to get. It seems to me grossly unfair not to compensate, unless they are compensated under some other Act.
Lord MELCHETT: Farmers are given compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 and, as I said, generously acknowledging the good work of noble Lords opposite, that Act introduced a number of fresh benefits for farmers. I cannot accept that the public expenditure argument is not a valid one. As I understand political history as writ by noble Lords opposite, in 1973 everything was well with the country and in 1975 we are in the direst financial crisis since the war. In 1973 it was apparently wrong for noble Lords opposite to extend the compensation for farmers. Now, when I am told we are in the direst financial crisis and public expenditure must be cut back, I am told that this is a valid case for extending compensation.
Earl FERRERS: The whole point of this Bill is that vast profits are to accrue to local authorities, and what we are suggesting is that out of those profits adequate and commensurate compensation should be paid. It is not a question of saying that what was all right in 1973 is not all right in 1975. The noble Lord knows that perfectly well.
Lord MELCHETT: I am delighted that one noble Lord opposite acknowledges that profits will be accruing, but I think it would be unfair of the noble Earl to commit his noble friends to saying

429
that profits will come very quickly, because we have been told time and time again either that there will be no profits, or that they will be a very long time in coming, I am certainly prepared to consider that the compensation code should be reviewed when the profits become available, but now is not the time.
Earl FERRERS: Does the noble Lord mean that he does not anticipate that profits will be accruing?
Lord MELCHETT: I anticipate profits, but certainly not in the early years of the scheme and not in all areas, and that is why this would not be the time to introduce a widening of the compensation scheme.
Baroness VICKERS: I am disappointed at the reply. If somebody cannot go on working because he is too old, will he have sufficient money to be able to buy himself an annuity, because he is one of the few people who will not be able to take up another job? Most people, if they lose their job, can get another one, but farming is different, especially when farmers get to the age of 60. If he does not want to spend the money on another farm, can he get compensation?
Lord MELCHETT: That is an impossible question. It surely depends on what sort of annuity the farmer wishes to buy, what size of farm he has to sell, and how much money he or she has coming in. I cannot help the noble Baroness with that question.
Baroness VICKERS: Perhaps the noble Lord could think about it for the future. In view of the very unsatisfactory reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the Amendment, may I say that I am very unhappy with the answers I have had from the noble Lord, particularly over the hardship tribunals. Before Report stage, will he give some thought to how these hardship tribunals will judge the troubles that will come before them, and at some stage say how the Government feel about this, because it needs urgent consideration. We are worried about it, and we want to know how they think. The noble Lord has not told me, or maybe, like his noble and learned friend, I have not understood
430
and I shall read the Report of it tomorrow.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 26 [Compensation payable in transactions between certain authorities]:
4.57 a.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 192 and 193:
Page 25, leave out lines 36 to 41 and insert ("a body mentioned in subsection (1A) below or a body specified in an order made under this paragraph by the Secretary of State;
(c) the person acquiring the interest is a Minister, a body mentioned in subsection (1A) below or a body specified in an order made under this paragraph by the Secretary of State.
(1A) The bodies referred to in subsection (1) above are local and new town authorities, the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint and Lake District Special Planning Boards, and joint boards established under section 2 of this Act.")
Page 26, line 4, leave out from ("State") to end of line 8 and insert ("considers it expedient to make by order under this subsection.
(3) An order under this section—

(a) shall not be made without the consent of the Treasury, and

(b) shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I now move Amendments Nos. 192 and 193, which are mainly technical. The purpose of Clause 26 is to ensure that when the DLT legislation is passed the local authorities will be able to buy from private owners net of tax. One authority will then be able to buy from another on the same basis. Since the financial basis for transactions between local authorities is the Land Compensation Act 1961, which would not cover a net of tax formula, it is necessary to be able to amend the Land Compensation Act to achieve that formula. The Amendments would do no more than enable the amended provisions of the 1961 Act to be applied to other bodies than those already specified. Any order to that effect cannot be made unless a draft has been approved by Resolution of each House. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
5.0 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 26, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDFORD: Before we leave Clauses 25 and 26 relating to compensation, I should like to ask a question about development land tax, which the noble Baroness just mentioned and which we have been told, and as we all know, is vitally linked to the Community Land Bill. We read in paragraph 59 of the White Paper in September 1974 that the effect of these proposals,
"… will be that the community will enjoy the full value created when land is developed."
A little later we read:
"The Government will consult with the local authority associations in order to arrive at a rational distribution of the benefits."
Then, six months later, we read in the Consultation Document, which was issued not before but at the same time as the Bill was published and introduced into another place:
"Though compensation would remain market value, the cost of land to local authorities would nonetheless be reduced during the transitional period. This would be achieved because when local authorities buy development land, whether under the Bill or under any other statutory powers, the cost to them would be reduced by the amount the vendor would have been liable to pay in development land tax had he sold privately. The details of the way in which the development land tax will operate were set out in a statement issued by the Inland Revenue on 4th February. The procedures for buying net of development land tax will be set out later, following discussions with the local authority associations."
And we were told six months earlier that they were to be undertaken; that is, March 1975.
In August 1975 we were told in Appendix C of Cmnd. Paper 6195:
"In the White Paper 'Land' the Government announced their intention of enabling local authorities to buy land net of development land tax which would have been payable by the vendor had he sold his land privately. The arrangements for giving effect to this intention are still under discussion with the representatives of the local authorities."
That was 11 months after the White Paper. When are we to hear how it is proposed to give effect to this intention that local authorities will be able to buy net of development land tax?
The whole operation of this scheme hinges on that and one can see that it is a complicated business. It involves the valuer acting on behalf of the owner of the land, it involves the district valuer, it involves the local authorities and it involves the valuation officer of the Inland Revenue. But exactly who does
432
what is not at all clear yet, and in spite of these three statements we are still in the dark as to how it is to be done. It is worth recalling that it was the failure to get this matter clear which caused the Land Commission to do so little work in its short life, and it was the factor which led to the Central Land Board being so ineffective in 1947.
Baroness BIRK: I did not want to join in a sort of knock-about game on this. If I did, I would ask: what about the Land Compensation Act 1961 and the Land Compensation Act 1973? Nothing much has been done on either side, so I see no point in kettles calling pots black, red, blue or any other colour. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is right to tiethis—as I did when I was speaking to the Government Amendments—to the development land tax, and obviously the basis of this will have to be that legislation. But at present discussions on the procedures, to which the noble Lord was drawing my attention, for buying net of DLT are still continuing. They are continuing because the local authority associations are not yet agreed on a method, so the discussions will continue, at any rate for the time being, until they reach agreement.
I imagine that the noble Lord will find this a satisfactory answer, because I am well aware of how keen and enthusiastic he is about having consultations as often and as widely as possible and about getting this throughout the Bill. At the moment it is impossible for me to give a firmer or more precise answer than that it is being discussed and that the local authorities themselves are working out the method of procedure.
Lord SANDFORD: That is not an answer to the question. The question was: when are we to know how this is to be done? It is not just a question of the local authorities: the Inland Revenue will need to be able to operate this and more particularly the owners of the land will want to know how the assessment is to be made because they cannot begin to see how to enter into negotiations. Who is to value what?
Lord GRIDLEY: I should like with a very brief intervention to support what my noble friend Lord Sandford has just said and give an example affecting ourselves. We are at present in negotiation

433
for the acquisition of land, but we are finding it extremely difficult to draw up a form of contract simply because the owner of the land does not know what he may be charged as a result of development tax. This is just one example of many which are occurring throughout the country at the present time.
Baroness BIRK: As I said, the arrangements will be set out in the Development Land Tax Bill when it is published. I cannot at this moment say when that will be. The noble Lord was also asking about the procedures and the way this should be done: this is a combination of the legislation and the discussions between the local authorities. Incidentally, the noble Lord was comparing what happens with the Land Commission and I should point out that the arrangements for the Land Commission to buy net of betterment levy were set out in the Act itself and that it worked perfectly satisfactorily. The difference now is that, with that Act, one had, broadly, one central body which, we acknowledge, also had its disadvantages, whereas now there are many local authorities involved rather than one Commission. That must increase the scope of the discussions and the time they take.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Financial hardship tribunals]:
5.8 a.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 193A.
Page 26, line 9, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: With permission, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 1931. We now come to the clause which deals with financial hardship tribunals. When the clause was first debated in Committee in the other place, the Minister appeared to take some pride in saying that this was the first Government in history to create a financial hardship tribunal. That may well be perfectly true, but what seems sad is that we should have legislation of such a kind for the first time in history and that it should be thought necessary by a British Government to introduce provisions for dealing with hardship which it is anticipated will follow legislation.
The notes on Clause 29 say that it is hoped that, in the event, there will be very few cases where acquisition at current use value will cause genuine financial hardship. So hardship is certainly envisaged and this view is reinforced by what we heard the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, say just now about dispossessed farmers. Therefore it seems wrong that the Bill merely allows the Minister to set up hardships tribunals, instead of making it mandatory that he should do so. This Amendment seeks to make it mandatory, and since compensation provisions do not come into operation until the second appointed day, Amendment No. 1931 provides that while the tribunals should be constituted before that day it does not lay a duty to set them up before they are needed. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The setting up of hardship tribunals has been thought desirable by the Government, and I am sorry that it should now be the subject of reproach. It seems that one cannot please everybody all the time. At any rate, hardship tribunals will be set up when experience shows the necessity for their coming into being. It would be certainly premature to do so before the need for their existence arises. The reason for not moving immediately to current use value has been the wish of the Government that the scheme should not cause any unnecessary hardship to individuals who had made transactions or entered into commitments which could be adversely affected by an immediate move to current use value, and that is why the rather elaborate transitional arrangements have been introduced to provide a period in which people will be able to adjust to the arrival of the second appointed day through the gradual operation of the development land tax and the procedures for authorities to acquire net of tax.
Clearly, the Government will ensure that adequate notice is given of the move to compensation at current use value, and it is hoped that in the event there will be very few, if any, cases where acquisition at current use value will cause genuine financial hardship. The financial hardship tribunals are intended basically as a safety net. We cannot at this stage attempt to forecast with any precision the kind of situations that might occur

435
which could give rise to a justifiable claim of financial hardship arising from the scheme. But if when the time comes for the move to current use value it becomes clear that the tribunals will in fact be needed, the necessary regulations will certainly be made. But that need may not arise, and it would be wrong to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to make the regulations setting up the tribunals and therefore to incur administrative costs if in fact there is nothing for them to do. Similarly it would be wrong to provide that the final move to current use value cannot take place until financial hardship tribunals have been set up if it is evident at that stage that there will be no need for them.
There was a great observation at one time by the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George, who said:
"It is undesirable to traverse a chasm in two leaps",
That is a piece of wisdom which is sometimes important in contemplating a situation where hardship might arise. I assure noble Lords that if, when events take their course, the need arises, we shall be ready and willing to set up what has been promised. I submit that the suggestion in the Amendments of a mandatory provision and the setting up before the second appointed day are quite unrealistic and should not be accepted.
Earl FERRERS: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could tell me this. If in fact the word "shall" were to be used in lieu of the word "may", would the noble and learned Lord's point still not be covered? Because it would then say:
"The Secretary of State shall, for the purpose of enabling cases of hardship to be considered under this section, make regulations."
If in fact there were no cases of hardship to be considered, then of course he still would not have to do it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It would then become a mandatory provision that he would have to act upon as a statutory duty.
Earl FERRERS: The point I am making is that he would only have to set those up if there were cases of hardship. What the noble and learned Lord indicated was that there might not be cases of hardship, in which case they would not be set up.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The substitution is to be made in Clause 27, on page 26 at line 9. It would mean as I understand it, that the Secretary of State would forthwith have to make the relevant regulations. It would become a mandatory duty on his part in accordance with Clause 27(1), as it would then read:
"The Secretary of State shall, for the purpose of enabling cases of hardship … make regulations"
constituting the tribunals. So under that mandatory duty they would have to be set up, and I have little doubt that it may be thought prudent to do that in any event so that a tribunal might be prepared for; but the substitution of a discretionary requirement in Clause 27(1) instead of the mandatory power I think meets the reality of the likely situation that will arise.
Lord MIDDLETON: I think it cannot be said often enough that there are far too many places in the Bill where we have to take it on trust that the Minister will make some regulations or will exercise some discretion, if he has a mind to, in the future. There is no doubt in our minds that there will be financial hardship resulting from the acquisition of land under the Bill. If the Minister had not thought so he would not have put this clause in the Bill, which makes provision for financial hardship. Finally, what persuades me that I cannot withdraw this Amendment is that, unless a tribunal is set up in the first place, it seems to me that it will be very difficult to tell whether or not hardship has been suffered.
5.18 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 193A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59: Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Auckland, L

Clinton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Balfour, E.

Colville of Culross, V

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Belstead, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Arbuthnott, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Atholl, D.

Carrington, L.

Cowley, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hives, L.

Savile, L.

de Clifford, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Digby, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Effingham, E

Long, V

Elles, B.

Lyell, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Elton, L.

Middleton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Falmouth, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swansea, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Gainford, L.

Vickers, B.

Greenway, L.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Gridley, L.

Onslow, E.

Wise, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ridley, V.

Young, B.

Harvington, L.

Sandford, L.

Hayter, L.

Sandys, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Melchett, L.

Arwyn, L.

Gardiner, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bacon, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peddie, L.

Birk, B.

Hoy, L.

Raglan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Castle, L.

Jacques, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Crowther-Hunt. L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

White, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.26 a.m.
Lord MIDDLETON: I beg to move Amendment No. 1931.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 11, at end insert ("before the second appointed day")—(Lord Middleton.)
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 193B:
Page 26, leave out lines 12 to 20 and insert ("conferring on the Lands Tribunal the duty of discharging such functions as may be specified in the regulations. The Lands Tribunal in carrying out such functions is referred to in the following provisions of this section as a "financial hardship tribunal".")
The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment perhaps I could mention that the Chamber is getting distinctly chilly for those of us who have been here for some time. Cold air seems to be blowing in.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be regrettable if there was an excess of hot air! At an earlier stage, I observed the distinguished figure of Black Rod
438
moving in the direction which might have brought us some more warmth.
The Earl of KINNOULL: The purpose of this Amendment is very simple to understand. The clause setting up financial hardship tribunals states that the Secretary of State would confer on one or more existing bodies, or groups of bodies, the duty to act as tribunals. This is felt to be a little "woolly" as to which bodies would be the tribunals. It has been thought that the Lands Tribunal would be the ideal body. It is a body well recognised for its extensive knowledge and experience in all property matters, and would bring confidence to this whole tribunal. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of the Amendment would be to provide that the functions of a financial hardship tribunal should be conferred on the Lands Tribunal. It would remove the discretionary power which the Secretary of State would have under the clause as it stands to decide whether to set up a new tribunal or tribunals, or alternatively to confer the functions on one or more existing bodies or groups of bodies. We certainly would not rule out the possibility of conferring the functions on the Lands

439
Tribunal, and there would be made advantages in that. But I have to inform your Lordships that that tribunal is already severely overworked. I do not know that I would be very enthusiastic about adding to its burdens. Again, it may well be that the number of cases that might arise when the hardship arrangements are in being may not make that a serious factor. It will be necessary to consider, if and when the time comes, whether a less formal body than the Lands Tribunal would be more appropriate. Local valuation panels have been mentioned, as have various tribunals which come under the Department of Health and Social Security. The disadvantage of the Lands Tribunal is that it is a national body, and local bodies might be more appropriate.
But we cannot really decide on these matters until the volume of work likely to arise is more clearly identified. I can assure the Committee that the Council on Tribunals will be consulted before any regulations are laid before Parliament and they will consider the adequacy of what is proposed. That will be done and, in all the circumstances and in view of the assurances I have given, I hope the noble Earl may feel disposed not to press this matter and to leave the flexibility provided by the present terms to the Secretary of State, so that we may make the best decision when we know more clearly what will happen.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful for that reply and am happy to accept that assurance. The noble and learned Lord said there may be an advantage in having a more informal tribunal. We are dealing with what could be very substantial sums of money in compensation, and I should hope that the Lands Tribunal would be the choice. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.32 a.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 193H:
Page 26, line 26, leave out ("pensions").
The noble Earl said: This subsection allows the Secretary of State to appoint the members and chairman of the tribunal. It enables him to regulate the appointment and tenure of office of the members and allows him to provide for
440
their remuneration and pensions. Three Amendments ago—the one on which we divided—the noble and learned Lord said he thought it might not be necessary to have any tribunals. Here in this clause not only do we pay the members of tribunals, but we also give them pensions. It occurred to me to wonder what the membership will consist of. If a person becomes a member of a tribunal is he there, as it were, for life? Is it rather like joining a firm such as ICI, in that you get on to a tribunal and you stay there for the rest of your life and are pensioned off at the end of it? If so, it seems to be rather at variance with what the noble and learned Lord said earlier. I have no doubt there will be hardship tribunals, and it is quite right that the members should be paid, but I cannot for the life of me understand why they have to receive pensions. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: All this, as I said earlier, is by way of a precautionary measure, to meet the situation that arises when it may become clear that a tribunal will have to be set up to administer the hardship scheme, and regulations will have to be issued. If they are issued it will be in circumstances where it has become apparent that the setting up of an appropriate tribunal is necessary. When such tribunals are set up, it is normal to provide for pensions, salaries and other things in the normal way. There is nothing new in that, and it would be less than fair to those involved if these considerations were not carefully considered in advance.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I thought that was probably the reply I should receive. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 27, line 23, at end insert—
("(bb) make such provision as may be expedient for dealing with the cases of deceased persons who, if they had survived, would or might have been entitled to additional payments under this section.")
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether I might speak to Amendment No. 194A when dealing with No. 194. I understand that during the Committee and

441
Report stages in another place, the Opposition moved Amendments seeking to ensure that the right to make a claim, or the benefit of a claim which is accepted by a financial hardship tribunal, can pass to a personal representative of any person entitled to make a claim. The Government stated that they were sympathetic to the intention behind these Amendments, and my honourable friend Mr. Oakes undertook during Report stage in another place that, since it had been ascertained that this objective could not be achieved by the process of general law an Amendment would be placed into the Bill. These two Amendments accordingly provide that regulations may make such provisions as may be expedient. It is right that this should be done by regulation since it accords with the status of the matters in subsection (8) which the regulations have to cover. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for that Amendment which meets an undertaking given in another place. We are grateful.
5.37 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 194A:
Page 27, line 26, at end insert—
("(d) stipulate that the right to make a claim or the benefit of any claim which has been made shall be capable of being assigned and shall pass with or without express assignment to the personal representative of any person entitled to make or having made a claim.")
The noble Baroness said: I am not sure that the whole of Amendment No. 194A is covered by the Government's Amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would confirm whether or not it is. I rather understood from what he said that it was covered, but will he confirm that? I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: It certainly is my understanding that the Amendment which I have moved and the Committee has accepted meets the point.
Baroness YOUNG: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment 194B:
442
Page 27, line 27, leave out subsection (9).
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is to leave out subsection (9) but its purpose is to find out why an upper limit has been set on the amount that can be paid on any one claim. I appreciate that the figure has already been raised from £25,000 to £50,000, but it all has to be seen against the background of inflation at its present rate, and that sum of money will diminish very rapidly. After all, the Bill will not be in operation until 1976, and it is unlikely that anybody will make a claim immediately at that point. Therefore, the time when any claims will be made is several years on. It seems to me that to put an upper limit such as this on the amount of money is an unwise and unfortunate thing to do. I hope therefore that the Government will reconsider it. I appreciate that there is the proviso,
"or such higher amount as may be prescribed by regulations".
Nevertheless, I should have thought that we could do without the fixed upper limit. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: As the noble Baroness probably knows, at Committee and Report stages in another place Amendments were moved on this point and withdrawn. But at Committee stage the Government accepted an Amendment which increased the maximum from £25,000 to £50,000 on the ground that there could be cases, especially where working farmers were involved, where the original figure of £25,000 might not be adequate. However, some limits must be set to the amounts that can be awarded by the tribunals; otherwise, there is a risk that they could become a means of preserving substantial amounts of development value which would then be for the benefit of individuals rather than the community.
It would not, we feel, be right to impose an open-ended liability on public authorities, and it would also not be acceptable in terms of public expenditure. It would be particularly inappropriate to give what may prove to be a relatively informal body the right to make any award that it wished. The provision for the maximum to be increased by regulations, which would take account of inflation, should not be brushed aside quite so lightly by the noble Baroness, because it is written into the Bill itself.

443
Moreover, in view of the representations which have been made in Committee and in particular bearing in mind the circumstances of working farmers, the Government have already doubled the original proposal. For the time being I think that that is about right. The figure can be kept under review—there is no question that this is a set figure for all time—and powers exist to vary it, if necessary. However, we cannot make any concession on the principle of having a maximum limit.
The Earl of KINNOULL: May I support my noble friend in this Amendment? I begin with the premise that if there is a hardship tribunal, as was promised in the White Paper, there should not be a limit placed on the compensation that is due to one. Secondly, may I say to the noble Baroness opposite that she indicated that it would, in her words, be "a relatively informal body". That is not, however, what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said when dealing with a previous Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: I am afraid that the noble Earl speaks in such a soft, gentle voice that it is sometimes difficult to hear him. Could he repeat what he has said, because neither I nor my noble and learned friend heard him?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It might help if the noble Earl would keep an eye on the perpendicular object suspended from the roof.
The Earl of KINNOULL: May I assure the noble Baroness that my soft, gentle voice masks a very harsh point! I began by saying that I start with the premise that if there is a hardship tribunal, as was promised in the White Paper, there should not be any limit to the compensation to which you are entitled. Secondly, the noble Baroness said that it would probably be wrong for a relatively informal body to pay out from the public purse very large sums of money, and she referred in particular to farmers. When replying to a previous Amendment the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it was not at all certain that it would be an informal body. It could well be a judicial body. It could well be the Lands Tribunal. In the circumstances, it should probably be
444
the Lands Tribunal; it should not be an informal body if large sums of money are to be paid out. I agree with the noble Baroness about that. The point about which I feel most strongly, and about which I hope that my noble friend will feel equally strongly, is the principle that if you set up a tribunal you do not set it up with a maximum, like an insurance policy. You set it up and look at the hardship suffered and decide what is a fair settlement.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am a little concerned that the noble Baroness said that if there was no limit this may be a method whereby an individual could recoup for himself a substantial amount of development value in the land which is being acquired from him. and with which he has been concerned. I do not believe that this is necessarily the case. I believe that the working farmer may be one matter, but that we shall also have cases—certainly we will have cases if the second appointed day comes fairly soon—where people will have bought land before the legislation was ever contemplated at a value which was then the going value, which may or may not have included development land, and they will have to sell it to a local authority at current use value. Through no fault of their own they will have suffered a very substantial, or a minimal, or whatever it may be, financial loss simply as a result of the legislation.
I do not believe that the Government would wish, as it were, retrospectively to penalise people who bought property on the open market at the going price that it was worth at the time they bought it. And in those circumstances it may well be that without them making a penny profit, simply to get the money back that they originally paid, perhaps with sufficient increase to take account of inflation, they may have lost more than £50,000. That is not recouping the development value that ought otherwise to go to the community in accordance with the philosophy of this Bill. That is only seeing that people are at least repaid the amount they originally spent on the land; otherwise, they will be out of pocket as a result of the intervention of this legislation. I do not think the noble Baroness ought to exclude people who come into

445
that category altogether if their loss happens to exceed £50,000.
Lord GRIDLEY: The Government will be selecting the members of the tribunal, and presumably they will be selecting very distinguished people. It would be quite wrong to fetter them like this, prejudicing their decisions in the matter. The distinguished people selected to come to a decision on the matter should be left to make this decision, and this should not be written into the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: It is important to get it quite clear that hardship awards are not compensation. This is a quite special part of the Bill; it is a special set-up. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, it has not yet been decided whether it should be a judicial body, or how it should be composed. The words I used were "relatively informal"—it may or may not be. These are awards that will be keyed to an assessment of hardship and within the criteria laid down, will be assessed on the circumstances of each case. It would be absurd if huge sums far exceeding any compensation payments were possible, and the removal of the limit would do this. Since we do not know how it will work out the limit of £50,000 is hardly ridiculous, and since by that subsection there are provisions for varying it under regulations with the consent of the Treasury, I suggest that at this moment it is far preferable to leave it as it is, and see how it works. As I pointed out, there is nothing to stop the varying of even the present maximum sum in the future.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: But the trouble about that is that you will not discover, according to whatever criteria are used by the tribunal, that there are sums in excess of the £50,000 that the tribunal would have awarded until it has dealt with the case and finds it cannot. The regulations which raise the limit are never retrospective, and you will have to have a series of cases before such regulations can be satisfactorily introduced and justified in Parliament, which will have had to be dealt with by the tribunal on the basis of the existing limit now in the Bill. From that very hypothesis, there will be a number of people who ought to have been awarded more than the limit, who are precluded from that award by the fact that the £50,000
446
is in the Bill. I do not know how else it can work, because these regulations are never retrospective.
Baroness BIRK: I appreciate that, but the only alternative is to leave it completely open-ended, and the Government are not prepared to do that.
Baroness YOUNG: I think that is a very unsatisfactory reply. We have a sum of money which will be eaten away by inflation on one side, and as my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross pointed out we shall not even know that it has created hardship until after it has been shown that it is not enough, and then we shall not be able to put it right. This is a matter on which we shall want to read again the Report of the answer of the noble Baroness in the Official Report, and consider the matter again on Report. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT: Amendment, No. 195 is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 42, leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of")—(Lord Melchett.)
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Power to acquire unoccupied office premises]:
5.51 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 195D:
Page 28, line 21, after ("of") insert ("usable").
The noble Earl said: We now come to Part IV of the Bill, and we are dealing here with 5,000 square metres of floor space. I feel that it must be 5,000 square metres of usable floor space, not the sort of space that cannot be used, filled up with cupboards or things which are not part of the office accommodation. I feel this is perfectly reasonable. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: If the word "usable" were to be carried into Clause 28 it would cause endless argument about its meaning. Any floor space is usable for some purpose; it is amazing to what purposes some floor surfaces are put. Moreover, there is no point in attempting to qualify floor space in this

447
way. The figure of 5,000 square metres without any qualification represents the minimum amount of office accommodation which the Government consider would merit consideration for acquisition if it has remained 75 per cent. unoccupied for two years or more. If there were to be any doubt about the amount of floor space in the office accommodation, the courts would resolve it in favour of the owners, so it is unlikely the Secretary of State would attempt to acquire office accommodation on the borderline. However, the Government could not accept a reduction to the amount of the "usable floor space", whatever that may mean.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Would the noble and learned Lord consider putting in the word "net". I think that is the word often used in particulars when letting office accommodation. The difference between "net" and "gross" is that "net" is the actual floor area that people can work in, and "gross" covers corridors and lavatories and so on.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: This, again, introduces a difficult refinement of what is dispensable and what is indispensable. Some of the premises to which the noble Earl referred are highly indispensable, especially since the health in offices regulations were passed. Net floor space has no statutory meaning and I think it would really add to the confusion. Where there is a borderline around the 5,000 square metre margin, I should have thought a Minister would be reluctant to take the plunge. I think we had better leave it as it is. I do not think the words "usable" or "net" improve the matter at all.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I do not have with me the part of the Town and Country Planning Act which deals with office development plans, but there is a formula there which says what is meant by "floor space" for the purposes of offices. It is required to see whether it is within or outside the exemption limit. There is a good formula in the Statute.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall be delighted to look at that and see whether any of these interesting adjectival phrases are included in that.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: It is more than that.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am grateful to my noble friends for having supported me, but in view of what has been said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.56 a.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 195E:
Page 28, line 23, leave out second ("land") and insert ("building").
The noble Earl said: Here we are dealing with any building that has been erected, whether before or after the passing of this Act, on any land. This subsection applies to that land, as it reads at the moment, and any other land. I feel that the words there should be "building and any other land", because in this case to a great extent we are dealing with office accommodation in the form of the building. Amendment No. 195F would be consequential. I feel that there could be doubt as to what is land and what is land taken up by the building, or vice versa. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: These Amendments may arise from a misunderstanding. If the noble Earl will look at Clause 4 of the Bill he will see that in subsection (I) the expression "land" is defined to mean:
"any corporeal hereditament, including a building and includes an interest in or right over land."
Clause 28(1) applies that clause to the land on which an office building, as defined, has been erected. It means that subject to subsection (4) the power of acquisition in subsection (2) covers all interests in the office building, and the land on which it stands. Apart from the definition in Clause 4, the Interpretation Act 1889 defines "land "to include buildings. That is the explanation of the language.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am grateful for that explanation. It has helped me understand it a little better. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Additional powers of acquisition]:
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 195G:
Page 31, line 21, at end insert ("unless it can be shown by the owner that it would be detrimental to a development for which there is or has been granted planning permission.")
The noble Earl said: Clause 30 is to some extent carrying on from Clause 28. If it is considered necessary to acquire any other land, the Secretary of State may acquire that other land either by agreement or compulsorily. I am concerned that in built-up areas other people, or even the owner of the land originally, can be affected, unless he can show that it would be detrimental to a development for which there is or has been granted planning permission. Here is a case where somebody could be trying to develop his land and then the Secretary of State steps in. perhaps because something has gone wrong in relation to Clause 28, and as a result the owner will miss out both ways. One can imagine all sorts of complications arising—for example, if one owns an office block and one is trying desperately to keep rights of access, rights of entry and so on, perhaps even over adjoining land.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Why does the Secretary of State require this specific power when, under Clause 28, he has compulsory purchase powers to acquire an existing office block? I do not think it is development so much as an existing office block. Here we see him taking additional powers to acquire adjacent land to make up a better package. But the district valuer, when acting for the Secretary of State, will have taken into account whether or not the existing block by itself is of great or limited value and therefore the Secretary of State will have purchased it with that in mind. If he has powers to acquire additional land, he will be adopting the role of a developer. By putting a better package together he will make a great deal of profit out of it. I am not suggesting that that is a bad thing; I am just wondering why he wants that role.
Lord MELCHETT: There is obviously a misunderstanding over this and I will see whether I can help. The first point
450
to make clear is that Clause 30 is very much a reserve power. It would be a very exceptional case where the office building the Secretary of State had acquired was not capable of being used as offices, and therefore disposed of for office use without other land being added. We are talking about very exceptional cases. This provision is, therefore, designed to close a possible loophole for the owner of an office block bent on frustrating the Secretary of State's objective of bringing the office accommodation into use. For example, the owner might have so arranged things that the only access to the empty office accommodation was through a small part of the building which had been leased and which was effectively in office use and through which the owner had unfortunately—deliberately or inadvertently—failed to reserve a right of way.
It is not therefore envisaged that the power would be used in such a manner as to hinder or prevent the proper development of other land, and obviously any objection to compulsory acquisition of such other land on the grounds mentioned in the Amendment would merit very serious consideration. The Amendment would in fact widen the loophole which the clause seeks to close and is therefore not acceptable. Of course, if it was necessary under this clause, in these very exceptional circumstances, to take land which was detrimental to a development, the remedy would be in compensation. So far as adjacent land is concerned, full compensation would be payable for it, not the reduced compensation as in Clauses 28 and 29.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Perhaps I am a little slow at this hour in the morning, but I am rather concerned over what the noble Lord said. I should like to be certain that full compensation will be paid, but that is not the impression I got when I read the clause. I wonder whether we could look at this again, for I feel that, although what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said may be the intention, there is serious doubt as to whether the clause actually specifies what he says it does. Can the noble Lord look at this again between now and Report stage, because I feel that it is quite an important point? I do not want to delay the Com-

451
mittee and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Determination of date of completion]:
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 195H:
Page 33, line 7, after ("shall") insert ("not").
The noble Earl said: I believe that this may perhaps be all right, but it is one of the little paragraphs which appear in legislation from time to time and which somewhat irritate me as a layman. It reads:
"The date specified in a completion notice shall be earlier than any date on which, by virtue of subsection (1) above, erection of the building to which the notice relates would, but for the notice, be deemed to have been completed for the purposes of this Part".
I am afraid that that leaves me wondering what on earth it means. I feel that a wording which might be considered is:
"The date specified in the completion notice shall not be earlier than the date on which, by virtue of this section, the erection of the building would be deemed to have been completed".
This is one of those horrible bits of drafting which goes into rather complicated situations and I should like to know exactly what it means. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I feel that the noble Earl is being a little hard at this time of the morning, but if he really insists on an explanation I suppose that we still have an hour or so left. The Amendment which he has put down to insert the word "not" would negative the whole purpose of the completion notice procedure. Perhaps, having put the point in that way, the noble Earl may take it from me at this time in the morning that that is so.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Yes, indeed. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Power to obtain information]:
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 1951:
Page 35, leave out lines 4 and 5.
The noble Viscount said: This is not a weighty point, but I feel that the wording of the subsection is infelicitous. When the notice specifies what is wanted by the Secretary of State for the purpose of extracts or copies, surely it will not specify the facilities to be afforded. What are they—two shorthand typists or the free use of Mr. Hyams' Xerox for a fortnight? Surely what is wanted is simply that the notice should specify that the Secretary of State's officer will require extracts to be made or copies taken. Could not the wording be made a little less alarming? It seems to me to be unnecessarily severe for the purpose. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall be very glad to look at this. The dictionary meaning of "facility" is "unimpeded opportunity". I hope that that was not in the mind of the noble Viscount in relation to the typing staff to whom he referred. We will have a look at this point if the noble Viscount does not press it at this stage.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I have no intention of doing so and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Acquisition of land by the Crown]:
6.10 a.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 36, line 37, after ("opinion") insert ("and that of the local planning authorities concerned").
The noble Lord said: We are in the last but one Part of the Bill. In moving this Amendment, I wish to speak—at any rate to start with—to the next Amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List. The general point I wish to pursue is to ask what justification is there in this Bill for either strengthening or extending the local powers of the Secretary of State in a Bill designed to confer powers on local authorities, which

453
are already the local planning authorities, and which are being made the local land development and acquisition authorities? In my view it is no business of the Secretary of State to consider what is environmentally or economically best for any particular areas. That is the function of the local authorities. On the other hand, I should agree that perhaps in a Bill dealing with land it is a good thing to tidy up the powers and functions which the Secretary of State already has, and where it has been found that his powers are inconvenient and do not work smoothly, to do something to amend the situation. If that is the reason, then it is important in my view that he should not be able to exercise those powers without consulting the local planning authorities in the area. He should be under a statutory obligation to consult them, and that is the purpose of Amendment No. 196. If Amendment No. 196 is acceptable, then Amendment No. 197 is consequential upon it, and Amendment No. 198 is consistent with it. Perhaps we could go that far before I speak to the remaining Amendment, No. 199.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Can the noble Baroness, in her reply, confirm that before the Secretary of State promoted, for himself to confirm, a compulsory purchase order under this clause, it would be necessary to decide for what purpose the land was to be used, and that there would have to be a procedure under —is it now Circular 80?—whereby the deemed planning permission, or machinery equivalent to planning permission, has to be gone through, and the local authority would therefore have been given an opportunity to have its say in that way? Would the noble Baroness also confirm that if the procedure under Circular 80 had led to a clash with the local planning authority, where by the Secretary of State was trying to promote a scheme with which the local planning authority did not agree, that this would be a very good ground of objection for a private owner to put to the Secretary of State at the inquiry in an attempt to ensure that a compulsory purchase order was not confirmed?
Baroness BIRK: As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, it is perfectly true that these are tidying up Amendments, but when he puts them together Amend
454
ment No. 196 goes farther than consultation, because it refers to the opinion of the local planning authorities concerned. I am advised that this would give the local planning authorities a power of veto, and so the situation is not really quite what seemed to be indicated by what the noble Lord said; the words seem to be stronger than that.
The noble Viscount is absolutely right: it is the Government's invariable practice, under what is known as the Circular 80 procedure, to consult local authorities about all proposals for Crown development. We are talking about Crown development; that is what this clause is specifically concerned with. Consultations with local authorities would normally have taken place already, before any land was acquired under the powers in Clause 37. In many cases incorporation of features not strictly required for the public service—for example, public open spaces, or landscaping of surrounding areas—will often be the result of consultations with the local authority at the design stage.
There may be some cases where the Secretary of State has acquired by agreement a piece of land that has come on the market before consultations with the local authorities have taken place. The consultations will be held before development itself takes place. This is a sensible, tidying-up arrangement to make it all very much more efficient. So I hope noble Lords will accept these procedures, which apply to all Crown development proposals and have operated since 1950 in one form or another. To require him, as some of the Amendments do—for example, No. 196—to obtain the agreement of the local planning authority would be unduly restrictive. If this was so it would make it impossible for the Secretary of State to override the local authority in those cases where the development was essential in the national interest, or perhaps on security grounds. The result would be to leave the Crown with fewer rights than those of the individual. Where there was a serious conflict between the Secretary of State and the local authority arising from these proposals, the Secretary of State would normally arrange for a public inquiry to be held before reaching a decision. But in the last resort the final decision must be for the Secretary of State to make, as he would with a private developer.
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those remarks. I agree with what she has pointed out with respect to Amendment No. 196. That would be giving local planning authorities power to veto, and that, I agree, would be going too far. I think the upshot of what she said, and particularly what she said to my noble friend Lord Colville, is that local authorities would be relying on the Circular 80 procedure, and that would almost certainly involve the Secretary of State in some prior consultation, which is what we want to see. I think it might be better if we disposed of Amendment No. 196, which I will withdraw, and Nos. 197 and 198, which I will not move; but I have one further point on No. 199. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 196.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.17 a.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 38, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 199, which is on a slightly different point. First, I have one relatively minor point. If we look at subsection (4) on page 37, I think we have to say either that the rubric on page 36 is misleading because it refers solely to acquisition, or else there is a missing rubric on page 37 at subsection (4), from which point the clause deals only with disposal. I think that either the rubric at the beginning wants to be amended to include both or the clause wants to be broken and we want to have "Disposal" at the beginning of subsection (4). That is a minor drafting point.
The substantial point that I want to be reassured about is over the page, in subsection (6). The words used there seem at first sight, at any rate, to be far too sweeping and to enable the Secretary of State to circumvent all the conventions which have been established over the years about the procedures for offering land back to previous owners—the Crichel Down things—the rules, regulations and enactments which govern agreements about the development of land which is being disposed of; Section 52 et cetera. But perhaps the noble Baroness can reassure me that I am mistaken in this point. I think I must be, because the words seem far too sweeping. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: Under existing legislation it is doubtful whether the Secretary of State can acquire land compulsorily when he intends that its development for the public service shall be carried out by a third party; for example, a lessee under a building lease. The purpose of this subsection of the Bill is to remedy this deficiency. The Amendment would unjustifiably limit the Secretary of State's power to dispose of land (in order to secure the appropriate development of the land for the purpose for which it was acquired) to those cases where the original acquisition was by agreement; and it would destroy altogether the objectives of Part IV of the Bill if the Secretary of State were unable to dispose of unoccupied office premises he had acquired in order to secure that they were effectively used.
But having regard to part of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on Second Reading (col. 1087 of the Official Report) it seems that he may have misunderstood what Clause 37 is all about. I shall not take up the time of the Committee to read it; but the noble Lord knows what he said. He might well have gone on to read out the following words of the clause:
"and in particular may under this subsection dispose of land held by him for any purpose in order to secure the use of the land for that purpose".
This is the nub of the subsection, the intention being to enable the Secretary to enter into leasing arrangements under which the development for public service purposes, or development for a mixture of public and private uses, would be carried out by a third party. Since the freehold would remain with the Government, such arrangements would be entirely consistent with the community land scheme.
There is no "anti-Crichel Down" motive. The Crichel Down policy for offering back to former owners agricultural land which is surplus to the requirements of the holding Department will continue to be applied. It would be odd indeed if the Secretary of State having acquired land compulsorily for public service development and found out that some of it was not needed, could not sell it back to the former owner even if that were the right and proper thing to do.

457
But, as I have said, the disposal power (apart from the Part IV aspect) is primarily designed to enable the public service development to be carried out by others if that would serve the interests of effective and efficient property management. I take it from the way the noble Lord moved it that this is a probing Amendment. I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord that there is no foundation for the motives he has ascribed to subsection (6). Really, it all boils down to the fact that the clause merely gives a disposal power to the Secretary of State; it is not in any way affecting how that power is exercised. The Crichel Down rules will continue to apply as they always have done.
Lord SANDFORD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 199A:
Page 38, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions of Schedule 4 to this Act shall not apply to the acquisition of land by the Crown under this section.'')
The noble Lord said: The proposal in Clause 37 greatly extends the power of the Secretary of State acting for the Crown to acquire land for the public service. The purpose of this Amendment is to disapply the provisions of Schedule 4 to the Act. We believe it should be a safeguard that there is a right to a public inquiry. If the noble Baroness can give us an assurance that this Amendment is unnecessary, I shall be happy to withdraw it. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I can easily and readily give the noble Lord that assurance. The Amendment is unnecessary. Schedule 4 does not need to be disapplied from the acquisition of land under Clause 37, because it is already clear that none of its four parts applies.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Is not the answer that Schedule 4 applies only to acquisitions under Clause 15 of the Bill?
Baroness BIRK: Yes.
Lord SANDYS: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness and my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment went with Amendments Nos. 17, 75 and 181. It has already been discussed. I beg to move Amendment No. 200:
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
Application of Act to Crown land
(1) Notwithstanding the Crown or Duchy interest—

(a) a private interest in Crown land may, with the consent in writing of the appropriate authority, be acquired compulsorily under section 15 of this Act, and

(b) sections 23 and 44 of this Act apply to a material interest in Crown land which is a private interest as they apply to a material interest in land which is not Crown land.

(2) In this section "Crown land" means land in which there is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest, and—

(a) "Crown interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, or belonging to a government department, or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department,

(b) "Duchy interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall,

(c) "private interest" means an interest which is not a Crown interest or a Duchy interest,

and "appropriate authority" in relation to Crown land shall be determined in accordance with section 266(7) of the Act of 1971, or section 253(7) of the Scottish Act of 1972.'—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 39 [Grants to authorities who buy or rent Crown Land]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 201, 202 and 203:
Page 38, line 37, leave out from ("where") to end of line 41 and insert ("any interest in land is acquired from the Crown on or after the first appointed day—

(a) by a local or new town authority, the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint or Lake District Special Planning Board, or a joint board established under section 2 of this Act, or

(b) by a body specified in an order made under this subsection by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury.

An order under this subsection shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.")
Page 39, line 2, leave out ("mentioned in subsection (1) above") and insert ("concerned")
Page 39, line 5, leave out from first ("the") to ("interest") in line 6 and insert ("body to the Crown in respect of the").
The noble and learned Lord said: It is intended that where authorities buy land from the Crown, the price they pay should correspond with what it would have cost them under the community land scheme if the land were in private hands—that is to say, market value less the amount of any development land tax payable by the vendor. But because the Crown will not be liable to pay development land tax Clause 39 makes special provision designed to achieve that result. The arrangement is that the acquiring authority will pay market value but will then receive, under the authority of Clause 39, a grant representing the amount of tax which would have been payable.
Clause 39(1) as it stands specifies bodies to whom the grant arrangements are to apply, but it may well be necessary to extend the coverage to other authorities who, under the Development Land Tax Bill, may be entitled to buy land net of tax. The effect of the Amendments is to enable the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury and, subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, to specify by order additional bodies to whom the grant arrangements may apply. The need for a power to specify additional bodies arises mainly from the timing of the Development Land Tax Bill since until that Bill is enacted there can be no certainty that the list of bodies to whom the grant provisions apply is complete. But even then there remains a possibility that future legislation may create new bodies which should benefit under the grant provision.
While the general undesirability of leaving matters of this kind to subordinate legislation is appreciated, it cannot be avoided in this instance: but the application of the Affirmative Resolution procedure secures full control by the House of Commons over the exercise of the power. The Orders require approval by the House of Commons only, because they fall within the privileges of that House. It is for that reason, too, that a Privilege Amendment will be needed
460
regarding the Amendments. I beg to move.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Exclusion of special Parliamentary procedure]:
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendments Nos. 203A and 205A:
Page 39, line 26, after ("except") insert ("(i)")
Page 39, line 27, at end insert ("or
(ii) where the interest belongs to a parish council or parish trustees of any parish in England or to any community council in Wales, and the interest is to be acquired for the purposes of any enactment other than this Act.")
The noble Lord said: I should like to take with Amendment 203A Amendment No. 205A, in view of the fact that Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 will not be moved by my noble friend Lord Sandford. With the agreement of the Committee, I would say that these two Amendments—the first being a paving Amendment to the second—are concerned with special Parliamentary procedure. The special Parliamentary procedure, as your Lordships will know, prevents the predatory instincts of county and district councils purchasing land belonging to local councils if they so wish. However, the existing protection will be abolished when the Bill becomes an Act, and it follows that protection of local councils would also be abolished. In view of the very brief terms in which the Amendment is expressed, it is self-explanatory and I shall not enlarge on it. However, my noble friend Lord Kinnoull may wish to do so. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like briefly to support my noble friend. He has put the case so ably that I do not really think I can add anything.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of these Amendments, as I understand it, would be that the exclusion of the special Parliamentary procedure provided for in Clause 40 would not apply that is to say, the procedure would continue to apply to the compulsory purchase of interest in land belonging to parish or community councils in the circumstances set out in the Amendments.

461
Having said that, I wonder whether that remains true after the withdrawal. I did not quite follow the withdrawals the noble Lord mentioned. Is he still maintaining Amendments Nos. 203A and 205A?
Lord SANDYS: Those two Amendments I would be willing to withdraw on receiving assurances from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, we may wish to propose some Amendments on Report. I beg leave to withdraw these Amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
6.34 a.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 206B.
Page 39, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) Section 1(2)(c) of, and paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to, the Act of 1946 (or as the case may be the Scottish Act of 1947) shall include after the words "site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest "the words" or land within an outstanding conservation area or land designated in a National Park Plan as land requiring the protection afforded by this subsection or this paragraph as the case may be."."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 206B. This relates to Clause 40, to which the rubric is Exclusion of special Parliamentary procedure. I have no objection at all to the exclusion of special Parliamentary procedure in respect of compulsory purchase orders relating to the land of statutory undertakers. We know that the Government feel that this will facilitate better use of disused land of statutory undertakers. I do not wish to revert to the argument we had about that, but while we are looking at the use of special Parliamentary procedures I believe we should consider whether there is any case where its use should be extended. I believe that there is. The provisions for special Parliamentary procedure are to be found in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1946. From paragraph 12 of that Schedule we can see that special Parliamentary procedure is applied whenever a compulsory purchase order relates to the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest. I think that was right when the Bill was enacted in 1946, and is right today.
However, in 1946 the sites of ancient monuments were almost the only sites which had a special protective designation. Since 1946 we have developed a considerable number of further designations. We have started the process of listing historic buildings; we have designated national parks; we have designated outstanding natural beauty; we have designated heritage coasts, and have set about designating conservation areas. All those are sites, places and areas which have been given some special national significance. I should have thought that all of them were roughly on a par with sites of ancient monuments and deserved at least consideration for the same kind of protection and the use of special Parliamentary procedure.
Still more recently, at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and my noble friend Lord Molson in a debate in this House on an Amendment to the Water Resources Act, the use of special Parliamentary procedure was invoked in all cases where compulsory purchase orders were confirmed on behalf of water undertakers seeking to develop reservoirs and other things in national parks. So the use of special Parliamentary procedure has already been introduced in that special instance.
The object of my Amendment is to show by way of illustration two particular categories; namely, the outstanding conservation areas—there are only a limited number of them—and specially defined areas within national parks which could perhaps be accorded special Parliamentary procedure without going too far along the line. I would not want to press on the Government any particular categories at this stage, but if they would be prepared to accept either this Amendment, or the principle of it and try another one themselves, this would ensure that another place could look at this proposition and in the course of dealing with it decide which particular categories of all these designations it would be appropriate to accord the protection of special Parliamentary procedure.
I do not think we ought to let this opportunity go by without seeking a rather more rational situation than we have at the moment, which is protection for ancient monuments, because they happened to be the only designated sites

463
in 1946, plus protection for those parts of national parks which are threatened by proposals from water undertakers. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this is a very ad hoc and arbitrary state of affairs which we ought to try to put right. I beg to move.
6.39 a.m.
Baroness BIRK: Of course I well recognise the noble Lord's interest in this particular area, as it ties up with some recommendations in the Report of the National Park Policy Review Committee of which he was Chairman. It is true that the Report contained proposals for designation within national parks of national heritage areas. Here one would get the link with paragraph 12 of Schedule I to the Acquisition of Land Act, which applies special Parliamentary procedure in special circumstances where the land is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest.
I imagine that this proposal is probably the foundation for the noble Lord's Amendment; but as the Report records, the review committee were equally divided on this proposal, with four members supporting it, and four against it, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and one other member preferring to reserve their position. I must point out that the Amendment anticipates that the Government will accept the national heritage area proposal, whereas they have not yet published their views upon it or, indeed, upon any part of the Report. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, must be feeling rather sad about this.
The Amendment is concerned with national park policy issues which have yet to be decided. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that it would be quite wrong to write into this Bill any provisions which are based upon a forecast, or an assumption, or even an expectation or hope, that the policy decision might favour a particular point of view. Apart from that, the substance of the Amendment, which proposes to widen the range of categories attracting special Parliamentary procedure, is not germane to Clause 40. That clause proposes to exclude special Parliamentary procedure in cases where at present it applies, primarily in the interests of the
464
community land scheme. The proper occasion for promoting further applications of the procedure is in legislation arising from the policies. I mentioned the national parks. This will depend upon the outcome of the Government's consideration which, as the Minister of State has recently announced, may be expected soon. The Amendment also mentions outstanding conservation areas. It is not clear whether these mean conservation areas as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act or areas of outstanding natural beauty as may be designated in development plans. In any event, whichever it may be, Clause 40 is not the occasion for considering the addition of these kinds of lands. 1 hope that the noble Lord will feel that, as he has made his point and ventilated something which needed ventilating, he need not press his Amendment.
6.43 a.m.
Lord SANDFORD: Certainly I shall not press the Amendment. In moving it I hope I have made it clear that I am not trying to pre-empt or to forestall the Government's decision about heritage areas. If that had been so, I should have used the term. I was seeking to point out to the Government that while they are dealing with the application of special Parliamentary procedure—as they are in Clause 40, although I agree that it is in terms of excluding it in certain cases—in a Bill which is dealing with land and the compulsory acquisition of land, they ought to look at Schedule 1 paragraph 12, to the Acquisition of Land Act, and take this opportunity to bring into the protection of paragraph 12 some other categories in addition to that of ancient monuments. It would be much better to have a separate clause in the Bill to deal with the extension of special Parliamentary procedure rather than its exclusion. I am not particularly "sold" on any particular category, either conservation areas or national parks. I leave it to the judgment of the Government to select which areas are appropriate. I am sure, however, that it is wrong to leave the protection applying to ancient monuments alone because they happened to be the only designated areas in 1946, and to leave us with the anomaly that it is only works of statutory water undertakers in national parks which invoke protection at the moment. That is an unsatisfactory

465
position. We have the opportunity to put it right and I hope that the Government will take it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 206A, may I point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 207D.
Clause 41 [Consent for disposals]:
6.45 a.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 207D:
Page 39, line 31, after ("(1)") insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) of this section,").
The noble Viscount said: This is a small point, but in the Local Government Act there is a power for a local authority to dispose of, and therefore deal with. very small areas of what is called public trust land. Often this takes the form of a small bit of common, which may be wanted for a minor road widening, and when the Committee realises that the maximum area is only 250 square yards it will be seen that this is not a large or important matter. Nevertheless, if they require to do so. it can be done only after local advertisement and consideration of objections which arise from that advertisement. It is a useful power which maybe is not used very often, but when it is required, it is useful.
I hope the Government will exempt this from the general withdrawal of the freedom to dispose without the consent of the Secretary of State, because I am afraid this will happen. Even if, having withdrawn—as the Bill does—the whole matter of the local authority being entitled to dispose of land on its own account, and having imposed a requirement that the Secretary of State shall consent to each disposal, the next thing will be for some general consents to be issued.
If a general consent was issued which coincided with the terms of Section 123(3) of the Local Government Act, I do not believe that that would necessarily allow the local authority to dispose of such land if there was a contentious case. It would still be possible, I believe, in those
466
circumstances, for the terms of the general consent to withdraw it where the Secretary of State wished so to do, and thereby we would be back to the old system of a long delay and a possible public inquiry. I am suggesting that the Local Government Act thought it was safe to allow responsible local authorities to make these small disposals even when it was common land after considering locally objections that were made. If we want speed—and speed is sometimes very neccesary—we simply cannot afford to have the consent of the Secretary of State subjected first to a public inquiry system. I hope, therefore, in view of the very recent legislation granting these powers, that it will be possible for the Government to maintain them, and to leave the situation as it is. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope I have apprehended correctly what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had in mind. It is a problem of disposal of land under Section 123(3); that is to say, where it is under 250 square yards, and where the requirement as to advertising and the consideration of objections have been complied with. The noble Viscount is making the point that it would be wrong to impose a further obligation for the authority to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State under Clause 41.
The answer is that in practice there would be no real difficulty about getting consent under Clause 41 in such a case. While we cannot at this stage give a definite undertaking that such disposals will be covered by a general consent, because there may be other factors to be considered—for instance, the possibility, albeit remote, of the abuse if public trust land were to be parcelled up for freehold disposal over a period of time—I am told I can give a clear indication that normally such disposals will be able to go ahead as the amounts of land involved are de minimis.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. While not wishing to prolong this matter at this juncture, may I ask him whether he will look at this? I expected that that is what he would say, but will the general consents contain a

467
power whereby in specific cases the Secretary of State still hangs on to the requirement to give consent himself?—because those will be the cases that cause the difficulty. Those are the ones that the local authority is now allowed to deal with on its own without interference from outside, but taking account of local objections, and those are the ones where one needs speed. The moment one gets the Secretary of State's requirement for the consent being reimposed, one will impose delays, public inquiries and an interminable protraction of the whole thing. That is what I want to avoid. Will the noble and learned Lord look at that, without saying anything about it today. so that perhaps we can come back to it later?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Most certainly, we will do that. We want an avoidance of situations like that, if possible.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.51 a.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 39, line 33, after("land") insert ("which is for the time being entered in an account kept by them under section 42 of the Community Land Act 1975.")
The noble Viscount said: The whole question of the disposal of land is raised under this Amendment. This has given considerable worry to local authorities, and they regard it in many ways as totally unjustifiable interference with their powers to do as they wish under the Local Government Act 1972 and other Acts. Indeed, the Association of District Councils feel very strongly that this is a severe setback to their efforts to secure a greater measure of local discretion. This Amendment seeks to exclude from the Bill such land as is held before White Paper day; in other words, land which has been purchased for other purposes than development under this Bill, for road works, schools and so forth, and a multitude of other purposes which we do not feel should be subject to the permission of the Secretary of State for disposal in any way whatever. I referred to this on Second Reading and I have
468
no intention of saying again what I said then. I think this is an important issue from the point of view of local authorities, and I beg to move.
Lord DIGBY: The Government seem determined to control the sale of development land by local authorities, and we shall be discussing this later. But this clause refers to "any land", not just development land, not just land acquired under this Bill, but "any land". For instance, where a local authority wants to rationalise a smallholdings estate and wants to sell one field and to buy another, they do not have the power to do this without the permission of the Secretary of State. It is another case of Central Government removing the freedom of local government, and I can see no justification for it.
Baroness BIRK: The accounts kept by authorities under Clause 42 will not generally include land they acquired before the first appointed day. The only exception to this is land already acquired by authorities under the special £80 million loan sanction scheme for which special provision is to be made in the land accounts to allow authorities to offset part losses. That covers the point about "all land". We are well aware of the feelings of some local authorities.
The answer is that the controls are needed to ensure that local authorities conform uniformly with Government policy on disposals. A basic principle of that policy is that land for commercial or industrial development is to be disposed of on a leasehold basis with provision for regular rent revisions. The essence of leasehold tenure is that it enables the community to retain a share of future increases in value and to have a major say in the redevelopment of the land when the time comes. It is important also that authorities should be able to use their ownership powers to promote positive planning, which is a major objective of the land scheme.
While we are certainly prepared to look sympathetically at cases where authorities had already entered into commitments to dispose of the existing land holdings on certain terms, and feel morally bound to honour such commitments, there can be no general waiving of government policy as regards disposals of land acquired before the first appointed day, because it would be quite wrong

469
and anomalous for authorities to continue to be free to dispose of certain land freehold for industrial and commercial development simply because they happened to have acquired it before the first appointed day, whereas in respect of all other land they would be bound by the provisions of Clause 41.
This is not a small matter. Many authorities already have large land holdings and it would be quite unjustifiable for these to be totally outside the scheme, as they would be under the Amendment. There is also the point that as the stage is reached when authorities become virtually the monopoly suppliers of development land, there may well be a need to make provision for some method of testing the market; for example, by competitive tender. For this to be effective it would have to apply across the board and it simply would not be feasible for these purposes to distinguish between land acquired after the first appointed day and land acquired before.
It is quite wrong to attempt, as the Amendment does, to make the provisions of Clause 41 conform to the requirements of Clause 42. Clause 42 is essentially concerned with the financing of the scheme, and as there are new accounting arrangements it is right that these should apply to land acquired after the first appointed day. But Clause 41 is concerned with the way in which authorities dispose of this land in the light of Government policy on public ownership, and that policy applies equally regardless of when the land was acquired. I am sorry that this had to be such a long explanation, but it is an important point and I felt that the Committee deserved a full explanation of the Government's policy.
Viscount RIDLEY: I am afraid I do not find that a satisfactory answer. I was under the impression that in another place the Government gave an assurance that existing land holdings would be excluded from the Acts and thus from the schemes under the Bill. I have not found anywhere in the Bill before us that this is the case. I am unable to say whether Amendment No. 207F, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is more acceptable or less, but it covers very much the same point. With the reservation that we shall return to this subject when we
470
reach No. 207F, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.57 a.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 207A;
Page 39, line 33, at end insert ("except land for non-relevant development")
The noble Earl said: I should like to ask, in moving Amendments Nos. 207A and 207C, whether in this case the Secretary of State's consent is required even where land is being disposed of for non-relevant development. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I hope the noble Earl will not be pressing this. The Amendments are defective, because not only would they free land for non-relevant development from the controls imposed by Clause 41, but they would also free it from all existing statutory controls, including the provision of Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 and the corresponding Scottish provision. I do not think this is what the noble Earl intended, but this would be the effect of his Amendment. As the main argument of principle as to why Clause 41 covers all land is exactly on the lines on which I answered the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I will not go over that again. In particular, it will be necessary to ensure that land for commercial or industrial development is disposed of on a leasehold basis. Land for housing will continue to be available freehold to owner-occupiers. We are continuing to discuss with various representative bodies our proposals with respect to the length of leases and the need for regular rent revisions.
It is also important that the private sector should know that there are clear guide lines controlling the manner in which local authorities make land available, so that they will have the confidence to continue to invest in land and to make their forward plans. For all these reasons it is important for the Secretary of State to retain overall control over local authority land transactions, regardless of the type of development for which the land is being made available. This of course does not mean that local authorities will have constantly to go to the Secretary of State for consent in every case. Wide-ranging general consents will be given, but the controls must apply to all land, not least

471
because the concept of leasehold disposal, other than for housing, is a fundamental element in the Government's philosophy of community ownership. I have rather abbreviated this reply, but I am sure the noble Earl will understand the main points I have made.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I may be a little dimwitted at this hour and, although I was not very pleased with the noble Baroness's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.1 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 207F:
Leave out Clause 41 and insert the following new Clause—
("—(1)The Principal Council shall not dispose of any material interest acquired in any land under the terms of this Act, except as prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations.
(2) These regulations shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Baroness said: I tabled this Amendment, because it seemed that this might be a way of getting over the dilemma of the difficulties that local authorities find themselves in over the provisions in Clause 41 with regard to the disposal of land. Local authorities mind very much that they do not have this freedom to dispose of land, as they feel they should have, even in the restricted form of Amendment No. 206A which we were discussing earlier and which proposed that a principal council might dispose of a material interest in land. It seemed to me that by putting the clause in this form it would give discretion to local authorities, but at the same time it would be a discretion limited by regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State and in this way we could get freedom for local authorities and the Secretary of State could state the limits. I appreciate that there could be cases where it would be necessary for the Secretary of State, to intervene, and therefore I think it right that these limits should be stated in regulations. I will not pursue this argument at this hour in the morning, but I hope that at least the Government will view this Amendment sympathetically.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I will not weary the Committee at this hour with the technical defects in the Amendment, especially as there are more substantial objections to it in practical terms. All previous statutory provisions concerning controls over local authority land transactions have been couched in terms of the need to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State, or the appropriate Minister, and have made no provision for control by regulations. In this respect, Clause 41 is merely following well-established precedent. But there are also good practical reasons why these matters cannot be dealt with by regulations. Circumstances on land transactions tend to vary widely between one sale and another and it is not the case that all transactions fall into a uniform pattern. There are often special factors to be taken into account which arise out of the nature of the transaction. It would, therefore, not be practicable to frame regulations which would cover every case. Flexibility is essential and this can be achieved only through the framework of consents. General consents can be given which will cover the vast majority of transactions, but where the particular nature of a transaction requires that special factors be taken into account, then the case can be looked at on its merits and consent given if it is appropriate to do so within the terms of the overall policy on disposals.
The general principles which will inform the Secretary of State's use of his Dowers under Clause 41 have already been made known and consultation is still continuing with interested bodies. The basic policy is that land for commercial or industrial development is to be disposed of on a leasehold basis with provision for regular rent revisions. The essence of leasehold tenure is that it enables the community to retain a share of future increases in value and to have a major say in the redevelopment of the land when the time comes. It is important that authorities should be able to use their ownership powers to promote positive planning, which is a major objective of the land scheme.
We accept also that the private sector should know that there are clear guidelines controlling the manner in which local authorities make land available under the scheme so that they will have the confidence to continue to invest in

473
land and to make their forward plans. We will therefore ensure not only that there is full consultation with all interested bodies, including the local authority associations but also that guidance on the basic principles of disposals policy is made available to developers and local authorities alike. I am afraid that the Amendment, as it stands, is unacceptable.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining the Government's view. One of the difficulties which he described was the fact that there might not be a uniform pattern throughout the country. We are of course perfectly aware that different situations will arise in different areas in relation to the disposal of land. This is not something which can be uniform and there must be a flexible approach. That is why we are suggesting that this should be done by regulations which could, of course, prescribe the kind of circumstances which might apply in different places. I should have thought that flexibility could be brought about in that way rather than by the Secretary of State having to give consent to a disposal in every case. That would make everything move extremely slowly and, on a matter which everybody has acknowledged as being of crucial importance to the working of the Bill, far from having a system which would work effectively, this would work very slowly indeed.
I do not find the noble and learned Lord's answer very satisfactory or appealing, but I feel that this is something which I should like to consider and return to at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness BIRK: This seems to me to be the right moment to cover a point which was raised earlier. My noble friend Lord Melchett explained during the discussion on Schedule 6 that my right honourable friend was considering, in the light of representations made by interested bodies and of recommendations made by the Pilcher Group, the question of the length of leases to be permitted when land was disposed of for commercial and industrial development. I can now give a clearer indication on this than was
474
possible at the time when the point was raised.
My right honourable friend agrees with the view that 60 years is too short. He is contemplating providing that local authorities would, in the normal course of affairs, have discretion under the terms of the general consents to grant leases of up to 99 years. Where there is a good case, longer leases would be considered, but those would require the specific consent of the Secretary of State on a case by case basis.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Baroness for giving us that information. I feel that this is also a matter which we should like to study and, if necessary, return to on Report.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Accounts and records]:
7.9 a.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 41, line 14, at end insert—
("(2A) The expenditure of any authority in providing infrastructure required in connection with the development of land under the provisions of this Act shall be Debited in the accounts.")
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment would seek to probe the possibility that an authority, in assembling land for development, should be allowed to debit to the land tribunal some of the costs of infrastructure which are relevant to land which is not within the site concerned. I hope that that is as clear as it can be at this hour of the morning.
Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which I now understand to be still in existence, though I see very little incentive for a developer to take part in it, would have allowed that access roads and so forth could be charged towards the costs of development. The problem is that if this is not done, there is a great danger that land could be assembled and could be developed, but that the necessary access would have to be provided by some other source; for example, from the rates. In my opinion, and in the opinion of other experts, this could lead to piecemeal development which is not what we are looking for; nor is it in accordance with the Government's ideas. Therefore, this Amendment seeks to see that the necessary off-site costs could be included in the community land

475
account; in other words, paid for out of the profits which are expected and are supposed to arise. This is an improvement, and it is meant to be a constructive improvement, and I hope that the Government will give their views on the Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: There have of course been discussions between the Department of the Environment and the local authority associations over what infrastructure costs might be allowable. The Government's view is that they should be limited to on-site costs only. After all, that has been the rule for a long time with the closely analogous Housing Revenue Account, and the principle was reaffirmed by the last Administration of noble Lords opposite with the enactment of the Housing Finance Act. As the noble Viscount has intimated, the local authority associations have argued for a wider definition and I wish to put forward the three main objections which the Government have.
First, once the definition is taken beyond on-site costs, there is great difficulty in drawing a clear dividing line in the right place. This is shown clearly by the present Amendment, which would go very wide indeed, covering everything that could possibly in some part be attributed to the new development, even if it would have been needed anyway for some other reasons. Secondly, anything that is not an on-site cost is really a cost incurred in respect of the general development or amenity of the area concerned. For instance, any development will obviously place demands on transport services and facilities, schools, hospitals and health facilities, public open space, and so on. But these are very rarely specific to a particular development; they are wider local amenities. In other words, they are a proper charge on the rates. They are precisely the kind of expenditure that ought to be covered by rates, and for which local authorities are indeed empowered to raise rates.
Thirdly, it has been argued, and indeed local authorities have raised this point with the Department, that wider infrastructure costs ought to be allowable, because in the past it has often been possible to persuade developers to meet off-site infrastructure costs in return for
476
the granting of planning permission, thus avoiding a charge on the rates. It is argued that the land scheme and development land tax will now prevent this. But this relies on past experience when, unfortunately, circumstances have changed.
It is true that at the height of the land boom a few years ago, developers regarded such payments as a small price to pay in order to bring land into development and make massive profits by so doing. I think all noble Lords will accept that conditions today are very different, and it is unlikely that local authorities would have very much success in persuading developers to make contributions to off-site infrastructure costs. These costs now fall as a perfectly legitimate charge on the rates, and it is our view that that is a situation which should continue.
Viscount RIDLEY: Although I am not satisfied, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.14 a.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 210A:
Page 41, line 18, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: It is stated in Clause 42(4):
"Where any item debited to an account kept under this section has been defrayed by borrowing, the authority shall not be required…to make any annual provision for the repayment of the capital."
They must borrow the capital from somewhere, and this is something which I should like to know. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: Normally, where authorities borrow money for public purposes they are required to make annual provision to cover both interest charges and the repayment of a part of the outstanding capital, but there are certain circumstances where this is not so. The most important case is where a project is expected to show a profit over a period of time and that profit will be more than sufficient to repay both the original capital and the accumulated interest charges. In such circumstances, authorities are allowed not to repay any capital and to capitalise the interest charges until these can be repaid out of the profits. There is a precedent for this approach in a field

477
closely analogous to the land scheme—the financing of town centre redevelopment schemes by local authorities, with which I am sure the noble Earl is familiar. So a number of local authorities have been carrying out the kind of functions which authorities will now be carrying out under the land scheme in this way, and it is therefore appropriate, in our view, that the land scheme should be financed in the same way as those have been.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Community land surplus accounts]:
7.16 a.m.
Lord HENLEY Lord HENLEY moved Amendment No. 211C:
Page 42, line 9, leave out ("So much of").
The noble Lord said: I believe that this Amendment would resolve a conflict which I regard as a very serious one. Under the Bill as it stands, local authorities are both planners and developers, and I think the pressure on them from the ratepayers, and indeed within themselves, to make planning decisions which would be rejected on purely planning grounds, and to do so because there is substantial financial gain to be made from them, is too great. I think my Amendment overcomes this without doing any damage to the philosophy of the Bill. The effect of my Amendment—and it should be read together with No. 212A —would be that the paragraph, which is on page 42 in subsection (2) of Clause 43, would read like this:
"Any surplus in a community lend surplus account shall be paid by the authority to the Secretary of State."
That is to say, instead of the money going in part to the local authority which generated the profit, it would all go to the Secretary of State. Now the Secretary of State can give it back to whoever he likes. He can give it back to the authority which generated it; he can give it back to any authority which is in need. But it cuts out the difficulty, as I see it, of the conflict within the local authority through being under pressure to make bad plan
478
ning decisions for financial gain. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, these two Amendments would overturn the arrangements for the sharing of surpluses between central and local government which were agreed even before the Bill was introduced. The reasoning behind the arrangements is that Central Government should receive a share in recognition of the tax it is losing in allowing authorities to buy land net of development land tax. But the major share of 60 per cent. will go to local government. Half of this will stay with the originating authority—after all, it will be that authority which will have done the work which created the surpluses —and the other half will initially be shared between authorities which have not yet come into surplus pro rata to their deficits. As the noble Lord has said, the Amendments would not prevent the Secretary of State from merely paying back to the authorities the share that they would have got under the Bill as it is presently drafted, but that seems to me, if I may say so, a very cumbersome way of going about things and I am quite certain that it would not be felt to be acceptable to the local authorities.
As I say, the Amendments would upset arrangements which have been agreed with the local authority associations—and with the Treasury, it might be worth adding; and with some difficulty—and they would also, of course, leave no financial incentive with the authorities actually operating the scheme to press ahead and operate it in the most effective way. I think that this is wrong in principle so far as we on this side are concerned. I cannot accept the noble Lord's lack of faith in local authorities: that just because they are going to gain some financial reward they are going to behave in a way which I think would be quite out of character with local government in this country.
Lord HENLEY: I reject all the arguments jut forward by the noble Lord. It is wrong to suggest that I have a lack of faith in the local authorities in this matter. Local authorities are no different from human beings: they arc under great pressure and they give way to it as often as not. Everyone knows that. Nor do I think it removes any incentive to press

479
on and develop land as it should be developed. On the other hand, it ensures that decisions are taken with regard to planning and that they are not taken with regard to financial incentives.
I do no think it is in the least cumbersome—another of the noble Lord's points. It is simplicity itself. The money goes directly to the Secretary of State. I am sure that this is what the Treasury would have liked in the first place and the Secretary of State then decides who should best have it. If he feels that the local authority which engendered the financial gain should have it all, he can give it to them; or he can spread it out to those authorities who need it.
I accept the fact that it overturns an agreement already arrived at—and I accept that one does not want to overturn agreements already arrived at: but I feel it is wrong in principle that financial gain should be divided in this way —and I feel that my Amendment in no way cuts across the philosophy of the Bill. It is not a wrecking Amendment, but finds a solution to a most unfortunate conflict.
I should not dream of pressing this Amendment because I know that I should not get support from many noble Lords who were party to the orginal agreement. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will bear it in mind. I am certain that what I said about the pressures on local authorities were not unfair remarks on the local authorities or on anyone else.
Lord MELCHETT: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, may I make a point that I did not make before. I accept that there is a danger if one gives local authorities too great a financial incentive; but I think the financial sharing arrangements which have been agreed strike the right balance. I hope that the noble Lord might give consideration to that. It is also quite clear that local authorities will not simply be able to ride roughshod over the planning system to line their own pockets. The scheme is designed to be a tool of planning. Clause 17 makes it clear that the scheme must be operated within the framework of planning in each authority's area.
Lord HENLEY: I have made my point at both Second Readings and I
480
have made it again now because I think it is important. Having done that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 212B:
Page 42, line 10, after ("account") insert ("but not exceeding 60 per cent.")
The noble Viscount said: We have already discussed this. It is the division of the spoils, the "carving up of the lolly", however one may put it. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, answered the noble Lord, Lord Henley, more effectively than I could have done at this hour. Here my noble friend Lord Sandford and I are seeking to redistribute slightly the share of the surplus. The agreement which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says has been reached I was not aware was unanimously agreed by the local authority associations. I may be wrong. It was that 40 per cent. goes to the Exchequer, 30 per cent. to equalisation between the authorities in deficit, with which 30 per cent. I would not quarrel. Only 30 per cent. reverted to the authority making the development. I think that is the wrong way round; I am directly contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. My noble friend and I feel that 40 per cent. should go to the authority making the development on the grounds the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has already advanced. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: Obviously, there are two views and I am attempting, as always, to strike a reasonable compromise on the matter. To deal with the question of the Exchequer share, the local authority associations have accepted that there is a case for an Exchequer share. A substantial proportion of the infrastructure costs which are essential to the carrying out of development fall on Central Government, either because they themselves provide facilities, for example, motorways) or through the rate support grant. It also needs to be borne in mind that the scheme will lead to some loss of tax revenue compared with the present situation, at first because authorities will be buying net of development land tax, and later because virtually all development value will accrue to them through purchase at current use value. It may be wise, having obtained this amount from the Treasury, not to interfere with the arrangements.

481
That would be my advice to the noble Viscount.
Viscount RIDLEY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.27 a.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 214D:
Page 42, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) In the event of the total of all deficits in all community land surplus accounts being less than 30 per cent, of the total of all surpluses, the total payments to the Secretary of State under subsection (2) shall not exceed the said total of all deficits plus 30 per cent. of the total of all surpluses.")
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment seeks to make sure about the 30 per cent, when the deficits are extinguished. I hope that is clear and that it is clearer to the Committee than it is to me. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I expected to have to answer a string of Amendments on this matter. I am at a loss to discover the particular point on Amendment 214D. The noble Viscount has not given me much assistance!
Viscount RIDLEY: Amendment No. 214E is part of it.
Lord MELCHETT: If anything, that makes matters worse! My understanding of Amendments Nos. 214, 214D and 214E is that they would allow for redistribution in line with the Government's proposals in the early years, but would make no provision for redistribution when all land account deficits had been eliminated. At that stage it will still be true that some authorities have far greater surpluses than some others. The need for redistribution will still be there. These are flexible arrangements, and this is something which the Secretary of State could consider at the time.
Viscount RIDLEY: I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord CASTLE Lord CASTLE had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 214B:
Page 42, line 13, leave out ("Subject t subsection (4) below, the") and insert ("The).
The noble Lord said: In view of the gracious way in which the Front Bench have dealt with the other Amendments under this heading, I feel it would be the desire of my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead not to move this Amendment.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Disposal of land at direction of Secretary of State]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 216 and 217:
page 43, line 9, leave out ("or of").
page 43, line 14. leave out ("or of").
The noble Baroness said: If I may, I will take these two Amendments together. Their effect would be to limit the powers of the Secretary of State to direct disposal under Clause 44 to the disposal of a material interest in any land included in the land account. The purpose of the Amendments is merely to correct a technical drafting defect. Land by itself is often understood to mean the freehold and interest in land together with leasehold. All the clause tries to say is that the Secretary of State can direct the disposal of either a leasehold or freehold. However, "material interest" is defined as covering both freeholds and leaseholds, so it is not necessary to refer to both land and material interests in the clause. The Amendments simply delete the unnecessary words.
Lord MELCHETT: My noble friend spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, leave out lines 23 to 25.—[Lord Melchett.]
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Certification of appropriate alternative development]:
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 2181:
Page 44, line 6, leave out from ("and") to ("shall") in line 8.
The noble Earl said: This Amendment does not concern only my own opinion. It has been raised by the Writers to the

483
Signet in Scotland and it concerns the insertion of Section 49 (3) of the Land Compensation Act 1963 and Section 172 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1973, neither of which are in any way appropriate here. Your Lordships will see that Section 17 and 25 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act are amended in Schedule 9. You will be aware of how Section 25 will be amended under Part II. For the sake of brevity, I shall read to your Lordships what Section 179(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act says; which is:
"In the term local planning authority', whenever it occurs in any enactment or instrument made under any enactment, the word local' should be omitted."
So I would say that this has nothing whatever to do with the Bill, and I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I am very sorry to have to disappoint the noble Earl, but my understanding is that there have been two changes: one in Section 49(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1963 and another in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Schedule 9 merely incorporates both sets of changes, and the Amendment would just remove from the Bill the explanation of why the Schedule differs in these respects from Section 25 of the 1963 Act. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I think I understand now, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Powers of Secretary of State]:
7.35 a.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 218BB:
Page 45, leave out lines 25 to 38 and insert—
("(41 The Secretary of State shall not make the order except after holding a public local inquiry unless the authority from whom the functions are to be transferred have consented to the making of the order: and an order made after such an inquiry has been held shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I will take
484
Amendments Nos. 218BB and 218CC together. Briefly, at Commons Report stage the Opposition argued that an authority from which functions were being transferred should have an absolute right to a public inquiry if they so wished. At the time, the Government thought that in some circumstances a hearing might be sufficient and that the holding of a public inquiry should be left to the Secretary of State's discretion. However, they agreed to consider the point and, on reflection, we think the Opposition is right and the safest course is to provide for public inquiry in all circumstances where an authority objects to the making of a transfer. Amendment No. 218BB does this and thus brings Clause 47 into line with the provisions of Clause 2 on joint boards. Amendment No. 218CC deletes the previous provisions. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 218CC.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 22, leave out from ("day") to end of line 31.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Whether Clause 47, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord O'HAGAN: I do not want to spoil the atmosphere of cosy consensus between the two Front Benches that we should finish with this Committee stage as quickly as possible but I should like to ask one of the noble Lords speaking on behalf of the Government whether he can give the Committee some indication of how the powers in Clause 47 are paralleled elsewhere, whether in planning legislation or in any other legislation. Having said that, I shall sit down and listen.
Baroness BIRK: It is, as I understand it, usual to have reserve powers. They go through most of our legislation in some form or another. In this case the operation of the LAMS scheme in both England and Scotland will depend on the ability and willingness of local authorities to press ahead with the job within available resources. The phasing of the introduction of the scheme will take account of the capability of, and the resources available to, local authorities. Because of

485
this Bill, the planning benefits that will flow from the operation of the scheme, and the fact that it will provide a way in which development values can accrue to the local community, it is expected that there will generally be a willingness to acquire land for private development. These reserve powers parallel those—I have had this confirmed—of the Secretary of State under the planning Act. If the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, wanted just an answer to that question, that is the answer. But if he wants a further explanation, as he was moving to delete Clause 47, I will give it to him but I will not hold up the Committee if he is quite satisfied.
Lord O'HAGAN: I understood that one of the purposes of Committees was to have explanations, but I also understand that that is not the general will of the Committee now. So I will not ask for more now, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 52 agreed to.
7.40 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment No. 218DD will apply the provisions of Section250 of the Local Government Act 1972, which deals with public inquiry procedures, and the equivalent Scottish provision to all local public inquiries held under the provisions of the Bill. It corrects an oversight in drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause.
Local Inquiries
52A. Section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 or section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 shall extend to any public local inquiry held under this Act."—[The Lord Chancellor.]
Clauses 53, 54 and 55 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments):
The Earl of BALFOUR: I beg to move Amendment No. 218W.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 18, after ("suit") insert (",or in Scotland the instance").—[The Earl of Balfour.]
Baroness BIRK: This Amendment is consequential upon other Amendments that were accepted and we accept this Amendment.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 218EE, 218FF, 218GG and 218HH:
Page 90, line 30, at end insert ("in")
Line 32, leave out ("shall cease to have effect") and insert ("for the words from 'that' to the end there shall be substituted the words 'at the beginning of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application, no person (other than the applicant) was the owner of any of the land to which the application relates'.")
Page 91, line 10, after ("tenants") insert ("in")
Line 11, leave out ("shall cease to have effect") and insert ("for the words from 'that' to the end there shall be substituted the words 'at the beginning of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application, no person (other than the applicant) was the owner of any of the land to which the application relates'").
The noble Baroness said: All of these Amendments deal with the same technical and drafting points. Section 27 of the 1971 Act and Section 24 of the Scottish Act of 1972 provide that a local planning authority shall not entertain an application for planning permission unless it is accompanied by one of four certificates prescribed in the section.
The amendment of these provisions in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 10, together with the consequential repeals in Schedule 11, were designed to ensure that only the owner of a material interest would be notified of a planning application for land in which he had an interest, but by removing the first of the four certificates which covers the case of a person owning all interests in the land the Bill as drafted might have prevented such an owner from being able to make a valid planning application. The Amendments rectify this situation.
The period of 21 days mentioned in the substantive Amendments Nos. 218FF and 218HH gives the applicant time to complete his inquiries, and his form, without having to make a last minute check on ownerships. This period is precedented in Section 27(1)(b) of the 1971 Act and the equivalent Scottish provision.
This is a minor and technical amendment to the existing provisions of the Bill, and we hope that it will commend itself

487
to noble Lords opposite, as its intention is to clarify the position.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
Baroness BIRK: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 218II. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, column 3, leave out line 24.— (Baroness Birk.)
7.45 a.m.
Lord CASTLE Lord CASTLE moved Amendment No. 218KK:
Page 92, line 24, after ("Section 27(1)(a)") insert ("In section 52(1), dental and consequential"").
The noble Lord said: I am told that noble Lords opposite have been so good in the last few minutes that I will not attempt to prolong this discussion and so keep noble Lords from their breakfast or lunch. But we return here to a matter we discussed earlier, which is the restrictive nature of Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The purpose of this Act seems to be to prevent the main impact of an agreement between a council and a private developer, or private person of any kind, from having as its main purpose a financial consideration. This seems to be unnecessarily restrictive, and when the matter was discussed in another place the Minister gave an undertaking to
"enter into the fullest possible consultations with the GLC"
on the matter. I can give the reference if necessary for the appropriate column of Hansard. In view of that, perhaps the noble and learned Lord who is to reply would be able to give some assurance that the matter is still open.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry at the close of our proceedings to say that it is not open. We discussed this at an earlier point of time, and I there adumbrated the reason why it is the view of the Government, as Section 52 agreements are about planning, that we would not want them to be used for achieving purely financial ends. I expressed the view then that the powers
488
available to the relevant authorities under Section 52 and Section 111 are satisfactory for the fulfilment of their functions and the performance of their duties under the relevant statutory provisions, including that of the Community Land Bill, if and when it becomes the law of the land.
Lord CASTLE: Despite the somewhat unsatisfactory reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I feel entitled to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 218JJ.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, column 3, leave out line 30.—(Baroness Birk.)
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: This may be the opportunity for me to express gratitude for the fact that we have accomplished the great labours on the Committee stage of this Bill before the appointed time. May I say that all noble lords have admired the enormous survival, strength and continuing abilities of the two noble Baronesses who have distinguished themselves throughout these long debates. It is a formidable accomplishment, and, if I may say so, a very fitting thing to have taken place in International Women's Year. It is really an arduous ordeal, and we are very grateful to them, and congratulate them.
May we thank also the occupants of the Chair, who have also laboured through the night. May I also express our gratitude to those who have maintained the facilities available for those of us who have been able to escape to enjoy a hearty and admirable breakfast. It really has been quite an enjoyable 24 hours.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his very kind remarks, and take the opportunity of saying that although it would not really be quite true to say we have enjoyed all this Committee stage, we have throughout appreciated his continual good humour. I must say that we shall all go away with a wonderful collection of anecdotes.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): May I express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Lord Chairman and my colleagues.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

  NHS: EMI BRAIN SCANNER
  NHS: EMI BRAIN SCANNER