Sitting of 29 October 1976

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

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Protection of Depositors (Accounts) Regulations 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. David Stoddart.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LAND DRAINAGE BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.5 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a consolidation measure. It has been through the Joint Consolidation Committee, which has certified it to be such. Unless the House wishes me to explain the purpose of the Bill, I shall move the Second Reading virtually formally.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: I have to start by asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether what I hope to say will be in order. It concerns drainage and the Anglian Water Authority, which has a Private Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his courtesy in putting it that way, but he may not discuss the content of the Bill. He may discuss only whether it should be consolidated. It is a narrow area.
  Mr. Fell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. In that case, I shall not try.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Stoddart.]
  Committee upon Monday next.

  INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF PERISHABLE FOODSTUFFS BILL [LORDS]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (VOCATIONAL TRAINING) BILL [LORDS]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  11.8 a.m.
  Dr. Gerald Vaughan: We would like to discuss some of the intentions of this Bill, albeit briefly, because it has the support of all the medical bodies. I know from conversations which I have had with them that they are extremely anxious to have the changes which the Bill will bring about.
  The Bill is a natural development of the present voluntary arrangements which many general practitioners undertake in their own time or in the training programmes which are available. They do this voluntarily because they see the need for this kind of training.
  The Bill will make a major change in the history of general practice. The days when any doctor could put up his plate as a senior practitioner and wait for customers to arrive will be over.
  We are happy to support the aims of the Bill. There is no significant difference of view between the two major parties. As a general comment, while we agree about the purpose of the Bill, we do not agree entirely with the method which has been adopted by the Government. We think that far too much has

  855
  been left to be decided by future consultations. That means to be decided by regulations to be laid by the Minister. In effect, we are being asked to give the Minister a blank cheque or a blank prescription and he will fill in the details of the medicine later. We think that, however good the cause, this is not the right way to set about it.
  In June, the Government said that they were having consultations with a large number of bodies. In fact, in another place they said that there were so many bodies with whom they were having talks that they could not list them all at that time. We have been told this again since, but we have never been told whom these bodies represented. When questioned about women, for example, it quickly became clear that none of the major women's organisations at that time had been consulted. One question to which we would like an answer today is: has the Minister now consulted the women's organisations? If so, which organisations, and what did they have to say about the Bill?
  We should like to know a great deal more about the position as regards Europe. Shall we be able in this country to make this vocational training mandatory for all general practitioners? Or are we, as some people are telling us, in a position in which a doctor can still come from another part of Europe from the Common Market and practise here as and when he pleases because he has come in from outside the country? We have been told that this may be the position. I think that the Minister should tell us exactly where we stand.
  There is, also, the question of appeals In another place the Government said that there would be "a body", a single body, but that they did not at that stage know which body. In the debate in the Second Reading Committee, the Minister said that there would be "several bodies". He used the plural and he said that they would be professional bodies set up after consultation with the medical profession.
  Can the Minister tell us now what kind of bodies these will be, who will serve on them and to whom they will be responsible? For example, will a person have a right of appeal beyond whatever this body is to the Secretary of State? Will they be subject to the rules of the
  856
  Council of Tribunals? Will they be subject to inquiry by the Health Commissioner, the Ombudsman? We would see these as important safeguards for a doctor who does not feel that he has been properly and fairly treated.
  Finally, there is the question of the cost. The Minister has told us that the total cost of all this would be £8½ million. He justified that by saying that it would be only £1 million more than the expected cost of the vocational training voluntary schemes which are now in operation, but that was a projection of the costs today on into 1980. It was based on the assumption that the same increases in the number of people applying would continue. In fact, there is not a true argument. We should have liked to know the actual cost today and what will be the increasing cost when the Bill is passed—as we all hope it will be.
  With those very few words, I should like to say again that there is no material measure of difference between the two major parties on this matter. If the Minister will answer those questions, we shall be very pleased to give the Bill our full support.
  11.12 a.m.
  Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Third Reading of the Bill, having watched its progress in another place and through this House with interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) has just said, there are still a large number of unanswered questions. It is interesting to trace that at each debate we have asked the same questions and at each debate the Minister has been forced to go away to have another look. We hope that he has managed to find some answers during the Summer Recess.
  I am concerned about three areas in this legislation. First, we have, in the present arrangements for vocational training, a requirement that there is a minimum of two six-month periods spent in a hospital within certain specialties. However, I have been unable to find from any source a mention of the problems of mental illness and mental handicap in those specialties which are listed for those two six-month pre-registration hospital periods.
  The House will be aware of the increase in mental illness in Britain over the

  857
  last decade. It is absolutely vital, with some 600,000 people receiving psychiatric help every year, that in vocational training more attention is paid to this particular specialty in medicine. Every survey that we look at indicates this same need.
  I am quite surprised that in the current arrangements, on which the Bill has been formulated, there is no specific reference to this specialty. I sincerely hope that the Minister will put this right in the places on the blank cheque on which he is going to write the coming regulations under the Bill when it becomes an Act.
  I now come to two or three other points. One is the question of the flexibility of the vocational training. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said in another place on 28th June this year:
  "We do not wish to make the regulations so inflexible that all doctors must follow the same training pattern. We think there is some merit in leaving some of the training for the trainer himself to develop in the various regions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28th June 1976; Vol. 372, c. 655.]
  I should like to develop the question of regions more widely because it seems that as yet these matters are not resolved. We still have a chance before the regulations come forward for the Minister to look at the flexibility of training which might be afforded in the three years by some occupational medical experience, some industrial medical experience and, indeed, some experience of specialised areas that do not usually come up in the normal Health Service pattern across the whole country.
  In that last phrase I refer, of course, to things such as tropical diseases, which are very specialised, yet which, with the increase of travel. are becoming more of a worry for the medical profession year by year. Therefore, reference to this sort of speciality in any vocational training programme should certainly have more attention paid to it than has been the case hitherto, if we are to use primary care in the correct manner.
  During our Second Reading Committee, I referred to the interchangeability for doctors in the Armed Forces, how they might, on retirement from the Forces, perhaps, be able to swell the ranks of our general practitioners. That will be possible after the passing of the Bill only if they fulfil the requirements of
  858
  the regulations to come. I do not know whether the Minister has yet been able to iron out some of the problems that might arise for doctors who have trained and then spent the whole of their medical practising life in the Forces. As the push for earlier retirement from the Forces comes for some of these people, there will be a very large problem unless we sort it out with this piece of legislation.
  My next point concerns the question of the European Community. The Minister was to take up with the Commission in Brussels the question whether making vocational training for three years mandatory for British practitioners would also be able to be applied to European practitioners who might seek to come to this country as general practitioners. We urgently need further information on this matter, particularly in view of the differing standards—although very high standards—and differing practices in each of the countries of the Nine and, indeed, of other countries that may well come into the EEC within the next decade.
  Finally, I refer to the situation of women doctors and their part-time training which may be necessary in view of the length of the total training period now. In the Second Reading debate and in the debate in Committee in another place, there were many references to this matter, and finally, on Report in another place, the Bill was satisfactorily amended.
  However, the Minister undertook, during our Second Reading Committee, to find out what comments there may be from the Equal Opportunities Commission. and from the Women's Medical Federation, as a specific body rather than through the one voice of one of the other bodies which he was consulting. We hope that they are now satisfied with the amendment that has been made to the Bill, but this again is something that the Minister will need to consider in the preparation of regulations. It would be helpful for the House to know that this was being done.
  I think that everybody welcomes the step forward that is being taken in this Bill, but we shall welcome it even more if there is a greater interchange of medical experience with industry, in occupational medicine, and in some of the

  859
  specialties about which at one time we did not have to bother, but which now concern the practice of medicine at the primary care stage. We should seek to avert the need for further medical care by up-to-date and urgent action on the problems that face the general practitioner in his surgery.
  11.20 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I apologise to the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) for not having been here when he rose to speak.
  The Bill, which has now virtually completed its passage through Parliament, is an important though fairly small measure compared with many of the Bills facing us. I am pleased to note the general welcome that has been given to the Bill by both sides of the House today and during our important and detailed Second Reading Committee upstairs.
  We in this country are proud—and I think rightly so—of our primary care services, and this measure will enable us to improve standards still further by formalising a trend that has been taking place for some time. Already many doctors spend a period in hospital posts and as a trainee in general practice before establishing themselves permanently in general practice. Some participate in organised schemes, comprising two years in appropriate hospital posts and one year as a trainee in general practice.
  There are now about 700 doctors in England undertaking a trainee year, compare with 100 doing so 10 years ago. That is very good progress. Wales and Scotland have seen similar developments. The Royal College of General Practitioners, the General Medical Services Committee and the Council for Postgraduate Medical Education have all asked that this voluntary scheme be made into a statutory one. That has always been the aim of successive Governments, and it is clearly an issue on which both sides of the House are united.
  Dr. Vaughan: How many doctors are expected to undertake the mandatory training when the Bill has gone through?
  Mr. Deakins: I was coming to that. The number that I gave on Second Reading was up to 1,300. We estimate that there will be a small element of growth over the period. We shall be introducing the trainee arrangements up to 1980, if that is the starting date agreed with the medical profession. We have expanded medical schools, and some of the intake from them will come forward additional to the number that we have now.
  I also said on Second Reading that we were training about 900 doctors, again on a voluntary basis. We hope that that will move to the full 1,300 in the course of time, because when the scheme becomes compulsory those who have not thought it worth while to undertake this form of training on a voluntary basis will have to do so from 1980 onwards.
  Let me now deal with the question of costs. The hon. Member for Reading, South reminded the House that implementation of the scheme will cost money, and in these days of tight public expenditure that is a matter of concern. By far the largest sum arises from payments to trainers and trainees. We estimate that the additional cost of requiring all doctors to be trained, as compared to the cost of continuing extension of the voluntary arrangements, will be about £1 million a year. There will also be—I know this is a matter about which hon. Members are worried from time to time—some small administrative costs, although I connot detail exactly what those might be because the exact amount will depend on detailed arrangements. I give the assurance that it will not be a significant amount.
  Trainees go on educational courses, and the costs that arise here are handled within the normal programme for funding postgraduate education for GPs. In general, the expenditure to which I am referring fits in with the key element of our strategy, which is to increase the level of training in the National Health Service and to give high priority to developments in primary health care which, as the House knows, is one of the main themes of our consultation document which was issued earlier this year and which I think has been warmly welcomed in many respects.
  Dr. Vaughan: What is the current cost of the voluntary scheme?
  Mr. Deakins: I cannot give the exact figure, but it will be the cost of the 900 doctors now engaged in the voluntary training programme. If my arithmetic is correct, that is about two-thirds of the number that we finally expect. If the total cost when we get 1,300 trainees is £8½ million, two-thirds of that gives one an approximate idea of the current cost. The expansion of voluntary training has to be taken into account in estimating additional costs. While we might have a cost of £5 million to £6 million now, in any event it will rise to £7½ million by the time the scheme comes into effect, because more and more people going into general practice are undergoing voluntary training arrangements. Therefore, in any case costs would have gone up.
  I come now to the general theme of consultation, about which I was asked. The hon. Gentleman expressed some concern about this, and I have written to him. We have had a number of consultations about the principles and mechanisms that will underlie the regulations that will be made under what has been described as a Bill giving the Government a blank check. I do not believe that that is an accurate description.
  There will be exemptions—and we made this clear on Second Reading—for example, for GPs already providing the full range of general medical services when the new regulations start. For the potential GP, the regulations will have to set out clearly what he will be required to do, yet at the same time they must allow the profession scope for experiment with different patterns of training, because this is, after all, an evolving field.
  The provisions for certificates of prescribed experience and of equivalent experience will meet those objectives. The arrangements will cater for the doctor from overseas. They will cater for those who can train only part time. Indeed, because of the concern about the position of women doctors a special reference was inserted in another place, and I shall come to that in a moment.
  We have had much useful comment on these principles and the way in which they might be put into practice. The medical profession has also suggested a timetable. proposing 1980 as the target for the full three-year training requirement, so as to give doctors adequate time to plan their careers. Our next step will
  862
  be to prepare a comprehensive document on which we shall consult the various bodies which have an interest before we draft regulations. These consultations will go very wide and include matters that are exercising the mind of the hon. Gentleman, and also the position of women. I give the House that assurance. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that this consultation is vital because, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) said on Second Reading, the preparation must be thorough. I assure the House that that is our intention and that we shall carry it through.
  The Bill is an important step marking a development not only in the National Health Service but in general practice as a speciality in its own right.
  Now I come to the points made by the hon. Member for Wallasey, particularly about women's organisations. As she rightly said, the matter was mentioned in another place and an amendment was made there to the Bill to allow not only for women but, as I said on Second Reading, doctors with domestic commitments to be enabled to take advantage of the Bill, because there may be men who are in a similar position.
  Our consultations so far have been with the General Medical Services Committee which includes one member nominated by the Medical Women's Federation. Doubt was expressed on Second Reading whether that was entirely adequate, and I gave an assurance in Committee that I should be happy to consult the Medical Women's Federation direct, in addition to consulting the General Medical Services Committee on which it has one nominated member.
  On the more general issue of consultation, I assure the House that although we have consulted fairly widely in the run-up to the Bill, our further round of consultations, once we have produced this comprehensive document on the detail of the regulations, will be even wider. I stand by the undertakings that I have given. We want to press on, but I assure the House that it will not be a case of hasty consultations. We must get the thing right. We must take the medical profession along with us.
  Criticism was expressed of the Bill being a blank cheque. I want to assure the House that if it is, the way in which

  863
  it is filled in will depend very much on the course of our further consultations. With regard to people retiring from the Armed Forces it will be necessary to have further consultations with the profession on this. I do not anticipate any difficulty but, nevertheless, it is a point which I can assure the hon. Member for Wallasey we shall take on board.
  The EEC question, which occupied us in Committee, is a difficult one. There is no doubt at all that at present there appears to be a division between what we are proposing in the Bill and the appropriate EEC directive and regulations. However, we have had a sympathetic response from the officials in Brussels with regard to our intentions because, as I pointed out in Second Reading Committee, a number of other EEC countries are also moving in the same direction, albeit at a different pace and perhaps in rather different detail. Nevertheless, I think it is a generally recognised objective in the EEC that one ought to move towards full professional training for general practice.
  With regard to the legal position, I cannot give any more assurances to the House than I gave on Second Reading. The position is still not fully clear, but we expect the matter to be discussed further at the appropriate committee of senior officials of the EEC countries in Brussels next month. We certainly do not anticipate any obstacle from that quarter, but I take the point that we must try to get the position fully clarified before we finally go ahead.
  Mrs. Chalker: I would be grateful if the Minister, following those discussions, could inform us about what is going on so that the pathway is clear leading up to the discussions on the regulations. If there is no communication through the usual channels after Brussels there may still be some unrest in the medical profession, and it would be pleasant to be able to put those minds at rest.
  Mr. Deakins: I will undertake to keep the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Reading, South informed before we place the regulations for approval. But I cannot guarantee that we shall quickly clear up this difficulty, if it is a difficulty. I am afraid that we must be advised by the lawyers. As the hon. Member for Read-
  864
  ing, South will know, there are areas of Common Market law which are not entirely clear in relation to the laws of national Member States, but I take the point which has been made.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a PLP House of Commons Health Group. Would he also keep that group informed on the same point?
  Mr. Deakins: I certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking. One way of keeping hon. Members informed, rather than writing to individuals—since the House may well be interested—might be to arrange that a parliamentary Question be answered on the progress when we have made some progress in Brussels.
  With regard to specialties, mentioned by the hon. Member for Wallasey, this is essentially a matter for the profession and not for my Department to advise upon. Psychiatry is already included in the list of specialties recognised for vocational training allowance and this would obviously include experience in mental illness or in mental handicap.
  The hon. Member for Reading, South raised an important point about appeals. I think that that was mentioned during the Second Reading Committee in my windup speech, in answer to points raised by hon. Members about what we were proposing to do about consultation. I would add that since the appeals will relate to professional assessment—I stress that—we doubt whether the Council on Tribunals will have a rôle, but we are in touch with the Council about this. There will be a final appeal to the Secretary of State, who will seek advice from a professional body. This body could well be the Council's joint committee on post-graduate training for general practice or a body similar in constitution. I stress again that this is a specialised area and, obviously, we would also take advantage of the professional advice from the profession concerned.
  Dr. Vaughan: I also ask the Minister whether this would come within the sphere of the Health Commissioner—the Ombudsman.
  Mr. Deakins: I think we must wait until the actual machinery has been established before we can determine whether this would fall within the remit of the Ombudsman. Obviously we shall have

  865
  to proceed stage by stage. The first stage is to get the appeal machinery right, and secondly, we must see whether it would fall within the scope of the Ombudsman. But since the hon. Gentleman has raised it, and has suggested that it ought to come within the scope of the Ombudsman, it may well be that this is something we shall have to determine when we consult the medical profession about the precise form of the appeal machinery.
  I cannot speak without notice on whether it would require any change in the legislation relating to the Ombudsman. One would hope not, but it is a point that we shall take on board in our further consultations.
  In commending the Bill to the House I would pay tribute to the important work of those members of the Royal College of General Practitioners and others who have worked so hard and long to foster the training of GPs on a voluntary basis. I am glad, as I am sure the whole House will be, that their efforts have now culminated in this significant step.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill acordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

  ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

  Clause 1

    RESTRICTIONS OF IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS AND PLANTS.
    11.38 a.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (3).
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
    Government Amendment No. 10.

  New Clause1

    OFFENCE TO SELL ETC. THINGS IMPORTED CONTRARY TO SECTION 1 OR THEIR DERIVATIVES
    '.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a person who sells, offers or exposes for sale, has in his possession for the purpose of sale, or displays to the public—

    (a) anything which has been imported contrary to section 1 above, or

    (b) anything which is made wholly or partly from anything referred to in paragraph (a) above and which at the time of the alleged offence (though not necessarily at the time of importation) constitutes an item to which Schedule 3 to this Act for the time being applies,

    shall be guilty of an offence; and in the following provisions of this section a "restricted article" means anything falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above.
    (2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above with respect to a restricted article if he proves to the satisfaction of the court—

    (a) that at the time when it first came into his possession he made such enquiries (if any) as in the circumstances were reasonable in order to ascertain whether it was a restricted article, and

    (b) that, at the time the alleged offence was committed, he had no reason to believe that it was a restricted article.

    (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2)(a) above, a person shall be taken to have made such enquiries as are there mentioned if he produces to the court a certificate which was furnished by the person from whom the accused obtained possession of the restricted article (the supplier), which

    867
    was signed by the supplier or by a person authorised by him, and which states that—

    (a) the supplier made enquiries at the time the restricted article came into his possession in order to ascertain whether it was a restricted article, and

    (b) the supplier had no reason to believe at the time he relinquished possession of the restricted article to the accused that the article was at that time a restricted article.

    (4) A person who furnishes for the purposes of subsection (3) above a certificate which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly furnishes for those purposes a certificate which is false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence.
    (5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (4) above shall be liable—

    (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400;

    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

    (6) In this section any refernce to sale includes references to barter and exchange.
    (7) For the purposes of this section a restricted article is displayed to the public if it is displayed to the public generally or any section of it, and (in either case) whether in return for money or otherwise.
    (8) For the purposes of any proceedings under section 45 or 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (penalties for improper importation and evasion of restriction on importation) for an offence in connection with the importation of anything contrary to section 1 above, this section shall not be taken expressly to provide a penalty for that offence.'
    Amendment (a) to New Clause 1, in subsection (1), after 'sells', insert 'advertises'.
    Government Amendment No. 84.

  New Clause 5

    POSSESSION OF LIVE ANIMALS IMPORTED CONTRARY TO SECTION 1
    '(1) Subject to subsection (2) below a person who has in his possession any live animal which has been imported contrary to section 1 above shall be guilty of an offence.
    (2) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above with respect to a live animal if he proves to the satisfaction of the court—

    (a) that at the time when it first came into his possession he made such enquiries (if any) as in the circumstances were reasonable in order to ascertain whether it had been imported contrary to section 1 above, and

    (b) that at the time when it first came into his possession he had no reason to believe that it had been so imported.

    (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
    868

    (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding 400;

    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

    (4) For the purposes of any proceedings under section 45 or 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (penalties for improper importation and evasion of restriction on importation) for an offence in connection with the importation of anything contrary to section 1 above, this section shall not be taken expressly to provide a penalty for that offence.
    (5) The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may make such order as to the forfeiture or disposal of any animal in respect of which the offence was committed as the court thinks fit.
    (6) The Secretary of State may, under section 1(2) above, issue a licence for the importation of a live animal subsequently to its actual importation, and the animal shall, for the purposes of this section only, be deemed to have been lawfully imported under section 1 above as on (but not before) the date of issue of the licence'.
    Amendment (a) to New Clause 5, after subsection (4), add—
    '()(a) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground to suspect that an offence has been committed under subsection (1) above and that evidence thereof may be found on any premises, he may grant a warrant to any constable to enter and search those premises for the purpose of obtaining that evidence.
    (b) In the application of subsection (4)(a) above to Scotland, the reference to a justice of the peace includes a reference to the sheriff'.
    Mr. Barnett: I apologise that I shall have to speak at some length in order to deal with this group of amendments. but it covers some of the important points which have arisen in the Bill. Although I shall have to be on my feet for a rather long time perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House for me to deal with a number of related points.
    In dealing with Amendment No. 1, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 10 and to New Clause 1. These are the most important issues that the Government wish to bring before the House today. The combined effect of the two amendments and the new clause would be to delete the subsections which provide specific offences and penalties for illegal import and for the handling of illegally imported goods and to replace them with a provision which would make it an offence subject to a penalty, to sell or display illegally imported goods.

    869
    In its original form, the Bill simply declared certain items to be prohibited imports, thus constituting the offences and attracting penalties provided in Customs legislation. The only persons authorised to bring proceedings under Customs legislation, which covers subsequent handling as well as importation. are of course the Commissioners of Customs and Excise themselves. There is a long tradition that these powers should be reserved to Customs. However, in another place it was felt strongly that provision should be made in this case for prosecution by other persons or bodies. Accordingly subsections (3), (9) and (10) were introduced, despite strong Government advice that they would be unworkable.
    I accept entirely the view expressed in that other place that the voluntary conservation bodies have a valuable part to play in the enforcement of the Bill. These bodies have a fund of expertise at their disposal and may well be able to detect prohibited items inside the country which have eluded Customs at the ports. Indeed they have from time to time reported suspected breaches of our existing controls. I can well understand, too, that these bodies are not content with a passive rôle; they want a slice of the action in the shape of a power to bring proceedings themselves. It must, however, be understood that Customs must remain the prime enforcement body under this Bill: it is they to whom we must look to ensure that we can fulfil our international obligations under the Convention. We must ensure that any extra activity complements the work of Customs and does not obstruct it.
    We have therefore sought a compromise solution which would allow persons or bodies other than Customs to bring proceedings in certain cases and yet safeguard the powers of Customs and avoid as far as possible overlap with their work. The exercise has been protracted and difficult and I owe much to the positive contributions made by the Retail Consortium and by the conservationists themselves. The result is New Clause 1.
    Our objective has been to create conditions in which conservationists can pursue suspect items which are on sale or display within the country. Their activities would then be complementary to those
    870
    of Customs, whose main rôle is naturally enforcement at the point of importation.
    The new clause would make it an absolute offence to sell, to offer or expose for sale, to have in possession for sale or to display any item the unlicensed import of which is made illegal by this Bill. It does not make an offence of possession alone—it must be possession for the purpose of sale. But it covers also goods made from illegal imports provided those goods are of a kind listed in Schedule 3.
    A defence is provided in subsection (2) whereby anyone charged may show that he made inquiries when he took delivery of the goods. The inquiries have to be "such as are reasonable" in the circumstances. Clearly the circumstances can vary greatly. In the case of a private individual buying from a reputable store, one would imagine that a court would think inquiry superfluous; hence the insertion of the words "if any" in line 13. In the case of a large shop buying from a specialist dealer, one would look for some more positive inquiry, although I do not see that such inquiries normally need extend hack up the chain to the importer. The interpretation of the term "reasonable" in any particular case would of course be entirely a matter for the courts. The other leg of the defence, that the person charged must have had no reason to believe that the goods were illegal at the time the alleged offence was committed, is, I hope, self-explanatory.
    Subsection (3) provides a means whereby a trader can satisfy the requirement of making reasonable inquiries. If he obtains from his supplier a certificate which complies with the terms of the subsection, he will be deemed to have made reasonable inquiry. This provision has been made in response to a request of retailers. There is, however, no need for anyone to trouble with certificates if he prefers to pursue his inquiries in other ways. Subsection (4) provides an offence for false statements on the certificate.
    Subsection (5) provides penalties which conform to those generally applicable to offences of this kind and have regard to the custodial penalties in the Customs and Excise Act 1952 for illegal import with intent to evade. Subsection (8) ensures that the penalties for prosecutions under the Customs and Excise Act are not affected.

    871
    So far as New Clause 1 is concerned, the Government will be content to leave it to the House to decide whether persons or bodies other than Customs should be allowed to bring proceedings. But subsection (3) is not workable: it would seriously handicap Customs, and I must ask the House to support the amendment to delete it.
    11.45 a.m.
    I now turn to New Clause 5. Again, I am afraid that I must ask the Committee to reject it. This new clause would make it an offence to possess a live animal which has been illegally imported.
    This new clause is clearly related to New Clause 1 which makes an offence of sale and display. The House may know that we were urged to add possession to the list of offences in New Clause 1. We declined to do so for several reasons. One was that it has been suggested to us that the provision would be really useful only in relation to birds of prey—an important subject but minor in terms of the scope of this Bill. Another is that the provision strikes at private individuals who may not be concerned with trade or exhibition. Thirdly, possession is a difficult area of law.
    Because we knew that some of the conservation bodies were keen to have this clause and because we knew that time after Committee would be limited, the Government agreed to take a major hand in shaping the provision. We hoped to be able to say at least that the clause is workable even if we did not agree with the principle. But after detailed discussion among four Departments over several weeks we have failed to come up with a viable proposition. I cannot say categorically that nothing can be devised, but we have done our utmost and not found a solution.
    Today I can only summarise our difficulties briefly. The main constraints are that one cannot leave an individual open to repeated prosecutions against which he cannot defend himself, and one cannot create conditions which encourage an owner to kill his animal. We have looked at a range of possibilities, including seizure by the courts, seizure by Customs, voluntary surrender exemption from further prosecutions and a certificate which legitimises the animal. Subsections
    872
    (5) and (6) represent two of these alternatives.
    It seems possible to arrange something after a court case, but we cannot see what to do if it becomes known that an animal has been illegally imported but no case has been brought. Subsection (6) would place the Secretary of State in the impossible position of having to make judgments, such as whether an animal was likely to have been illegally imported, before he could decide whether or not to issue a licence. This seeks to give him a function which should be the prerogative of the courts.
    The Government are opposed to this amendment on principle, in that its limited usefulness does not appear to justify the interference with private individuals. But I must also advise that the amendment as drafted is totally unworkable and ask the House to reject it.
    Amendment (a) to New Clause 5 would in defined circumstances allow a power of search in relation to the offence of possession of live animals in New Clause 5. It has been suggested that the objective is not so much to search for the animal as to search for documentary evidence of illegal import. No doubt such a power of search could be useful, but I have some reservations whether this measure of interference with private indidividuals is desirable. However, the Government have no strong feelings on the matter and are content to leave the House to decide.
    I appreciate that the wording follows closely that in the Protection of Birds Act 1954. There are no objections to the amendment on drafting grounds.
    I think that that covers all the matters raised in this group of amendments.
    Mr. Tim Sainsbury: First, I thank the Minister for that necessarily fairly lengthy explanation of this substantial group of amendments, which comprise perhaps the most important of the matters that will come before the Committee.
    I welcome the consultations to which the Minister referred. They are most useful in legislation involving voluntary bodies. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the important role that voluntary bodies have to play in this area of the law, particularly if we have regard

    873
    to the specialised knowledge which they have. I would not begin to claim anything in the way of expertise in relation to the flora and fauna with which we are concerned.
    In considering the Bill we must remind ourselves that relatively few people can distinguish between some of the species and sub-species and similarly between plants that are at risk and those that are not endangered but comparatively common. Therefore, in the operation of the Bill and in the consultations which the advisory committee has the voluntary bodies have a continuing role to play.
    This group of amendments deals with enforcement. I agree with the Minister that Customs should be the prime enforcement agency. I hope that he agrees that the point of enforcement should be the port of entry. If illegal importation has to be dealt with at a point inland other than the point of entry, something will have happened which we prefer not to happen? It is not just a question of Customs being the prime enforcement agency. In a perfect world—I accept that it is not perfect—Customs would be the only enforcement agency, because everything would be dealt with at the point of entry.
    New Clause 1(3) is of particular importance to retailers. I take this opportunity of declaring an interest as director of a retailing company, not a company that deals in flora and fauna, which are the subject of the Bill. The company is a member of the Retail Consortium, which, I hope the Minister will agree, contributed substantially to the consultations which led to the tabling of the clause.
    I hope that the subsection will simplify the investigation of a possible offence by enabling documentary evidence to be produced in a defined way which will clear the retailers' position. If the investigation has to go back to the previous source, the documentary evidence will identify what that is. The signatory of the certificate will be the person to go to if further inquiries are necessary.
    The Minister gave several reasons why New Clause 5 is unacceptable, ending with the Government's ultimate deterrent on these occasions—that it is unworkable and inadequately drafted. I am sorry to hear that, because an important point
    874
    arises here. New Clause 1 deals with possession for the purpose of sale. I was surprised to hear from the Minister that possession is a very difficult aspect of the law. I have always been under the non-lawyer's misapprehension that it was nine points of the law and whether a person had something was relatively simple to determine—simpler than determining whether he had something for the purpose of sale. However, if the Minister is so advised by the experts, we must accept what he says.
    The purpose of New Clause 5 was to create a new offence—possession, without involving the purpose of sale, of a live animal. Voluntary bodies believe that live animals cause most concern. The Minister referred to birds of prey, and I accept that it is perhaps with birds of prey that the risk is greatest. They are frequently imported not to be displayed or advertised and, therefore, would not come within the scope of New Clause 1. I understand that approximately 300 birds of prey are imported annually, nearly all for falconry. Hence, they are held privately.
    The experience of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is that Customs and Excise has difficulty in enforcing legislation even at the ports of entry because of the problem of identifying species and sub-species. The society refers to the possibility of importers pulling the wool over the eyes of Customs and Excise. I had always thought that that was difficult to do, but I appreciate that with sub-species of falcons there is a risk. The falcon is himself hooded when he comes through the Customs for inspection.
    The Minister raised certain specific objections to the clause which I must accept as valid, especially his reference to continuous prosecution and the risk that the threat of continued prosecution would be self-defeating in that it might lead to the animal being unnecessarily destroyed. That is not the objective. We should like to prevent the import of endangered species but if they are brought in we do not want that to result in a specimen being destroyed. We want to see that it finds it way into appropriate hands.
    The Minister also said that subsection (6) would cause difficulty to the Secretary of State. I see that there are

    875
    difficulties, but I hope that the Minister will assure us that this aspect will be kept under continual review. Experience may show that we need to look again at the problem of possession not for the purpose of sale of certain species, particularly birds of prey.
    I understand that New Clause 1 is acceptable to the bodies which have been consulted and, therefore, give it a welcome.
    Mr. Anthony Fell: I notice that Clause 1(3), which is to be replaced by New Clause 1, imposes a fine not exceeding £400 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both. Will the Minister explain why the term of imprisonment has jumped from three months to two years? In these days of inflation I would have expected the fine to jump from £400 to £2,000.
    The Minister has done a splendid job this morning. The Bill will be a tremendous help and cause no end of fun to people who take the trouble to read Schedule 1.
    12 noon.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not know whether the Minister wishes to reply immediately to the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) or whether I should put my case first and then he can reply later.
    I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the Minister's speech. Some of us were taken by surprise by the speed with which the earlier legislation went through the House. I know that some other Members who should be here have not arrived yet, unfortunately, so we may find ourselves having to move amendments that we did not expect to move.
    I want to speak first to Amendment (a) to New Clause 1. It stands in my name and seeks to insert the word "advertisers". I am not a lawyer and I always hesitate to argue about matters on which I do not have sound information. However, I understand that the meaning of subsection (1) is that it will be an offence to sell, offer or expose for sale, or have in one's possession for sale, an illegal import. It does not cover advertising for sale which, I am informed,
    876
    is not an offer but an invitation to treat. Thus, an agent advertising in a newspaper on behalf of someone else would not be covered, and a prosecutor would, in prosecuting the agent, need to prove that the principal had actually instructed the agent.
    This could cause difficulties. I therefore ask the Minister to consider whether he can accept the amendment and insert the word "advertisers" after "sells" in line 1 so that the subsection would then read:
    "Subject to subsection (2) below, a person who sells, advertises, offers or exposes for sale".
    Before moving to the other amendment which stands in my name I draw attention to the words "in a material particular" in subsection (4). They seem to be favourite words of parliamentary draftsmen. An interesting discussion took place about these words in the other place where, incidentally, they debated the whole Bill with great interest and produced some excellent amendments. The Bill is much better for that. We should congratulate the other place and also congratulate the Government on accepting many of the ideas that were put forward in the other place.
    I imagine that this is another legal nicety, and I have amendments to deal with it later. However, it appears that in the past the Government have certainly taken this matter on board and omitted these words from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and also from a measure which had something to do with wrecks at sea.
    I am not sufficiently sound in law to be able to argue this in great detail, but if the Government are to give any consideration to the amendments that I shall explain later, it would be a nonsense for these words to appear in this new clause. I make the point now only because I intend to refer to it a little later. I ask the Minister to consider the point and to let me know what he thinks about it.
    I come finally to Amendment (a) to New Clause 5 which was so ably expounded by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). As we are very thin on the ground at present, it would be nonsense for us to push our luck on New Clause 5. The Government have

    877
    specifically stated that they will not accept the clause. They have given sound reasons why they cannot accept it at this stage. I agree that they have tried to meet the point raised by the conservation societies, which have been discussing the matter in recent days. I therefore accept the line taken by the hon. Member for Hove.
    I was heartened by the Minister's statement that the Government had a more open mind about Amendment (a) to New Clause 5. I ask the Under-Secretary to accept the amendment. The conservation societies in particular, and many of the noble Lords who spoke to the matter in the other place, also went along with what is proposed therein.
    I know that there is some feeling about infringement of the freedom of the citizen—that private bodies, as they probably would be, or private citizens could go to magistrates for leave to search or for a police warrant when they suspected that documentary evidence could be found which could lead to the subsequent prosecution of someone who was illegally holding species which he should not have been holding. Nevertheless, we know that this illegal holding is going on. Unfortunately it is going on to an increasing extent. We have seen evidence of this recently in a television film.
    To enforce the Government's own legislation it is vital that this additional protection be provided. The Minister referred to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which alone has reported more breaches than the Customs and Excise claims to have received complaints about, or at any rate to have investigated.
    The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have tong experience of exercising the rights of private prosecution responsibly. I do not think that I have ever heard a complaint to the effect that they have not acted responsibly.
    Under the Protection of Birds Act the RSPB undertakes about 40 prosecutions a year, in most cases where the police fail to act or where the police ask the society to do so. In all cases the society acts reluctantly because of the expense involved: it has limited finance, which it would much rather use
    878
    in other ways. It prefers ordinarily to act as expert police witnesses. None the less, to make the legislation enforceable it prosecutes where necessary and the results of those prosecutions are on the record for all to see. They are nearly always successful. The society prosecutes only where it has a sound basis on which to proceed. As far as the society is aware, there have been no instances of "foolish and irresponsible" private prosecutions by members of the public.
    Mr. Sainsbury: On the subject of private prosecutions, does the hon. Member agree that if it were possible to do so it would be an acceptable compromise for there to be private prosecution by stated or responsible organisations such as those to which he referred?
    Mr. Ross: I entirely accept that point. It would be much better if prosecution could be left to the responsible bodies. Trouble may arise if private individuals take action. This is a point which we should like to have seen written into the Bill. The excellent track record of the RSPB and RSPCA shows that they are the sort of bodies which should be empowered to deal with these matters.
    I can only ask the Minister to say here and now that he will incorporate such a provision into the Bill, because I do not think that we can push it to a vote. If there were sufficient Members present we might, but it would be a nonsense to try at this stage. I hope that my argument, badly put though it has been, has convinced the Minister that this amendment would strengthen the Bill. I am sure that if it is not written into the Bill we shall have to return on another day and amend it to include a provision of this sort, and we all know the pressure on parliamentary time.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I am glad in a way that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) arrived a little late. I regret that, in view of the very large group of amendments that I had to explain, I made no comment on the specific point of advertising, which I know is of some concern to him. This is a good opportunity for me to deal with the point fully.
    Before I do so. however, I want to thank the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) for his very reasonable and

    879
    helpful speech and for his recognition of the extent to which my Department has consulted the Retail Consortium, the conservation societies, and so on, which have been of great assistance to us in the drafting of the Bill and in the amendments that we have now tabled.
    I recognise the hon. Member's anxieties about the possession issue, but it is not for want of trying by my officials that we have been unable to solve the difficulties. There might be an opportunity in the other place for the matter to be re-examined and some solution to the problem might be found. But there are considerable difficulties, particularly about possession by a private individual.
    The hon. Member for Hove said that the correct way was to deal with imports at the point of entry into the country. He said that solid progress could be made over the offering and exposing for sale of goods. It would be unfortunate if we included in the Bill anything that could give rise to objections, and objections could arise if powers of search were involved. Nevertheless, I shall look at the issue before the Bill goes back to the Lords, although I cannot hold out any hope that we can do anything.
    The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) asked about the increase in the maximum prison sentence. It has nothing whatever to do with inflation, but I understand that two years is in line with the custodial penalties under other Customs and Excise Acts. The change was made to bring this sentence into line.
    Mr. Fell: Why was the sentence three months before?
    Mr. Barnett: I cannot say. Perhaps it was a mistake, brought to the attention of the Department and the amendment suggested as a consequence to establish a coherence in related penalties.
    We resist the proposal about advertising by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. This extra offence will add little to the powers of enforcement. To take one example, if someone saw a classified advertisement for a fur coat and suspected that it had been illegally imported, he could ask to see it and then proceed once an offer to sell had been made. At the other extreme, if someone saw a general advertisement for
    880
    goods of a certain type, he would have great difficulty in proving which particular goods were being advertised. In any event, it would be difficult for anyone to prove that the goods advertised had in fact been illegally imported without going to see them.
    I know that there is a general feeling that the advertisement of goods made from endangered species is to be deprecated insofar as it may stimulate demand. But this Bill covers goods from Appendix II species which are commonly on sale, as well as goods from Appendix I, so a blanket ban is hardly desirable. This new clause would not be a suitable vehicle for such a blanket provision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept what I have said.
    The hon. Gentleman also spoke of an amendment which he hopes to move later. I had some difficulty in following his argument and I hope that he will be happy if I deal with it later.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I thank the Minister for his comments on my amendment to New Clause 5. Time is short and we want to get the Bill through as quickly as possible, but if the matter could be considered and an appropriate provision put into the Bill in another place, I and many conservation societies will be grateful. I realise that the Minister cannot give any commitment. I accept what he says and I shall not press the amendment. I also accept his comments on the second amendment to include the word "advertisers". His argument was sound.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to the Minister. We all agree that the important thing at this stage of the Session is to ensure that the legislation reaches the statute book. We have not got much time, but I shall not be provocative and say why. I accept that the Bill might have to take second place. The prime object is to get the Bill on the statute book, but if it is found later that there are loopholes, perhaps we may come back to it in few years' time with the benefit of experience. Because of the timetable I accept that it might be difficult to do much and we shall bear that in mind when dealing with the lengthy list of amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    12.15 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 25, at end insert—
    '(4A) The Secretary of State shall not grant a licence to import or export a live wild animal for the time being listed in Appendix I or Appendices I and II, of the Convention to be used for the purposes of scientific research unless the scientific authority is satisfied that the species concerned cannot be bred in captivity, and that there is no alternative to the use of an animal listed in that appendix or those appendices'.
    I rise with some diffidence because I understood that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) would be here to move the amendment. I also understand that the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) cannot be here today. I have not studied the amendment in great detail but I shall do my best to explain it to the House.
    In 1975 research establishments in the United Kingdom imported large numbers of primates, rats and mice. Imports involved about 10,000 primates, 23,000 rats—it is odd that we should be importing rats—and nearly 10,000 mice. A total of nearly 44,000 animals were imported and most of the primates are considered rare or endangered.
    Before the controls came into effect on 1st January 1976, the Animals (Restriction of Importation) Act 1964 was in operation but that was suspended on 31st December, 1975 under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. The report of the advisory committee on that Act has recently been published and it is relevant that the committee felt obliged to recommend issuing a number of licences for the apes—the most threatened of the primates. It clearly did not wish to do so and the heaviest pressure came from medical research establishments.
    The committee felt that the sharp fall off in imports of other monkeys was due mainly to their having been overexploited. In a section entitled "primates for research" the committee reiterated its concern over the large numbers of primates imported for that purpose and urged once again that captive breeding programmes be developed. It welcomed the initiatives at the Wellcome Institute to breed one species.
    It was clearly disappointed, however, at the overall lack of progress in breeding
    882
    for research over the years. It further deplored that the reports of the Medical Research Council on techniques of breeding animals for research had still not been published. It felt that the publication of such a report would relieve the pressure on wild populations that are now declining by giving a strong stimulus to projects for captive breeding to meet research needs.
    This means that, even in the case of highly vulnerable species, conservation advisory committees are unable to resist pressure from research bodies—medical or otherwise. Yet it is known that little effort has gone into the most elementary first step—the breeding of captive animals for research. While many people find even that idea distasteful, especially since much of the research is wasteful or frivolous, it would represent a small step forward to prevent the extinction of species.
    The Bill amended in this form would make the Scientific Authority restrict the import for research purposes unless stringent conditions were satisfied. It is perhaps a question of balancing the needs of humanity today against the needs of humanity tomorrow. If we let the trend continue unchecked and a number of animals become extinct, mankind will suffer from knowing that those animals are no more, and if they were essential for research purposes, it will be just too bad.
    Under the new controls, the species apparently taking the brunt of research demands in the first seven months of operations were the reptiles. One hundred Caiman crocodilus from South America were imported or given licences for import from the wild for medical research purposes. This species is on Appendix II of the convention, yet all scientific authorities in this field recognise it to be endangered. I understand that there is a proposal to put all crocodilians on Appendix I of the convention. This the Scientific Authority has been aware of, yet it has granted licences to import 100 such animals. There are to be further discussions next month, and there may be some alterations then. I can only conclude that the Scientific Authority is under pressure. The animals are endangered, and the amendment is essential to prevent such pressures continuing.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I have every sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. I well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but we do not consider that there is any need to write these provisions into the Bill.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck), who, I understand, cannot be here. He may be reassured that certainly for Appendix I animals his aims are already met. I am advised that the Scientific Authority for Animals carefully scrutinises all applications to import Appendix I animals for the purpose of scientific research. It requires to be satisfied that the research is bona fide, that the particular species is essential for the project, and that there is no captive-bred stock available before it will recommend the granting of a licence. The authority is very knowledgeable about medical research as well as conservation.
    As far as I am aware, no import licences for scientific research have been issued in respect of what are now Appendix I species in the past three years or so. For Appendix II animals the convention gives us no remit to inquire as to the purpose of import.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurances and the reasons why I do not think that it is possible for us to incorporate the amendment. I recognise his concern on this general question. If there is any assistance I can give him through correspondence, I shall be glad to give it, but I do not think that the amendment falls naturally within the terms of the Bill.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—
    '(5A) The Secretary of State may charge for the issue of a licence under subsection (2) above such sum (if any) as is for the time being prescribed by order of the Secretary of State'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we may take Government Amendment No. 24.
    Mr. Barnett: The amendments give the Secretary of State a permissive power
    884
    to charge for licences issued under the Bill and require him to pay any proceeds into the Consolidated Fund. New Clause 3 is also relevant. It provides that the power may be exercised only by order subject to negative resolution.
    The provision does not mean that immediately the Bill becomes law charges will be made for licences. There is no present intention to make charges, as no equitable scheme has yet been devised to cover the costs of collecting the money. The provision is inserted because of the possibility that it may be done later.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Those who deal in the Appendix II animals which are commonly involved in trade will be glad that there is no present intention to charge for licences, although clearly the implementation of the Bill will bring with it some costs, albeit limited and for a good purpose.
    It might be worth considering charging for the grant of licences for the import of Appendix I species, for which it seems probable that there will be a further need for investigation and perhaps communication with the country of origin. The costs could well be higher.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I cannot give an assurance now, but that is an important point which I shall bear in mind.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 38, leave out
    'in a material particular'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we may take the following amendments:
    No. 5, in page 2, line 40, leave out
    'in a material particular'.
    No. 6, in page 2, line 42, leave out
    'in a material particular'.
    No. 7, in page 3, line 2, leave out
    'in a material particular'.
    Mr. Ross: On a number of occasions there have been arguments about whether the words which the amendment would delete should appear in legislation. Similar amendments were moved in the other place by Viscount Massereene and Ferrard, as reported at column 460 of the Official Report of another place. I support the noble Lord's arguments.

    885
    Baroness Stedman was somewhat misleading in her reply, reported at column 462.
    The amendments would make it an offence to make any mistake on an application, however trivial, if it is made knowingly or recklessly. By no use of the English language can a knowing error be called a mistake, and recklessness involves not caring whether a statement is true or false. It is just as morally blameworthy. The Minister's reply in another place seemed to condone deliberate or reckless deceit to obtain a licence for the import of a species which, by definition, should be strictly protected. That is the sort of attitude that brings the law into contempt.
    There are other examples of how these matters have been dealt with where the phrase has been withdrawn. Section 1 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 makes it an offence to disturb a designated historical wreck, whether or not one knows of its designation. I think that I am correct in saying that the phrase was removed by the present Government when the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill was passing through the other place.
    Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to endangered species, which are even more important than wrecks and are irreplaceable. Lies and deceit may be deliberately practiced with impunity—this is unfortunately an area in which it happens—unless the prosecution can prove that it was a material point. Why is it felt necessary to include the words?
    Mr. Guy Barnett: A similar amendment was withdrawn after some discussion in another place. The amendments would make it an offence to give information which was false in any particular, however trivial, in order to obtain a licence. Therefore, they seem to cover the case not only where wrong information is given deliberately in the hope of obtaining a licence but where accidental errors are made.
    12.30 p.m.
    Last night, thinking this matter over, I thought of another kind of error that might make someone liable to prosecution in this context. Supposing there had to be a reference to the date of birth and a woman applicant, wishing to conceal her age, made a misleading statement
    886
    as to her birth date. She would, in that case, deliberately be misleading the Secretary of State in filling up the form, but surely not in a material particular.
    The subsection as it stands makes it an offence only to give information which is false in a material particular. I consider that this drafting is adequate to cover the offences which we would reasonably wish to see published. As the wording stands, it is for the courts to decide whether a false particular is in fact "material"—that is, whether it could influence the Secretary of State to make a decision other than the one he would have made if he had known the facts.
    If a false particular, however apparently trivial, is in fact held by the courts to be material, the person concerned would be liable to conviction. But if the courts did not consider the particulars in question to be material, it would seem unduly harsh to penalise the applicant for making a mis-statement which would not have affected the decision on his application.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see the point that I am making—that this part of the Bill is deliberately tightly drawn so that prosecution, or liability to prosecution, does not arise where it does not have anything to do with misleading the Secretary of State in relation to the possibility of approving a licence.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I found the Minister's reply interesting. We could get into complicated arguments on the amendment, but I accept what he has said and I shall not press the matter. However, when we are talking about animals and conservation, I still think that these words will perhaps be used as a protection for people who should not have it. I am sure that the conservation societies feel as I do—that there will be people who will deliberately fill in false returns—we know that that is happening now.
    In another place, Baroness Stedman said that she might be persuaded to accept the amendment, but, in the end, noble Lords failed to persuade her, and I have failed again today, I still think that the words should not be in the Bill. The people who deal in this traffic know well what they are doing when they fill in these forms.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I sympathise with the objective of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), but would he not accept that the courts would consider a matter to be material if someone were making a false statement with the purpose of deliberately misleading the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Ross: I hope that that will be the case. We must wait and see. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
    '(7A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—

    (a) to maintain a register of licences issued under subsection (2) above, and of certificates issued in pursuance of subsection (7B) below;

    (b) to secure that the register is open to inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours; and

    (c) to afford members of the public reasonable facilities for obtaining from the Secretary of State, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the register.

    (7B) If a person who proposes to make or has made an application to the Secretary of State for any licence in pursuance of subsection (2) above—

    (a) applies to the Secretary of State for a certificate providing that subsection (7A) above shall not apply to the whole or part of any licence given, or any terms imposed, in consequence of that application; and

    (b) satisfies the Secretary of State that it would prejudice to an unreasonable degree some private interest by disclosing information about a trade secret,

    the Secretary of State may issue a certificate to that person providing that subsection (7A) above shall not apply to such of the things mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection as are specified in the certificate'.
    I put the Minister's mind at rest at once by saying that this is a probing amendment, even if it is lengthy. The matter was discussed fully on two occasions in another place. It was raised by Lord Wynne-Jones, to whom we should all pay tribute when discussing this clause, and by Baroness White. The discussion there was helpful. It progressed to the extent that, on the second occasion, Baroness Stedman gave an assurance in relation to Appendix I species.
    We always have to remember that we are not in the Bill distinguishing between Appendix I and Appendix II
    888
    species, for the good reason that there will be transfers between the two, particularly to Appendix I, I expect, from time to time. It makes for easier administration to try to avoid writing into the Bill a provision which will be subject to fairly numerous changes. My purpose with this amendment is to see whether I can get the Minister to take us still further than we got in Lady Stedman's assurance in another place.
    I think that all concerned would agree that it is the Appendix I species about which we must be particularly concerned. We must expect that the number of licences granted for Appendix I species will be very limited and subject to careful scrutiny. As the hon. Gentleman has said. Appendix II species are customarily in commercial trade and there will, therefore, be a large number of licences in their case. Clearly, to write in a requirement that one had to publish a register of such licences would not only require a lot of work but would consume a lot of paper, which those of us concerned with the Bill would wish to avoid if possible.
    I should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he will publish—not just make available, as was suggested in another place—details of the licences issued for the importation of species in Appendix I of the convention. I suggest that it be done annually.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) for explaining the nature of the amendment, and I hope that I can go some way towards satisfying his request.
    The subject matter of this amendment has been discussed several times with the conservation bodies, and was debated in another place. I am willing to repeat and perhaps extend the undertaking that the Government gave them. Information on licences for species on Appendix I of the convention can be disclosed because such species are not in commercial trade. It was said in another place that details would be made available to bona fide inquirers. I am now prepared to say that a list of licences, with details, will be prepared approximately annually and made available on request.
    The convention allows for captive-bred Appendix I species to be treated as though they were on Appendix II. Such

    889
    animals may, therefore, enter commercial trade and would have to be excluded from any list.
    As regards Appendix II species, I must repeat that details cannot be released because of commercial confidence. If, however, the export of an Appendix II species were to be barred by the country of origin, its status would become similar to an Appendix I species, and we would be prepared to answer inquiries.
    The system of certificates proposed in the amendment would be burdensome on traders and costly to administer, bearing in mind that the number of Appendix II Licences issued in a year is approaching 10,000 and we can expect many of the traders concerned to apply for certificates.
    I hope that the hon. Member will accept that this new undertaking to make available a list of Appendix I licences is as far as the Government can possibly go, and will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for taking that fairly substantial step forward. He said that the list of licences issued for species in Appendix I would be prepared approximately annually and made available on request. I suggest that it should be on sale at an appropriate price rather than available on request. One of the problems with something that is available on request is that sometimes those who would most benefit and would like to see it may not know that it is available on request. On the other hand, if it is published at the appropriate price, that is a more practical way to meet the point.
    I take it from the Minister's remarks that those species which have in practice become de facto Appendix I species because the export has been barred by the country of origin—or if there is a proposal that they should become Appendix I species and the Scientific Authority is treating the species as an Appendix I species—will also be included in the list of licences that the Minister will publish. I also take it from the Minister's remarks that the names and addresses of the licensees will be included in the information that is published in relation to these Appendix I species.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I shall do my best to help the hon. Gentleman. All I can say
    890
    about his suggestion concerning the possibility of sale rather than being available on request, is that I shall examine it as a possibility. I take this point that if something is for sale it becomes more readily known that it is available. I shall consider it and see whether it is a reasonable proposition.
    The status of Appendix II species which are barred by the countries of origin from export from those countries would become similar to that of the Appendix I species, and we would be prepared to answer inquiries. I shall examine whether it would be possible to include them in any list, but I cannot give a definite undertaking at the moment on that point.
    With regard to licences, I shall let the hon. Member know the answer to his inquiry. I am unable to tell him at the moment.
    Mr. Sainsbury: In the light of the Minister's assurances, for which I am very grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'for the time being specified in Schedule 3 to this Act' and insert
    'to which Schedule 3 to this Act for the time being applies'.
    This is a drafting amendment which brings the wording into line with subsection (1)(c).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 10, in page 3, line 23, leave out subsections (9) and (10).—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 3

    POWER TO MODIFY SCHEDULES
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 14 and Government New Clause 3—Orders.
    Mr. Barnett: The effect of these amendments is to gather up the procedural provisions relating to most of the order-making powers of the Secretary of State and to place them in one new clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 4

    POWER TO RESTRICT PORTS AT WHICH LIVE ANIMALS MAY BE IMPORTED
    12.45 p.m.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 26, leave out from first 'may' to end of line 33 and insert
    'make an order under this section relating to any kind of animal.
    (1A) An order under this section may provide that (subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the order) it is prohibited to do such one or more of the following things as is (or are) specified in the order, that is to say—

    (a) to import by sea any live animal of any kind to which the order is expressed to relate;

    (b) to import any such animal by sea unless it is imported at a port or one of the ports specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind;

    (c) to import any such animal by air;

    (d) to import any such animal by air unless it is unloaded at an airport or one of the airports specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind;

    (e) to import any such animal by land;

    (f) to import any such animal by land unless it is brought across the boundary into Northern Ireland at a place or one of the places specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind.

    (1B) Any prohibition or restriction in any order under this section shall not apply to an animal which the Secretary of State authorises to be imported otherwise than in accordance with the order and which is imported in accordance with that authorisation.
    (1C) In subsection (1A) above—
    "airport" means an aerodrome for the time being designated as a customs airport under section 15(5) of the Customs and Excise Act 1952;
    "port" means any area for the time being appointed and named under section 13(1) of that Act as a port for the purposes of customs and excise.'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 85.
    Mr. Barnett: This amendment would redraft and expand on the wording of Clause 4(1), which empowers the Secretary of State by order to restrict ports of importation for live animals. The amendment makes specific provision not only for ports but also for airports and the land boundary in Northern Ireland, and clearly defines the terms "port" and "airport".
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 14, in page 5, line 34, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
    Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I want to speak to the question of orders as to restricted ports, which I understand from the clause can be made by Statutory Instruments, subject to negative resolution of this House. I also understand that by subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State may authorise variations even orally, let alone in any organised form. Many of the amendments are asking for information to be provided, and this is another request that information will be given.
    I trust that the Department of the Environment will keep a full record of any such authorisations, because the Bill cannot be properly policed unless the public have access to details. I do not think that is unfair to importers, because they have the normal rules waived for them. These rules are there for the benefit of the species—that is what the Bill is all about—and not just for importers.
    I should like to have an undertaking from the Minister that proper records will be kept and that these can be shown to inquiriers at reasonable times.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has raised a relevant point, but I assume that he would accept that there could be occasions when events subsequent to the start of the importation process could lead to its being much quicker for live animals particularly to be redirected to some other point of entry. An airport to which animals were originally expected to be taken could be closed as a result of fog or for some other reason, and it would be necessary for action to be taken quickly. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member would expect

    893
    this power to be retained. I should have thought that it would be valuable for the Secretary of State to be able to vary the authorised points of entry at very short notice. I support the hon. Member in saying that where this is done in connection with an Appendix I species this information should be made known.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I undertake to write to both hon. Members on this question of records as to which ports of entry are possible and which are not for Appendix I animals and other species.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 5

    RESTRICTION OF MOVEMENT OF CERTAIN LIVE ANIMALS AFTER IMPORTATION
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 43, leave out 'any scientific authority or' and insert:
    'one or more of the scientific'.
    —This is a drafting amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 6, line 1, leave out from 'to' to end of line 6 and insert:
    'do so, he may give a direction under this section in relation to the animal.
    (1A) Where a direction has been given under this section in relation to an animal, and has not been revoked by the Secretary of State, the animal shall, immediately after the relevant event,'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 17 and Government Amendments Nos. 19 to 22 inclusive.
    Mr. Barnett: These amendments redraft part of Clause 5. The main change is that the term "relevant event" has been introduced and defined in order to make clear at what point the direction on the movement of a live animal takes effect.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made:No. 17, in page 6, line 7, after 'at', insert 'the'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 6, line 10, at end insert:
    '(1) The Secretary of State shall keep available, for public inspection at all reasonable times, a register of directions, requirements and permissions given under subsection (1) above'.
    The directions referred to are directions about where the animal may be moved and are relevant to, say, a safari park owner who wishes to put one of his animals in a circus which he also owns. I can think of two examples—Windsor Great Park and the park in the West Midlands near Bewdley—of well-known families involved with safari parks having connections with circuses. Incidentally, my son may be about to take a job with one of them.
    If the Scientific Authority has licensed the animal's import on the ground that it should go to a safari park, it will issue a direction that it be kept there and nowhere else. A further example would be a safari park owner who wished to import young animals to run with older animals of the same species, thus making it appear that he is successfully breeding that species in captivity. I am assured that this has happened.
    In substance, this amendment is the same as the amendment tabled by Lord Mowbray in another place. In Committee the noble Lady Baroness Stedman admitted that officials would be keeping a register anyway, so it is simply a question of making it accessible to the public. It is irrelevant to point out, as was said in the other place on Report, that
    "the information contained in the register will be simply the whereabouts of an animal, and this is something an inquirer presumably will normally already know."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 13th May 1976; Vol. 370, c. 1105.]
    What the inquirer needs to know is whether it should be where it is, and this can be ascertained only from the register which, no doubt, the Department will keep.
    The noble Lady Baroness Stedman said in the other place that the register would
    "contain information about importers' names and addresses".
    I understand that that is not necessarily so if the current owner is not the importer.

    895
    Furthermore, I understand that at present the directions will be issued only for Appendix I species, and it has already been said, in the context of making licensing information available—and I welcome the Minister's statement on that matter of a few moments ago—that for Appendix I species they would perhaps be prepared to say whether the importer had a licence.
    The noble Lady went on to say:
    "it would be an invasion of privacy to reveal them".—[Official Report, House of Lords; 5th May 1976; Vol. 370, c. 513.]
    In other words, it would be an invasion of privacy to give the names and addresses of importers.
    This illustrates an unfortunate Government attitude—that rare animals which could become extinct entirely to the detriment of the human race are to be regarded as private property subject to the "rights" of licensed holders not to have their privacy invaded. In many cases the holders will be publicly displaying the animals.
    The noble Lady Baroness Stedman said that bona fide inquiries would be told limited details and that in this case
    "it it might be less tempting to irresponsible inquirers to indulge in random snooping".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13th May 1976; Vol. 370, c. 1106.]
    That implies that people who own endangered animals must be protected against the law if they abuse the trust put in them by the licensing authority, and those who want to prevent species of animals from dying out are "irresponsible inquirers" indulging in "random snooping". I do not think that that is so, and I regret the use of those words. I contend that the availability of the information will prevent random snooping. No one will bother to snoop on a person whom he knows has legitimate possession of an animal.
    Furthermore, it is important that the public should be able to monitor the activities of the Scientific Authority. Recently we saw pictures of the killer whale which had just been moved from Windsor Safari Park to America because it had outgrown its pool. I cannot vouch for what happened because I never saw it but, according to reports, the whale hardly had room to move about. Had it been imported under licence, and had the Scientific
    896
    Authority given a direction as to the pool in which it was to be kept, the public would have had a right to ask why the Scientific Authority had allowed it to be kept in too small a pool.
    The amendment covers examples of the sort that I have given. I understand that the Department is not completely opposed to the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
    Mr. F. A. Burden: I support what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said. I hope that the Government have not set their minds against the amendment and that they will accept it.
    There is no question of undue snooping. If it is necessary to enforce the law in other respects—for example, for income tax purposes, VAT purposes and in many other respects—and it must be proved that the law is being carried out, the requirements of the law are applied.
    What the amendment proposes is the enforcement of the requirement to keep a register to ensure that the animals we are endeavouring to protect are protected and are not moved from place to place after they have been imported. I think that without stretching themselves unduly the Government could well accept the amendment. Considered in a practical manner, it is reasonable.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I support what has been said. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment sympathetically, particularly because we are asking not for the publication of the information, either at a price or free, but merely that the register should be available. I understand that the information would have to be kept anyhow and would be kept. Therefore, it is simply a question of arranging that the information is available at reasonable times at, I should hope, minimum or nil cost to those with good reason to see it.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: There is no issue of principle involved here. Hon. Members will have noted from the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on Amendment No. 8 that we are prepared to make available a register of licences issued for Appendix I species. My Department will be keep-a record of the directions to aid inspection and enforcement, but, I am advised,

    897
    it is unlikely that it will be in a form which can be easily made available to the public.
    It is a comparatively easy task to produce once a year a list of licences issued; it is not so simple to produce an intelligible record of directions issued. The number of directions issued will in time reach a high cumulative total and, because of the numbers of deaths and transfers of animals which will be involved, it would not be easy to update such a register for publication.
    The question of publishing information on the directions was discussed in another place. An undertaking was then given that, if a bona fide inquiry were made for good reason, my officials would be prepared to reveal whether a movement direction was in force on a particular animal. I am prepared to say also that this undertaking would cover the Secretary of State's requirement or permission for the removal of the animal to different premises under the direction if the inquirer knew or suspected that an animal had been moved. We appreciate that in practice most of the animals for which these directions are issued will be Appendix I species.
    1.0 p.m.
    Mr. Burden: Are we to take it, then, that there is no disagreement here, that there should be this control, and the Government are taking that line not because they think that it would invade the privilege and rights of the person who owns the animal but merely on the question of administration? Is that what is meant? If so, I can only say that many things are said to be administratively difficult, but I always believe that administrative difficulties can be quite readily overcome if there is the intention to overcome them
    Mr. Barnett: I take that point, but so often administrative difficulties can be overcome only by appointing a few more civil servants to make the information available—
    Mr. Burden: Fewer.
    Mr. Barnett: I wish that were always true. We have to look at this in the light of what I said about updating the information and making it available in a form understandable by organisations and individuals outside. It is extremely difficult
    898
    for us to accept the amendment as it stands, and I must ask the House to reject it.
    On the other hand, we should want to look at the situation in future. I remain flexible on the question and confirm that we have no rooted objection. We are concerned merely about the cost and so on of doing it. I hope that the House will accept my undertaking that we shall look at the matter after the Bill comes into operation. If we can find ways by which the information can be made more readily available, we shall gladly do so, but I would rather not see the requirement included in the Bill at this stage.
    Mr. Burden: If, for instance, inquiries are made by the Zoological Society, the British Veterinary Association or one of the reputable animal welfare organisations, may we take it that the information would be made available to organisations of that type?
    Mr. Barnett: Certainly, in response to a bona fide inquiry from an organisation of that kind.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I am grateful also for his earlier statement, now repeated, that the information about the issuing of licences will be made available. That is a step forward.
    The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) put the question in an interjection, and the Minister has confirmed that bona fide inquirers should normally be given the sort of information they are seeking. I accept that and trust that it will work. Therefore, if that is to happen I see no reason why the requirement should be written into the Bill now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: No. 19, in page 6, line 11, leave out subsection (1) above and insert 'this section'.
    No. 20, in page 6, line 13, leave out', knowing that a direction has been so given,—' and insert
    'knows or ought to know that a direction has been so given and who—'.
    No. 21, in page 6, line 15, leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and insert—

    '(a) knowingly takes the animal, or knowingly permits it to be taken, at any time

    899
    after the relevant event to premises which he knows or ought to know are not at the time of the taking the specified premises; or

    (b) knowingly moves the animal, or knowingly permits it to be moved, at any time after the relevant event, the circumstances of the removal being that—

    (i) it is made from premises which he knows or ought to know are at the time of the removal the specified premises, and

    (ii) he knows or ought to know that the removal is made in the absence of, or otherwise than in accordance with any condition attached to, such a requirement or permission as is referred to in subsection (1A) above; or

    (c) knowingly keeps the animal at any time after the relevant event at premises which are occupied by him and which he knows or ought to know are not at the time of the keeping the specified premises.'.

    No. 22, in page 6, line 34, at end, insert—
    '(2A) In this section "relevant event" means, in relation to an animal, whichever of the following occurs later:—

    (a) the completion by the animal of any period of detention (whether in quarantine or otherwise) in accordance with any provision made by or under any enactment, being detention connected with the importation in respect of which the direction concerned was given;

    (b) the departure of the animal from any premises connected with the importation in respect of which the direction concerned was given.'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 39, leave out subsections (4) to (7).
    The Second Deputy Chairman: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government New Clause 2—Provisions supplementary to section 5.
    Mr. Barnett: The amendment and the new clause are primarily for drafting purposes. Together, they remove from Clause 5 and place in a separate clause those provisions relating to the requirements to be observed by the Secretary of State in making a direction under Clause 5, and also those relating to supplementary powers in connection with a direction.
    There are only two small changes of substance. One is that the Secretary of State is now required to consult one or more of the scientific authorities before he revokes a direction as well as when he first specifies premises.
    900
    The other change relates to powers of entry. The wording as drafted gave power for an authorised person to enter any premises, whether or not they were specified premises, to see whether they were suitable to be or to remain specified. The new clause provides that the power of entry should apply only to specified premises. On reflection, it was thought that an unlimited power of entry could be considered too intrusive, and, moreover, was unnecessary since, if anyone wanted premises to be specified, it would be in his own interests to allow entry.
    Mr. Burden: Who will be the authorised persons in this case, and how many are there likely to be? Will they be Government inspectors, qualified veterinary officers or who?
    Mr. Sainsbury: First, I welcome the provision that the Secretary of State will consult the scientific authorities before he revokes a direction as well as before he grants it. Second, I greatly welcome the restriction on the power of entry. In normal circumstances, we should avoid granting an unlimited power. As the Minister said, there seems to be no need for it because, if somebody wants premises not already specified to be approved, he will welcome—indeed, he will invite—authorised persons to come to look at it. That is very much a change for the better.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I am seeking advice on the questions raised by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) about who will be the authorised persons. Perhaps I could let him know later.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 8

    FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
    Amendment made: No. 24, in page 8, line 44, at end, add:
    '(2) Any sums received by the Secretary of State under this Act shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[Mr. Buy Barnett.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 9

    CITATION, INTERPRETATION, COMMENC MENT, REPEAL, EXTENT, ETC.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 9, line 5, leave out' (1) and 5(1) to (6)' and insert
    '(1B), 5 and (Provisions supplementary to section 5) and for the first reference to him in section 1(5A)'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government New Clause 4—Interpretation.
    Mr. Barnett: The amendment relates to the subsection which lists those references to the Secretary of State which in Northern Ireland are to be read as references to the Department of Agriculture.
    The amendment makes two changes of substance. It removes the power for Northern Ireland to make separate orders restricting ports of entry under Clause 4(1) while leaving it with the power under Clause 4(1)(b) to authorise other ports in exceptional cases.
    The other important change is consequent on Amendment No. 3. The power to make orders enabling charges to be made for licences will be confined to the Secretary of State, but in Northern Ireland the Department of Agriculture will have the power to collect any such charges.
    There are also minor drafting changes to bring the subsection into line with the redrafted and divided Clause 5.
    I think that I have already covered New Clause 4. Both the amendment and the new clause are designed to bring the provisions concerned with the interpretation of the Bill into one separate interpretation clause. In addition, New Clause 4 includes a new subsection (1), which provides that man is not covered by the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 26, in page 9, line 7, leave out subsections (3) to (6).—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
    Mr. Burden: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 10, line 1, after '1921', insert
    , the words "whales or" in section 28(1)(a) of the Customs and Excise Act 1952'.
    902
    The Minister will realise why we wish to insert this amendment into the Bill. I hope, therefore, that he will be sympathetic.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I support the amendment. I have no brief to speak to it. However, I should like to know whether the Minister has seen on the Order Paper the motion on the protection of whales. It has no fewer than 251 signatures. It has been the most signed motion that has been through the House this Session. It shows the concern of many hon. Members and reflects concern throughout the country regarding whales, particularly sperm whales, which are not protected. If this amendment has any effect in that direction, it is worth having it included in the Bill.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I understand the anxiety felt by hon. Members on the subject of whales. Section 28 of the Customs and Excise Act provides that imported goods with certain exceptions must be entered with the Customs. One exception is
    "whales or fresh fish … of British taking brought by British ships".
    The amendment would have the effect of requiring whales caught by British ships to be entered with the Customs. However, I am advised that the amendment is unnecessary. Apart from the fact that there are now no British whaling ships, the practice for many years has been for the catches of British fishing vessels and of whaling vessels, when they existed, not to be subject to the Customs control normally applicable to imported goods. For that reason, it was agreed between the Departments concerned that controls on the marine species covered by the Convention should not be operated by Customs, but that arrangements would be made, if necessary, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under its powers under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967.
    In view of what I have said, I ask the House to rest content with these arrangements and not to press the amendment.
    Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. I wanted to hear what would be said. That is why I moved the amendment formally.
    Despite the regulations which have been agreed between certain nations about

    903
    the catching of whales, the whale population is now decreasing. This is a matter of serious concern.
    I am aware that there would be difficulties about bringing this matter within the ambit of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will note the anxiety expressed by hon. Members and by many people throughout the world about the fact that the whale population is decreasing. I hope, too, that he will make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, keep a close eye on this matter, and take every possible step, in consultations with other Governments, to ensure that this species is given particular protection.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am personally deeply concerned about this issue. I certainly give the undertaking for which he asks.
    Mr. Burden: In view of the Minister's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    1.15 p.m.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 10, line 3, at end, insert—
    '(9A) In section 7 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 (restrictions on importation of certain wild birds and eggs) subsection (1) and paragraph (a) of subsection (2) are hereby repealed; and accordingly in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) for "such a licence as aforesaid" there shall be substituted "a licence granted under section ten of this Act" and the word "other" (wherever it occurs) is hereby repealed.'.
    This amendment would repeal an obsolete provision in the Protection of Birds Act 1954 which would otherwise overlap with provisions in the Bill. The provision relates to imports of quail, lapwing and game birds.
    If in future it should seem desirable on conservation grounds to re-introduce import control on these birds, it can be done by order under this Bill. If control seems desirable on other grounds, it can be done by order under Section 7(2)(b) of the Birds Act, which remains unaffected by this proposed repeal. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is currently considering the case of birds which travel badly.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Royal Society for
    904
    the Protection of Birds has been consulted and is happy about this proposed amendment?
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I can give that assurance.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 10, line 5, leave out subsection (11).
    This is a privilege amendement inserted by the Lords because the Bill started life in that House. I think that the Committee is aware of this procedure.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  New Clause 1

    OFFENCE TO SELL ETC. THINGS IMPORTED CONTRARY TO SECTION 1 OR THEIR DERIVATIVES
    '.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a person who sells, offers or exposes for sale, has in his possession for the purpose of sale, or displays to the public,—

    (a) anything which has been imported contrary to section 1 above, or

    (b) anything which is made wholly or partly from anything referred to in paragraph (a) above and which at the time of the alleged offence (though not necessarily at the time of importation) constitutes an item to which Schedule 3 to this Act for the time being applies,

    shall be guilty of an offence; and in the following provisions of this section a "restricted article" means anything falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above.
    (2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above with respect to a restricted article if he proves to the satisfaction of the court—

    (a) that at the time when it first came into his possession he made such enquiries (if any) as in the circumstances were reasonable in order to ascertain whether it was a restricted article, and

    (b) that, at the time the alleged offence was committed, he had no reason to believe restricted article, and

    (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2)(a) above, a person shall be taken to have made such enquiries as are there mentioned if he produces to the court a certificate which was furnished by the person from whom the accused obtained possession of the restricted article (the supplier), which was signed by the supplier or by a person authorised by him, and which states that—

    (a) the supplier made enquiries at the time the restricted article came into his possession in order to ascertain whether it was a

    905

    (b) the supplier had no reason to believe at the time he relinquished possession of the restricted article to the accused that the article was at that time a restricted article.

    (4) A person who furnishes for the purposes of subsection (3) above a certificate which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly furnishes for those purposes a certificate which is false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence.
    (5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (4) above shall be liable—

    (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not not exceeding £400;

    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

    (6) In this section any reference to sale includes references to barter and exchange.
    (7) For the purposes of this section a restricted article is displayed to the public if it is displayed to the public generally or any section of it, and (in either case) whether in return for money or otherwise.
    (8) For the purposes of any proceedings under section 45 or 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (penalties for improper importation and evasion of restriction on importation) for an offence in connection with the importation of anything contrary to section 1 above, this section shall not be taken expressly to provide a penalty for that offence'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 2

    PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 5
    '(1) Before he specifies any premises for the purposes of section 5 above or revokes a direction given under that section, the Secretary of State shall consult one or more of the scientific authorities.
    (2) The Secretary of State shall not specify any premises for those purposes unless they are such that in his opinion the animal in relation to which he proposes to give, or has given, a direction under section 5 above may suitably be kept there.
    (3) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State may, at any reason able time and (if required to do so) upon producing evidence that he is so authorised, enter any premises which are for the time being specified in relation to any animal for the purposes of section 5 above for one or both of the following purposes:—

    (a) in order to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether the premises remain such that in his opinion the animal may suitably be kept there;

    (b) in order to ascertain whether the animal is being kept on the premises.

    (4) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting under subsection (3) above shall
    906
    be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding£400.'—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 3

    ORDERS
    (1) An order under any of the relevant provisions may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under the provision concerned.
    (2) The power conferred by each of the relevant provisions to make an order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    (3) In this section "the relevant provisions" means sections 1(5A), 3 and 4 above.'—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 4

    INTERPRETATION
    '(1) For the purposes of this Act an individual of the family Hominidae (man) is not an animal.
    (2) In this Act a reference to a dead animal of any particular kind includes a reference to the body of an animal of that kind—

    (a) which is frozen, dried or preserved by chemicals, or

    (b) which, although not complete (whether because it has been eviscerated or because it has had the whole of its inside removed and has been stuffed, or for any other reason), is substantially complete and externally substantially resembles the complete body of an animal of the kind concerned.

    (3) In this Act a reference to a dead plant of any particular kind includes a reference to a plant of that kind—

    (a) which is frozen, dried or preserved by chemicals, or

    (b) which, although for any reason not complete, is substantially complete and externally substantially resembles a complete dead plant of the kind concerned.

    (4) In this Act "enactment" includes an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or of the Northern Ireland Assembly and an Order in Council having the same effect as such an enactment.
    (5) Except in so far as the context otherwise requires, a reference in this Act to any other enactment is a reference to that enactment as amended, and includes a reference to it as extended or applied, by or under any other enactment, including this Act.'—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Schedule 1

    ANIMALS THE IMPORTATION AND EX PORTATION OF WHICH ARE RESTRICTED
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 11, leave out line 19.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 30 to 54.
    Mr. Barnett: All these amendments relate to Appendix III of the convention. We are required by the convention to control the species that are added by other countries to this appendix, and these amendments cover the additions that have been made since the Bill was first introduced. We therefore require some deletions from the excepted lists in Schedule 1 and some additions to the restricted list of plants in Schedule 2.
    The deletion of Colomba guinea in Amendment No. 38 is consequent on an addition to Appendix HI of the convention, but the insertion of Columba livia in its place is merely to except a species which is commonly in trade. I remind the House that, because of the way Schedule 1 works, all the amendments which delete animals from the schedule have the effect of bringing them under control.
    No. 38, in page 13, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert:

    'Columba livia

    Domestic pigeon

    Streptopelia orientalis

    Rufous turtle dove

    Streptopelia Bitorquata

    Javanese turtle dove

    Streptopelia decaocto

    Collared dove

    Streptopelia capicola

    Ring-necked dove (otherwise known as Cape dove)

    Streptopelia tranquebarica

    Red turtle dove

    Streptopelia chinensis

    Spotted dove

    Turtur chalcospilos

    Green-spotted wood dove'

    No. 39, in page 14, leave out line 9.
    No. 41, in page 14, leave out line 20 and insert:

    'Agapornis cana

    Madagascan lovebird

    Agapornis taranta

    Black-winged lovebird

    Agapornis roseicollis

    Rosy-faced lovebird

    Agapornis fischeri

    Fischer's lovebird

    Agapornis personata

    Masked lovebird

    Agapornis lilianae

    Nyasa lovebird

    Agapornis nigrigenis

    Black-cheeked lovebird'.

    No. 42, in page 14, leave out line 23.
    No. 43, in page 15, line 17, leave out
    Mr. Sainsbury: Again, I assume that the Minister can assure us that those concerned have been consulted about these changes.
    Mr. Barnett: Yes, I can give that assurance.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 30, in page 12, leave out line 25.
    No. 31, in page 12, line 41, at end insert—
    'Waterfowl
    Any domestic form of Anser anser. Domestic goose.
    Any domestic form of Anser cygnoides. Chinese goose.
    Any domestic form of Cairina moschata. Muscovy duck.
    Any domestic form of Anas platyrhynchos. Domestic duck'.
    No. 32, in page 13, line 9, after 'jungle-fowl', insert 'and domestic fowl'.
    No. 33, in page 13, line 11, after 'pheasant', insert
    '(otherwise known as ring-necked pheasant)'.
    No. 34, in page 13, line 15, leave out 'Amherst' and insert 'Lady Amherst's'.
    No. 35, in page 13, line 21, at end insert—
    'Any domestic form of Meleagris gallopavo Turkey'.
    No. 36, in page 13, leave out line 24.
    No. 37, in page 13, leave out line 29.
    No. 40, in page 14, leave out lines 17 and 18.
    'White-cheeked' and insert 'White-browed'.
    No. 44, in page 16, leave out line 8.
    No. 45, in page 16, leave out line 10.
    No. 46, in page 17, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert:

    'Sporopipes squamifrons

    Scaly-crowned weaver'.

    No. 47, in page 17, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert:

    'Quelea cardinalis

    Cardinal quelea

    Euplectes anomalus

    Bob-tailed wydah

    Euplectes diadematus

    Fire-fronted bishop

    Euplectes gierowii

    Black bishop

    Euplectes nigroventris

    Black-winged bishop

    Euplectes aureus

    Golden-backed bishop

    Euplectes capensis

    Yellow-rumped bishop

    Euplectes axillaris

    Fan-tailed wydah

    Euplectes hartlaubi

    Marsh bishop

    Euplectes albonotatus

    White-winged bishop

    Euplectes progne

    Long-tailed bishop

    Euplectes jacksoni

    Jackson's bisop'.

    No. 48, in page 17, leave out line 30.
    No. 49, in page 17, line 44, after 'Bibron's', insert 'clawless'.
    No. 50, in page 20, line 7, column 2, insert 'Mangrove frog'.
    No. 51, in page 20, line 30, column 2, insert 'Green toad'.
    No. 52, in page 20, leave out line 35.
    No. 53, in page 20, line 36, column 2, insert 'Giant tree frog'.
    No. 54, in page 23, line 19, leave out 'explanation' and insert 'guidance'.—[Mr. Guy Burnett.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

  Schedule 2

    PLANTS THE IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION OF WHICH ARE RESTRICTED
    Amendments made: No. 55, in page 24, line 3, at end insert:

    'Gnetaceae

    Gnetum montanum'.

    No. 56, in page 24, line 11, at end insert:

    'Magnoliaceae

    Talauma hodgsonii'.

    No. 57, in page 24, line 19, at end insert:

    'Papaveraceae

    Meconopsis regia'.

    No. 58, in page 24, line 22, column 2, at end insert:
    Podocarpus nerifolius',
    No. 59, in page 24, line 33, at end insert:

    'Tetracentraceae

    Tetracentron'.

    —[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

  Schedule 3

    ITEMS THE IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION OF WHICH ARE RESTRICTED
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, Amendment No. 60, in page 25, line 36, leave out
    'any rug, coverlet, coat, jacket, cape or stole'.
    and insert 'clothing or furnishings'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we are to take the following amendments:
    No. 89, in page 25, line 37, leave out
    '(except where the furskin is trimming only)'.
    No. 69, in page 26, line 42, leave out "coat or jacket' and insert 'clothing'.
    No. 82, in page 27, line 43, at end add—
    'INTERPRETATION
    In this Schedule, the following definitions shall apply:
    "clothing" includes footwear and any personal accessory except a container;
    "container" means any personal portable receptacle;
    "furnishings" means household, office, vehicle and any other furnishings, and includes non-personal ornaments of any kind'.
    Mr. Ross: The amendment seeks to provide a precedent for the scientific authorities in providing sufficiently comprehensive definitions for controlled goods. It has been deliberately restricted to cover the position of spotted cats.
    I should like to start by giving the Committee some rather alarming figures about imports of skins from spotted cats, particularly from South America, which appear in the briefing document from

    911
    Friends of the Earth, to which organisation I pay tribute. It has played a very large role in providing information both to the noble Lords and to Members of this House about the background of the Bill. This has been recognised by the Government and by Members of both Houses.
    From these figures we can appreciate just how great is the trade in the species to which I have referred. Apparently, licences issued between 1st January and 30th June 1976 for the export of some animals products were as follows: for ocelot, the South American spotted cat, no fewer than 11,826 skins; for tiger cat, or little spotted cat, 4,738 skins; for Wied's tiger cat, or the margay, 3,955 skins; for poor old Geoffrey's cat, also from South America, 4,046 skins.
    One could go on and try to extend the amendment to try to cover reptiles, but I have not done so. However, even there the number of skins of water snakes is 2,000, and the figure for the Indian rat snake is some 26,000.
    We are talking about very big numbers and, therefore, this is an amendment of some importance.
    The Customs seems to want to keep the Bill to terms used in the Customs Tariff so that they can integrate their general revenue functions with their functions of controlling prohibited imports. However, I think that it would be agreed in all quarters that the Customs Tariff can be very vague. I do not wish to take up much time by quoting examples, but if one looks at Article 42.02 of the Customs Tariff one finds examples of the definition of "containers" which lead to confusion. One has only to look at the existing schedule to see the variation in terms, and the odd and anomalous distinctions between what is controlled and what is not. For example, leopard-skin coats are controlled, but leopard-skin boots, which have been on sale recently in Oxford Street, are not controlled.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am alarmed and astonished at the idea of leopard-skin boots being on sale, but is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that they were made of real leopard skin, and not imitation leopard skin?
    Mr. Ross: I am assured that they were. I would certainly not wish to purchase any such thing for my wife. Indeed, she would divorce me if I did. However, I take this from the information that has been provided to me, which is fairly sound, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that these were genuine leopard-skin boots.
    So far only a few manufactured products appear in the schedule, but the scientific authority will no doubt be wanting soon to control certain manufactured products. It should bring uniformity to the schedule if the authority has available to it easily recognisable and quantifiable categories of product. It should make the job easier by reducing the bewildering variety of products which could be controlled, each under its individual name, and with the consequent risk of overlapping, not to mention gaps in controls, complications and accidental anomalies.
    What is intended in the amendment is that rather than what has happened under the open general import licences in the past, the definitions should be fully debated and considered by biologists, politicians, traders, conservationists and lawyers, in order to obtain a precise, concise, intelligible and workable set of definitions for certain situations. If we can do that we should avoid the confusion in current law about the products which has never been defined by parliamentary counsel and which has grown up in an ad hoc fashion.
    I may be accused of making the job of the Customs vastly more difficult than it is already. However, applying the definitions suggested would simplify Customs work. One has only to look at paragraph 9(4) of the schedule to see, in line 36, the words,
    "Any rug, coverlet, coat, jacket, cape or stole made wholly or partly of any furskin of a defined animal (except where the furskin is trimming only)."
    If that were reduced to "clothing" and "furskins", how much more simple it would be.
    It would also make controls more comprehensive, which is the point of proposing these definitions. There is no sense in controlling tiger-skin bedspreads, which is done at present, I am told, but not tiger-skin curtains, which is not done

    913
    at present. Again, I do not fancy tiger-skin curtains. Heaven forbid! Nevertheless, I understand that this is one way in which people get round these controls. If one wants a tiger-skin bedspread, apparently what one does is to attach curtain hooks to the tiger-skin and the Customs have to let it through, and once in the country one takes off the curtain rings and put it on one's bed. This brings the law into contempt, and as the Customs have to enforce it at the ports in the arbitrary manner laid down in Schedule 3, they can do nothing about it and it will tend to bring the Customs into contempt. They could do nothing about it even if the hooks were publicly pulled off within sight of the Customs barrier.
    Those are a couple of examples of the way that tiger-skins and leopard-skins may be used for bedspreads and boots. I am not suggesting that many people in Britain would want to have those items. Unfortunately, however, there are people in this world who do want them. All that I am trying to do is to simplify the wording so that these anomalies can be avoided and so that we can, perhaps, get some fairly concise definition and know exactly what we are dealing with. We are dealing with animals which have been vastly over-exploited. We know the situation with regard to tigers, but the figures that I read earlier about spotted cats should alarm us all into taking some action. I hope that my amendment will receive some consideration from the Minister.
    Mr. Burden: I want the Minister to give very serious consideration to Amendment No. 89, standing in my name. It would have the effect of deleting the exceptions where the furskin is trimming only. There are very serious objections to the retention of this particular exception. The Minister must realise that furskin trimming can be of several sizes. It can be very small or it can be quite extensive.
    I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to this question. It is inevitable that if the skins of these threatened rare species are to be used as trimmings, the people who will so use them will want the mto be sufficiently large to be recognisable and the women wearing them to be proud of the fact that they
    914
    have an article trimmed with a very rare skin. If there is a sufficiency of trimmings of the skins of these animals, that could mean the use of a large number of them.
    1.30 p.m.
    If, on the other hand, it is said that the trimmings are small, I submit that the effect of such a trimming on the style and quality of the garment would be so insignificant that it would be unrecognisable except to someone with expert knowledge of skins.
    It is also the fact that the skins are to be used not as fur garments, but as trimmings. I submit that it would be extremely difficult to control the size or to decide whether the skin was recognised as a trimming. The only difficulties would arise because of the enormous number of companies who manufacture coats and suits on which the skin would appear.
    I am also convinced that the use of these fur trimmings for fashion purposes is completely unnecessary. If we are talking about trying to save endangered species and restricting the use to which their skins can be put in order to help to save the animals, the last thing we want to exclude from control is something that is to be used purely for fashion purposes. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the amendment.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I should like to have been able to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and, indeed, that moved by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), but, commendable as the amendments are, I suggest that unless the Minister is able to assure us that these matters have been discussed with those concerned, and particularly with those in the trade who are involved, and that what is proposed is acceptable, it would be better if the Minister would take note of what has been said and consider the matter again.
    Mr. Burden: I am surprised that my hon. Friend should take that line. For many years I was engaged in the clothing trade, and I am sure that if the Minister accepts the amendment, even though there may be some objections to it from members of the fur trade who may want to use these furs as trimmings, what is proposed will not involve them in any

    915
    great hardship. We are talking about endangered species. Very few of their skins will be allowed to come in, and if manufacturers were to rely on receiving these furs they would go bust anyhow.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate that, but the schedule gives rise to a licensing requirement and extends the complexity of the administration. Perhaps I should be reassured by what my hon. Friend said, because I was intending to suggest that if the Minister cannot assure us that he has already consulted the trade about these matters it would be better if he were to consider what has been said—and said powerfully on this group of amendments—and consider the matter again in another place.
    There is the other aspect, and it is that, under Clause 3, the schedules can be varied by order of the Secretary of State. If we get the Bill on to the statute book, which I am sure we all want, and a loophole is discovered, it will be open to the Secretary of State, after the necessary consultations, to bring forward an order to vary the schedule.
    Mr. Burden: I think that if we can we should deal with these matters now and not leave them to be dealt with at a later date. If this is a reasonable amendment, as I hope the Minister will accept it is, he should agree to incorporate it into the Bill and deal with the matter now.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I agree that it is always better to deal with something straight away if that is possible, and experience shows that it is not always possible to ensure that orders are thoroughly discussed and ventilated, but if we are on new ground that has not been the subject of discussions with the trade, we are to some extent on dangerous ground. I agree that if we are dealing with endangered species, we do not want the animal killed when only a small tip of the tail is to be used as a trimming for fashion purposes. Equally, however, there are problems of identification. Presumably, ancient fur coats could be cut up and used as trimmings on modern garments. That could give rise to the problem of determining whether one was dealing with something that was legal and proper, or something that was not.
    916
    I should have liked to be able to support the amendments, but I think that this is a matter on which there should be full consultation.
    Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend says that old fur coats could be cut up and used as trimmings. Stoles are often made from cutting up fur coats. If there were a problem about trimmings, there would be a problem also about stoles.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I hesitate even to define what is a stole.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I propose to deal first with the amendment moved so persuasively by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and then to refer to the amendment so persuasively suggested by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden).
    The convention requires us to control such parts and derivatives of the species on the appendices as are readily recognisable. Here lies perhaps the most intractable problem in the convention because identification can often be very difficult indeed. We have interpreted the term "readily recognisable" as meaning that the items in each paragraph of Schedule 3 can be recognised by most laymen as a group, and that the individual species within each paragraph can be identified by an expert. It is essential that any controls we introduce should be practical and enforceable.
    We have managed to provide a fairly thorough coverage of raw parts. But so far our coverage of manufactured goods and derivatives has been less extensive. It is extremely difficult to identify the precise species in most manufactured goods, and it is far from easy to define the area of control in a manner which customs and traders will find workable. Our approach has been a gradual and pragmatic one. We have produced a short list of those products most commonly in trade which are big enough to make identification possible. We do not pretend that our present coverage is the last word on the subject. A power to change the schedules by order is provided, and we intend to use it as the convention changes and we gain experience.
    The amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight is something of a compromise between the

    917
    approach that we have adopted and the opposite extreme suggested to us of controlling all products of named species. Although, if I may say so, it is an ingenious one, it still does not overcome the recognisability problem. It provides no exemption, for example, for very small pieces of skin which even an expert could not identify. Moreover, it does not provide a clear and unambiguous list of the products to be controlled.
    In any case these amendments would extend our area of control appreciably and before we could take such a step detailed consultation with the trade would be necessary.
    In the past we have always consulted with traders before extending the scope of our controls and we intend to continue such consultations. I am certainly prepared to review the controls on products after the convention to be held in Berne next week and to consult as necessary with a view to placing an order before the House some time next year if this seems advantageous. I hope that this undertaking will satisfy the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and will enable him to withdraw his amendment.
    I now turn to the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Gillingham concerned with trimmings. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the trade in trimmings may be substantial and that their exemption may leave an undesirable loophole. I do not feel able to accept that argument. In the first place, as we have already said, small pieces of fur are very difficult for even an expert to identify.
    Mr. Burden: With the greatest respect, if indeed they cannot be identified that is all the more reason for banning the importation of the entire skin.
    Mr. Burden: With the greatest case but I am dealing with the point about trimmings which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I am sure he will recognise that when we are making a protection we should make one that we can enforce.
    In the second place—this is germane to the point which the hon. Gentleman made—trimmings are a by-product of the trade. We consider that it is more important at this stage to control the products from which the animal is exploited and in which the furskin forms a significant
    918
    part. But as I said earlier, we are prepared to change the schedules later as we gain experience. In the light of what I have said I hope that the hon. Member for Gillingham will not press his amendment.
    Mr. Burden: The Minister is in a satisfactory position because we cannot push any of these amendments to a Division, as he well knows. But that in no way takes from him the responsibility. He has shown a considerable measure of agreement with what has been said and with what we are attempting to achieve.
    It is of considerable concern to me that this loophole does exist. Perhaps the Minister and his Department have paid a little too much attention to the approaches which have been made to them by the fur trade, because a moment's thought must convince the Minister that if these words are left out—and these trimmings were not allowed—the women of this country would not rise up in arms because they were denied the opportunity of expressing themselves through a design in fashion. Certainly the fur trade would not go bust. In any case it is a very small trade and the amendment would apply only to buyers of what will be expensive garments.
    Although it is perfectly clear that the Minister will not accept my amendment, unless he changes his mind, he signified an undertaking. I hope he will endorse it in unequivocal terms, and ensure that this point will be given serious consideration at a later stage on pragmatic lines and not on fashion lines.
    1.45 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: If there were one amendment that I would like to have pressed to a Division it is this one. The figures are so alarming that we have got to take action quickly, otherwise none of these animals will be left. We know that certain steps are now being taken to protect tigers, but it appears that in South America the reduction in the number of spotted cats is quite enormous. I sincerely hope that at the which meets next week further steps will be taken to protect these animals—even certain reptiles, such as crocodiles—which are now in danger. Things move very fast and we

    919
    could find ourselves in a situation in which they have gone too far.
    As the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) rightly said, one does not want to interrupt people's trading activities. They are people who have been in the business for a few years, but the fact is that trade will stop anyway because these animals will just not be around. I sincerely hope that something rather more will come out of the convention next week. I note the Minister's sympathetic undertaking to consider whether further legislation should be put before this House early next year. If we get to the Queen's Speech there will not be that much legislation in it—if it includes devolution—and I think there would be time to discuss a further restriction on these sort of imports. Obviously I cannot press the amendment today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 25, line 40, at end insert—
    'Aonyx (clawless otters)'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
    Government Amendments Nos. 62 to 68 and Government Amendments Nos. 70 to 81.
    Mr. Barnett: The effect of these amendments would be to add all species of otter to the animals defined in paragraph 9 of Schedule 3, thereby controlling otter furskins and certain of their products. The fur trade has been consulted and accepts the proposal.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I thank the Government, and in particular the Minister, for carrying out an undertaking they gave in the other place to include otters. They indicated that this might be possible and I am delighted that it has happened. I congratulate the trade on a sensible approach.
    It is essential to protect otters in this country because they have almost disappeared from the South of England. I understand the reason why they are not given protection like badgers is that they
    920
    are still said to be plentiful in Scotland. I am not sure whether that is so, but certainly in many parts of England and Wales their numbers are declining and they are rarely seen. I hope that, having given protection to the imports of otter skins, we shall now protect our own native otter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made:
    No. 62, in page 25, line 41, at end insert—
    'Lutra (common otters)'.
    No. 63, in page 25, line 42, at end insert—
    'Paraonyx (clawless otters)'.
    No. 64, in page 26, line 2, at end insert—
    'Amblonyx cinerea (oriental small-clawed otter)'.
    No. 65, in page 26, line 5, at end insert—
    'Enhydra lutris (sea otter)'.
    No. 66, in page 26, line 23, at end insert—
    'Lutrogale perspicillata (smooth-coated otter)'.
    No. 67, in page 26, line 30, at end insert—
    'Pteronura brasiliensis (giant otter)'.
    No. 68, in page 26, line 36, at end insert—
    '9A. The skin and scales of any animal of the family Manidae (pangolins)'.
    No. 70, in page 26, line 44, leave out 'sub-species Moschus moschiferus moschi-ferus' and insert 'species Moschus moschiferus'.
    No. 71, in page 27, line 1, after 'The', insert
    'whole or any part of any'.
    No. 72, in page 27, line 5, leave out 'claws' and insert 'flippers'.
    No. 73, in page 27, line 6, at end insert—
    '15. The meat and cartilage, including callipee and callipash, of any animal of the family Cheloniidae (see turtles)'.
    No. 74, in page 27, line 16, at end insert—
    'Gallus gallus (red junglefowl and domestic fowl)'.
    No. 75, in page 27, line 17, after 'colchicus ('insert
    common pheasant, otherwise known as'.
    No. 76, in page 27, leave out line 27.
    No. 77, in page 27, line 33, after 'cristatus (',insert 'Indian'.
    No. 78, in page 27, line 34, leave out 'sub-paragraphs' and insert 'paragraphs'.
    No. 79, in page 27, line 38, at end insert—
    '18A. Any egg, whether whole or blown, of any bird other than—

    (a) a bird of any of the following species, namely—

    Alectoris chukar (chukar).

    Alectoris rufa (red-legged partridge).

    Coturnix japonica (Japanese quail).

    Gallus gallus (red junglefowl and domestic fowl).

    Perdix perdix (common partridge);

    (b) a bird of any domestic form of any of the following species, namely—

    Anas platyrhynchos (domestic duck)

    Anser anser (domestic goose)

    Anser cygnoides (Chinese goose)

    Cairina moschata (Muscovy duck)

    Meleagris gallopavo (turkey)

    Numida meleagris (Guinea fowl).'

    No. 80, in page 27, line 39, leave out 'the family Cyatheaceae' and insert
    any of the families Cyatheaceae and Dicksoniaceae'.
    No. 81, in page 27, line 41, leave out 'explanation' and insert 'guidance'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    Preamble
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in line 5, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 7 and insert 'on 31st October 1976'.
    This amendment would write into the Bill the date on which the convention comes into force in the United Kingdom.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Preamble, as amended, agreed to.

    Title
    Amendments made:
    No. 84, in line 2, leave out 'trade in them' and insert
    'to restrict certain transactions in respect of them or their derivatives'.
    No. 85, in line 4, leave out 'ports' and insert 'places'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
    Title, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
    1.51 p.m.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    To begin with I should like to express sympathy with hon. Members who may feel that the Committee and Report stages of the Bill have been unduly compressed. I myself have some regrets that we have not been able to debate some of the amendments more fully. The House will recollect that the delay before Second Reading was due to the failure of the motion to take Second Reading in Committee instead of on the Floor of the House. In the circumstances, I think my right hon. Friend the Lord President has done remarkably well to enable this very desirable Bill to complete its passage this Session.
    We have had to look at a considerable number of Government amendments in Committee, but most of these resulted from undertakings given in another place and from tidying up of the drafting. There is little new material except that resulting from Appendix III of the Convention. The House may be reassured that all the Government's amendments have been the subject of long and careful consideration before today.
    We have also considered very carefully the other amendments that were tabled. The House will be aware that none of them came as a surprise to us. Some were tabled, although perhaps in a different form, in another place. All have been the subject of prior discussion and I hope the hon. Members concerned will accept that I have gone as far as I can in trying to meet their wishes.
    On Second Reading the question was raised as to what guidance is provided for Customs. Customs officers are generalists and cannot be expected to identify accurately all the wide range of species which this Bill subjects to control. They are, however, given broad descriptions of the types of animals, plants and goods to look out for. If they require detailed advice on any particular consignment, they can call on the services of a panel of experts employed by my Department who between them cover the range of knowledge required.
    I am satisfied that we are now on firm ground both in the text of the Bill and in the schedules. We shall keep the

    923
    schedules under review and continue to consult closely with trade and conservation interests. It may well be that the first order to amend the schedules will have to be made fairly soon, following the conference of the party States in Berne next week. But our delegation to the Berne conference will be greatly fortified by the knowledge that this Bill has now passed through both Houses of Parliament.
    It remains for me to thank hon. Members for their close interest and constructive approach this afternoon, without which we could not have concluded our business so efficiently.
    1.54 p.m.
    Mr. Sainsbury: We on this side of the House are delighted that the Bill has reached this stage, especially considering that this is the eleventh hour of the Session—although perhaps, in view of recent developments, we are now back to half-past the tenth hour.
    We can claim some credit for the fact that we have an opportunity to speak on Third Reading because of our motion on the Order Paper. Before completing our proceedings, we should pay tribute to the work done in another place. In view of what is often said by those who doubt the value of proceedings there, we should be grateful for the skill and expertise which was brought to beat there on this Bill.
    We in this House can also claim credit for good behaviour. For example, we passed Amendment No. 41 without the slightest discussion although it dealt with black-winged love birds and rosy-faced love birds, which in other circumstances could have led to an interesting and even lengthy debate.
    The Minister mentioned the Berne conference. I am delighted that he feels that the United Kingdom contribution will be strengthened by the Bill. I am sure that he will agree that this is an area in which only international action will be effective. However willing and effective we are in operating these conventions, all the countries concerned will have to work to achieve the objectives we all seek.
    I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he will keep up con. sultations with those for whom we have a particular responsibility, particularly
    924
    Hong Kong. His hon. Friend was kind enough to write to me about the situation there, which came up on Second Reading. I understand that, at Hong Kong's request, reservations were entered on its behalf on the Asian elephant and on reptiles to cover trade in ivory and reptile skins. As we have said, those are important areas. I hope that discussions will continue with the authorities in Hong Kong and anywhere else that these matters arise to try to ensure that there are no unnecessary and avoidable loopholes.
    I join the Minister in thanking those who have taken part in the debate for speeding the progress. I pay a final tribute to the voluntary bodies which have prodded us, briefed us and encouraged us.
    1.58 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I also thank the Minister and his Department for their helpful attitude towards the Bill. I am delighted that it has reached its Third Reading and will now go on to the statute book. It is another worthy step forward in conservation, and probably the most important measure on this subject to come before the House.
    As I said on Second Reading, this is one of our happier debates. Hon. Members have often drawn attention to the amount of legislation which is not relevant to our current economic situation, but this Bill is the result of worldwide activity and a wonderful advance in conservation.
    I do not know who will represent this country at the conference next week, but we know that Ministers regularly go to and from the EEC. If we could persuade some of our EEC colleagues—particularly the Italians—to stop shooting migratory birds, that would also be a great step forward. If they do not stop soon, there will not be many left anyway.
    I pay my tribute to the conservation societies. Sometimes people feel that there are too many amenity groups in this country taking up attitudes and prodding us and it is sometimes thought that they are being too selfish. The Friends of the Earth, the RSPB, the RSPCA and the World Wildlife Fund have played a most constructive role. The relationships of these societies with the Department of the Environment are on a good basis.

    925
    I also pay tribute to the work done in another place, especially by Lord Wynne-Jones, whose Private Bill this first was and who took the trouble to come to a meeting about it in the House of Commons. I congratulate him.
    I also congratulate the Minister on his helpful attitude today. I am sorry that the Bill has had to be taken on Friday with so few hon. Members present. We know that there is a lot of pressure on Members of Parliament and that if they have a free Friday they will take it. Members of the public who are intensely interested in the subject no doubt will be disappointed that so few Members of Parliament have been present, but I hope they will not take that as showing that Members have no interest in this subject. There is great interest in it in the House.
    I welcome the Bill and I hope that it will soon be in effective operation.
    2.1 p.m.
    Mr. Burden: I greatly welcome the Bill. Since I have been in the House there has been growing concern about the welfare of animals. We have had enormous support from the other place in our efforts to improve animal welfare. On at least two occasions Bills were started in the other place because there was difficulty in starting them in this Chamber. The Ponies Bill was one and the Badgers Bill was another. Those Bills eventually reached the statute book having been started in the other place, just as this Bill was started in the other place, The House should pay tribute to those of their Lordships who are so interested in animal welfare. Lord Silkin, the father of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, introduced the Ponies Bill and went to great lengths to ensure that it reached the statute book.
    The Bill is necessary because there is no doubt that many species are in grave danger of extinction. We are trying to ensure that there is no decline in the number of the animals who are threatened with extinction. Between 1600 and 1974, 130 full species of birds and mammals became extinct. That was a great loss to civilisation.
    I was interested to see a recent television programme about the orang utang. The ape is seriously threatened with extinction because of threats to its natural habitat. There is no mention of apes in
    926
    the schedule, but I hope that the Minister will try to ensure that when he is at the convention in Berne something is done to protect the orang utang. The orang utang is the most tractable and friendly of all the apes. There are so few tractable and friendly creatures in the world that we should do all we can to ensure that they do not become extinct.
    In the Second Reading debate I pointed out the difficulty that Customs officials would have in recognising species. I suggested that an illustrative chart might be issued for that purpose. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man and the ingenuity of printers and others to produce a coloured chart. I know that a panel of experts is available when there are any doubts about a species, but it would be helpful to Customs officials to have immediate guidance in the form of an illustration.
    I see from the schedule that there is a species of bird called babblers. They have nothing to do with the Chamber. The species includes the white-throated laughing thrush and the white-crested laughing thrush. I feel sure that there will be many difficulties arising in the recognition of these birds.
    The Minister promised before the end of the debate to tell us who would have authority to enter premises which were to house imported species. He has not done so, but I hope that he will intervene to give us this information.
    The Bill is a step forward. If other species become endangered I hope that they will be included in the schedule and in the legislation applying in other countries. I pay tribute to the Minister for the kindly and sympathetic way in which he has handled the debate. I feel sure that he will show the same sympathy and kindliness in seeing that the Bill works and that it is added to as and when necessary.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I should like to answer two questions he put. I apologise to him for not having referred earlier to the question he raised about the authority in Clause 5. The authority is a panel of inspectors appointed by the Department of the Environment, and it will include some veterinary surgeons.
    Mr. Burden: I assume that the premises to which these animals are going will be inspected before they arrive and from time to time thereafter to ensure that the necessary standards are maintained?
    Mr. Barnett: That is my understanding. I accept the hon. Gentleman's valuable suggestion that Customs officials should be given descriptions of the species to watch for. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would make their work more effective. That would be our desire. as it is his, and I shall consider the suggestion.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forth-with pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    CIVIL AVIATION
    That the British Airways Board (Government Investment) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th October, be approved.
    That the British Airways Board (Borrowing Powers) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th October be approved.—[Mr. Graham.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN SECONDARY LEGISLATION, &c.
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 18th November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation, &c, Sir John Eden be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
  Ordered,
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Graham.]

  RENT ACTS (RURAL HOUSING)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
  2.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I wish to draw to the attention of the House this afternoon a matter of which I have given notice in the subject of my Adjournment and which I regard as a considerable wastage of homes due to the operation of current Rent Act legislation.
  The background to the view I wish to present to the House relates not so much to homes and houses in built-up areas—cities, towns or suburbs thereof—though that is a problem, as to the large number of houses which are not used or which are under-used in country and rural areas.
  I speak not just of my constituency but of a problem to be found wherever one goes in the countryside. As I said, I shall not dwell on the suburban problems, which are to some extent a separate subject.
  All through Leicestershire and parts of the East Midlands one can go to small villages and many remote hamlets, perhaps composed of only a few houses, and see houses empty and unoccupied. When one asks why, at a time when all local authorities have long waiting lists for accommodation, houses which are structurally sound and externally most attractive are vacant and unoccupied, and in many instances have been so for some years, the owners of the properties or those responsible for handling their letting give the same answer, namely, that the landlord or the owner just cannot afford under existing legislation to place the property on the market for rent.
  There are many agricultural houses which are empty and standing idle in the countryside. The agricultural work force has declined to about one-third of what it was after the war. As a result, a large number of farm workers' houses which were formerly occupied by agricultural workers are no longer

  929
  needed for that purpose. Farm mechanisation has proceeded apace, with the result that farmers have been able to reduce the number of their work people, and in many cases a number of houses have become vacant.
  The reason farmers are reluctant to place their houses on the market for letting is that, under existing legislation, it would be impossible to regain possession after a given period. There is a remarkable change in the agricultural scene, with many houses becoming empty due to farm mechanisation. Most farmers are cautious and do not accept that there will necessarily continue to be a decline in the number of their work force, as has happened since the war. Other factors may enter into the calculation to make it necessary for them to have one or two houses on the farm available for farm workers should economic circumstances change.
  Alternatively, the time may well come when a farmer feels—"I shall wish to retire from active farming. This cottage, which I own and which was occupied by a farm worker, has not been occupied for the past five years. I am now of retirement age. I want my son to take over." That thought is very likely to enter his mind under the new legislation. He may well think to himself "It will be an ideal house in which my wife and I can see out our declining years whilst another member of the family takes over the farm, under the new legislation, and moves into the main farm house."
  Thousands of cottages suitable for such purposes remain empty simply because of the impossibility of the farmer gaining possession after a fixed period. I could take the Minister to hundreds of such cottages in my constituency and in the surrounding district. That is the reason the farmers give for the cottages standing empty.
  There are other types of property which one sees standing empty in rural communities. Quite a large house is, perhaps, occupied by an elderly lady who thinks that the time will come five or 10 years hence when she will not be able to cope alone; she may wish to have a relative living in the house with her. The remainder of such a large house, which is far too large for the one occupant, or
  930
  the two occupants if they are a married couple, is inadequately used.
  I have spoken to people who live in such larger houses and I know that they would be happy to contemplate providing a separate flatlet or similar occommodation if only they could be satisfied that in, say, five or 10 years they would be able to regain possession, perhaps for a relative whom they might wish to live with them when they go into some form of aged decline. The accommodation is there now and the possibilities for conversion exist. However, the owners will not contemplate making flatlets or other accommodation available for other tenants for a short fixed period, because of existing legislation.
  This problem affects most rural areas. I have given the examples of farm workers' houses and under-occupied larger houses. There is an associated problem. I believe that an immense pool of additional accommodation could be made available to the nation in some country areas if the numerous outbuildings which are to be seen in villages and on farms adjacent to villages—outbuildings which were formerly used for other purposes, many of them beautifully built about 200 years ago and structurally externally sound—could be converted, with the expenditure of a certain amount of money, into flatlet or house accommodation.
  The owners of these properties say that, because of existing legislation, they would prefer to try to maintain the external appearance of the building as best they can and not let a family come in at a fixed rent to convert the building into accommodation for themselves, thus turning the building into a unit of accommodation. This is because the owners know that, whatever form of agreement is entered into, should they wish to sell their property or for some other reason regain possession after a fixed period, they will be unable to do so.
  I know a farmer quite well who has on his farm two beautiful 18th century houses which were occupied by farm workers until just after the 1939–45 war. He, like many other farmers, has modernised and mechanised and the cottages are no longer needed for farm workers. They are externally painted and slates are replaced if necessary. Internally, when

  931
  modernised and fitted with all the modern conveniences, two charming and attractive properties would be made available. But because these two cottages are in the heart of the farm and because of the risk of letting to an unsatisfactory tenant whose children cause a nuisance on the farm, the farmer could not contemplate the idea of letting the cottages without being able to gain possession after a fixed period of three or five years.
  I was prompted to raise the matter by a letter which I recently received from a constituent. She has moved into the city of Leicester as a manageress of a bookshop and is a single lady of a respectable age and position. She is anxious to settle outside the city in the country and is prepared to travel into Leicester every day. She has searched all round the county within a radius of 15 miles of the city and she illustrates to me in her lucid letter the difficulties that I have described to the House.
  She says that she has approached the owners of numerous properties that are suitable for conversion into flats. My constituent has met with refusal because of the reasons that I have given. She has approached the owners of farm cottages which have been empty for many years, but again she has been turned down, because the owners do not know what their plans may be for the future and fear that they might want to gain possession at a later date but be unable to do so.
  Many of the people who live in large houses in and around rural villages are in straitened circumstances. They are often retired people living on an eroded income and they would be glad of the extra income to be earned by making part of their house available to a tenant. I have been told that if such people were able to gain possession after a fixed period, they would be happy to make a flatlet available, or to let a wing of their house to a couple.
  I raise the matter because of the letters which I have described and because I know from my own experience that local authorities in Leicestershire, as in the rest of the country, have long waiting lists for that type of accommodation. Because of the obstinate attitude in current rent legislation, a large pool of most
  932
  attractive potential accommodation is going into decay and ruin. Unless the Government take steps to enable a landlord to take possession after a fixed period, I can see no prospect of this type of accommodation being put to the national use as it should be.
  2.23 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on his success in the ballot and I am glad to be able to be here to reply. The general theme of his speech today is of course not new. Nevertheless, in spite of the considerable airing which the subject has been given over the last two years and the continuing efforts which the Department has made to explain what the legislation on rented housing actually says, I welcome this further opportunity to put the record straight.
  The hon. Member's objection to the Rent Acts is—if I may quote from the letter he wrote last week to my right hon. Friend the Minister—that they make
  "it almost impossible for a landlord to obtain possession of his property should he require to do so"
  with the result that useful housing is standing empty and in due course falling into ruin. He mentioned two categories of landlords in particular—farmers who own tied cottages which they no longer need for farm workers and older people who live alone in larger houses and who might be willing to let out spare rooms or flats. As I shall explain, the circumstances in which a landlord is allowed to recover possession from his tenant are considerably wider than is often imagined, and there are special provisions for the two categories of landlords that the hon. Member mentioned.
  But I unhesitatingly plead guilty to the accusation that the broad policy underlying the Acts is that a landlord who is in the business of letting is not entitled to recover possession merely because it is convenient or profitable for him to do so. The Government believe that a tenant should be able to look on his home as a home and not have to live in fear of eviction or arbitrary rent increases. If one may judge by the actions of the Opposition when they were in office, they have a certain amount of sympathy for

  933
  this general principle. It was not a Labour Government who introduced the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which gave security of tenure to long leaseholders whose leases were falling in. Nor was it a Labour Government who introduced the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, which extended Rent Act protection almost to the top of the rateable value scale. I wish that those who criticise the Rent Act 1965 and the Rent Act 1974 would remember these other measures. But we accept that there are some exceptions that should be allowed to the general rule.
  First and foremost, we recognise that a resident landlord—typically an owner-occupier who lets out a spare room or basement flat—should be able to recover possession from his tenant. Before our 1974 Act, the resident landlord could recover possession only if the letting was furnished. A resident landlord can now let without having to worry whether the value of the furniture is a substantial part of the rent. But for lettings commencing after the Act it does not matter whether they are furnished or unfurnished.
  A resident landlord cannot of course just throw his tenant out. The tenant is entitled to go to the rent tribunal to get his notice to quit extended to give him time to find somewhere else to go. But once the extension has expired, he has got to leave. Rent tribunals have had this power for nearly 30 years. If the tenant does not pay the rent, or otherwise misbehaves while his notice is running out, his right to remain can be shortened.
  It does not seem to be widely known that the Rent Act 1974 toughened up the provisions on this. The Act actually strengthened the rights of resident landlords against unsatisfactory tenants. It is fair that this should be acknowledged.
  In addition to the Department's general literature on the legislation about private renting, we have prepared a special leaflet as a guide for resident landlords. It is called "Rooms to Let: some facts you should know if you let part of the house you live in". I should be glad to arrange for a supply to be sent to the hon. Member for him to pass on to any of his constituents who are interested.
  934
  I turn now to what the Rent Acts say about owners of houses, cottages, or flats who are not using them now but who may wish to use them again at some time in the future. The Acts contain special provisions for several categories of such owners. They can let the properties concerned and are entitled to recover possession when they need them again. Farmers who own surplus tied cottages make up one of these categories.
  A second category covers owner-occupiers who are temporarily away, for example, working abroad or in other parts of the country. A third provides for people who buy homes to move into when they retire. Provided that the tenants are given due warning at the time the tenancies are granted, the owners have a right to recover possession when the properties are needed for their use.
  The Department has also produced a leaflet called "Letting your own house?", which explains how owner-occupiers who wish to let their own home, or their retirement home, can be certain of recovering possession. I shall be happy to let the hon. Member have a supply of these as well.
  It has been suggested to the Government that there are further categories of owners who ought to be given this special treatment and be entitled to recover possession when they need to use their property again. We are going to look at these suggestions in the review of the Rent Acts, about which I shall have more to say in a few minutes. In principle, we see no reason why new "cases"—to use the jargon of the Acts—should not be introduced for appropriate types of property.
  But let me add one word of warning: we have no intention of relaxing the Acts so that owners can let temporarily until the time is ripe for a profitable sale with vacant possession. That would be going against the whole principle of Rent Act protection.
  I do not want to go into detail about all the other grounds for possession laid down in the Rent Acts. Apart from the special case of resident landlords, there are 18 grounds in all. But I wish to make one thing clear: the Acts limit the rent which the tenant can be required to pay. But he must pay the rent up to this limit. A tenant who falls into arrears with the

  935
  recoverable rent risks losing his security of tenure. He must go if the county court thinks it reasonable that he should. Equally, he is at risk if he breaks the terms of his tenancy, or causes nuisance to the neighbours, or damages the dwelling or the furniture.
  So if a tenant abuses his protection, the landlord is entitled to seek possession. The figures we have from the county courts show that over the 18 months ending in June this year some 24,000 applications by private landlords for orders for possession against their tenants were decided by the courts. Ninety-six per cent. were successful. I would not, however, wish to suggest that a county court action is the normal end of a tenancy. In only a small proportion of cases are legal proceedings necessary, perhaps only one in 15.
  Having dealt with the rights which the Acts give to landlords to recover possession I turn now to the second main issue which the hon. Member has raised. This is the extent to which the Rent Acts can be blamed for houses and flats standing empty.
  I recognise that the Acts cannot be said to be an incentive to letting. They were not and are not meant to be. But it is too easy to put all the blame on the legislation. One way or another, Rent Acts have been with us for a good many years now. But the census in 1911—which was before any one but a few Utopians on the Left had ever suggested rent control—recorded that 5·6 per cent. of dwellings were vacant. This is a higher percentage than in any of the five censuses since the introduction of rent control. I would not wish to make too much of a rather elderly statistic, but evidently even in the days of laissez-faire some owners were reluctant to let. No doubt there were complex factors behind the statistics then, but so there are now.
  More recently, we have seen what landlords made of the opportunity to let free from restrictions. Between 1957 and 1964, many existing lettings passed out of control and all new lettings were free from restrictions. From 1964 until 1974, furnished lettings were subject only to the limited security of tenure which the rent tribunals could grant. Ever since the last war the total number of rented properties
  936
  has been declining. The decline was particularly rapid in the late 1950s. Although the number of furnished lettings appears to have grown during the 1960s, it is clear that many of the properties concerned had previously been let unfurnished. In the 1970s, it became apparent that the number of evictions from furnished accommodation was increasing. It was also clear that such accommodation was often being left empty, doubtless with a view to conversion and profitable sale.
  It is often alleged that the Rent Act 1974—or, for that matter, the Counter-Inflation Act 1973—has dried up the supply of rented accommodation. It might be fairer to say that these Acts were introduced because the supply of rented accommodation of the particular types they dealt with was rapidly drying up. Certainly by giving existing tenants security the Acts have prevented an over-rapid contraction in the private rented sector.
  It is easy to say, and it is very commonly said, that there are thousands of empty houses which could and would be let if only the Rent Act restrictions on recovery of possession were relaxed. But when one looks more closely, the position always turns out to be more complicated than that. For instance, a great many of the people who complain to the Department that they cannot let are clearly covered by one or other of the existing exemptions.
  I do not blame them for making this mistake. We recognise that the complexity of the legislation is to some an obstacle to letting in itself. We shall be trying to simplify it in the present review of the Rent Acts. Equally, we know that many houses are empty because they are unfit or in disrepair, or awaiting conversion or improvement. I might mention by way of example that 40 per cent. of the vacant dwellings in the sample for the last National House Condition Survey were unfit.
  When one deducts from gross totals of empty dwellings those that are empty for reasons other than the Rent Acts, and those for which special provision is made in the existing legislation, the likely effects of any general relaxation of security of tenure can be seen in a more realistic

  937
  perspective. It may be that a few houses would be brought into use. More probably, quite a lot of houses which would otherwise be let on protected tenancies would be let unprotected. It is clear that many houses would be taken out of the rented sector altogether, as happened after 1957. The Government have often said—and I say it again today—that this should not be allowed to happen.
  I have already indicated that we do not regard the Rent Acts as perfect. They are much too complicated and they can work harshly in particular cases. Some provisions have not fulfilled the intentions of those who introduced them. That is why we have undertaken to carry out a review of the Rent Acts, and preliminary work on this review is under way within the Department. We shall very shortly be issuing a consultation paper to invite the views and comments of interested organisations and individuals. I shall arrange for a copy to be sent to the hon. Gentleman. We are prepared to consider new ideas or reconsider
  938
  proposals that have previously been rejected.
  As I have already said, we shall be looking at the categories of landlords who are entitled to recover possession when they want to use their properties again themselves. We shall be considering both the principles and the practical procedures for rent fixing. We shall be looking at the relationship between rents and the costs of repairs and improvements. But I can hold out no hope to the hon. Member that we shall go back on the general principle of security of tenure for the tenant in his home.
  For so long as large numbers of people have to live in privately rented accommodation, this principle is a necessary part of any housing policy. To judge by actions, and not by words, this view has now come to be accepted on both sides of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Three o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Motoring Offences
  Motoring Offences
  Community Relations
  Community Relations
  Police (Numbers)
  Police (Numbers)
  Mugging
  Mugging
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Assets (Transferred Abroad)
  Personal Assets (Transferred Abroad)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Tax Refunds
  Tax Refunds
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Labour Costs
  Labour Costs
DEFENCE
  Field Radio Communications
  Field Radio Communications
  Nike Missile
  Nike Missile
  RAF Brize Norton
  RAF Brize Norton
  Arms Sales (African Countries)
  Arms Sales (African Countries)
  Reservists (Deaths on Duty)
  Reservists (Deaths on Duty)
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committee on Conduct of Members
  Select Committee on Conduct of Members
WALES
  Housing Action Areas
  Housing Action Areas
  House Building
  House Building
  Llangwyfan Hospital, Clwyd
  Llangwyfan Hospital, Clwyd
  Commons (Registration) Act 1965
  Commons (Registration) Act 1965
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Industrialists' Inquiries
  Industrialists' Inquiries
  House Improvements and Conversions
  House Improvements and Conversions
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Rents
  Rents
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
SCOTLAND
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
  Doctors (Deputising Service)
  Doctors (Deputising Service)
  National Health Service (Supplies)
  National Health Service (Supplies)
  Woodside Hospital, Newham
  Woodside Hospital, Newham
  Overseas Beneficiaries
  Overseas Beneficiaries
  Analgesics (Sales)
  Analgesics (Sales)
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Children Act (Implementation)
  Children Act (Implementation)
  National Health Service (Management Costs)
  National Health Service (Management Costs)
  Poverty and Unemployment Benefit
  Poverty and Unemployment Benefit
  Marginal Tax Rates and Personal Incomes
  Marginal Tax Rates and Personal Incomes
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Agricultural Policy (Prices)
  Common Agricultural Policy (Prices)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing (Londonderry)
  Housing (Londonderry)
  Town Planning (Belfast)
  Town Planning (Belfast)
  Security (Statistics)
  Security (Statistics)
    STATISTICS ON SECURITY
    STATISTICS ON SECURITY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pineapples
  Pineapples
ENERGY
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  NATIONAL FRONT
  NATIONAL FRONT
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Chile
  Chile
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Classes (Size)
  School Classes (Size)
  Illiteracy
  Illiteracy
ENVIRONMENT
  Vacant and Unused Land
  Vacant and Unused Land
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Birmingham University (City Council Payments)
  Birmingham University (City Council Payments)
  Long Hanborough
  Long Hanborough
  Big Ben
  Big Ben
  Nuisance Abatement
  Nuisance Abatement
  Water Supply (Consumer Consultation)
  Water Supply (Consumer Consultation)
TRANSPORT
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Roads (Liverpool)
  Roads (Liverpool)
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Enfield
  Enfield
INDUSTRY
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Calderdale
  Calderdale
  Ship Repairing Companies (Nationalisation)
  Ship Repairing Companies (Nationalisation)
  Waste Material (Non-biodegradation)
  Waste Material (Non-biodegradation)
  Government Forms
  Government Forms
TRADE
  Exports
  Exports
  Pineapples
  Pineapples
  British Overseas Trade Board
  British Overseas Trade Board
  Protexol Ltd., Stourbridge
  Protexol Ltd., Stourbridge
  Fishing Vessel Surveys
  Fishing Vessel Surveys
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

IVORY COAST MINISTER'S VISIT
Lord MERRIVALE: 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 will make a Statement on the recent visit to this country of H. E. Monsieur Lamine Fadika, Minister of Marine Affairs, Ivory Coast.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, there were cordial discussions on a range of matters with my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for shipping matters and with officials. The Delegation also visited a number of outside bodies. I have placed copies of the text of a Communiquéagreed at the end of the talks in the Library of both Houses.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks, and particularly for the statement; and may I echo his words, how welcome it was to have M. Fadika over here. But bearing in mind the requirements of the Ivorian National Shipping Line (SITRAM), and the fact that the Minister is very conscious of this country's great maritime tradition and vocation, will Her Majesty's Government do their utmost in the fields of promotion and credit terms in co-operation with the private sector and private interests so that these requirements of that organisation are met in this country to the benefit of the British shipbuilding industry?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords. When the noble Lord consults the Communiqué, as I hope he will, he will see that there was an agreement to set up a suitable frame-work for continuing the discussions which were held recently, and that will be a
754
continuing opportunity of examining the problems to which the noble Lord calls attention.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am grateful.

IMMIGRANT'S CHILDBIRTH AT LONDON AIRPORT
11.7 a.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: 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, with reference to Lord Brockway's Question on 26th October (Col.271), why the immigration authorities at first required the airline to carry the woman in question back to India, bearing in mind her condition which would normally have precluded her carriage by air.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we understand that the International Air Transport Association have an agreement that requires women who are more than thirty-two weeks advanced in pregnancy to produce a medical certificate of fitness to travel before being accepted by a carrier. The medical inspector at Heathrow examined the passenger referred to in the noble Lord's Question at 9 a.m. and again at 11.25 a.m. on 21st October and certified that she was fit to travel to Bombay that day. An airline then accepted her as a passenger.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that reply, and I would apologise to him for having to press this Question in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who is on another visit. Bearing in mind that the woman gave birth a few hours later, is the noble Lord satisfied that that certificate was properly issued?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harris has gone very carefully into this matter. I can only say that I myself have studied, albeit late last night, all the papers involved. There was no evidence at all of the onset of pregnancy. It came very suddenly.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Labour.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am sorry, of labour—I think perhaps on reflection I can say there was no outward evidence of pregnancy either. Labour started at 2.50 p.m., the doctor was called, and the doctor delivered the baby soon after 3 o'clock. As I say, there was no evidence at all of the onset of labour.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, since this Question refers to me, while the original mistake was in India when the woman was allowed to travel on a plane to this country although she was eight months pregnant, may I ask whether it is not also the case that if the immigration authorities at Heathrow demanded that she be returned, the airlines could have no alternative except to accept her on the plane?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I understand the situation, it is up to the airline to decide whether or not they will accept a passenger. I am not so sure that any demand can be made upon them to take the passenger. What they want is evidence that a person who is 32 weeks or more pregnant is fit to travel.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is it not the case that all airlines operating into the United Kingdom are required to give an undertaking that they will return any passenger who arrives without the proper entry certificate? Can the noble Lord confirm, therefore, that this pro-vision was not used to insist that the airline took their passenger home again?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot answer that from personal knowledge. I just do not know.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am sorry to have to press this point, but this is a matter which has given rise to a lot of public concern. Can he also confirm that the immigration authorities did not, as reported, wait until the baby's head appeared before calling the doctor for the delivery?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is no truth whatsoever in the statement made by the noble Lord. I do not attribute it to him. Undoubtedly he is
756
relying on what he read in the Press. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. We have gone very carefully into this matter. There were a lot of things in the Press report that have no truth whatsoever in them: for example, that Securicor guards stood around and laughed, and that they would not move until they were shown the head protruding; there is really no truth whatsoever in that.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I say to the Minister that, while the woman was first ordered to be returned to India, we are grateful that the Government have permitted the woman to stay in this country.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is so; but I would point out to your Lordships, although perhaps it is not necessary, that this situation has arisen because this lady came to this country without a certificate of entry. There is abundant evidence that this kind of thing goes on. There is also abundant evidence that women arrive claiming to be the wives of people over here but they are not the wives of people over here at all, and the immigration authorities have a responsibility to the people of this country to see that people who present themselves for admission are entitled to come here.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, did not the husband in this case have the marriage certificate in his pocket?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, that has nothing to do with it; what is important in cases of this kind is a certificate of entry.

TOLUENE DI-ISOCYANATE HEALTH HAZARD
11.13 a.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many industrial plants in the United Kingdom are now using materials capable of producing toluene

757
di-isocyanate, whether they are all observing a safety limit on 0·02 parts per million parts of air and whether this limit is now considered sufficient protection for the public health.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive know of several thousand industrial plants in the United Kingdom using materials capable of emitting TDI and other isocyanates. Employers endeavour to observe the safety limit and where this has not proved practicable it is necessary for the operators to wear positive pressure air line breathing apparatus. The Health and Safety Executive itself has a rigorous enforcement policy regarding the health hazard of isocyanates. Observance of the limit is considered to give sufficient protection, but the matter is under continuous review.
Lord HALE: My Lords, while appreciating the importance and variety of the chemical processes involved, and admiring the march of industrial chemistry in so many fields, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not permissible for even an ancient and uninformed Life Peer to wonder why a vapour of this immense toxicity, with magnified danger to asthmatics, should be used in the process of applying a little extra gloss to plastic bags?
Lord JACQUES: I can only give the Government's view, my Lords. That view is that the use of these materials should receive a high priority in the work of the Health Executive. In the current year it has been a major priority and three things have happened: first, a technical leaflet has been issued to employers; secondly, the Inspectorate has given special attention to the problem; and, thirdly, there have been and are continuing to be discussions with the trade associations concerned. The Government are doing everything they can to minimise the hazard.
Lord BRUCE of DONNINGTON: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the Government are convinced that they have sufficient Inspectorate facilities to ensure that the limits are kept to?
Lord JACQUES: That is another question and is a matter of opinion, my Lords. I would say that we believe we
758
have a sufficient Inspectorate and that when we get a problem of this kind we give it the kind of priority it deserves, regardless of the size of the Inspectorate.

ASBESTOS HEALTH HAZARDS
11.16 a.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent they have participated in the research conducted at the London School of Hygiene into the health of former workers at a former asbestos factory in East London and whether they accept the conclusion that between 7 and 10 per cent. of the men and between 9 and 12 per cent. of the women may die of mesothelioma.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not been involved in this work but the Employment Medical Advisory Service has been following published reports and I am advised that, subject to the qualifications made by the authors themselves, the Service does not dissent from the study's findings.
Lord HALE: My Lords, do not these somewhat alarming figures add to the importance of the admirable work that is now being done by the Health and Safety Executive, and is it not a fact that they are now monitoring industrial cases over the whole area?
Lord JACQUES: I wholly agree with those comments, my Lords.
Lord WADE: My Lords, am I right in thinking that it is not only it East London where the problem of the health hazards of the manufacture of asbestos has arisen? Is research still continuing, or is the Minister satisfied that all necessary safeguards are now being taken?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I should emphasise that the population which were the subject of this particular research had exposure to asbestos long before the 1969 Regulations. They were all before 1964 and most were before 1951. As

759
for the 1969 Regulations, in the words of the report:
"… the conditions responsible are not those which should be achieved today".
That is not to say we feel that we have reached finality. Research is continuing and I believe that in future there will be further improvements in hygiene standards.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as we have been told on occasions when we have had debates on diseases and injuries in factories that the Inspectorate was not sufficient to cope with the problem, may I ask my noble friend whether he is satisfied that in respect of asbestosis the Inspectorate is sufficient?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am afraid I did not hear the last part of my noble friend's supplementary question.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied that the Inspectorate has been increased by a number sufficient to cope with the problem of asbestosis?
Lord JACQUES: That is a matter of opinion, my Lords. We should very much like to see the Inspectorate increased, especially those of us who have a strong feeling for the people who are open to this hazard, but we must act within our means. I believe that we shall find it necessary to increase the Inspectorate in the future.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
11.21 a.m.
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.]
Clause 30 [Duty of housing authority concerned]:
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 24, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) If the Secretary of State for the Environment is satisfied either upon complaint by any person interested or otherwise, that any authority has failed to discharge the duty imposed upon it by subsection (7) above, he may make an order declaring the authority to be in default in respect of that duty and giving such directions for the purpose of enforcing the execution thereof as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient.")
The noble Lord said: I fully believe and I think that my noble friends believe that, whatever the competing claims for housing, however long the waiting lists and whatever the state, both quantitative and qualitative, of their housing stock, most local authorities will do their very best to carry out the duty laid on them in the Bill. Just how they will interpret their duty and what priority will be given to the agricultural industry will vary from district to district, but we believe that, by and large, they will do their best.
This Amendment is to provide for the case of the odd exception. We have seen recently that there can be the exceptional local authority that refuses to carry out its duty. The last time we sat in Committee on this Bill there were a good many references to "maverick" authorities. I was not quite sure what that meant, though I thought I knew what a maverick

761
authority was, so I looked it up. I found that Samuel Maverick was a Texan rancher of 1840 who regularly neglected to brand his cows, so that a maverick was a calf without his owner's brand. It then came to mean a masterless person or one who was casual. So I think we know what a maverick authority is: there is a slightly unfortunate blend between an agricultural and a local authority connotation, in just the same way as a blending between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment has, with enormous effort, great pains and the best will in the world, produced what is a very unsatisfactory Bill.
Following local government reorganisation, there are some housing authorities that are wholly urban in character and representation and some that are almost wholly rural, and there is much variation in between. One just might have an authority which was predominantly urban in character but which had peripheral agricultural land and which chose to disregard the Bill to the detriment of food production. The pressure that can be exercised upon a housing authority by a farmer or, for that matter, a farm-worker for suitable alternative accommodation is, in practical terms, very limited under the Bill as it stands. The Amendment provides for the Secretary of State for the Environment to have the power to make an order if he is satisfied that a local authority has failed to discharge its duty under subsection (7). I beg to move.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): I very much appreciate the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, in his Amendment. However, it is really not the job of the Secretary of State for the Environment to direct local authorities in particular cases on how they should allocate their housing resources. This is something that goes very much wider than the present Bill and has been discussed in the context of other Bills. It is generally accepted that local authorities should have autonomy in this sphere and there seems no reason to make an exception in this Bill. I feel that I should repeat—although I know that the noble Lord is aware of this—that the only people who can take a sensible and sensitive
762
decision about priorities in housing allocation are the local housing authorities because they have all the facts on the competing claims in front of them. This has always been the Government's policy and up to now it has appeared to be that of the Opposition also.
The noble Lord referred to the "maverick" council. The problem here—and I shall come to the way in which this can be dealt with under the Bill—is that if this were in the Bill it would lend a very bad flavour to the relationship between the local authorities and my Department in what we hope will be the way in which they try to deal with housing allocations. The good authorities—those that are trying to do their very best, particularly at a time of scarce resources—will feel resentful. The noble Lord himself said that he was only referring to the very exceptional authority and I believe that, if he thinks about he will realise that it would be counter-productive for the authorities to know that this provision was built into the Bill, for one cannot say in a Bill, "Of course, this doesn't apply to you though it applies to so-and-so."
The Secretary of State would not be in a position to have the detailed knowledge of the particular circumstances which he would need. For that reason, the main answer to the point—and there is, clearly, validity in the point which the noble Lord is making—is that other remedies are provided in the Bill. Clause 30(8) was inserted in response to requests from the National Farmers' Union and the Opposition in another place and it lays down that an action for damages can he brought against the local authority in either the county court or the High Court. This is not a very difficult proceeding in the county court. A local authority that is in breach of its statutory duty under subsection (7) could have such an action brought against it and it is also possible for a farmer to seek an order of mandamus.
When it is taken into account that the duty is written into the Bill and that the ADHACs will be there to give expert advice as to how to fulfil their obligation, I believe that the authorities will be under very great and generally known pressure in the circumstances. I should have thought that this would adequately cover

763
the point and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: Despite the views expressed by the noble Baroness, I believe that we are in a difficulty here which I may perhaps be allowed to express. The Amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should he given default powers. We believe that this is necessary because, although the noble Baroness has referred to subsection (8) and has suggested that by an action for damages against an authority which is in breach of its statutory duty something could be achieved, I believe that there is a real difficulty over mandamus.
We have touched upon this matter in Amendment No. 64, but I should like to spend a few moments describing the problem to your Lordships. I can do no better than quote the Solicitor-General on the meaning of mandamus. He said at column 783 of the Official Report of Standing Committee K of the House of Commons, on 24th June, 1976:
"Mandamus is simply an order from the court to a public authority which is alleged not to have complied with its duty ordering it to comply … It is discretionary, so it does not follow that the court must grant the relief."
Further than that there is a time limit, we understand, set over a situation of mandamus: after a period of six months, the writ does not lie. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said at column 582 of the Official Report, on 27th October:
"The farmer always has the right to take out a writ of mandamus."
That may be so, but it is not a practical situation. It is a situation which my noble friend Lord Ferrers entirely dealt with in his reply. I believe that it is highly unlikely that any farmer would seek to take out a writ of mandamus. So we are left with a situation of the possibility of an action being brought for damages in either the county court or the High Court, as the noble Baroness described. We are once again faced with a problem of timing. The situation can frequently arise when actions of this nature take many months, and in our view therefore the situation would be much improved if the Government would consider the Amendment.
Lord MIDDLETON: The noble Baroness referred to other remedies.
764
I Even if the wording of Section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973—that it shall be the duty of the local authority to secure that alternative accommodation be provided—is incorporated, it is indicated from the Bristol Corporation case in the Court of Appeal (and this has been referred to just now by my noble friend Lord Sandys) that a writ of mandamus is very unlikely to be issued. So we are left with subsection (8) to which the noble Baroness has referred, whereby an applicant can sue an authority for damages for breach of statutory duty. But why should a farmer, let alone a farmworker or his union, be faced with the colossal expense of bringing an action for damages where a local authority refuses to perform its duty. And who is going to milk the cows during the time it will take to get a hearing? What good are damages, even if they are granted to the farmer, if he cannot get possession of his house?
I know that the Government do not like default clauses; they say that housing authorities should take their own decisions on whom they rehouse and that housing authorities should decide when to take these decisions. I am greatly in favour of local authorities taking their own decisions, especially in education. But this default clause is not intended to interfere with local authorities who are properly considering the claims of agriculture before making decisions. It is intended to ensure that local authorities who are not doing so shall comply with the Act. I am not really satisfied with the reply of the noble Baroness, and I believe that there should be some default powers to protect the national interest in food production against a local authority that will not discharge its duties. I am not going to press the Amendment, but I feel strongly about it and I shall probably return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.34 a.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 24, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) Where the committee advises under subsection (3) above that the authority ought to provide suitable alternative accommodation as a matter of urgency, the authority shall provide such accommodation within three months from the date of that advice.")
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will remember that we tried to find some way around the problem of best endeavours, and on Wednesday I explained that the way we thought that this could best be achieved was, first, to put into the Bill the fact that the local authority had a duty to rehouse. Having put that in, it gave no time limit whatsoever; it merely accepted that under certain circumstances the local authority has a duty. It may be that the local authority could not rehouse a person for possibly two years and it could be in the position of saying, "We accept that we have a duty, but we have not physically got the houses".
That was the first Amendment to which your Lordships agreed the other day. We come here to the second Amendment which says quite simply that where the agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees have investigated the application, whether it is from the farmer or the local authority, and have come to the conclusion that there is a matter of urgency, then we feel that the local authority should rehouse that person within three months. It is perfectly possible that the ADHACs will investigate many situations to determine whether there is a requirement for the local authority to rehouse in the "interests of efficient agriculture", as the wording of the Bill says, and they may well say, "Yes, there is a reason to rehouse this person." In those circumstances the local authorities would not be under an obligation to rehouse within three months. It is only in the extreme case where the ADHAC says, "Yes, in the interests of efficient agriculture the local authority should rehouse, but this is a matter of urgency." This Amendment suggests that where that is the case the local authorities should rehouse within three months.
I would just make the point that the three months is only three months from the date of the receipt of the ADHAC's advice. The ADHAC may have been called in; it may take a month or even two months to give its opinion. It may well be that the committee would take only a month. Then the ADHAC may not in fact be asked to give an opinion when the applicant first applies to the local authority. So, even if the ADHAC were to be asked to give an opinion on the day that the applicant applied to the local authority, the chances are that the local
766
authority would not be obliged to rehouse, therefore, for four months—the three months mentioned in the Amendment, plus the one month which it has taken for the ADHAC to consider the matter. It may be that there would rot be an obligation to rehouse until five months after the date at which the local authority first had the request to rehouse a person. I hope that I have explained the Amendment tolerably clearly and I stress again that it is only where the ADHAC says that it is a matter of urgency that a person should be rehoused. I beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: It is clearly the Government's intention that the tied cottage system should be altered in a manner consistent with their wider policies and objectives for the national economy as a whole, and they seek to ensure that there is no adverse effect upon the efficiency of the agricultural industry. I do not think that there is any dispute about this at all. Virtually the whole of the criticism aimed at the Bin is that if the key workers' houses become filled with people working either or, distant farms or outside the industry altogether, then efficient production, particularly livestock production and milk production, must suffer, and this is against the national interest.
Therefore is is essential that local authorities should exert themselves to rehouse promptly in urgent cases, and as my noble friend has just explained this is exactly what the Amendment seeks to provide. From inquiries that I have made in the North of England a three months limit is by no means considered to be imposing an impossible taste where urgent agricultural need is established, but I am admittedly speaking about districts which are predominantly rural in character. A point which has been made to me is that the new districts—since local government reorganisation—have a very much larger stock of houses than the old rural district councils; conesquently, there is more likelihood of a vacancy coming up in time to deal with a case of urgent agricultural need. Of course the other side of this coin is that as districts are larger after reorganisation there may be sonic difficulty in providing accommodation which is suitable geographically. When the new districts are largely urban in character, they normally

767
cover a smaller area but their housing stock is larger. Admittedly, in these areas the demand for housing is greater; but, though the Government do not like to admit it, even in its present form this Bill implies that displaced agricultural workers, where there is agricultural need. must jump the housing queue.
In either case, therefore, I believe three months is a reasonable time to give a local authority in which to act where there is urgency. So I support my noble friend Lord Ferrers in the firm conviction that this Amendment would go a long way towards redressing the balance aimed at ensuring efficient production. It is a very difficult balance to achieve, and it is one which the Government were certainly at great pains, before drafting this Bill, to get right. They have not yet got it quite right; but if they accept this Amendment they will surely put to rest a great many of the fears of the agricultural industry that production may be damaged, which damage may not be in the best interests of the farm workers.
Lord SWAYTHLING: I think it is essential that there should be a time limit imposed, and your Lordships may remember that we had down an Amendment—I think it was No. 66—which imposed a time limit. However, in view of this Amendment which was to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, we decided to withdraw that and we support him wholly in this Amendment.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling. Dealing with the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton—and it was recognised, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, that we are anxious to achieve a system which works—I think they put their case reasonably (I have no complaint) and courteously. I think, though, that there may be some misunderstanding here, so I should like to cover some of the points which were raised previously and which have been raised again this morning. I understand that, on the question of applying the time limits to the local authorities' fulfilment of their statutory duty, we are really only discussing Amendment No. 69.
768
Nevertheless, the argument that I shall use applies to the other Amendment which has been mentioned. Time limits of course cropped up during the debate on Amendments Nos.64 and 67 on Wednesday evening. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, then explained why this Amendment was part of the Opposition's proposals, and I set out our objections to them, as he will recall. I therefore do not want to take up too much time repeating what I then said, but I think it would be helpful to the Committee if I outlined briefly our viewpoint.
Our first objection to time limits is that they serve no useful purpose, whether the duty on local authorities is cast as it was up till Wednesday or as it now stands in the Bill. The existence of a time limit will not of its own account mean that a house can he provided if none happens to be available. It is as simple as that. It is no good tying the housing authority to a time limit if no houses are available. I would have thought that that was obvious. Now I recognise that noble Lords are seeking to get round this objection by tying this Amendment to the provision of compensation, as suggested in the next Amendment with which we shall be dealing. But, as I shall explain shortly, compensation in such circumstances is not a principle we can welcome.
Our second objection is that the imposition of time limits could mean in some circumstances according to farm-workers and ex-workers a priority which they might not otherwise merit. If that happened, in our view we should have intruded into decisions on housing allocation which properly belong to the housing authority. Finally, let me restate briefly two reasons why I believe farmers themselves should be cautious about time limits. A time limit written into the law could, especially if it were seen as an imposition, too easily become regarded as a target to be met in all cases, even those where speedier treatment could be given to the application. I recognise that the Opposition have tried to be helpful by suggesting time limits only for urgent cases. While this is certainly a step forward from attempting to apply such limits in all cases, it brings with it the risk that less urgent cases could well be delayed. I think that our distaste for time limits is well-founded, and that noble Lords

769
opposite may now understand why we take exception to this Amendment. I therefore hope that they will withdraw it.
The Earl of ONSLOW: There are two points which arise out of what the noble Lord, Lord Peart, has said. The first is the point to which I referred earlier. He says that on occasions a house may not be available. Can he please try to find out how often this is likely to happen? Because this, in my view, is the absolute lynchpin of this Bill. If it is frequently to be the case that a house is not available, then in my view this Bill is very dangerous.
Lord PEART: I hope the noble Lord will not mind my interrupting him. How, though, will this Amendment help the position he has set out?
The Earl of ONSLOW: I hope that it will, but it is a question of where the houses are not going to be available. This seems to me to be the total lynchpin of it. If houses are always going to be available, then the Bill, for all the fact that it seems unnecessary, will possibly work quite well. That is the first point. The next point is that the noble Lord said that the implication was that we were giving priority to agricultural workers on the housing lists by making this sort of amendment. Does not the whole Bill attempt to give priority to agricultural workers? Because, again, if it does not, we are back in the state where it is very much more dangerous than I originally thought it was.
Lord PEART: I think this is going further than was originally stated when we had previous discussions on the whole question of priority and the role of ADHAC. Obviously, ADHAC will recommend to local authorities, and if they make a recommendation naturally the local authority will take this into consideration; but in the end they are the responsible housing authority.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: It seems that it is the availability of housing which is worrying the noble Earl. I wonder whether, again, the noble Lord will consider suitable temporary accommodation being used by a local authority. As we discussed when my noble friend
770
Lord Burnham moved his Amendment, under the Bill they cannot do this. I suggest that it might some times be practical for a local authority to use temporary accommodation. I wonder whether, if he cannot give me an answer now, he would go away and think about it. I cannot think of any other help to give him.
Lord PEART: I cannot think of any other reply to give the noble Lord, but I will follow up that point.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: In the case of temporary accommodation, when a local authority is engaged in work on, say, roads, or some development or other for which they are responsible, they allow people to live in caravans; they allow temporary accommodation. I she old have thought that it was a possibility that this might be something which could be used.
Lord PEART: The noble Baroness will know that the question of caravans came up earlier. I think the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, raised it on one occasion. I said that of course they could be used, but in the end siting, et cetera, must be the responsibility of the planning authority.
Earl FERRERS: I appreciate the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Peart, has explained. If there is a time limit, I quite see that this could possibly be an embarrassment on local authorities where there are physically no houses. I recognised this in the beginning and before I moved our Amendments the otter day. If you put a legal imposition on local authorities saying: "You must do this by a certain date willy-nilly …" and the houses are not there, it is difficult for them to carry out. This is the fearful dilemma over this Bill because it removes the whole onus of the responsibility for rehousing on to the local authorities. If the principle of the tied cottage system is to be altered and yet at the same time one is to enable agriculture to house the people who have to work for agriculture, then the only body that can accept that responsibility is the local authority. There is no other alternative.
This was the trouble we saw in the use of the words, "best endeavours", because this does not really mean anything other than that the local authorities will try;

771
but, having tried and being unable to achieve it, we are back to square one. I do not profess this to be the perfect solution; I do not know whether it is. The only way we could see round it was by first, putting the duty on the local authorities and saying that where there is a real case of urgency—one which the ADHAC said was a case of urgency—then the local authority must have a time limit. If the local authority say that there are no houses, then that occasion is dealt with in our next Amendment which would say, "Let the farmers provide the housing, the caravans or the accommodation which the local authority has the responsibility to provide but which it cannot provide."
That is the reason why these three Amendments hang closely together. I appreciate that there can be difficulty over this. I can quite appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Peart, saying that this will give a priority to the farm workers which they do not merit. But this is the trouble with the Bill. If you do not give this form of priority, then you "gum up" housing for agriculture. Much as I appreciate Lord Peart's views over this, I feel bound to ask the Committee to agree with this Amendment in order to try to get some kind of sense—I hesitate to use the word; I do not mean to do so in a derogatory way—into the Bill. It will give another place time to consider it again and to consider if there is a better way round this. It is a problem which has exercised the Government and the Opposition. There is nothing Party at all about this. It is a means of trying to find a way to make this a little better. I hope the Committee will agree to this.
Lord JANNER: I always listen carefully to the reasoned and (shall I say?) in many cases acceptable manner in which the noble Earl presents his case. As my noble friend has already said, everybody appreciates the difficulties; but I would point out that to press an Amendment of this kind is sheer nonsense. The noble Earl pointed out that the requirement cannot possibly be met if an occasion should arise where the local authority itself has not given alternative accommodation, because that, in itself, would mean that they have not the accommodation available. It is perfectly obvious. I
772
appeal to him to realise that it would be impossible for the other place, or for any reasonable people, to accept an Amendment of this sort.
It is not quite as simple as he puts it. There is a considerable amount of additional protection being given in this Bill in respect of tied cottages which are not to be found in any other measures. The whole of the Rent Acts do not provide anything like the kind of protection, as far as it goes. I realise that it is not entire protection but there are a large number of opportunities which are given to the landlord or farmer to have his rights, as they were, protected so far as possible. I am sure the noble Lord would not, by his own argument, ask us to pass something which is just sheer nonsense. If the extreme case arose where it was impossible for the council to provide the accommodation, then a time limit is nonsense.
Lord ROBBINS: Would not the difficulty conceivably be solved if the obligation on the local authority were to provide alternative accommodation, either temporary or permanent? I suggest that the matter in dispute might be eased if there were an obligation on the local authority to provide temporary accommodation even if permanent accommodation were not available. I can understand the objections which the noble Lord the Leader of the House will develop when we come to the next set of Amendments where there is a question of compensation to farmers for providing temporary accommodation; but supposing the obligation is on the local authority to provide temporary accommodation even if it cannot provide permanent accommodation then the damage to agriculture will be minimised.
Lord PEART: I will answer quite quickly. I know the attitude of the Opposition, but I have been pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and others on this. May I say that where temporary accommodation is provided by the local authority or anybody else the problem is that it does not constitute housing security—which is one of the problems with the existing system. Under that system farm workers may have to accept temporary housing without any idea of what the future may hold for them.

773
This is the worry. This is why we feel that in the circumstances—and there are arguments about caravans which we will deal with in the next Amendment—we cannot accept this. This is a difference of opinion and it is not political.
Lord COLLISON: I am conscious of this problem and I appreciate the way in which the noble Earl has put the point over. I merely think it necessary to say that the workers set great store by the word, "suitable". Temporary accommodation would have to be suitable. To put a person into a tumbledown house even temporarily or into longterm occupation of a caravan I do not think would be satisfactory. I realise there is a problem. Always bearing in mind the fact that the local authority cannot be charged with an absolute duty which they cannot fulfil, I hope that some solution can be found.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I sat for many years on local authority housing committees and we often had to deal with priority cases. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has had the same experience. Sometimes we had to deal with cases connected with sickness and had to get someone into a house where it was important for them to live on the ground floor because, for example, they could not get up and down stairs or they had a doctor's certificate which said that they had to be rehoused because they were living in highly unsuitable accommodation. The housing committee always looked at that and did their best. So far as I was concerned, in our area we always managed to rehouse the person. Unfortunately, under this Bill this type of housing problem is being created. Agriculture is developing all the time and we should give priority to agricultural workers whatever the conditions may be.
A new priority is being put into the housing list. I agree that it is not easy to solve the problem and if the area is one which is not only rural, but one where there is a big demand for houses from a semi-urban area, it makes it more difficult. But this is the trouble with the Bill. I should like to be able to say: "Let the agricultural worker take his chance with all the other people on the housing lists". But the fact is that if
774
we want agricultural production to continue and to increase they need priority. Therefore local authorities have to be told—as they are very often told cases of medical conditions—that they must give priority to these agricultural people and hope that by doing so they do not upset other people. The fact that agricultural workers have to be given this priority is the fault of the Bill.
Earl FERRERS: We are in a difficulty over this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, says that this is nonsense. It is a perfectly acceptable view to take: acceptable to him but not to me. It is at least understandable. He says that it is stupid to suggest this when there may not be any houses available. Perhaps the noble Lord did not hear my opening remarks when I said that this Amendment would be tied up with the next one which would provide the possibility of caravan accommodation if the local authority could not provide other accommodation. The real point is that we are in a jam regarding the right of the tenant to stay on, which this Bill gives, and the duty of agriculture to provide houses for its work force. This is where there is a straight head-on collision. I accept that and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collison, accepts it.
How are we going to get round this problem? We have produced what we believe to be a possible way around it. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said: "Would it not be suitable if the local authority provided temporary accommodation?" I do not think There is anything in the Bill to stop the local authority from doing that; in other words, from saying: "We have accommodation here; it is temporary and you can move into it." I do not think the passing of this Amendment would stop the local authority from providing temporary accommodation.
Lord ROBBINS: I agree. I felt that if some indication were given n this clause that the accommodation might be temporary until better accommodation were made available, misapprehensions and misconceptions might be avoided. It might be easier for the Government to accept the Amendment with which I am in general sympathy.
Earl FERRERS: That is something that we can look at before the next stage. It brings into relief the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Collison, put forward, which is that agricultural workers lay great importance on the words, "suitable alternative accommodation". They could argue that temporary accommodation is not suitable accommodation. I accept that this is a problem; but I come back to the point that this Amendment would operate only when the ADHAC say that there is a case of extreme urgency. If the local authority are to have the responsibility for re-housing which this Bill puts on them, then if there is a case of extreme urgency it is wrong that the local authority should, for whatever reason, burke the responsibility. I do not use that word in a stupid way, and I apologise.
I want to be constructive. Our intention is that we should ask the Committee to cast an opinion on this. But if the noble Lord, Lord Peart, was prepared to say: "This is a real problem, we will try to get round it before the Report stage" I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. But we want more of an assurance than: "We will look at it again", because I know that he will look at it again in what one might call a Parliamentary sense. We want something more than that, otherwise we shall have to come back to this matter again at Report stage. This would be undesirable. There is nothing Party political in this; it
is an attempt by both sides to try to solve a problem which this Bill creates. If the noble Lord is prepared to say: "We will genuinely try to get round it", I will not press the Amendment; otherwise, I will do so.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Would my noble friend couple the following with that request: would the noble Lord look into the possibility of temporary accommodation by the local authority?
Lord PEART: The noble Earl is being very persuasive, but I have stated the Government's case. Obviously from a Parliamentary point of view I will look at this again—naturally, one always does. That is one's duty as a Minister. I am afraid that I cannot go farther than I have gone today.
Earl FERRERS: I appreciate the noble Lord's clarity and for being genuine enough to say that if he did look at this Amendment it would be no more than a Parliamentary expression. I do not devalue that expression. In that case, I am bound to ask your Lordships to give your opinion on the Amendment.
12.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 69) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northchurch, B.

Balerno, L.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Barnby, L.

Glasgow, E.

Redesdale, L.

Barrington, V.

Gowrie, E.

Reigate, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gridley, L.

Robbins, L.

Belstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Roberthall, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hampton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bledisloe, V.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Boothby, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

St. Just, L.

Byers, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Caithness, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Cathcart, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sharpies, B.

Coleraine, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Congleton, L.

Lloyd, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Suffield, L.

Cromartie, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swaythling, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Derwent, L.

Meston, L.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Middleton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Molson, L.

Westbury, L.

Elton, L.

Monck, V.

Wigoder, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wise, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Munster, E.

Wolverton, L.

Faithfull, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

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

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Birk, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L.

Bowden, L.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Brimelow, L.

Hall, V.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Spens, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Janner, L.

Stedman, B.

Castle, L.

Kennet, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Vaizey, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wigg, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Douelass of Cleveland, L.

Morris of Borth-v-Gest, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
12.15 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 70:
After Clause 30 insert the following new clause:
Rights of applicants on failure of local authority to provide alternative accommodation
Where on an application made to an agricultural dwelling house advisory committee the committee advises that suitable alternative accommodation is required for the occupant of a dwelling house, and the local authority fails to provide such alternative accommodation within one month the applicant shall be entitled to—

(a) compensation from the local authority to cover the reasonable cost to the applicant of providing temporary accommodation; and

(b) a right to station a caravan on land in his occupation without planning permission, and without a site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, until such time as the local authority provides suitable alternative accommodation.

The noble Lord said: Time and time again we come to discuss the central dilemma created by the way in which the Government have attempted to legislate on the policy of tied cottages, and the debate we have just had on the last Amendment is a very good example. If you seek to achieve social justice by giving a statutory tenancy to a farm worker who leaves his job, you may be putting at risk the very farm business which gave him his employment and which will provide employment to his successor. That is accepted by the Government. Therefore they have said that we must put a duty on to the local authority to find suitable alternative accommodation for the man who leaves his job.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peart, has pointed out, that duty the local authority may be unable or unwilling to perform in sufficient time to avoid putting the farmer into very serious difficulty if he is to maintain food production. It is perfectly clear to my noble friends and myself that in a situation where there is an overall shortage of houses, at a time when there is a cutback in Government expenditure that might otherwise alleviate that shortage and when there are an increasing number of homeless displaced persons for whom local authorities must take responsibility, this dilemma cannot be easily resolved.
This Amendment is an attempt to provide a temporary solution, albeit a not very satisfactory one, where food production is in danger if a house cannot be found for an incoming worker. It would provide that where an advisory committee, having established an agricultural need, advises that suitable accommodation be provided and where a local authority within one month after receipt of that advice fails to provide such accommodation, then the farmer has the right to provide temporary accommodation in order to get himself out of what may be an acute difficulty. Furthermore, in order to avoid additional delay, he would be relieved of the duty of obtaining planning permission for his caravan or a site licence under the 1960 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act. He would also be entitled to compensation from the local authority to cover the reasonable cost of providing a caravan until such time as the cottage is freed by the rehousing of the occupant who is stuck there. When that happens, of course, the applicant's right to stay in a caravan without planning permission will disappear. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support this Amendment because, in the first place, it hangs very closely with Amendment No. 69 which we have previously discussed and, secondly, because it is a genuine attempt on the part of the industry to make the situation workable. The situation in which the farmer will find himself merits very close attention. My noble friend Lord Middleton has suggested that this could he met through the use of a caravan or similar temporary accommodation. I was particularly glad when my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley made special reference to the problem of temporary accommodation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. I think your Lordships genuinely recognise the predicament in which the farmer will find himself. These two proposals—first, the consideration of compensation and, secondly, the waiving of the provisions of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act—appear to be very reasonable in these circumstances.
The Government may say that this is featherbedding the farmer and the farmers will say that it is featherbedding the farm worker; so perhaps we could say it is featherbedding everybody. Nevertheless, the situation here is one of the Government's own making and we believe that some enabling procedure should be written into the Bill. I believe this to be a genuine attempt to reach a sensible solution.
Lord HAWKE: It is a great pity that in these great agricultural matters the only people who appear to speak are those who have a knowledge of agriculture and also an agricultural interest. I maintain that we poor simple eaters have a much bigger stake in this Bill than the farmers because, with the latest scientific improvements and so on, farmers can change from crop to crop and it is perfectly feasible for a farmer with a labour-intensive crop to change to something which is less labour intensive. But where does that leave us poor eaters? We are then short of the things the farmer ought to be growing. So the Government, by producing this extraordinary Bill to please the Agricultural Workers' Union, look like sabotaging the food supply to us poor eaters.
I should have liked to see a clause put in that went somewhat further than
780
this one, because if a farmer is to have a dismissed worker sitting in his cottage for a very long time, he obviously wants immediate accommodation for the new man on his own premises. A caravan is not very satisfactory, and I should have thought there ought to he a clause to the effect that a farmer could get immediate planning permission to put up a new cottage and a loan of the money there for from the local authority. He would then be able to buy one of those prefabricated buildings which can be delivered within about a month and put up on his own land. He would thus have a new cottage and would save the local authority having to provide accommodation for the other man.
I feel that, in the course of time, the whole Bill may create a very great change in the farming situation. I can quite see that the dairy farms manned by a family will continue, but I cannot conceive how dairy farms employing several cowmen can possibly go on. They will turn over to other crops, and in the end we poor consumers will not get our milk, cheese, et cetera, and will suffer accordingly. I think that the Government have been extremely silly on this Bill.
Lord SWAYTHLING: On Wednesday evening, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, in reply to my query about planning permission and caravans, said that a farmer could apply beforehand for planning permission, in advance of the other man leaving. But surely, we all know how long it takes to get planning permission, and if for some reason a man left at very short notice a request in advance for planning permission would be quite impossible. I feel very strongly that a provision for temporarily siting a caravan on land should be in the Bill, without the need for planning permission. I had intended to put down an Amendment to that effect. If I had done so, I would have imposed a time limit of 12 months or so, and if a local council provided alternative accommodation within that time the authority for the caravan would come to an end. I consider that 12 months would he a reasonable time for doing such a thing without planning permission. I very much hope that this Amendment will he accepted.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: Is not one trouble of the proposed Amendment that all experience shows that temporary accommodation becomes permanent, and that there will be very great danger if this Bill provides for temporary accommodation? We still have some of those immediately postwar temporary houses in occupation. This frequently happens.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I do not like temporary accommodation or caravans, and I like agricultural workers to be housed in the best possible houses. That is my principle, and it is one on which I have acted all my life. I hope that all the houses that I have ever had anything to do with are houses in which your Lordships would be happy to spend your holidays, to work, or to do anything else. The real problem is the difficulty into which we are put by the principle of the Bill. As I said, I do not want any accommodation for agricultural workers to be unsuitable, or not of the highest possible standard. They are entitled to good accommodation, I want them to have it and I will do everything I can to see that they get it. The difficulty is that until such excellent accommodation is available there may have to be a temporary arrangement.
I do not think there is any harm in temporary caravans—and we are talking about modern caravans, and not about the old-fashioned horse-drawn vehicles. We are talking about extremely smart, well-equipped and well-designed modern, moveable houses. That is what they really are. I agree that one does not want them to be permanent, but we are not talking about a make-shift home like they used to be in the past.
I agree that there should be a time limit on having a caravan. Here 1 echo what the noble Lord, Lord Swathling, said. There is no limit in this Amendment, and I think there should be one, but I am afraid that it would have to be on the local authority producing a house. A landlord will produce a house if he has one, because it is greatly in his interest to do so. If he has a spare house, it will go straight to the new man. But if he does not have one, and his only house is being occupied by the man who is leaving and who does not want to give up the house, the landlord will be in a dilemma. That is why it should be quite justifiable
782
to have temporary accommodation, but, as I said, it should be only temporary and should not by any change, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker said, be considered permanent. I hate that kind of accommodation and I would not dream of asking somebody to live in it, were it not for the fact that it probably the only alternative.
Lord ROBBINS: I was anxious to point out that the objection which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, that temporary accommodation tends to be permanent, which is certainly a matter of general experience in many fields, is not relevant to this case, because paragraph (a) provides a disincentive to a council to allow this state of affairs to continue. If this clause is passed, a local council will be penalised until it provides other accommodation.
The Earl of ONSLOW: This goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Collison, was saying about suitable accommodation. In a lot of people's minds, caravans conjure up pictures of small caravans swaying about behind cars on a motorway, or in large ranks at some of our seaside resorts. But, in fact, as I have seen, some caravans provide an extremely good class of accommodation. It is display more accurate to call them mobile homes. That is one point. It is possible to obtain good suitable temporary accommodation.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Collison, made on the last Amendment, that we can push somebody out and that the local authority will just have to provide him with a slum house which is waiting to be redeveloped, is not what we are trying to do by this Amendment. What we are trying to do is to enable the good form of mobile home to be hired into which to put the farmworker. The point which the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker made, about temporary accommodation becoming permanent is dealt with in paragraph (b) which says that:
"… and without a site licence … until such time as the local authority provides suitable alternative accommodation".
When a local authority provides suitable alternative accommodation planning permission will have to be obtained that caravan is to stay there for any length of time. Also, a licence will have to be obtained under the Caravan Sites Act.
12.31 p.m.
Lord PEART: I think that noble Lords who have been following carefully this debate will recognise that many of these points have been covered previously. Therefore I am not going to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in his views about poor eaters. We are all anxious to have a healthy and efficient agriculture. Indeed, I believe that our agriculture is very efficient and that it plays an important part in our economy. I leave it, therefore, at that; the question is not in dispute. The argument is how to make the Bill work when it becomes an Act, and I want to deal with this new clause. The motives of noble Lords opposite are to try to make the Bill work and they have put forward certain proposals with which I wish to deal, although many of the points have been argued before. However, I appreciate the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, introduced the new clause. The noble Lord raised matters which I hope to cover very quickly.
Without going over the same ground, I think that two points need to be stressed. First, the role of an ADHAC is to advise the local authority on the agricultural aspects of an application, not to replace the local authority by effectively taking their decisions on housing allocation for them. Secondly, arguments against rigid time limits which we have discussed for re-housing have been advanced already. In this new clause the time limit proposed is particularly unreasonable, given that a local authority may well, after receiving ADHAC advice as to agricultural need, accept that they are under an obligation, but that the need is not necessarily urgent. It would be unfair to other claimants on the local authority if all agricultural cases automatically had the priority which would result from this Amendment. I believe that noble Lords have expressed this view on a previous occasion.
The new clause, however, contains further undesirable features. First—this has not been stressed too much by noble Lords opposite—there can be no question of compensation to farmers who provide temporary accommodation. A farmer who is aggrieved at the alleged failure of a local authority to provide accommodation either directly or indirectly has a remedy to hand in the Bill. We have argued about this. Thanks to an Amendment
784
inserted in another place he can, under Clause 30(8), bring an action for damages. We have repeated that this morning. In any case, the notion that compensation should become payable as a counterpoise to redressing an injustice which farm-workers have had to bear is not a principle that the Government can endorse.
Now I come to caravans. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, are quite right in saying that there are some very good caravans which people regard as homes; but here, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, who in a previous discussion raised the question of caravans, the suggestion that farmers or anybody else should be granted automatic planning permission for a caravan is not one which the Government can accept. In individual cases it is conceivable that there could be an argument for a caravan to be used to house an incoming worker, but if a farmer believes this to be the case there is no reason why he should not follow the same procedures as any other citizen and seek planning permission from the local authority. Indeed, there is nothing to prevent him from going ahead and seeking planning permission in advance for a caravan on a contingency basis. I think that he would have a good case to put before the planning authority, but there can be no justification—
Lord SWAYTHLING: Does the noble Lord mean that every farmer in the country who anticipates that he might lose a worker can now go and ask for planning permission on a contingency basis to put a caravan on his land in case he loses a worker? What happens if that farmer should be in a green or white belt area? Again there is, surely, a complication.
Lord PEART: I am not saying that all farmers who are affected by this Bill should now seek planning permission. All I am saying is that there could be a case for doing so in certain circumstances. I do not know how many farmers would want to have put near to their farmhouses the type of accommodation which has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. All I am saying is that the procedure must be through the planning

785
authority and that noble Lords opposite should not seek to put farmers into a different category from other citizens who may seek planning permission. That is why we cannot accept this new clause.
12.37 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord, Lord Peart, ended by saying that we should not try to put farmers into a different category from other citizens, but this is precisely what the Bill does. It puts agricultural tied cottages into a totally different category from that of other tied cottages, and that is precisely the reason why this Amendment has been tabled. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that farmers must follow the normal planning procedure. That is understandable. However, it takes time. The object of the Amendment is to get over the problem where the local authority has no house available. The farmer should be able to provide such a house and the Amendment ensures that he should be reimbursed for so doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that compensation is unacceptable and that the farmer should not be compensated. If, however, the Bill is to result in cottages which are used on farms being unavailable because of the Bill, and if the whole point of the Bill is to put the onus on to local authorities which cannot then meet their obligations, farmers would be allowed, if this Amendment were accepted, to meet the obligation. However, local authorities would reimburse farmers for doing that which they are responsible for doing but that which they are unable to do. That was the reasoning behind the Amendment and I should have thought that it was a reasonable argument.
I am bound to say that I do not like the idea of caravans. If a farmer wishes to find a new farmworker and advertises for one and an applicant comes along, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will be the first to recognise that high up on the list of questions that the applicant will ask will be, "What is the house like?" If the farmer says, "As a matter of fact, there is a good house but it is occupied by somebody who worked for me but who is now working at the local car factory. However, I can offer you a caravan instead", his chances of getting that farmworker are very small. Therefore
786
I do not view this idea as a particularly good solution to the problem.
I think it is a desperate reflection on the Government and, indeed, on the housing of the country that, after an era of increasing standards of horsing and increasing demands for improved standards of housing, and after are aera of so much improvement of farm cottages, we should see farmworkers now put into caravans. It is frankly a desperate reflection, and they will be put not into improved houses but into caravans. That would be the result of the Bill.
I was trying to make a point to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and I should like him to be able to accept it because I feel it is a penetrating point. The result of the Bill is to bring into conflict the requirements of agriculture to house its workers and the requirements of this Bill for workers to remain in their houses after leaving their employment. One of the results may well be the proliferation of caravans. The noble Lord shakes his head, but we are trying to get over the difficulty into which the Bill has put us. That is a desperate reflection on the housing situation in agriculture and it is put down solely to this Bill, as indeed was the Bill we saw through last night, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which virtually sounded a death-knell to the landlord and tenant system.
I hesitate to see a lot of caravans around the countryside. I hesitate to see caravans put on farms for farm workers, but it is only in order to try to get over this problem which is presented by the Bill that we have put down this Amendment. I do not know what my noble friend feels about this matter, but I should like to see something done, if not at this stage then perhaps at a later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, says that one month is totally unreasonable. But that is one month after the local authority has had the advice of the ADHAC—not in cases of extreme urgency, but in all cases where they say, "Yes, this is required for agriculture". It d Des not say that the local authority has to) house within one month; all it says is that the ADHAC has recognised that there is a requirement for the house and if tie local authority cannot house—and they may not be able to house for six months, 12

787
months or 24 months—at least the farmer can provide that housing which the local authority cannot provide and be reimbursed for so doing one month after the ADHAC has given its advice.
If one is to get over the problem of providing accommodation on the farm—and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, must address himself to this matter—where the accommodation already provided cannot be used because of this Bill, then the caravan seems to me to be the only answer.
Lord MIDDLETON: In moving this Amendment, I acknowledged that this was not a very satisfactory solution to the problems that will arise from the Bill. In the first place, I would never have imagined that I should ever attempt in your Lordships' House to advocate a provision which might increase the number of caravans that already disfigure so much of our countryside. Secondly, as vice-chairman of a county planning committee, I view with some misgivings the concept of a farmer giving himself planning permission without the kind of control as to siting and so on that would normally be exerted by a planning authority. Thirdly, as a farmer and employer, like my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I should be very surprised if I could easily find a skilled replacement worker or herdsmen if all I could offer him was a caravan. If it were possible to reverse the situation so that the statutory tenant who was stuck in the house went into the caravan and the replacement went into the cottage, then many of the difficulties arising from these circumstances would disappear. But that would be so entirely contrary to the principle of the Bill that that is not what is proposed.
Finally, I note what the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said about compensation and what he said about the one-month period. Nevertheless, the necessity—and I will not labour this point as it has been sufficiently aired throughout the debate on the Bill both here and in another place—to avoid disruption of food production surely must be an overriding one. I am quite certain that where an agricultural need is established, quite impartially, by one of these advisory committees, all the
788
disadvantages of which I am very well aware will he outweighed by the advantage in the short term to agricultural production.
I am convinced that a provision of this kind will be essential for the proper working of the industry. We must be realistic about this. It is not likely that the time limit Amendment will be regarded in another place with unmodified rapture, and the industry may very well therefore find itself back in the impossible situation forced upon it by the Bill in the form to which we are objecting. I am quite certain that the only way of resolving the difficulty will be some kind of provision for temporary accommodation.
I will not press this Amendment so that we can, perhaps in consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Peart, produce a better Amendment on Report that will cater for the need for temporary accommodation in an urgent case which I am perfectly certain will be quite acceptable. If we do not find such a solution, the balance will be so far on the wrong side that food production will be in danger. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord SWAYTHLING: Before we leave Clause 31, on Second Reading I drew attention to subsection (7) which lays down that all the members of a committee had to be present at a meeting. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, kindly said that she would write to me on the subject. I was fearful that when a member of the committee was ill or for some other reason did not attend, the whole thing would be held up. When she wrote to me the noble Baroness explained that they intend to have a panel of members and that if somebody was ill they could always be sure that a committee would be in existence. Therefore, I did not move for the deletion of subsection (7).
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Notification of disposal of dwelling-house]:
12.48 a.m.
Lord SWAYTHLING Lord SWAYTHLING, having given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 71:
Page 26, line 29, at end insert—
("and
(c) the landlord has been granted vacant possession of the dwelling-house by virtue of the rehousing provisions of Part IV of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: Since putting down this Amendment, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has an Amendment to leave out Clause 32, and therefore I do not propose to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl FERRERS: Clause 32 is a new clause under which anyone who owns any houses which have been occupied by farm workers is obliged to notify the local authorities of their disposing of a material interest. I believe that this clause is far too onerous, because what we are doing here is saying that anyone who disposes of a farm worker's house—if he sells it or whatever the reason is—has to let the local authority know and the local authority has to keep records of what houses are being disposed of. The local authority will have to write to the person concerned and say: "Thank you for your letter. I note that you are going to sell your house". Then within four weeks the local authority has to write to the person and tell them what action they propose to take on the owner selling his house. I believe that that goes far beyond the scope of giving agricultural workers a statutory right to stay on in their houses.
This is the proliferation of what one might describe as "nosey parkers into the normal commercial buying and selling of houses. I think it will put yet another duty upon the local authority to have to keep all the records and to ferret around and find out what is happening to all the houses. Will they have to hold committee meetings on whether or not to buy Farmer Blogg's house? I think this is a monstrous intrusion into the privacy of individuals and indeed into the commercial operation of the housing market. Therefore I should like the noble Baroness to explain why the Government want to have this included.
Baroness BIRK: I have considered this clause extremely carefully and so has my noble friend Lord Peart. I have also listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and following that I am prepared to withdraw Clause 32 from the Bill at this time: but of course noble Lords will understand that this is subject to the reconsideration that the Amendments will be given in another place.
Earl FERRERS: I am immensely grateful to the noble Baroness. This has really come as a great pleasure, because I have always thought that this was a very onerous clause. I am immensely grateful to the noble Baroness for having obviously considered the Amendments which were tabled to make the clause slightly less onerous, and that has possibly directed her attention and made her come to the conclusion that she would be prepared to withdraw this clause. Had my noble friend Lord Tranmire been here I would have said that this might have been an occasion when the Band of the Green Howards might have come to blow a fanfare of trumpets! We are most grateful to the noble Baroness and I think this will certainly make it a better Bill.
Clause 32 disagreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Information about housing accommodation]:
12.52 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 28, line 3, leave out from ("accommodation") to end of line 4 and insert ("used for housing agricultural workers or retired agricultural workers or their dependants.")
The noble Earl said: I think one must say "thank you" to the noble Baroness for withdrawing Clause 32, and perhaps we ought to have had even more than just the Band of the Green Howards. If we are to have a survey of rural housing, that is possibly a good thing. If we were to have it now, obviously it would cost too much money, but that is another story. If we were to have a survey of agricultural workers' housing, that would probably be a good thing but again the same cost arguments arise. This Amendment sets out to try to prevent a half-way

791
house situation arising. Bricklayers, carpenters, pest officers, gardeners, plumbers, fitters, secretaries are all occasionally employed on farms and live in tied cottages but also work for other institutions. In Amendment No. 27A the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that the Bill was to do with agricultural workers and, "Let us keep it that way". I think those were the words she used. Bricklayers, carpenters and others are not agricultural workers, but they sometimes work on farm estates. Therefore, if they are included, which they will be unless this Amendment is accepted—or perhaps a better worded Amendment which could be presented by the Government—the Minister will get a distorted picture and I feel sure he would not want to do that. I beg to move.
Lord PEART: I am sorry that I did not hear all the speech made by the noble Earl because I was called to an urgent consultation. I hope he will understand. As I understand it, noble Lords opposite are seeking by this Amendment to exclude from the coverage of the survey those cottages which at some time in the previous five years were,
"on, or held in connection with, or used for agricultural or forestry land,"
but which at the time of the survey are either empty, for whatever reason, or let outside agriculture. Although it may not have been intended, cottages housing successors of agricultural workers would also be excluded from the census by this Amendment since it refers only to workers, retired workers or their dependants. I can see no good reason for so restricting the scope of the survey.
The whole purpose of the survey is to provide local authorities with a general picture of the agricultural housing situation in the area, so that they will be in a better position to forecast the potential calls on their resources and so more readily plan the allocations of those resources to meet the demands which farmers will be making on them under the Bill. To do this I am sure that they need to know not only about houses currently occupied by farmworkers and pensioners but also about those occupied by successors, and indeed about any other cottages which the farmer may have available to house new workers.
792
The local authority quite rightly will need the full facts if the information is to be of real benefit. Half the story could be positively misleading. For example, it will certainly be relevant to know if any of the farmer's cottages are subject to Case XII of the 1968 Rent Act; that is the farmer is able to regain possession of the cottage from someone not working in agriculture if he needs it for an agricultural employee. This is only one example: there could be others.
The noble Earl who moved the Amendment may believe that there is something to be gained by restricting the number of cottages about which information may be gathered; but this is not so. If noble Lords will look again at Clause 29, Amendments to which we have already debated they will recall that a farmer must have considered whether he can rehouse from resources available to him before approaching the housing authority. Clause 33 does not bear on this question of the range of housing accommodation which farmers are expected to have considered before approaching housing authorities; the two are not connected.
The sole effect of the Amendment would be to restrict the survey to some two-thirds of the cottage stock, thus leaving nearly a third of the cottages owned by farmers outside the survey, to say nothing of those which are the subject of housing arrangements. This, in my view, would seriously weaken the effectiveness of the survey which, I would remind noble Lords, was designed specifically to help local authorities, and, through them, the agricultural community. I hope with that explanation the noble Earl will now withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness SHARPLES: I wish to declare my farming interest. I have a number of tied cottages; I can do most jobs on the farm; I have a heavy duty licence and I can guarantee that I am one of the best hand roguers of wild oats in the business! I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for commenting on the point I made on Second Reading. However, nothing which has been said since by the Government alleviates my worries. That is why I rise to support my noble friend Lord Onslow on this Amendment.
As I understand it, the ADHAC will have a list of all houses on my property.

793
Should I wish to get a man out of one of my cottages when he leaves my employment, the ADHAC may decide that he can remain in that cottage, of which he then becomes a statutory tenant and that cottage will be taken out of agriculture. If later one of my retired workers needs rehousing, can I retrieve that cottage for that purpose? If not, there is no social justice because my retired farm worker will be the loser, even more than the farmer, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Collison, will appreciate that point. Surely we must be allowed to keep spare accommodation to meet our farm emergencies.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I see the dilemma we have got into. Both myself and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, are saying that the other side's argument will produce an incomplete picture. It would seem that I prefer that this survey should be confined to agricultural workers, but bearing in mind what the noble Lord has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.1 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 28, leave out line 37.
The noble Earl said: This is consequential on an Amendment moved earlier in this Committee stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 29, line 3, leave out from ("Food") to end of line 4.
The noble Earl said: This Amendment, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Kinds of information obtainable]:
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 29, line 6, leave out ("or forestry")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 29, line 11, leave out ("two") and insert ("four")
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
Lord PEART: May I say that I am prepared to accept this Amendment, to save debate.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I should like to thank the noble Lord. I feel that we are making great progress today.
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 29, line 11, leave out ("service") and insert ("receipt")
The noble Earl said: I hope that we have made sufficient progress that I can move this Amendment and that the noble Lord will accept it as well. I beg to move.
Lord PEART: I am afraid I should like the noble Earl to hear my case on this one. He has been very persuasive this morning. I know that the noble Lord may believe that by referring to "receipt" rather than to "service" he is providing farmers with more time in which to comply with a notice to provide information. In fact I am advised that there is no such advantage to be gained by the use of the word "receipt" here, in that both words relate to the time that the notice reaches the land owner himself and not to the time the notice is despatched. The advantage gained from using the word, "service" derives from the fact that it is the proper legal term for the process which culminates in receipt.
I would also venture to suggest, if I have understood it right, that the Amendment is unnecessary because later on in the clause in subsection (6)(a) provision is made for an owner or occupier to claim that he had reasonable excuse in failing to comply with the provisions of a notice within the time limit, because, for example, he was abroad on business or away on holiday at the time of service. I hope, in view of this explanation, that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. It clears up the worry I had in my mind, and I shall of course withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Interpretation]:
1.5 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 32, line 2, at end insert ("but shall not include a licence granting exclusive occupation of hostel accommodation or lodgings.")
The noble Lord said: We here reach the interpretation clause dealing with certain definitions. Amendments Nos.80 and 81 are both closely associated, but let me first take Amendment No. 80. We believe that, in this regard, the Government's present arrangement of Clause 37, which sets out what licence means as the third item, is not sufficiently lengthy to give full satisfaction. Of course we realise that under Clause 2 a relevant licence is fully explained where exclusive occupation of a dwelling-house is dealt with. Nevertheless, we believe that by adding the words on the Marshalled List it would clarify the situation so that there are not indefinite sub-lettings included in the definition. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: May I say right away in order to save time that there is no difference of opinion here so far as the aims of this Amendment are concerned. The problem is one of definition. What we do not want to do is to protect agricultural workers who arc living in genuine hostel accommodation or in lodgings, but equally we want to protect, for example, two farm workers who may share a large farm cottage each having exclusive occupation of their bedroom and sharing other living accommodation. At the moment this is achieved by Clause 24 in the Bill which follows the precedent set by Section 102 of the Rent Act 1968.
Many workers in hostels will be excluded from protection under the Bill because
796
they will not have exclusive occupation of any part of a dwelling-house. Their accommodation will probably be of the dormitory type, and other living accommodation will be shared as well. More importantly, however, our understanding is that hostel accommodation on farms is mainly provided for seasonal and casual workers. These workers of course will not be generally covered by the Bill because they will not be able to fulfil the qualifying worker test of having worked for two years in agriculture. These factors between them ought to dispose of the hostel problem, and on the face of it any residual case who is not a seasonal worker and who has a room of his own is the sort of person who ought to have the protection of the Bill.
Having said all that, because I thought that I must get that clear, I certainly do not want to appear dogmatic on this point to which we have given considerable thought. What I suggest is that, if there are any details available of the sorts of cases which still, after this explanation, could cause concern, it would be extremely helpful for me to have them. What I want to mention is that there are two difficulties about this, just to illustrate that it is a complex problem. First, the Amendment as it stands could introduce doubt if a landlord were to claim that a genuine sharing case such as I have described was indeed a hostel. Secondly, everybody thinks they know what a hostel is. Frankly, I thought I did; of course everybody knows what a hostel is; but when you try to define if for the purposes of a Bill and not just for general conversation it is difficult to avoid bringing into a definition places that could be genuine dwelling-houses.
I should be happy to look at this again. If noble Lords opposite who have doubts, or if organisations like the National Farmers' Union who, I think, are also concerned about this, can give us any further information or would like to consult with us, then I am prepared to do so. I think that would probably be much more useful than arguing, because I really cannot take it any further at this stage because of this stumbling block of the problem of a definition. If we could get down to that, and if the noble Lord or his noble friends could produce some examples of where they think there could

797
be somebody slipping between these various definitions, I should be very grateful.
Lord SANDYS: This morning the noble Baroness has been both accommodating and conciliatory, and I do not wish to proceed any further with this Amendment. We shall certainly do our best to provide her with information in this field, if such information exists. But I cannot guarantee to be able to further the case unless such information is forth-coming. In the circumstances, at this stage I think it would be better for the Committee if I withdrew the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.10 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 32, line 4, at end insert—
(""registered" means registered in the register under Part IV of the Rent Act 1968;
"rent based on rateable value" has the meaning given by section 13(8) of this Act;").
The noble Lord said: We return to the interpretation clause and we feel that this Amendment fills a gap in the interpretations. I do not think I need go into this at length. If we examine the glossary of definitions in Schedule I we find that these two items are not included in it. It is true that part of one of them is included in the definitions in the 1968 Act, but perhaps it would be beneficial for those using the measure if these were clearly defined.
Baroness BIRK: The Amendment is consequential to the Motion to leave out Clause 20. When we discussed that I gave my reasons against making this change and, frankly, there is nothing I can add to what I said. I do not think the noble Lord would want me to repeat what I said then.
Lord SANDYS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 32, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) It is hereby declared that any power of giving directions conferred by this Act
798
includes power to vary or revoke directions so given.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting and clarifying Amendment. It may well be that any power of giving directions in the Bill would, without this additional wording, be held to include a power to vary or revoke any such directions. This Amendment simply removes any doubt on the matter.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Index of general definitions]:
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 82A:
Page 34, leave out lines 8 and 9.
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 3 which was agreed to.
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 34, leave out line 13.
The noble Earl said: This Amendment, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Isles of Scilly]:
Lord PEART Lord PEART moved Amendment No. 84.
Page 32, line 19, after ("shall") insert ("in their application to the Scilly Isles, have effect").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 61 and deals with the Scilly Isles.
Lord PEART Lord PEART moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 32, line 21, leave out from ("order") to end of line 26.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 43 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Consequential and minor amendments]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 57, line 34, leave out ("occupies it under") and insert ("has").
The noble Baroness said: I formally move this Amendment, to which I have already spoken.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 58, line 9, after ("107") insert ("(1)").
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor Amendment to make clear precisely what information about the Bill local authorities are empowered to publish.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 89A:
Page 58, line 10, leave out from ("information)") to end of line 16 and insert ("for paragraph (aa) substitute the following paragraphs—
"(aa) to publish information, for the assistance of owners and occupiers of dwelling-houses and others, as to their rights and duties under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 and as to the procedure for enforcing those rights or securing the performance of those duties, and
(ab) to make any such information as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (aa) above available in any other way".")
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 88. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 59, line 44, leave out ("clerk to") and insert ("proper officer of").
Lord PEART Lord PEART moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 60, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) in the Isles of Scilly, the Council of those Isles").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 61, line 17, at end insert—
(". In section 122(8) of the Housing Act 1974 (duty to inform tenant of assignment of landlord's interest) after the words "Rent (Scotland) Act 1971" insert the words "statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976".")
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment simply brings the Bill into line with the Rent Acts by ensuring that a landlord who is assigning a dwelling must tell the tenant who the new landlord is.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Transitional]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 93 and 94:
Page 62, line 8, leave out from ("who") to second ("a") in line 9 and insert C' has, in relation to a dwelling-house");
Page 62, line 23, leave out ("in exclusive occupation of a dwelling-house") and insert C' who is occupying a dwelling-house as his residence")
The noble Baroness said: I formally move these Amendments, which have already been spoken to with a previous group of Amendments.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 63, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 64.
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor Amendment which will provide that, in the unlikely event that there is a rent registered under Part VI of the Rent Act 1968 for a dwelling-house which becomes subject to a statutory tenancy on the operative date by virtue of Schedule 9, that registration is to be irrelevant for Bill purposes. Hence, until a rent is registered under the Bill, the rent limit will be the rent based on rateable value.
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 64, leave out paragraph 8.
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a and to be printed.

EDUCATION BILL
1.21 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on report.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Baroness D'ARCY DE KNAYTH Baroness D'ARCY DE KNAYTH moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Duty to include special provisions for disabled persons in plans for school premises
. In section 13 of the Education Act 1944 after subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
"(6A) Any specifications and plans of school premises submitted to the Secretary of State under this section shall indicate what provision, in the means of access both to and within the premises, and in the parking facilities and sanitary conveniences to be available, is made for the needs of persons using the premises who are disabled; and the Secretary of State shall only approve any such specifications and plans where, in his opinion, adequate provision is made for the needs of such persons unless he is satisfied that to make such provision would in the circumstances be impracticable and unreasonable."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the Amendment is similar to that of one which I moved at Committee stage. The intention is to try to close the loophole in Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act which relates to educational establishments, and to ensure that future schools will be built accessible to and convenient for the use of disabled people. The earlier Amendment sought to make this a matter for planning application procedure, which
802
the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, felt was not the way to do it. There was at that time a suggestion that the answer might lie in an alteration to the building regulations. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for sending me a copy of her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, but it seems to indicate that that idea is not practicable for the present.
The noble Baroness said in Committee that it was right that the responsible providing body should consider the needs of disabled users alongside those of all the other users right from the outset in the planning and design of educational buildings. That is precisely what the Amendment aims to achieve. The responsible providing body must either make proper provision for the disabled or must satisfy the Secretary of State that it would be impracticable and unreasonable to do so.
The Amendment covers only primary and secondary schools. This has been done to ensure that it stays within the scope of the Bill. I have done my very best to take into account the points made by the noble Baroness and I believe till t this is the way to ensure that disabled children are given the same educational opportunities as their able-bodied contemporaries. I shall not bore your Lordships too much about the importance of integrated education because we went into that very thoroughly on two Amendments at Committee stage, but I should just like to reiterate that it is easier to integrate into an adult, able-bodied world if one has been integrated during childhood and that disabled children in ordinary schools are generally considered by educationists to be more socially mature than those educated in special schools. Also, there are often better educational opportunities in ordinary schools because there is under-expectation of a disabled child's performance in special schools.
There is a booklet which has been issued by the Department of Education and Science entitled, Integrating Handicapped Children. On page 6 it outlines the varying degrees of integration from full educational integration through special classes in ordinary schools to attendance at special schools with visits to ordinary schools for social activities. It continues,

803
"The possibility of such arrangements depends not only on the enterprise and determination of the staff of those schools but on proximity. New special schools should, wherever possible, be sited near to normal primary or secondary schools."
That is sound common sense, but it will not do much good if the ordinary schools are not built to he accessible.
It is not only children who are affected by lack of access. The job opportunities of disabled teachers are affected; disabled adults wishing to attend evening classes are prohibited from doing so; disabled people wanting to participate in community events held in schools out of school hours are also affected. I believe that this point about community use of schools in out-of-school hours is undoubtedly important because it is something that is very much on the increase. Indeed, a couple of days ago I was talking to someone here who is very well informed in the educational field and he said that he saw the time coming when schools would be built with a view to fulltime use by the community outside school hours and during the holidays and that, for example, the school library might well double as the public library, and so on. If schools are built inaccessibly, disabled members of the community will effectively be debarred from many activities and facilities intended to he available to everyone in the locality.
With the inclusion of Clause 4—and this was the Amendment which was so expertly moved by my noble friend Lady Phillips in Committee—the balance was tilted in favour of disabled children attending ordinary schools so that it is now more important still that new schools should be accessible. I see that the Government want to remove Clause 4 and substitute an Amendment of their own. Again. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for her letter and a copy of the Amendment. I am not quite clear on one or two points in the Amendment, but we shall doubtless come to this later on. However, I think that the balance will still be in favour of ordinary schools.
The Department of Education and Science booklet from which I quoted earlier quotes the Plowden Report in its introduction, referring to paragraph 845.
804
The quotation, which appears on page 2, reads:
"The good primary school is not only right for the normal but right for the handicapped, for their fundamental educational needs are similar though there may be differences in the way that they are satisfied."
However, turning to page 22, I came to a paragraph that alarmed me quite considerably. I am sorry to quote so much, but, if I may, I shall read this too:
"The placement of physically handicapped children in ordinary schools varies with the phase of education concerned. Placement may prove easier in nursery and infant schools on account of the nature of their premises and their organisation. Many junior schools are single-storey buildings with reasonable access and facilities, and a knowledgeable and understanding teacher in charge of a class can get to know the handicapped child and help him to make good progress. For many children the difficulties increase at secondary level where the buildings are often more difficult of access and where pupils are required to move from place to place according to the dictates of a specialist timetable. The assimilation of handicapped children into the ordinary school may therefore not be a once for all decision and may be dependent on continuing review and may be more appropriate at one phase rather than at another."
Can we really countenance this, my Lords? Can we really consider giving our disabled primary school children the same educational opportunities as their able-bodied contemporaries, encouraging them to learn together, to play together, to laugh and to fight together and to begin to grow up together and then, just as they are approaching maturity, separate them from their able-bodied friends and segregate them in special schools—and all this for to better reason than that the bricks and mortar are not right?
As the Amendment applies only to new buildings, very little extra cost would be involved. It would prevent vast subsequent expenditure on alterations. I hope that the noble Baroness looks kindly on this Amendment. I know that she is with us in spirit because at the Committee stage she said that she whole-heartedly agreed with the intention to see that the needs of the handicapped were fully taken into account in all kinds of buildings, not only schools. Alas!it can only be schools today because we are trying to keep within the scope of the Bill. We have bent over backwards to make the Amendment as acceptable as possible. I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I shall be brief because the argument has been put so succinctly, so logically and almost irrefutably, and I hope the Minister will accept what is proposed. I cannot in my own heart go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment, but I would not vote against it; I would abstain. Having had practical experience at various times in my career in schools, I see the necessity of what is sought here. In a well-informed Chamber like this it is not necessary for me to make an argument for about 30 minutes because I think it is almost axiomatic. Consequently, with those brief words of comfort and succour to the noble Baroness who has spoken so eloquently I will sit down, assuring her that I cannot go into the Lobby against her, but if it goes to the vote I will have to abstain.
1.31 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I wish to support what the noble Baroness, Lady D'Arcy de Knayth, has said. One knows a certain amount about the problems not only of pupils who are physically disabled but also of teachers, and the noble Baroness has most adequately expressed the problems which exist. But I should like, very briefly, to highlight one or two of the difficulties. Children are not always kind to other children who are disabled. With the best will in the world teachers are not always completely understanding of those who are physically disabled. Therefore it is vitally important that new school buildings should be designed in such a way as to make it as easy as possible for those who arc physically disabled, not only teachers but children, to operate in those buildings.
For instance, the blind must have continuous rails right around the school building. The deaf must have ear plugs and visual aids. All doors must be wide enough for wheelchairs and there must be ramps provided. Children with crutches—and one knows so well how extremely important this is—must have non slip floors. I hate to say this, but some times the local education authorities are not as wise as perhaps they should be on the problems of the handicapped. I have had experience of this matter and I should like to say that I have full confidence at this time in the new Secretary of State. I know that she has a wide knowledge, she has great humanity; sometimes she
806
will go against the advice that others might give her because she is a lady of great independence of thought and mind and character. I am hoping that she will take very much into consideration all that is said today on this Admendment, which I support.
1.33 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, we on this side of the House will strongly support the noble Baroness who has just spoken; the right honourable lady the Secretary of State is a woman of immense humanity and I am sure that she, and the noble Baroness who is to reply, will 'agree with us that all new schools must be accessible to and convenient for the use of all categories of disabled persons, including the wheelchair-bound. those who are ambulant disabled, the deaf people and those hard of hearing, the blind people and those with limited vision. Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and 'Disabled Persons Act 1970 imposes a duty on any person undertaking the provision of a school, university college, hall of residence, teacher training college or educational establishment to make proper provision for a disabled person,
"in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable …"
But in fact this proviso has allowed far too many buildings to be designed and built since 1970 without adequate provision for the disabled person. So the reason why the noble Baroness has moved the Amendment is to try to close this loophole with respect to school buildings.
We believe that the Amendment would make the implementation of Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 much more feasible. It is different from the Amendment moved in Committee, because we accept wholly the arguments which were argued by my noble friend the Minister in her reply—that it is quite wrong to use the planning permission procedures for this. But we are perfectly aware that the Department of the Environment encourages the local planning authorities to be aware of their obligations to the disabled when people are submitting planning applications. We also think that an Amendment which would be tied to the building regulations—which was suggested by a number of people—would be mistaken because this

807
Bill is concerned only with education, and it is for this reason that we have tied this Amendment to education, to schools. We think that the obligation ought to be laid on the authorities who are proposing the building, of new schools and colleges to show why they cannot make the buildings accessible to disabled people.
The reason why we think that these schools and colleges should be made accessible to disabled people is very clear. Miss Margaret Jackson, a very distinguished Member of Parliament and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the DES, has recently said that the Department's view has long been that no handicapped child should attend a special school if his needs can be met by an ordinary school. As the noble Baroness said in moving the Amendment, why on earth, if the school teachers and the psychologists and other experts think that a child should attend an ordinary school, should it be prevented from doing so because of bricks and mortar? It is no more expensive to build a ramp than it is to build steps and so on. Too many disabled children are forced to attend special schools merely because the physical structure of ordinary schools prevents their entering those schools and enjoying their education alongside their non-disabled friends who may live in the same street.
Surely nobody could want the bricks and mortar of a newly-built building to force disabled children to attend special schools and so suffer all the social and emotional handicaps of segregated education. We feel very much that this kind of Amendment is enormously important for the broader social purposes which I think are agreed by everybody on all sides of the House as being absolutely essential. We also feel that a casual inspection of the local schools in anybody's neighbourhood should convince anybody that even recently built schools lack adequate provisions for all categories of disabled people. I know, for example, that the noble Baroness is now taking A level mathematics at her local college of further education. She is too shy to say this. She has to go up in the goods lift there because, although the college is newly built, it has not adequate access for people in wheel-chairs. That is not acceptable these days.
808
It does not cost any more to construct buildings which are convenient. The National Theatre, for example, is perfectly accessible to people who are handicapped in all kinds of ways. Why on earth should school buildings not be built with this in mind? We believe very strongly that this country should follow very much the example of Sweden. A report on what the Swedes have done shows that the Swedish Board of Urban Planning has made regulations similar to those in the 1970 Act, and they have ensured that in each area of Sweden—the schools there are organised in areas—at least one school, if there is more than one storey, has a lift which is wide enough for wheel-chairs and has ramps, special toilets and doorways without thresholds. If the Swedes can do it, I really do not see why this country, which is a much more important and distinguished country, cannot do it.
It really is much cheaper to make all new buildings accessible to and convenient for the use of disabled people now rather than have to say at a later stage that all the buildings have to be converted. I know that the heart of the noble Baroness is absolutely with us in this matter, and I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is a really remarkable woman and very loyal to all good causes, and so I am absolutely convinced that the Amendment will be acceptable to her, and I feel that we ought to hope for the best.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady D'Arcy de Knayth, in her Amendment which seeks to provide access for disabled where this is possible in any new school to be built in the future. Any school so built with ramps and everything essential to a physically disabled child also allows disabled teachers access to the schools. It would enable the disabled teacher to teach able-bodied children. Should any of these children be unfortunate enough to become disabled later in life they could then have an example before them of what can be achieved. Other disabled professional or administrative persons would also be able to obtain work in these schools. If the buildings are built with access for the disabled it would save money in the end,

809
as it is cheaper to build schools with these facilities than to have to adapt them later.
My Lords, as we have Acts of Parliament to end discrimination of all kinds, surely it is time we ceased to discriminate against those physically less able to fend for themselves. I support this Amendment.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, in supporting this Amendment to the Bill, I should like to say a few words to your Lordships as I have been unable to speak on this most important subject until today. I have on several occasions visited schools for physically disabled children, and have found the most dedicated and wonderful staff doing their best in small schools catering for children from 5 to 17 years old. I have been dismayed to see what inadequate libraries these schools have, with short working hours. Because the schools are so small, the choice of subjects and the standard of work is very limited. I am sure that these schools benefit some children, but others are being deprived of a wide, comprehensive education which, if they had the opportunity, would better equip disabled children to take their place in the community.
I have had the pleasure of visiting Holt Park School in Leeds. This is a new comprehensive school with full access for children who use wheelchairs. There is a wonderful community library in the campus of the school, and disabled children from all over the city can benefit from this school. Leeds should be congratulated on this excellent achievement. Among others, St. Joseph's Secondary School at Laverstock, near Salisbury, have five disabled children who are helped by the other children to overcome the steps, as this school has three floors and no lift. Where there is a will, my Lords, there is a way, but some head teachers are not even ready to contemplate accepting a disabled child into their school, even if the facilities are adequate. I have personally been involved in a few cases, and I know this to be so. One wheelchair child had been to an ordinary primary school, and when the time came for her secondary education the authority concerned wanted to send her away to board. The parents refused, and she remained
810
in the primary school for well over an extra year.
At a holiday camp for disabled people, we used borstal boys as helpers. After living together for a week, one boy from borstal said to me, after the holiday was over: "I used to take 'the mickey' out of disabled people. I now understand them, and I will never do it again". If able bodied children do not associate with handicapped children, they grow up as segregated groups fearing each other. I know some of your Lordships this week saw the film on television about the Gateway School, and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Wotton, like myself, was impressed. This Amendment can only help encourage more people to be aware that easy access benefits in so many ways. Children and parents, where possible, should have the opportunity of choice, and disabled teachers should have the opportunity to work. Knowing personally some of the humane associations which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has worked for, because I have also worked for them, I cannot imagine that the noble Lord can do anything but accept this Amendment if he is truly genuine.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, I cannot imagine any Member of your Lordships' House who would be otherwise than in support of the Amendment's purpose and intention. I would ask the Minister whether in fact this is the appropriate way to deal with it. I am wondering merely whether this is something to be put in the Bill, as is suggested, or to be embodied in building regulations in very much more detail than the Amendment suggests. It seems to me that what is necessary here—and I cannot imagine any local authority opposing it—is a clear specification of what would be required. It really is not enough just to say, "Provide for handicapped children"; it has to be very much more specific. It has to make it quite clear what is necessary. By all means mention ramps for wheelchairs or lifts and rails for blind children, and so on, but they must be embodied in a set of regulations which would be complied I with by the local authorities. So I merely ask the Minister whether an Amendment is the right procedure or whether he can give an assurance that

811
the necessary detailed provisions will be embodied in building regulations.
1.45 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I was waiting hopefully for the Minister to intervene, bearing in mind that, as this is Report stage, we can speak only once, However, I shall have to resort to the favourite trick of, "Before the Minister sits down", or some other method. We have heard this morning about the generosity and compassion of the Ministers who sit on this Front Bench, and of the right honourable lady who is now dealing with education. I think it is reasonable to say (to use a horrible paraphrase) that if, perhaps, some people would put their pens where their hearts are we might get something done. It is not enough merely to sympathise; we have to take practical action.
I was very interested in the intervention of the noble Lord who has just spoken, because I feel sure that the argument which will be deployed by the Front Bench is that this Amendment should be tied either to another Act of Parliament or to a building regulation. One is tempted to ask why these building regulations are not already in being, bearing in mind that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was passed in 1970. Equally, I have been long enough on the Parliamentary scene to know that there is no great objection to having a particular principle embodied in more than one Act of Parliament. At least one is certain that it will be carried out. We have no certainty that we are to have any Bill concerned with the environment in the immediate future.
This little booklet, while excellent in its own way, is merely, so far as I can see, for the purpose of bringing about public discussion. That is very useful, but at this point of time we want action. I have had the privilege of being part of the Working Party for Integrating the Disabled, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, which presented its magnificent report this week. Here is an opportunity to put into operation one of the many recommendations of this report. I know that it will be very slow in being finally implemented, but this is a golden opportunity. While
812
we know that one local authority is actually doing this, we do not know how many other local authorities are doing it.
In taking part in the investigations of the Working Party, I have myself seen how reasonably a building can be adapted. It does not in any way inconvenience the able-bodied. If you have rails round the walls, this does not make any difference to those who do not need them, but it makes a great deal of difference to those who do. If you have ramps or lifts, these can be used equally by the able-bodied and the disabled. I therefore hope that we are not going to hear any more about the cost of this. The thing that came through to me loud and clear during the time I went round investigating public building and housing is that this need not be a costly operation, though we know that any operation can be made costly if you have not got the goodwill to put it into effect.
The Minister may also say that this is the wrong kind of Bill in which to include it. One has to anticipate all the arguments. Having had the privilege of sitting on the Front Bench, I have been both poacher and gamekeeper, and that does help in these situations. If we are going to hear advanced the argument that this is the wrong Bill in which to include this, may I suggest that it is possibly the wrong Bill in which to put a clause about school milk, which seems to be quite as irrelevant an argument, if you are going to use it, as that of the building. I therefore plead with the sympathetic, kind and compassionate Ministers for once to recognise that to sympathise is not enough.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, in support of the Amendment may I make a plea for the handicapped parents? Children who are not handicapped like their parents to come on speech days and open days and take part in that. Those parents also cannot come unless the schools are adapted.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, let me say at the outset that Her Majesty's Government fully share and support the intention of the Amendment that those persons who provide educational facilities should fully and effectively meet the responsibilities which are laid on them by Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and

813
Disabled Persons Act. Many people spoke this morning, and I am sure that all Members of the House accept the need of what is the policy of the Department of Education and Science, that the able-bodied and the disabled should be integrated throughout the whole of their life and not just for a very short time.
From my own association with our local physically handicapped and able-bodied youth club, I can confirm what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has said about the advantage it is to the able-bodied people when they work with the disabled. I know the tremendous impression that helping the disabled has made on them. I am sure that all Members of the House will share and be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, in what she said about the support which we all hope we are going to get from our new Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, referred to the problems of allying this Amendment with the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act and with the building regulations; and we had a lot of discussion on this at Committee stage. We have to remember that we must live at the moment with the buildings which we have. The pamphlet to which the noble Baroness, Lady D'Arcy de Knayth, referred encourages local education authorities to try to improve those facilities which they have and build them up to standard. The advice which is given in the booklet referred to by the noble Baroness indicates the care that the Department's officials and HMI give to the needs of handicapped children. They are encouraged and asked to give this care by the Department as part of our policy of education of children in ordinary schools and not separating them into special schools unless there is an absolute necessity that they have specialisation.
The right place to do it, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said, is not in the way suggested to us today. The noble Lord queried whether this was the right way in which to try to do what we all want to do. The right place in legislation to deal with this is in the Standards for School Premises Regulations 1972 and the Further Education Regulations 1975 and the guidance which the Department sends out with those regulations.
814
I know that the noble Baroness feels strongly about this Amendment but I am prepared to give an undertaking that the Secretary of State will set in hand amendment of these regulations specifically to include reference to the provisions now embodied in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; that she will, in co-operation with the authorities, ensure that any specification and plans of educational premises that they submit for approval shall indicate what provision is being made for the needs of disabled persons using the premises; and that she will be prepared to issue design guidance on these matters. This would secure, as I understand it, the intention of both the first part of the noble Baroness's Amendment and, through the relationship of these regulations to the provisions of Section 10 of the Education Act, of the second part.
It would do so in a much more appropriate manner, relating this to other cognate aspects of design. It would provide a natural opportunity for consultation with the local authority, with teacher and with other interests who may be affected by this work. We feel that it would be less prejudicial to desirable longer-term developments in the relations between central and local government.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, why does one have to have one or the other? Why not have the clause in the Bill and also the action that is now being suggested?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in the Department we feel that the best way to do this is not by writing it into the Act but by regulations, by having advice between the local authorities and central Government, and by the education authorities through our HMIs when they submit their plans. We can then put a lot of pressure on them in the initial stages and give encouragement to them to alter existing buildings.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, would the noble Baroness permit me to ask this question. Does she think that what she proposes is likely to be more effective than the Amendment that we propose? If so, I think that that is very important. We should be grateful to her and to her right honourable friend the Secretary of

815
State if she could spell it out for those of us who are not experienced in these matters.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her what happens if another Government come in? They may not be quite so keen. Would it not be better to have it written in the Bill?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, far be it from me to suggest that the present Government should be kept in Office for years and years! But I am sure that a Secretary of State for Education from either side of the House would have the needs of the disabled in mind. I cannot see any future Secretary of State suddenly dropping this practice, if it has been established. We are advised that this is a more effective way of achieving what the noble Baroness and the House want than the Amendment which is before us now.
I cannot promise that the guidance that the Secretary of State will give will preclude the possibility of an authority having to make some selective provision for access where it would be unreasonably costly or impracticable to do otherwise; but we should be prepared very quickly to notify the authorities of the Department's intentions and to develop with the interested parties a much more precise view of those design features which should be incorporated into all new educational buildings.
I hope that, since the Government are sympathetic and fully in accord with what the Amendment wants, that the noble Baroness will accept our advice that this is a much more effective way of doing it, will do it more quickly and will be able to keep a much closer eye on it. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness DARCY DE KNAYTH: My Lords, the noble Baroness says she is speaking of something which will be done quickly. In the copy sent me of the letter that she sent to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, she said that this is not to say that the Department are unwilling to consider what use they should make of the regulation-making powers in the interests of disabled people but they cannot promise in present circumstances
816
to be able to give it high priority. Is the noble Baroness now prepared to see that things will be speeded up a little since her letter?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are prepared to advise the local authorities right away of what our intentions are, and we are prepared to go ahead with amending our regulations on Standards for School Premises (1972) and Further Education Regulations (1975). However, in the present financial situation we should not be able to support any suggestions that involved undue expense at this point of time.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, may we thank the noble Baroness warmly and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State. This is a tremendously important concession and we are grateful for it.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, may I draw attention to a very important point? What the noble Baroness has given us an assurance on goes beyond the Amendment, which relates only to schools. It is no less important in establishments of further education. It may be more important. As I understand it, both sets of regulations would he amended.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, if I may venture the opinion, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady D'Arcy de Knayth, ought to accept the undertaking which has been given. My impression from listening to what has been said is that she has won a triple victory. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has undertaken that immediate advice would be sent out. This means, to say the least, that the Government mean what they say in expressing sympathy with the point of view expressed in Committee and today.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has pointed out, the undertaking given will go further than the noble Baroness's Amendment. The FE regulations will be amended in addition to the schools regulations. Thirdly, I am convinced—and I was advised of such before this stage of the Bill started by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, with all his experience—that the amendment of the Regulations will be a more thorough job than the writing of it into

817
the Bill. The regulations, as printed in the Law of Education run to over 12 pages. They cover every conceivable sort of matter to do with school buildings. This is going to be a much more thorough job. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady D'Arcy de Knayth, will feel that it has been most worth while to put down the Amendment again in the different form that she has chosen and will be able to accept the undertaking that the Government have given.
Baroness D'ARCY DE KNAYTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, and feel it has been worth while putting down the Amendment. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords for their fantastic support and for the way they have taken this issue by the throat and threshed it out. As we have the promise of the noble Baroness that this is going to happen very soon and it will be mandatory, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2 p.m.
Clause 4 [Amendment of Education Act 1944]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN: moved Amendment No. 11:
Leave out Clause 4.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Amendment which on behalf of my noble friend I now move on behalf of the Government stems from our proceedings in Committee on 7th October, when the Amendment then moved by the noble Baroness, Lady D'Arcy de Knayth, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, was agreed to and included in the Bill as a new Clause 4.1 should also like to speak now to Amendment No. 19. The intention of Clause 4 is to reverse the preference, presently in Section 33(2) of the Education Act 1944, for special education to be provided in special schools rather than in ordinary primary and secondary schools.
For reasons I went into at some length in Committee, the Government would have preferred not to alter Section 33(2) at the present time, but to continue to encourage developments in the direction which they are in practice and with broad consent now taking. This would allow
818
opportunity for a more thorough review of the pattern of future provision, in the light of the Warnock Committee's report, without in any way arresting further advance meantime.
The Government are however sensible of the strong feeling of noble Lords who supported the inclusion of Clause 4, and they acknowledge that the questions at issue are ones of logistics and timing, not of principle. For this reason they So not set themselves against a restatement of of Section 33(2) along the lines of Clause 4, provided that ways can be found of mitigating the practical and other difficulties to which I referred at Committee stage.
Accordingly, the Government propose the alternative Amendment No. 19, standing in the name of my noble friend in the form of a new clause after Clause 10; it embodies the intentions of Clause 4 while meeting the Government's reservations. I should also mention that Clause 4, as drafted, would not do duty in its present form, for reasons which I hope will be clear as I proceed.
Subsection (1) contains the proposed replacement of Section 33(2). The first part, paragraph (2), lays down the basic requirement that special educational treatment is to be provided in county and voluntary schools. The words "county and voluntary schools" are the appropriate legal description of what were described as "ordinary schools maintained by local education authorities" mentioned in Clause 4. Noble Lords will also notice that the basic requirement is stated more emphatically than in Clause 4 and avoids the awkward proposition that authorities' arrangements rather than the authorities themselves should have regard to the general principle.
The second part of the proposed new Section 33(2) sets out, as exceptions to the basic requirement, the circumstances in which provision may be made in special schools or in schools not maintained by a local education authority. The three exceptional sets of circumstances are important and necessary. The sponsors of Clause 4 recognised that it will not always be practicable to accommodate handicapped children in county and voluntary schools. Obvious examples are when a child requires boarding education or where an ordinary school cannot

819
provide appropriate specialist teaching. The reference to efficient instruction in the schools is designed to safeguard the educational interests of all the pupils in a school, both those who are handicapped and those who are not. Clearly, any arrangement that is made must be compatible with the well being of all children who attend the school. I have in mind particularly the problem of educating severely maladjusted children in ordinary schools without very special provision for their needs. The third exception is where integration could be achieved only at unreasonable cost, a qualification which has particular weight in the present financial position. I recommend these inbuilt safeguards to noble Lords as indispensible in the context of a general requirement to reverse the present statutory priorities. I would add that the Secretary of State's power in Section 33(2) to control the use of schools not maintained by a local education authority is retained. The new wording replaces the old wording in Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1953.
Finally, there is provision for the revised Section 33(2) to come into force on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State. May I hasten to say that this is not a prescription for delay. It simply allows my right honourable friend time to consult the local education authorities and others upon whom the success of the new arrangement will depend. recommend the Amendment to noble Lords as substantially fulfilling the intentions of the present Clause 4 while meeting the Government's serious concern that its implementation should take an orderly course, following a proper process of consultation. I beg to move.
2.6 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for moving this Amendment. The Amendments to which she has referred manifestly meet the wishes of your Lordships expressed at the Committee stage, and they have gone further than the Amendment accepted by the noble Baroness on that occasion. She has removed the one subsection that those with suspicious minds had doubts about, namely, subsection (3). This subsection will come into operation only on a day on which my right honourable friend the Secretary
820
of State makes a Statutory Instrument. I have infinite faith in my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, but am terrified she may be moved on to an even higher office than she now occupies before she is able to make the Statutory Instrument.
From the assurance of my noble friend that this is purely for consultation with the local authority associations, clearly it is the intention of the Government to fulfil the wishes of your Lordships. I am perfectly clear that this is one of the Amendments moved in your Lordship's House which will be acceptable to the other place. That is a most important point. We think that this is a tremendously important day for education. This is a tremendously important day for the integration of the handicapped and able bodied children in our schools. It reverses the long tradition embodied in the 1944 Act which the Department has reversed, as it were, casually and by gradual process. It is now going to be on the Statute Book and it is a day for rejoicing. I am sure that my noble friends in this House wish me to thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and also my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, for taking these arguments so seriously. I should be delighted to accept these Amendments.
2.8 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am very interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey; I should hate him to think that I am not as starry-eyed as he is. While thanking the noble Baroness and everybody else concerned for doing this, I have one or two small points to raise, purely of procedure. It' we eliminate Clause 4 and then we do not get the following clause, we are left in a strange position: we have lost what we have and gained nothing else. Far be it from me to suggest that the Opposition would vote against the Government; this is something we would not except, particularly in a Bill of this character. But there is just a possibility that they might. It seems to me that we have no guarantees that if we remove what we already have we shall get Clause 10. I do not think even the noble Baroness can promise us that.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I just intervene to assure the noble Baroness that we shall not be voting against this. As it is a Friday and we are beginning to run short of time, I shall not go into the reasons.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, it is indeed a day of rejoicing; and perhaps it is our turn to prolong matters. There are several ways of playing this one. The noble Baroness seems to suggest that the original Clause 4 referred to the arrangements made by the local education authority and that this was not perhaps the best way to do it. Since we took the original Amendment out of the original Education Act, I assume the Department has now decided that the Act did not do the thing correctly and so there has to be an Amendment. I hope my assumption is correct.
I should like to comment also on Amendment No. 19. There we have the words:
"Where the education of the pupils in such schools … would involve unreasonable public expenditure."
Why is this not in any other clause? Why does it not include the major change? Let us not balk at it: it is a major change when comprehensive education is introduced. Why do we not have this phrase put in there? We all know that a local authority wishing to drag its heels will call in aid that kind of wording. Who is to decide when public expenditure is too great? Undoubtedly I think it will be said at this moment that it would be wrong to undertake public expenditure; but in my lifetime education has always been the one thing that is cut first. Governments of all colours go first for education, I am sorry to say. I cannot remember a time when one could have stood up and said, "This is the right time to spend public money". There will always be a reason why it is the wrong time, and so I find this a very unfortunate clause in the new Amendment, and I should like to have an explanation of why it only appears here.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the rest of the Bill is governed by the instructions that the plans and other things which are submitted to the Secretary of State concerning the principle of comprehensive education will be established as
822
resources are available. So in that sense we have the same sort of provision that when the money is available we will do it. It is not written into the Bill, I agree; but that is the intention on the resources element. We are not going to say that on day X one month hence every school shall go comprehensive. We accept that there is a need to wait until the resources and the buildings are available. In the light of the fact that we are spending something like £6,000 million per year on education, I think that perhaps the noble Baroness is being a little unfair to say that it is as nothing. I share her worries, having had 28 years of membership of a local education authority, and I know that every time we had a stop-go policy and were in a "stop" period education was the first to go. However, I m sure the noble Baroness that this clause is intended to work and that the ultimate appeal would be to the local education authorities and the Secretary of State.
2.14 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Provision of information by local education authorities about local schools
. The Secretary of State shall, within two years of the passing of this Act and after consulting such persons as he shall deem to be representative of the interests of local education authorities, of parents and of governors, make regulations specifying the information which local education authorities shall publish about the schools in their area and the means by which and the time within which such information shall be made available to the parents of children to whom places at such schools may be allocated and to such other persons as he may direct.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the previous stage of this Bill on Amendment No. 56, we had a debate in which it was quite clear from the interventions of my noble friends that they believed that there is widespread public anxiety over the performance of our educational system at the present time. The idea of involvement of parents in the criticism of the direction of our educational system being obtained by the publication to them of specific information about what is going on met with considerable enthusiasm from the Front Bench, and it was at first

823
almost disconcerting. But a great deal of water has flowed under Westminster Bridge and, more particularly, under Magdalen Bridge since then, and we can see now there their sentiments lie.
In that Amendment I suggested to your Lordships that the Bill should lay down detailed, numerous and specific particulars about each school. The Government were of the opinion that such specific legislation was out of date and that it should be more general. The new Amendment answers this criticism. At one stage the noble Lord on behalf of the Government was talking about the possibility of issuing a circular encouraging local education authorities to publish the minimum information about their schools. In the interim we have reflected upon this and upon the different views which our different Parties share about the force of circulars issued by the Department.
Your Lordships may recall that this Government set out on a course under Circular 4/74 which they later found had to be pursued by legislation. Although they eventually had to achieve this savage and ill-timed reform by other means, I am not sure that they yet accept that a circular does not have the force of law. That force emanates from this Chamber and from another place and is sanctioned by the Crown. It does not spring from the pen of any Secretary of State and therefore I am not convinced that a circular which can be evaded or ignored is quite up to the work we have in mind for it. What we want to do is to establish as universal practice by all local authorities what is now merely good practice by some authorities. We wish there to be clearly enumerated and readily available heads of information for every maintained school. We wish it to be put into the hands of those who ought to have it; that is, the parents involved. We wish it to be readily available also to those who may need it, including, as my noble friend Lady Vickers pointed out, expatriate parents and parents on long overseas postings of children of British nationality whose home is, and whose education ought to be, established in this country. We wish this information to be available in sufficient detail to ensure that it is effective in informing both original choice and continuing interest in the management of schools. We wish it to be available in
824
sufficient quantity to make sure that it is always readily to hand to those who need it, and we wish it to be sufficiently current as to be always up to date.
We accept the point made at Committee stage by the Government that such a requirement can best be fulfilled after consultation with the local education authorities. Noble Lords opposite have already made it clear that consultation is a briefer process than we had supposed it to be. In fact they suggested that to reorganise an entire county on comprehensive lines need take no more than six to 12 months. It is therefore scarcely unreasonable to expect a decision on this infinitely smaller and less complex matter to be taken in two years. When it is taken it should have the force of law, and the Amendment empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for the publication of information about schools by local education authorities within two years of the passing of the Act, and to use the intervening period to consult with local education authorities, parents and governors on what form the regulations can best take. It seems to me that what we have is a reasonable embodiment of what all of us on both sides of this House, in common with the Secretary of State, wish to see achieved—a statutory requirement, but not one spelled out in excessive detail or rushed through with excessive haste and without consultation. It has the added attraction that an Amendment differently drawn but with a similar intention failed only by a single vote in another place to reach the Bill. It is difficult to see how, in such circumstances and in the light of the Minister's known predisposition in favour of broadly similar proceedings, the noble Lord can resist this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, a couple of times at Committee stage I voted with the Opposition because their Amendments were in line with the Labour Party's National Executive policy in 1976 concerning the greater interest taken by parents in the education of their children. Therefore it might seem on this particular Amendment that I should speak in his support. Quite frankly, I think that this Amendment, which purports to give greater information to parents, is too rigid.
It seems to me that the trend in the local authority world and in the teaching

825
unions—which is far more important than what the local authorities insist upon, because it is the head teachers and others who are concerned—is very much towards giving more information about the way schools are run, and getting the active participation of parents in controlling and running them. If this were written into the Statute, it is very unlikely that the specific information required by the Secretary of State would necessarily accord with the detailed information required by individual parents. In other words, I believe that the right thing to do, in this instance, is to press local authorities and teachers to give even more information than the noble Lord suggested. Therefore, on mature reflection, I am opposed to this Amendment because, on the whole, it would in this respect have a restrictive rather than a liberating effect.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I should like to say one word from a different point of view, and perhaps to highlight something that has not been raised before. It dates from the time when I was a vice-chairman of the education committee for West Sussex for six years, and I naturally came into very close contact with the teaching profession as well as with the parents of children. It always seemed to me very sad in those days—which was quite a long time ago, but I am not sure that the situation has altered so very much—that the position of a teacher is peculiar. Teachers are always looked upon by the general public just as teachers; as something peculiar and perhaps, in some ways, different. On the other hand, teachers have what I would almost call a chip on their shoulders, because they feel that they are unacceptable in some way. This worried me very much and it seems to me that this Amendment would help improve communications between teachers and parents, or the general public. They would get to know each other better, they would appreciate each other better and there would he a much easier social intercourse between the two parties. This is a very important matter, which would enormously help the general educational outlook, and that is why I support this Amendment very fully.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Elton. It is very important,
826
for one reason more than others, for information to be given to the public and all those interested about all the schools in an area. If information on the standard is given to the public in a pamphlet, it is vitally necessary that that standard should be kept up. As we know so well, standards in schools have recently dropped and I feel that if information could be laid down by the local education authority, so that everybody could see the standard to which local schools adhered, it would be in the interests of everybody. I also feel, as regards the Amendment which we discussed earlier, that if a parent had a blind child the information given in such a pamphlet would for example tell the parent whether there were rails at that school. This Amendment is very important, and I support it.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, presumably the Citizens' Advice Bureaux would get all the information, because over the the years they have gained a very strong position in the community. Very often people may be a little apprehensive about discussing matters with local authorities, and they naturally go to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux because they have now become the friends of the people. Therefore, I think that they want to be given every opportunity to co-operate with local authorities, and all the necessary information should be in their hands.
2.26 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I think there is no difference between us about ends, and there is simply some difference about means. In our last discussion, the noble Lord introduced an Amendment to insert into the Bill a detailed list of items of information which would statutorily be obliged to be listed by local education authorities. I suggested—and I think there was a good deal of similar f'eeling in the House—that such a detailed prescription would he out of place in an Act of Parliament. This really is the only difference between us. Education authorities must issue information about schools, and I think that the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Ward, that this should always be done with the co-operation of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux is an extremely good one.

827
There is no hesitation on the part of my right honourable friend about the desirability of information being available. Her hesitation concerns whether this is a suitable instruction, in all its details, to be contained in an Act of Parliament. We think it would be equally out of place in Statutory regulations and, bearing in mind that different information will be wanted by different parents, about different schools, in different places, it is surely much better that local education authorities should be left with a broad measure of discretion within guidelines set by the Secretary of State. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that the guidelines should include such things as rails for the blind. This is the kind of information which guidelines should include. But as I told the House last time I spoke on this subject in Committee, my right honourable friend intends to consider what guidance can best be given after consultation with all those concerned. Let us at least give that proposal a fair trial. If guidance given by way of circular, or whatever other means may be seen appropriate to the Secretary of State, turns out to be ineffective, then perhaps Statutory Regulations could he considered.
The Secretary of State already has power under Section 5(2) of the Local Government Act 1974 to make regulations in relation to such a matter; if necessary, she will consider using that power to make regulations requiring local education authorities to make available to parents specified information about their schools. But she would not wish to do this without first seeing what can be done on a much more flexible basis by non-statutory guidance. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press this Amendment. As I have indicated, it is unnecessary because it gives the Secretary of State no power that she does not already have, and it is inappropriate that legal regulations should be applied to a matter like this, unless all other means have failed. So I hope that the noble Lord can be persuaded not to press this Amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I think that the House would be well advised to accept the concessions given by the Minister. It seems to me that we are progressing quite a lot faster
828
and more amicably, possibly because the Secretary of State herself has now had time to become seized of the Bill, and we are moving quite a long way in the right direction. I do not think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, when he says that this is more a matter for the teachers; I believe that this is definitely one of those areas where it is very much for the local education authority to give details of all the options open in the area for which it is responsible. What the Minister has said about what the Secretary of State is prepared to do in this situation is perfectly fair and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will feel that he does not have to press the Amendment.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, at the outset of this brief debate the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, categorised the procedure laid down in the Amendment as too rigid, although it sets down nothing but a time limit. His argument was that the trend among teachers is already towards closer co-operation with parents and one is very glad to be assured that it is, although one is less assured by Press reports of "sink" schools which from time to time come to the surface and which will be one of the targets of this particular and small reform. The noble Lord said that the information might not be that which the parents required and I would point out both to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that there is nothing restrictive in the requirements or the regulations: they can be as flexible or detailed as necessary. But they do not say what shall not be published; they say only what shall be published. That is the requirement which is laid on the Secretary of State.
My noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley, with considerable experience, has pointed out that where teachers are in favour of closer communication there is much to be said for formalising this and therefore giving them an excuse, which one often wants, for doing what they already want to do. As my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve has said, there is much to be said for schools publicly undertaking to do something in print and then within 12 months being subject to the scrutiny of the general public and the parents as to whether or not they have succeeded in doing it. Again I say to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of

829
Kingsbridge, that there is no ground for supposing that the regulations will be too detailed or, indeed, not detailed enough. That lies in the hands of the Minister. I suspect that the only difference between us is that the noble Lord thinks that a power is sufficient whereas we feel that a duty is necessary, and we are strengthened in this view by the considerable support that the idea received in another place.
Since he spoke last to the Amendment, may I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who has reservations about the Bill in view of the amicable climate which now happily prevails in this Chamber, to the fact that he has mentioned, as has the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, the parents and the teachers.
But what about the governors of the school who are in the last resort responsible for the school? They also just have a hand in saying what should be publicised and also in seeing that the targets set are met. Therefore, without any wish to dispel the balmy and agreeable atmosphere of this Chamber, in which we should always conduct our exchanges, I commend the Amendment to your Lordships.
2.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Faithfull, B,

Monk Bretton, L.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boothby, L.

Gainford, L.

Munster, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Glasgow, E.

Newall, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Greenway, L.

Northchurch, B.

Caithness, E.

Hacking, L.

Onslow, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hanworth, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hawke, L.

Sackville, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Just, L.

Cromartie, E.

Inchyra, L.

Sandford, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lauderdale, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

De Freyne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Stamp, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal

Eccles, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Suffield, L.

Effingham, E.

Melville, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Elles, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

Molson, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monck, V.

Wolverton, L.

Enniskillen, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Pannell, L.

Amherst, E.

Goodman, L.

Peddie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Phillips, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Beswick, L.

Hampton, L.

Platt, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Bowden, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brimelow, L.

Hunt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Vaizey, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wigoder, L.

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

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller]

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

2.41 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Committee of Inquiry
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an independent Committee of Inquiry into the operation and results of secondary schools having particular regard to—

(a) the experience so far gained of the effect of the size of schools upon the quality of education, the turnover of staff and the discipline within them; and

(b) the effect of classes of mixed ability on the quality of education.

(2) The said Committee of Inquiry shall lay the report of its findings before both Houses of Parliament within two years of the passing of this Act.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to secure that an independent inquiry shall be mounted into some of the aspects of secondary teaching and organisation which give the most grounds for concern to the widest section of those interested. This is a slight advance on the Amendment tabled by my noble friend and myself at Committee stage. The principal difference is not apparent in the drafting but arises from an offer which I made to noble Lords opposite and which they seemed anxious to accept. This consisted of the separation of the predecessor of this Amendment, which made the implementation of the whole of the Act conditional upon the results of such an inquiry having first been debated in both Houses of Parliament. Noble Lords opposite regarded this as a delaying tactic of no merit. The principal Amendment was itself very similar to this one. The difference between them is this: the earlier Amendment stipulated an inqury into nonselective schools only and it was represented to us that something wider was needed. We have accordingly extended it to embrace all secondary schools. Once the original Amendment had been separated from the delaying Amendment the noble Lord opposite became almost enthusiastic about the idea and, if I may quote him, he said:
"I would have absolutely no objection, and would certainly recommend to my Secretary of State that we bring in something in the form of your first Amendment. I see no objection to it at all. There may be difficulties; I do not know what they are. If you leave it to me to put this up to my Secretary of State and come back to you, irrespective of the other Amendment, I will be happy to do so."—[Official Report, 7/10/76; col.1614.]
My Lords, this is the occasion of that return. It is gratifying when the views that we express are accepted by those opposite and I think it would be churlish of me to say that I have been publicly voicing many of the opinions which I included in my speech at the earlier stage, in General Election campaigns since 1966. I shall therefore curtail and spare the noble Lord the discomfort of my self-congratulation.
At an earlier stage I spoke at length about the adverse effect of size upon the quality of education, upon the turnover of staff and upon the discipline in the schools. It is an effect which is subjectively apparent very soon after entering a school that has much over 1,000 children and which is increasingly apparent outside it from the results it has upon the pupils subject to it. But it is high time that the size factor was itself the subject of an inquiry and it was made abundantly plain at the Committee stage within this very Chamber that that inquiry must be—and be seen to be—independent. That is to say it cannot he mounted by something which is generally seen as being parti pris, as is the Government on this matter. The public would regard this as not giving them confidence in the result.
Provided the two essential areas of size and mixed-ability were included, the terms of the Amendment would be satisfied although the Government might wish to include other factors in their inquiry, as indeed I believe they should. Your Lordships will see that the inquiry is to be into the operation and results of secondary schools having particular regard to these two matters, but it does not preclude their having regard to others. I trust that this Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships in the terms upon which this acceptance was argued at an earlier stage. I think it should do so in the present financial climate, because we are aware that the campaign of reorganisation which this contentious little Bill advocates, and will precipitate, is going to be the cause of very considerable expenditure, however it is dressed up in the accounts. Her Majesty's Government have so far failed to quantify this amount and have said merely that it will be subsumed into other programmes. None the less whatever the programme, the money will be spent and we know there is precious little of it. In

833
the speech at Oxford—which I shall not tire of referring the noble Lord to—by his Prime Minister, the latter pointed out that the resources for educational expansion, and by inference of reorganisation, were not available and would not he for some time.
Your Lordships will see that we have been joined in our very reasonable demands by noble Lords who sit on the Liberal Benches. We had Cross-Bench support at the Report stage and something approaching support even from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, himself in the passage I have quoted. I am greatly tempted to argue the principal advantages of what we advocate once more, if not in as much detail then at least with as much force as was done at the Committee stage and it may in fact become apparent to me that I ought so to do. I have the right of reply in which I can do it, but 1 sense that it is your Lordships' wish no less than my own that we should proceed to discover what is the Government's attitude to the fairly narrow question which actually determines your Lordships' decision at an early stage. Therefore I will now merely say that I beg to move.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said and perhaps I might here quote back to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, from what he said in Committee on this Bill. He said:
"I think that education is a most mysterious subject and my own view is that very few people know anything about it at all."—[Official Report, 7/10/76; col.1611.]
This seems to me to be a somewhat sweeping statement and not a good basis on which to argue—if that is indeed what he is proposing to do—against the setting up of an independent committee of inquiry. On Tuesday of this week my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley put forward an Amendment that was happily accepted, as he said, on all four sides of the House. I should he very happy if, on this Amendment, there could again be general accord.
In strong contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I speak partly inhibited by the considerable experience of so many Members of your Lordships' House in the
834
various fields of education. I speak to this Amendment, as I see it, as a matter of common sense.1 understand there is uncertainty even in the Government's own views as to what size is the best for comprehensive schools, even allowing some scope for variation. I believe that, remarkably enough, they are even prepared to admit that mistakes may have been made. It is surely therefore not unreasonable to ask for this independent inquiry and I do not see why men and women of integrity in all Parties or no Party cannot agree to this.
Again there is considerable doubt and uncertainty about the value or otherwise of teaching mixed-ability classes. My noble friend Lord Beaumont earlier in the Report stage made the interesting suggestion that we need to know more about mixed ability teaching for older students. I really do ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to have the courage not to run away at the mere suggestion that something may be wrong.
A case could be made out that this Bill should in no way be enacted before a satisfactory report had been received from such a committee of inquiry as is here proposed. That would be highly controversial and for better or for worse is not here called for. What is here asked is, I suggest, outside Party politics. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will bear with me if I "Hansardise" him once more. At Second Reading col. 1602 he said:
"Education is an art, not a science so no proofs present themselves."
The noble Lord continued:
"We have to make up our minds on a survey of the facts as impartial as we can manage."—[Official Report, 29/7/76].
I humbly submit that that is just what this Amendment is about. It seeks to help all those who sincerely wish to promote in this country the best education for all.
This is not the place to argue tilt case for electoral reform but if we are, as has been said, to continue the present yo-yo of Party politics at least let us see that Labour, Conservative or Liberals an not lacking the courage to find out and then to face the facts free as far as possible from prejudice and preconceived ideas.
2.51 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSMy Lords, during Committee stage I undertook, among the other things I seem to have said, to discuss the substance of the noble Lord's Amendment with my Secretary of State. I said that I was quite sure regular monitoring with outside help was something of which she would approve and she has endorsed this whole-heartedly. In fact, a great deal is being done already. My further discussions with her also enable me to tell your Lordships of the new initiatives which she will be taking and I hope that these initiatives and the present studies which I shall be describing will meet the points which your Lordships have in mind in tabling this Amendment.
My Lords, the need for a Committee of Inquiry with somewhat different terms of reference, has been debated at length here and in the other place. The Government have argued against all such proposals as such and despite the changed terms of reference, noble Lords opposite have made in this latest Amendment to encompass all secondary schools, we shall again oppose the proposition as it stands.
It is not the case that we are opposed to inquiries into aspects of the education service nor that we do not wish for wide-ranging debate. Indeed we welcome it provided it is not based on blind prejudice or a nostalgic and often mistaken view of past practice. As I told your Lordships during Committee stage my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is very concerned about the quality of education, including the questions which noble Lords have in particular raised, size of schools, academic standards, staffing, turnover of staff, discipline and internal organisation. We recognise public concern about the new informal methods of teaching, employers' complaints about new recruits from schools being less well-equipped for the world of work than they expect. May I add also that we understand teachers' resentment at the uninformed attacks on their professional interest and judgment of educational needs.
I can do no better than repeat what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said—and I do not see why the
836
noble Lord, Lord Elton, should be the only one to quote him—only last week in Oxford, that
"where there is legitimate public concern it will be to the advantage of all involved in the education field if these concerns are aired and shortcomings righted or fears put at rest.…We must carry the teaching profession with us [but they] must satisfy the parents and industry that what [they] are doing meets their requirements and the needs of our children".
There are a number of things we need to do and have already in hand. Now as to some of the details.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate, a highly competent cadre of professionals within central Government, are intensifying their efforts to ensure that wide advantage is taken of good practice wherever it is developed. They are also engaged on qualitative surveys of the primary and of the secondary schools. With the former is associated some objective testing of standards on a limited front by the National Foundation for Education and Research; but the scale of application of testing will be very much enhanced, and the quality of the testing improved, as a result of the work of the Assessment and Performance Unit—to which we are giving the fullest backing. Another activity which contributes to the assessment of school performance is, of course, external examining: this is an important part of our educational system, and the Government has considered very carefully the proposals for change recently submitted by the Schools Council.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State accepts what noble Lords on all sides have said about the need to appraise the development of comprehensive schools. But it is not possible to make an objective comparison of comprehensive and selective systems because the two systems are not self-contained. Much of the work that we have in hand has been designed not to draw comparisons between selective and non-selective schools, but to investigate how comprehensive schools work and to help them to work better. I am gratified to see from the revised terms of reference for the Committee of Inquiry proposed by noble Lords opposite that they seem to have accepted the validity of these points and to see as we do comprehensive schools and their work as part of total provision for secondary education, and to recognise

837
their concern with the development of the whole child and not exclusively with academic achievement.
Noble Lords should know that we have decided very recently to finance an inquiry by the National Children's Bureau into the possibility of extending educational areas which they are investigating in a study, supported by the Department and by the DHSS, of various aspects of development of 16,000 children born in one week in 1958. This extension would include an analysis of the academic development of these children between the ages of 11 and 16 by reference to the kind of school they attended. We believe that using a longitudinal survey—by which I mean a study of the same group of children at successive stages in their development—will have a great advantage over any alternative method of comparing selective and non-selective schools, and will enable us to gain information beyond that of academic achievement, as suggested by examination results, including adjustment to and attitudes to school, career aspirations and expectations, A I level intentions and proposed further education studies. The National Children's Bureau project is potentially of great importance because it is a unique opportunity to consider the development of a nationwide sample of children which is as nearly perfect as it was possible to get, and to consider the children in it in some depth. The noble Viscount will be relieved to hear that, though paid for by the Department, it will be conducted independently of it. The studies to which I have referred are under-taken as part of the normal administrative process of monitoring educational policy.
Over and above this my right honourable friend has asked Her Majesty's Inspectors to conduct a thorough and objective review of the accumulated experience of comprehensive schools. This will cover not only size, organisation and so on, but also standards of all kinds, to which she attaches great importance throughout the educational system. With the same end in mind, she also intends to arrange next year a conference of all those interested in comprehensive schools. They would have the opportunity to discuss and assess all the evidence by then available: the proceedings would be published and action would be taken to follow up the conclusions.
838
Noble Lords in their Amendment asked that particular regard should be paid to the size of schools, mixed ability classes and the question of staff turnover.
I hope that I have said enough to show that these matters are being considered most carefully and in detail and that therefore noble Lords opposite will he able to withdraw their Amendment on the grounds that, in a different form what they are asking for, it is in fact being done.
3 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, we are very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has told us of the National Children's Bureau, and especially in the investigation into all the children born in one week. But it still does not cover the need to satisfy the public that it is not the Department only that is finding out all these facts, and that only an independent inquiry will really be satisfactory. I support the Amendment for the same reason as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton; namely, that it is a matter of common sense. It is something which would commend itself to any prudent manager of a great business.
Supposing there was a textile firm which owned a large number of weaving sheds in which there were several types of loom, and along comes the managing director and recommends to the board that all types should be scrapped except one. What would the board do? I. would call for a most searching examination into the performance of the one type that it was recommended should be installed in all their sheds. This is our position. The Government now insist that all LEAs should standardise on the comprehensive model; but they have not collected, appraised, and published the evidence to date on the performance of this model. It has been in service for almost 20 years. By now we ought to know how it is received by the work force; do they like that type of model; what is its actual output compared to the maximum capacity that they were told it could achieve, and also what modifications should be made in the light of the lessons already learned.
On these Benches we have always held that variety in schools was a good guaran-

839
tee that success would be observed and copied, mistakes shown up and eliminated, and parents given the greatest width of choice. Now that goes. There is to be no variety in the organisation. We are to have only one model, non-selective, for all schools and sixth form colleges. If genuine variety and experiments are not to disappear they must be recreated within the comprehensive system. I believe that this is the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his Secretary of State. How are they going to achieve that if they do not know the true facts about the non-selective schools to date?
I must observe first that if all comprehensive schools are to be neighbourhood schools, the variety they will get will be socially divisive, educationally very un-even, and often unfair. Secondly, no one knows enough about the effects of size and non-selection on the quality of the schools that we have already. No one knows, therefore, how to make a good job of the vast exercise in planning because no independent inquiry has been laid on to find out the facts.
Our Amendment refers to the problems of size, and that is only one aspect which requires investigation, but it is a good illustration of why we cannot leave this to the Department. We must have an independent inquiry. The evidence we have amply demonstrates that very large schools are more difficult to manage than medium sized schools. That is now accepted as a truism in all institutions where human relations are of paramount importance. But we do not know the extent to which this human factor is at work as a result of the large size and non-selective intake of the comprehensives, where the whole range of ability must be dealt with under one roof by one head teacher. Is it the same in all parts of the country? Is a large comprehensive viable on the outskirts of a city but not in the centre? In areas where there are many immigrant children should there be schools even smaller? What about the effect of size on the stability and work of the staff?
When in my time teachers had no reason, as they have today, to fear unemployment, HMIs used to tell us that turnover of staff increased with the size
840
of the school, so the large school, where getting to know all the children is by definition harder than in a smaller school suffered the most. Is that still the case today? We do not know. What are the current rates of turnover in relation to size? We do not know. What effect has size on the standards of behaviour among the children? The permissive society has made the teachers' task much harder. The gap has widened between what many children are told is all right at home and what they are told, or used to be told, is all wrong at school. It is understandable that some teachers give in, and adopt do-as-you-please methods.
But surely the size of the school has a big influence in this battle for order, discipline and hard work. We do not have the facts on which to assess these problems, but we do know that a large number of LEAs have been converted to the view that non-selective schools larger than five or six form entry throw up too many administrative problems to be viable. In a large number of areas this is inevitable.
But then what happens? The smaller comprehensive schools, unless in a very exceptional neighbourhood, cannot develop a strong sixth form. What is gained in better management is lost in weaker education. This is a dilemma, and it has forced local education authorities to think of such devices as sixth form colleges. The public, who are getting anxious about all these things, want to know why so many schools appear to be teaching in the wrong way and why the discipline is often so unsatisfactory. They suspect that it has something to do with size and the total range of ability, and we owe it to the parents, ratepayers and taxpayers to examine this question independently.
It has been said time and again that it would be unfair to take a cool, hard, independent look at comprehensives because they have had no chance to show their paces when the bright children were creamed off by the grammar schools. That argument sounded plausible when the alternative to creaming off was a comprehensive school large enough to contain within it a fully-fledged grammar school. That size of comprehensive school was, on paper, a good educational project; but that size of comprehensive school is

841
now out, so the argument can no longer be advanced as a reason for not making an inquiry into the comprehensives we have. The bright children will still be creamed off, this time into sixth-form colleges and similar institutions.
We must, therefore, examine this system on its present merits and given its future limitations. Not only the schools but the sixth form colleges, which come within the ambit of the Amendment because they are counted as schools, must be looked at, and what do we know about them? I give your Lordships one case and ask you to consider whether it is typical. Maybe some noble Lords have heard or have known of the old Brighton, Hove and Sussex Grammar School which was a good school. Two or three years ago it began to be converted into a non-selective sixth-form college. What has happened? Many of the good teachers have left, gone to teach in independent schools or taken up other careers, and the standards of the sixth form have fallen seriously. I know parents who have taken their boys away and, if they could afford the fees, sent them to independent schools for their sixth form work. Is that typical? We do not know because the Department has never dared give us the results of an inquiry into sixth form colleges.
I come to what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said about inquiries already in hand. Apart from the Children's Bureau inquiry, which will not tell us about the organisation of schools, which is what we really want to know about, all of these inquiries are internal; the Government are detective sergeant, jury and judge and that is not satisfactory to the public. The main inquiry, as the noble Lord said, is that by the HMIs into secondary education. Fortunately I have with me a copy of the memorandum which the Department sent out describing what is entitled "National Survey of Secondary Education". It is a very revealing document. How wide will this survey be? One in 10—that is 400 out of 4,000—secondary schools will be looked at, and of course there are some very good ones, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilion, said about the comprehensive at Leeds, which we all know is very good.
As I say, it will be one in ten. Who will select that modest sample? The
842
Department of course, through the HMIs. When these schools are chosen, who will select what will be looked at inside them? The HMIs, of course, after warning the schools that they arc coming. No schools will be looked at outside the maintained system and there can be no comparison with direct grant or independent schools.
The document goes further and says that no school, authority or teacher will be mentioned in their report and no comparisons made between ore school and another. There is a curious passage in paragraph 5 which I draw to the attention of your Lordships. It says:
"It will seldom be possible to attempt total curricula coverage or to meet all classes and teachers. In all except perhaps very small schools, it will be possible to see only a sample of lessons and classes from the two years concerned. Whilst the composition of the sample will be the responsibility of the panels of inspectors, advice from schools will be welcome on subjects or activities which are thought to he milking particularly valuable contributions."
That is all very well and it is good reading for the teachers, but shall we really find out what we want to know if they are warned beforehand that what the Inspectorate want to look at is what they can do well? They are very lucky to get off so lightly.
What is needed, therefore, is a double inquiry into both the size and structure and into the quality of the teaching and an assessment of how the size and organisation of the school react on the teaching. It does not appear to me and my noble friends that the Government realise how fraught with danger the Bill is now that the sixth forms in the grammar schools cannot be recreated in the size of comprehensives dictated by non-educational reasons. We are dealing with the education of millions of children over the next 25 years. We cannot alter the system of secondary education every time the complexion of government changes. Therefore, we owe it to these young people to provide them and their children after them with a non-selective system that has the best possible chance to work, and to provide for all the ranges of ability according to their need. That we cannot do without much more knowledge than we have at present, so I personally cannot be satisfied with a departmental inquiry. I do not think that they should be both investigators and judges of a system to which they are

843
politically committed. We are all politically committed in some way or another but, unless we can get politics out of the school system—and they were not in it at the time when I was Minister—we shall do great damage to a very large number of British boys and girls.
3.16 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, I find myself in support of the Amendment, largely for the reasons which the noble Viscount has given, though with a somewhat different approach. However, towards the end of his remarks, the noble Viscount came very close to what I wish to say. I believe that there is a danger of the Government feeling that an inquiry of this kind is designed to condemn the comprehensive principle. That I hope is not the intention of the Amendment. As I have said, I accept the consensus in favour of the comprehensive principle. However, I greatly fear that, unless it is carried out carefully and after very careful consideration of all the possibilities so that we find the best way of doing it, it will fail, as it has in other countries. I do not believe that I know of a country that has gone comprehensive that has not shown a subsequent trend to retreat to a basis of selection. There are more than 500 specialist schools in mathematics in Russia, for instance.
I do not believe that we have given this enough thought. I said earlier that the trends that are emerging support the view that sixth forms in all comprehensive schools are probably neither educationally nor economically viable. That creates a new problem. I share the noble Viscount's concern to check whether the organisation of a sixth-form college—or, as I prefer to call it, a tertiary college—with a wider range of opportunity can achieve the right level of success. I believe that it is vitally important to check on the organisation within a comprehensive school to see whether the full range of opportunity for the whole range of ability with which the school is coping is being adequately provided.
Personally, I have the gravest doubts about all-ability grouping. These are based on fairly long experience and a good deal of research work. This is something that needs to be examined. Certainly, the
844
teaching profession would argue that with all-ability grouping the staffing ratio needs to be about 50 per cent. more favourable than with homogeneous grouping. So we are also involved in an economic problem of a very major order.
Those of us who have experience of teaching know that it is a very different proposition to face a group of children ranging in ability over the entire range to dealing with a group with a relatively narrow range of ability. It is for that reason that I found teaching infants almost impossible but university students relatively easy. Therefore, we are all agreed that there should be an inquiry, not designed to condemn but rather designed to ascertain the best way to organise on the comprehensive principle to secure full opportunity for children of all levels of ability. We are all agreed on our purpose: we want every child to have his talents developed fully. The question is how best to do that with the maximum cost effectiveness and with the maximum educational effectiveness.
The suggestion that the Department can do it falls down on the basis with which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, started: he did not mind an inquiry, so long as it was not prejudiced. Can a Departmental inquiry, under a Secretary of State committed to a given educational policy, not be judged by the public to have some prejudice? I am not suggesting that it does have prejudice: I am saying that it would be so judged. Therefore it seems to me that the case for an independent inquiry, looking at these problems over a reasonable period of time, not doing other than seeking to help the Government, to help the Department and to help local authorities to organise their schools to the best advantage, would be very desirable.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I should like to intervene for just one minute. I am rather hurt by the suggestion from both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, that an inquiry carried out by Her Majesty's Inspectors would be prejudiced. I absolutely refute that. My experience with Her Majesty's Inspectors is very small—much less than that of many of your Lordships—but I do not think that they are tools of any particular theory. I think that they are

845
objective people who will do their best to find out the truth. That is all I want to say.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I did not suggest that they would be prejudiced; I suggested that public opinion would not necessarily accept their judgment as fully independent. This is a different thing. We are seeking here to reassure the public that this is being done with the maximum degree of thoroughness. I would not suggest that any inspectorate, or any person professionally engaged in education, would seek to be other than objective in such an assessment. But here we are dealing with a major issue over which public opinion is gravely concerned. I have had, I think, over a hundred letters from parents from one area in the past three or four weeks; they are greatly concerned. Therefore to reassure the public I should have thought that an independent inquiry would carry very much greater weight than an internal inquiry.
3.23 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, what the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, had to say about the various things which were being done was all very well; at least much of it was all very well, and we were glad to know that much of it is happening. I do not think that all of it was very well. I must say that I shrink at the idea of a conference to discuss the comprehensive schools. Over the past few years we have had ad nauseam people's opinions one way or another about the comprehensive schools, although this has not happened so much in your Lordships' House where your Lordships have kept very much to the points. I should have thought that the Government would do better, and it would be rather cheaper, if they were to buy up The Times Educational Supplements for the last year and send them to everyone, rather than have another conference on this matter.
What we need is an inquiry. It will not be an easy inquiry; we accept that from the Government. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, would possibly admit that his analogy with the loom was a little simplistic. It will be a very difficult thing to do, to come to some
846
definite conclusions. But I believe that it can be done. It cannot be done just by comparing the present with the past. A certain degree of international comparison would have to enter into A as well. I was very impressed with a remark which I quoted to your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill. It was made to me by a senior official in the educational side of OECD. He said:
"It is not a crisis of the comprehensive schools; it is a crisis of the secondary schools",
and that was from experience of all the developing countries.
It will not he at all easy, but we must do it. We must do it because we need a great deal more information. We must do it because I believe that the public at large want to see it done. I, at least, will be absolved by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. of wishing to do this in any way to harm the comprehensive system. He knows, and I think accepts, that I am whole-heartedly behind it, and unlike the suspicions he has about the moderates sitting on the Conservative Front Bench, I have no hordes of reactionaries behind me—although, contrary to the comment just made, I have quite a lot of votes behind me.
I believe that this inquiry wilt in fact show that, with lots of teething troubles, lots of individual faults and lots of things that need to be done, the comprehensive system at the very least improves the education of some while harming the education of none. I think it may well show much better than that, but I believe it will show that. But if it does not show that, then we must look again at all the problems, and we must look at how best we take advantage of the knowledge which we shall have gained to devise a better education system, because (and, again, I think we in this House are all agreed on this) we are not engaged in an exercise of social engineering. In spite of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, keeps on saying that this is a fairly recent change of thinking, it is not as recent as al that; it is for quite a long time that most of the people in favour of comprehensives have been saying it. But we are not involved in social engineering; we are involved in trying to find the best form of education for our children and for our children's children.1 think this inquiry has a great

847
deal to be said for it and really nothing at all to be said against it. I hope we carry this Amendment, and I hope we have the inquiry.
3.27 p.m.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may I be permitted to make a remark which I am sure will be universally thought to be unhelpful? I think I accept whole-heartedly the very profound analysis of the problem which we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who speaks with especial authority as having been, surely, one of the great Ministers of Education of our time. I accept entirely the case which he and others have made for independent investigation of these extremely difficult problems. The thing that sticks in my gullet is simply subsection (2), which demands:
"The said Committee of Inquiry shall lay the report of its findings before both Houses of Parliament within two years of the passing of this Act".
I have some brief experience of educational inquiry of a statistical kind, and I would say with a fair degree of confidence that an inquiry of the subtlety and amplitude of the kind which the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has made me, at any rate, desire, is not an inquiry which can be carried out within two years, still less put together and laid before the House of Commons in two years. If that part of the clause were omitted I personally would be wholeheartedly in favour of the Amendment.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I start at the end of the exchanges we have had and say to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that it really is not possible under the circumstances to put no term on the report, because then too much may have been done before a report is made. May I say to him that the James Report—admittedly not a statistical one, but one of crucial importance—was submitted within one year. May I say to noble Lords opposite that they have in fact themselves, by the pressure to legislate and to act on this, put us in this position of needing to take precautionary steps in what they may feel, and in what some other noble Lords may feel, is undue haste. May I finally say that there is nothing in the Amendment
848
which says that a report, when submitted, may not be adjudged to be an interim report.
May I secondly, as briefly as I can (because I feel that my case has been argued, as I hoped it would be, better than I could argue it myself) take up a few points. One of crucial importance was the revelation of the terms of reference for the inquiry, to which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred. There may be no question of the impartiality of the individuals to whose defence he predictably and properly sprang. In this we sympathise. But when the terms of reference suggest that particular weight is to be given to activities and subjects which make the most valuable contributions, it suggests they are to accept evidence which is predisposed to influence them towards one conclusion.
Then, of course, I welcome the reflection—I think, from what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingshridge, said, that it is no more than that—upon the possibility of extending the national children's bureaux' fascinating and valuable researches which is only, with respect, one limited methodological approach to the problem: and it is entirely retrospective. My noble friend Lord Eccles said we live in a permissive era, and if we can think of society as it was even when this particular sample of children entered secondary education seven years ago and compare it with the present day we must see that significant changes have taken place. I would say, in passing, that there is no reason why anything turned up by these people should not be material for the committee of inquiry to complete the large and important jigsaw puzzle of evidence that they will have to consider.
May I reiterate that it is not our intention by this means to set up a committee to condemn the comprehensive system. Our intention is to let the comprehensive system stand on its own two feet and to give it sufficient information so that its feet will be planted foursquare on the ground so that it shall not fall flat on its face and injure the children riding upon its shoulders.
I should have thought that the consideration which must have most force with noble Lords opposite—and I am surprised that it has not overborne them already—

849
is how damaging to them it must seem politically in the public forum if they are to refuse to undergo an independent inquiry, which is all we ask for—an independent assessment of what is going on. Anybody who declines to submit themselves to an impartial judgment on what they are doing forfeits a good deal of sympathy of those in doubt. I should have thought that those grounds and what
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 5 [Duty to implement approved proposals as to maintenance or change in character of school]:
3.41 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 43, at end insert—
("Provided that the necessary resources for
has been said already are sufficient for me to ask your Lordships to support this Amendment.
3.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Elles, B.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Ampthill, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Avebury, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Munster, E.

Barrington, V.

Energlyn, L.

Newall, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Northchurch, B.

Belstead, L.

Faithfull, B.

Onslow, E.

Boothby, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Redesdale, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Glasgow, E.

Robbins, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sackville, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

St. Davids, V.

Caithness, E.

Hampton, L.

St. Just, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hunt, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Colyton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selkirk, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Inchyra, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Moun Royal, L

Cromartie, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Suffield, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

de Clifford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vivian, L.

De Freyne, L.

Melville, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Molson, L.

Wolverton, L.

Eccles, V.

Monck, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Phillips, B.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Stone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

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

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Camden, L.

Pannell, L.

Wigg, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L.

Hale, L.

Peddie, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Henderson, L.

building and equipment have been made available to give full effect to the Secretary of State's approval of the proposals.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14 and to take with it, if I may, Amendment No. 15. These are a redraft of two Amendments which were discussed in Committee. Their effect is to try to ensure that the necessary resources are provided for proposals approved under Section 13 which have been forced on authorities under the provisions of this Bill.
I shall not repeat the arguments I made during the last stage, pointing out the very difficult economic situation we are in and the year-by-year basis only in which the school building programme now finds itself. But, If I may, I should like to address myself to a point which has not been covered regarding these Amendments and it was contained in a letter which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was kind enough to write to me following the last stage. The problem, as I see it, is that the Government, in the drafting of Clause 5, have disregarded the economic problems. The only advice which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was able to give during the Committee stage, at column 1599 of the Official Report on 7th October, was when he simply said:
"Carry on"—
Those were his words—
"get the plans agreed and see what happens."
Then the noble Lord was so good as to write to me on the 14th October, and in that letter he added this advice:
"In a stuation where a local education authority school building allocation was too small to carry out approved proposals, it would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to use the discretion granted in Section 99 and not force a local education authority to implement approved proposals."
The noble Lord was referring to Section 99 of the Education Act 1944, which provides that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that any local education authority, any county or voluntary school has failed to discharge any duties imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Act, the Secretary of State may make an order declaring the authority or governors to be in default of that duty and giving such directions for enforcing the execution of that duty as appeared to the Minister to he expedient.
My conclusion from that is that Section 99 confers power on the Secretary of State to enforce a duty and not to absolve an authority or school from fulfilling a duty. Therefore I do not believe that Section 99 covers the case which my Amendments attempt to cover. However, even if Section 99 were to be called in aid here, I still believe these Amendments are necessary. Surely a statutory duty should be subject to a statutory proviso if there is a chance
852
that financial considerations might prevent that duty being fulfilled.
I should like to add just one thing more. At the last stage of the Bill and at this stage I have really been speaking entirely about school buildings, but there is also the question of school equipment and recurrent expenditure. In Committee my noble friend Lord Howe, speaking with personal experience as a former chairman of his education authority, said that Buckinghamshire was facing serious financial problems and that he wondered how a huge school-building programme for comprehensive reorganisation could also be financed so far as equipment and further recurrent expenditure was concerned. The situation is exactly the same in my own authority of Suffolk. We have there centres of population like Mildenhall, Haverhill, Sudbury and the environs of Ipswich, and I know that the authority is having to axe some school building projects because of the lack of resources. There is simply not the money to go round at the moment, and it is for that reason that I have redrafted and now move these two Amendments. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord WOLVERTON: My Lords, I should very much like to support the Amendments so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Belstead. I do so because I am very worried that there will not be the resources available to carry out all these new programmes. There are not enough resources available for existing programmes. I served for nine years on a county council, and for approximately seven years was a governor of a fairly big secondary modern school in Newmarket. I should like to give your Lordships one or two figures from my own county of Suffolk, now that the two Suffolks have been amalgamated. The county council have asked for a programme of school building for next year 1977–78 amounting to £2,800,000, and they have been told that they can have £1,500,000, which is a cut of 50 per cent.
The Member of Parliament has written a strong letter of protest to the Secretary of State for Education about the Mildenhall area. That is an expanding area under the New Towns Act, and it is finding it extremely difficult to finance the programme. There are two primary

853
schools which are bulging; they have built one new high school, and have some what enlarged the secondary modern school, which is now the middle school.
If there is not sufficient money for the present education programme—and there never was during the nine years I served on the county council; we had to do the best we could and put up a lot of rather undesirable temporary buildings—should we embark on a very large extra programme, especially in view of the economic condition of this country? I do not know what this reorganisation will cost, but I have heard that it will cost something like £70 million to implement it fully. So I strongly support my noble friend. I am sure that many other counties are in the same position as Suffolk. I am not saying that we should not cut capital expenditure on all works in these very difficult economic times, but I feel that it is wrong to embark on the further capital expenditure of this reorganisation if we cannot properly finance the present works.
I should have said that Suffolk went over to the comprehensive system some five years ago, organised on primary, middle and upper schools. But it had to be a rather hotchpotch system in many areas, sometimes using two schools to form upper or middle schools and then gradually trying to improve them. I am extremely worried about these primary schools because, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said the other day, the problem starts in the primary schools and unless they are properly equipped and not too overcrowded there will not be good teaching there. Furthermore, the Prime Minister said at Oxford that we have to get better education in the three Rs. We have discussed mathematics at length, and 1 do not see how there can be proper teaching unless there are proper facilities and a roof over children's heads. Therefore, I strongly support this Amendment.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, if the Minister is not able to accept this Amendment, I hope that he will at least be able to give very strong assurances that local authorities will not be compelled to organise their schools on the comprehensive principle, when the resources are not there to enable them to do it with competence and to make it
854
a success. I am bound to say that I have no reasonable doubt that the very principle of comprehensive education is endangered. when authorities go comprehensive and do it badly because they haw: not the resources to do it properly. I fear that there are several areas where this may have happened. I believe also that those authorities which are most resistant to the principle of comprehensive education will certainly honour the Bill if it becomes law. Public authorities are responsible bodies. However, I think that they would be greatly encouraged to do so if they had an assurance that the resources would be made available to enable them t do it in a reasonably competent fashion and that they would not be required to do it until these resources were made available. Therefore I hope very much that the Minister can at least express his sympathy with the Amendment, whether or not he is able to accept it.
Viscount ECCLES: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has said. I am not quite sure whether it is generally realised that if a grammar school is to become a mini-comprehensive and to admit boys of all types of ability it will probably have to have craft workshops, that if it is a girls' school it will have to have a domestic science block and that if it is a mixed school it will have to have both. Furthermore, since it is the policy of many local education authorities and, I believe, of the Government to do away with single-sex schools, there will be a very large plumbing bill when that is part of the plan for going comprehensive. This is no light matter. The alteration of lavatories, washing places and changing rooms in order to accommodate girls in boys' schools or boys in girls' schools is very expensive. There are well-known cases of this. I am sure the Minister knows that a scheme in Croydon for amalgamating three schools into one comprehensive had to be given up because the money was not available to make the necessary alterations. We want an assurance that where the money is not available to make the elementary alterations so that the equipment of the school measures up to a non-selective intake, the plans will be put into the frigidaire.
3.53 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the concern of

855
noble Lords opposite is very narrow and I think that we should keep it narrow. The general question of the shortage of money is something from which we are all suffering and from which we shall go on suffering during the next Government and the one after that. A great deal of what has been said regarding this Amendment simply means that there will not he enough money for everybody to do everything at once. This has been admitted from the word "go". It was admitted by the previous Secretary of State, by my right honourable friend now and by myself on more than one occasion.
The point at issue in this Amendment is whether a local authority which considers that although a plan has been accepted and that it has an obligation to carry it out, but cannot provide the resources to do it properly, can be forced unreasonably by the Secretary of State to do so. Any proposals submitted under the provisions of Clause 2 of the Education Bill and subsequently approved under Section 13(4) of the Education Act 1944 will place a duty to implement on local education authorities or upon the governors of voluntary schools, but the power to enforce such a duty rests solely with the Secretary of State under the provisions of Section 99 of the 1944 Act to which the noble Lord referred.
Section 99 states that where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a local education authority or the governors of a voluntary school have failed to discharge any duty imposed by the Act she may make an order to enforce the duty. In other words, the Secretary of State's powers are discretionary. When proposals are being approved, that are to be implemented five years ahead, assumptions obviously have to be made about resources: about the probable size of school building programmes and about the possibility of raising capital by off-programme sales of surplus buildings and sites. Such assumptions can be substantially wrong, with the result that the actual financial position that obtains when the proposals are due to be implemented is quite different from the one that was forecast when the proposals were approved. In such a situation it would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to use the discretion granted in Section 99 and not
856
force a local education authority to implement approved proposals. Indeed—here I hope noble Lords will note what I am saying—it would be unreasonable for her not to do so. I can assure the House that she would not do so.
Just to tie up this matter, if the Secretary of State decided—which I think is not something that is likely to happen—to enforce a duty she would need to use Section 99 and this would give the authority a chance to contest the Secretary of State's decision in the High Court. In other words, if the decision was unreasonable the local authority has the normal Common Law recourse to the High Court, who can lay down what is reasonable.
So although I understand what noble Lords are getting at in this Amendment and I do not think it is in any sense what I sometimes have to say, a wrecking Amendment, it is unnecessary. The law takes care of the situation as it is; I have given an assurance of the kind asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, and I hope that will leave noble Lords happy in regard to this particular point even although what I have said has no effect upon the amount of money that will be available, which of course is the really important thing.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to look very carefully at what the noble Lord has said about Section 99 before I decide what to do about this Amendment. So perhaps I may make it clear to noble Lords who are still kindly attending the House that I do not intend to press this Amendment at the moment but I most certainly reserve the right to bring it back at the final stage of this Bill because I believe that this is one of the most important Amendments, and I believe it for this reason: when we get someone like the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who has spent his entire life in education and who understands local authority finance in a way very few other people do, saying that it really is important that finance should be provided for the reorganisation of secondary schools. I think that is advice which should be taken very seriously indeed.
The difficulty to which these two Amendments address themselves is, first, the worry that in the appalling economic climate that we have at the moment there

857
may be suddenly an economic blizzard between the time when proposals are approved by the Secretary of State under Section 13 and the time when they may be implemented, as long as up to five years later, and this is something which might well have happened to proposals which might have been approved in, let us say, 1975 for implementation in 1978. I do not think it would be unreasonable for me to claim that the present economic blizzard might well have bowled an authority out, however willing that authority might be in putting its reorganisation proposals into effect.
The second problem to which these two Amendments are directed is quite simply—and I must be blunt about this—to prevent some authorities from putting up "botched-up" schemes—if I may use that expression-and this is the point to which my noble friend Lord Eccles and also the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, have also addressed themselves. I think anyone who is connected with education at all knows what misery there can be for members of staff and what terrible educational disadvantages there can be for the pupils in schools if authorities say to themselves "we are going to reorganise and we are going to do it whether or not we have the resources."
I should like to add one last point. A very great deal of water has gone under a lot of bridges in the last year and yet as long ago as the 3rd September 1975 the Department of the Environment in their Circular 88.75 laid down—and I quote:
"There is no scope for increased expenditure in total in real terms in local authority current expenditure in 1976/77."
That Circular went on to say:
"There will thus be no scope for improvement of standards for the education service at any level and only by strict economy and careful planning will it be possible to obviate the need for reductions of standards."
Since then there have been reductions of standards in all sorts of different things—school meals, staff, and all the extras like transport and equipment. It is because we are in the gravest economic situation that the Education Service has had to face for many years, and yet at the same time are dealing with a clause in the Bill which lays an absolute duty on authorities to implement what can be very expensive proposals that I reserve the right to
858
bring this Amendment back at the Third Reading stage of the Bill when I have had the chance to read what the noble Lord said about the Secretary of State's power under Section 99. With those words, I now withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.1 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) Any proposals approved under section 13 of the Education Act 1944 which are not wholly or partly carried into effect within five years from the date on which the proposals were submitted or transmitted to the Secretary of State, shall be deemed to have lapsed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 16 is to ensure that local education authorities which have not been able to put into effect within the five-year period proposals which have been approved under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944 shall have those proposals deemed to be lapsed. As a word of explanation may I say that my memory is that the Department has always reckoned that after a period of five years the Secretary of State would take the view that new proposals would be needed from a local education authority for the reorganisation of schools. Although this has been nothing more than a view which the Department took it has never been written into legislation.
The new factor which Clause 5 is introducing into all this is the absolute duty which Clause 5 is laying upon authorities to implement approved proposals. I take the view that unless an Amendment is made this could mean that proposals many years old could be under a duty to be implemented even though it might be that the authority and the people of the locality might want a revised scheme. I should be most interested to hear what the Government have to say on this Amendment. I have again moved it not in any way with an intention of wrecking but with the genuine belief that there is an administrative difficulty here and I should like to know what the Government think about that. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, we see very little wrong in principle in this Amendment.

859
It would provide that where more than five years had elapsed since the proposals had been put to the Secretary of State, they should lapse unless they had been put either partly or wholly into effect. There are some obvious difficulties—for example, to establish when a proposal had been put "partly" into effect. A start on building would obviously fall within the definition, but would the appointment of teachers, or the start of a programme of in-service training? There are problems here.
Secondly, the date chosen from which the five years is to be measured is that on which the proposals were submitted or transmitted to the Secretary of State. As noble Lords will appreciate, a considerable time sometimes elapses between the receipt of the proposal and its approval and there may be doubt about when a proposal was transmitted or submitted. A more appropriate date could be that on which the proposals were approved.
However, the problem with this Amendment is the one that afflicts all Amendments that attempt to introduce rigid times and schedules into the administrative process. The Secretary of State does not normally approve proposals that cannot be carried into effect within five years; that is because conditions may change. In five years the bulk of parents will certainly have done so. The purpose of public notices is to inform those concerned, including the parents of children attending schools that are to be changed in some important way.
The point is however that the five-year rule should not be so rigidly applied that it would produce unnecessary expense and effort. While I appreciate the desire of noble Lords to limit the discretionary power of the Executive, there really are some things that are best left on a flexible footing. I suggest that one of these is the length of time that approved proposals may be considered to be live. To kill them automatically at the end of five years would introduce a degree of inflexibility, where common sense rather than rigid rules should be applied. There is really no difference of principle between us and the noble Lord, who has already said that it is customary to write proposals off after five years if they are not
860
in fact carried out, but we would deplore writing this into the Bill for the reasons I have given.1 hope that the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press his Amendment.
4.6 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I have chosen the five-year period because it is the period which is written into the Bill by the Government themselves. Clause 3 says that where any of the proposals submitted or transmitted to the Secretary of State are proposals to be wholly or partly carried into effect within five years, those proposals shall or may be selected by the Secretary of State to go through the Section 13 procedure, and finally he may approve them. That is why I chose the five-year period. I perhaps misled the noble Lord when I reminisced and said that my memory was that the Department looked on the five-year period also as being a reasonable period at the end of which the proposals shall be said to be lapsed. I would have done better in moving the Amendment if I had confined myself to the factual reasons why I chose the five-year period.
Secondly, I wish again that in moving this Amendment I had spelled out the reasons for the Amendment in rather more detail. During a five-year period school populations may shift and change considerably, and in these debates previously we have quoted the extraordinary projection for the child population over the next 12 years. I could hardly believe, in June when I read the Press notice from the Department of Education and Science, that there was this projected fall of 1½ to 2 million pupils over a period of 12 years. I could not believe that it was going to be over a period of 12 years. In a town, area, or county, where any of your Lordships may live, imagine what effect that may have on the child population? In addition to that, during the five-year period a whole generation goes through the schools, and a whole lot of different parents who would want to express a view. That is the second general area I should have liked to cover in speaking again to this Amendment.
The noble Lord said to me that he would have liked to leave it on a flexible basis, and coming from the noble Lord

861
that is a wholly reasonable thing to say. But I must put it to him, I hope as courteously as possible, that whereas I am one of those who have the greatest confidence in the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, Secretaries of State come and go. There have been three in the last two years—and that is more than there should be. We hope that the right honourable lady will be there for many more years than that, unless of course the electorate take a different point of view.
For this reason we are dealing not with proposals which have been put up voluntarily by authorities under Section 13, but with proposals which a Secretary of State has forced local authorities to produce. For this same reason, if you have an authority which has been forced by the Secretary of State to produce proposals to reorganise its schools under Section 13 and if, at the end of five years, it is clear that those proposals cannot be implemented, probably because of lack of funds, I think it would be wholly reasonable at the end of that time that an authority, probably already reluctant, should be allowed at least to produce some fresh proposals. I should like to look again at what the noble Lord has said, and leave myself free to produce this Amendment again, or something like it on the final stage of the Bill if I think that it is necessary to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Awards for higher diploma courses]:
4.10 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL Baroness FAITHFULL moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 23, at end insert ("the certificate of qualification in social work.").
The noble Baroness said: I realise that the hour is late, that your Lordships must he tired and that I am moving to an entirely different aspect of the Bill. In Committee I moved, and then withdrew, an Amendment to insert at the end of Clause 7 the words:
"… the certificate of qualification in social work and the certificate in social services."
The Amendment I move today carries only the certificate of qualification in social work. In this revised Amendment I ask
862
for field social work students to be able to be considered by their local education authorities for a grant for training on a mandatory basis. This qualification is achieved after full-time two-yea: training. There are 127 courses, 58 in universities and—this is an important figure—69 in polytechnics and other colleges. There are inevitable constraints against expansion; lack of tutors, lack of practical experience placements and lack of accommodation in universities and polytechnics. In this country we have 13 per cent. untrained probation and aftercare officers and 60 per cent. untrained field social workers who cover work in the fields of mental health, the elderly, the handicapped, the hospital social work service and who work with families and children, which of course includes delinquency and deprivation. Education welfare officers are now entitled to apply for training in social work which accords to them the certificate of qualification in social work, and already many of them have done that.
In Committee on 8th October, in answer to a question by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that the Bill was not the place in which to raise the matter of the procedure of funding social work students. She further stated that Clause 7 was not intended to extend the field of mandatory awards, which covered degrees and comparable courses in teacher training leading to the higher diploma of higher education and the higher national diplomas. She admitted, however, that provision was made for a marginal increase in the number of such courses. She went on to say that Clause 7 arose solely out of the decision to replace the present courses for the higher national diplomas by similar courses. She further stated that students attending those courses should continue to receive mandatory awards.
As I said, I seek by this Amendment to clarify and simplify the present complicated procedure of funding social work students through their LEAs. The present position is that there are no less than four methods by which social work students may be funded, leading to the two year full-time course which gains them the certificate of qualification in social work. First, probation and after-care trainees

863
are seconded from probation departments and funded by the Home Office. Secondly, graduates applying to do the course are funded from the Department of Health and Social Security. It is important to note this. Thirdly, social service departments take on trainee social workers. After some time, and if such trainees are suitable, they are seconded for training on a salary to a course, and the salary could be in the realm of £2,300 a year. There should be a replacement while they are away.
There are in this country trainee social workers who have been taken on by departments with the expectation of being seconded and who now find, with the inevitable cut back in local authority social services expenditure, that social services departments cannot now afford to send them for training. If they do, they must cut down services to the elderly, to the handicapped and to families with children. The effect of this is that the trainee cannot have the benefit of training and, secondly, that he or she cannot, as an untrained worker, whatever his or her age or experience, rise beyond a certain point in the salary scale. This is laid down by NALGO.
In her reply on 8th October, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that if students could not now get secondment they could apply for grant to the local education authority. But those already in departments do apply and they are referred back by the education department to the social services department with the advice that they should get secondment. Therefore, such student trainees already working in social services departments fall between two stools, and neither the education department nor the social services department accepts responsibility although they are within the same authority.
The fourth group concerned consists of older people with experience of life who apply to their local education authority for a discretionary grant. They may or may not have had training in their youth. Fewer and fewer grants are being made to such applicants by their local education authority. I should have wished to pursue the advantages of training. It is not possible to quantify the asset of the trained social worker nor to assess
864
his or her cost effectiveness. However, long experience first as a children's officer and then as a Director of Social Services has taught me that the trained worker is more secure, has standing with his or her colleagues in the fields of education and health, knows what work to do and what not to do, knows how to use volunteers and has information and skill in various areas at his or her fingertips. I refer particularly to court work, adoption work and to decisions as to whether or not to remove a person from his home.
Social workers work in co-operation and partnership with teachers, doctors and, for instance, with members of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and all the information which obtains to other departments they must know. The present financial situation for funding the two-year courses for social workers under the latest Command Paper No. 6393 on local government expenditure poses difficulties. For instance, the Association of County Councils has agreed to keep within the levels of recommended expenditure and has accepted the ceiling laid down in the Command Paper. I can see that acceptance of this Amendment giving local education authorities mandatory powers to fund social work students would be asking them not to cut back on expenditure. I am not asking for extra social workers or for extra courses; I am asking for this only in respect of those who are already working—that is, for the 60 per cent. of untrained workers to have the opportunity of training.
The noble Baroness in her reply agreed the importance of trained workers. Already both graduates and probation officers are funded from the DHSS and Home Office respectively. Why could not students be selected by their education authorities, given a mandatory grant by their education authority, but for the local education authority to receive a grant funded from the Department of Health and Social Security as is already done for the graduate students?
I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the Health Services Bill during consideration of which the noble Lord. Lord Wells-Pestell, said:
"Your Lordships are too skilled in the art of politics not to know that no time is ever the right time."—[Official Report, 21/10176: col.1579.]
He went on to say that in 1945 the Government had not a penny and yet

865
they implemented the National Health Service. The implementation of the Health Services Bill will cost the country £3 million, rising to £20 million. I suggest that the infusion of money—at least it is not an infusion because it is what has been taken away from training—should now he reinserted and that it should be possible for social workers to receive a mandatory training through their local education authorities. I beg to move.
4.22 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, however sympathetic I might be to the desirability of securing the training of social workers—and I am completely sympathetic—I very much hope that the House will not accept this Amendment. The certificate in social work, excellent as it is, does not comply with the requirements for mandatory awards and cannot be brought under Section 1 of the Education Act 1962 without raising very wide issues indeed. It is one qualification of which there are hundreds—I hope I do not exaggerate; certainly a very great many—which fall in the area of discretionary awards. I fully accept that, in these days, the moneys available for discretionary awards are limited. This is true and it is creating very real difficulties. But I am quite sure that the acceptance of the Amendment would create even greater difficulties. Therefore I very much hope that the House will not accept it. It would create very great difficulties for local education authorities.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I acknowledge, as I am sure do all Members of your Lordships' House, the very wide experience of the noble Baroness, Baroness Faithfull, in all matters concerning social services, and again I say that we have considerable sympathy with the aim behind the Amendment and with the need for having a really adequately staffed Social Services Department in every part of the country. But I regret that I have very little, if anything, to add to what I said at the Committee stage when I explained that Clause 7, as it stands, is not intended to extend the field of mandatory awards, which covers degree and comparable courses, initial courses of teacher training and courses leading to the Diploma of Higher Education and the Higher National Diploma. The need for this clause arises
866
solely out of the decision to replace courses for the Higher National Diploma by similar courses run by the new Technician and Business Education Councils. Ii is designed to ensure that students attending these courses receive mandatory awards just as they do at present when they attend courses which lead to the Higher National Diploma.
The noble Baroness has reminded us that the professional qualification for the social worker is the Certificate of Qualification in Social Work and that this can be obtained as a post-graduate qualification end-on to a degree course; there are also, I understand, a few four-year degrees which integrate the academic and the professional qualifications, and a two-year non-graduate qualification. In the latter case the student is outside the mandatory award field, and therefore has to rely on the local education authority discretionary award.
But, as I said in Committee, it has been common practice for many students to be taken on as trainee social workers, and seconded on salary, in order to get their professional qualification, by the local authority social services department. We in the Department are hoping that the local education authorities will be able to keep up their level of discretionary awards, in spite of our current difficulties, and we shall be watching how it develops and shall be keeping it under constant review, particularly when the final decisions have been taken about the 1977/78 fees. But we could not accept the proposed Amendment because the effect of h would be to extend the scope of mandatory awards to cover a new field of courses.
It is difficult, as Lord Alexander of Potterhill reminded us, to see how all this can be justified without including other courses of professional training, without doing much more for the accountancy people, the town planning: people, librarians, and so on. There will be hundreds of courses involved—and, perhaps all the courses even of advanced further education. This would involve us in substantial additional expenditure which the Government could not accept in the present economic climate.
4.25 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, nay say a word in support of my noble friend?

867
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, and to the noble Baroness, I accept that it might appear to follow from this Amendment that the whole question of eligibility for discretionary awards could be said to be opened up by the Amendment. But I think that a word ought to he said in support of my noble friend Lady Faithfull that this is not quite so straightforward as it may seem. I pin my belief in this on the figures which my noble friend gave in Committee and has given again today showing the very strong need for more training in social work. When my noble friend quotes 60 per cent. untrained social workers in the field, I do not think one needs to say very much more in support of the Amendment and the case she is making today. I wonder whether a case of that sort could be made in support of many of the other mandatory award courses quoted to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, towards the end of her speech.
With her close knowledge of this subject my noble friend knows that more training is, in itself, going to be cost effective—and this is an important point. Then, let us not forget that she showed in her speech in Committee that there is very little extra cost in cash terms for the mandatory grant is cheaper than the cost of secondment. For those reasons I find it hard to accept absolutely, although I do so in part, the advice which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, have given us today.
My noble friend will be wanting to decide what she is going to do with this Amendment. If I may venture to give my noble friend some advice, I think that perhaps we should all be wise to read what has been said during this short debate. There is one more stage of the Bill still to go. In particular, I think that my noble friend who has moved the Amendment, with her knowledge of local government finance, would want particularly to read what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has said in giving assurances about the future and keeping a close eye on what is going to happen. We all know it is not going to be long before local government expenditure comes under close scrutiny again. The Government cannot help this. In the light of those considerations, my noble friend
868
might use the weekend to decide what she would like to do with the Amendment before coming to the final stage of this Bill.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I follow my noble friend on one point which he said should be borne in mind while my noble friend and others are considering what is to be done. It is the question of the percentage of untrained field workers. That is a matter which has been brought to our notice—on occasion by my own instrumentality—on every occasion where a case of non-accidental injury to children has arisen. There was a whole succession of cases, starting with Maria Colwell, and going on with Lisa Godwin; and there is a whole tragic catalogue which I shall not repeat. I urge your Lordships to remember that considerable issues are at stake which may not be apparent from the dry matter of the Amendment, and above all, when there is a shortage of funds, what we must consider in allocating those funds is a priority. Although there may be an embarrassment of expenditure in one field since it entails curtailment in another, there are occasions when that change of emphasis in resources ought to be made. I hope that noble Lords who address themselves to this matter in the intervening days will bear that in mind.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, may I make one point? It is that the qualifications to get on to one of the social work certificate courses at the moment is below the present standard required for the mandatory award courses. It would also represent a change of policy in respect of the academic standards covering the courses. This would take the issue wider than just this Bill or this particular point.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, as one coming from Oxford to the noble Baroness from Cambridge, I have to say that I would want to reconsider her last point and wonder whether those in training in social work would agree. But it is late. I would greatly enjoy a debate, but I think it would be right for me to follow the suggestion from the Front Benches. I shall think of what has been said, pursue the last comment by the noble Baroness, and reserve the right to put down this Amendment at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Married persons of compulsory school age]:
4.31 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 18:
Leave out Clause to.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to leave out Clause 10 from the Bill. The ground was covered at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who regrets that he is unable to be here. If noble Lords envy him perhaps it should not be quite so plain on their countenances. In his speeches on the subject, he led us into some fascinating implications implicit in the drafting of this clause. They depended on such matters as Moslem marriages, girls married at the age of 16 or married children at 15-plus arriving in Rolls-Royces at school. There was an agreeable illustration of absurdity in the case of the wife of an itinerant, or peripatetic musician. These minutiae could be elaborated, but it should be done by somebody like the late A. P. Herbert, and this is not the occasion to do it. It is worth noting that, in almost every case one can imagine, by the time the administrative and legal processes envisaged by this clause had come to effect the child in question would no longer be a child and would no longer be subject to the Bill. That seems, if not an A. P. Herbert situation, at least a Gilbertian situation.
We should not put ourselves into the position where it may be said of the law by somebody like Mr. Bumble: "If the law says such a thing then the law is an ass". We may think such is the case or we may not. The very important point that we should hear in mind is that we do not know what the Commons thinks because it has not considered the matter. We have made complaint before—I will not make much of it now—of the way in which legislation of a controversial nature is handled. It is fair to make the point—this is not a Party point—that the result here has been that the other place were not able to consider the material before it came here. It is patently obvious in something so technical, complicated and with such odd implications that it should be. The obvious solution to this dilemma is for the other place to have the opportunity to consider what they have not
870
considered. I hope they will not remonstrate with us for doing this. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, may I say at the outset that we are accepting the Amendment. As the node Lord said, the Commons had no or opportunity to discuss this on the Floor of the House. It was inserted by Standing Committee against the Government's advice. The vote was nine in favour and sever against. All the Conservative Members and two Labour Members who were present voted for the clause and then, because of the time-table Motion, it was not discussed in the House of Commons on Report. In Committee here, we tried our best to put down some Amendments to remove some of the technical defects in the drafting of the Bill as it arrived in our House. I do not think I need say much about the purpose of the clause, which is really to transfer the responsibility for school attendance from the parents of a married 16 year old, to the girl or boy in question. In the Government's view, as the former Minister of State said in another place, it is hardly necessary or even desirable.
There is no Party issue here. The clause is in no way related to the main purpose of the Bill that we are discussing. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept the joint advice of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and myself, and let us agree to delete this clause here; let it return to another place for them to consider with such other Amendments as we have made so that there is then an opportunity for the whole of the Commons to discuss the matter for the first time and make up their minds on it.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, as has been said, there is something of a dog's breakfast in this clause. To get the whole thing right, one or two things are needed. One is withdrawal of the whole clause. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the Amendment. My honourable friend in the other place Mr. Clement Freud voted against this clause. That is not the complete answer; Dr. Marshall had a very real point. It is an absolute nonsense that the parents should be responsible for a married person going to school. It is equally a nonsense to pass a long and highly involved clause lice this to put the matter right.

871
I suspect that we ought to face up to the fact that there is no point in trying to keep a married child of 16 at school if he or she does not want to attend. My Party have for the past couple of years or so been saying that the whole matter of school-leaving age should be made more flexible than it is. This is one of the cases where it should be. It is therefore my intention to follow up the good work being done by deleting this Clause 10 by putting down an Amendment for Third Reading which will remove compulsory school attendance from any married child of 16. I can see some arguments against it, just as I can see some strong arguments for it. This is not the moment to debate it. I thought it was worth while saying that that was my intention. I think that these two fit together.
Lord ELTON: There is little for me to say except to thank the noble Baroness for her shared view and also for drawing to your Lordships' attention that we are on this occasion on this side of the House operating in a contrary sense to the votes of our friends in another place, which she may think is of some note. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for giving notice of his intention of tabling what may be seen as a solution to the problem or an inducement to marry rather earlier than usual by some reluctant pupils.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): I call Amendment No. 19.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Not moved.
Lord BELSTEAD: Moved!
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I apologise. It has been spoken to already by my noble friend.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
Pupils requiring special educational treatment
.—(1) For section 33(2) of the Education Act 1944 there shall be substituted—
"(2) The arrangements made by a local education authority for the special educational treatment of pupils of any such category shall, subject to subsection (2A) of this section, provide for the education of the pupils in county or voluntary schools.
(2A) Where the education of the pupils in such schools as aforesaid—

(a) is impracticable or incompatible with the provision of efficient instruction in the schools; or

(b) would involve unreasonable public expenditure,

the arrangements may provide for the education of the pupils in special schools appropriate to the category to which the pupils belong or in schools not maintained by a local education authority and for the time being notified by the Secretary of State to the authority as in his opinion suitable for the purpose."
(2) The entry relating to the said section 33(2) in Schedule I to the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 is hereby repealed.
(3) This section shall not come into force until such day as may be appointed by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thought that the evil thing I had been worried about earlier on had come to pass!

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE (PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before five o'clock.