Sitting of 8 July 1977

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence from this day's sitting of Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to leave given on Monday 4th July.
Whereupon Mr. OSCAR MURTON, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  DUTY OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY PROTECTION FOR MOVABLE PROPERTY
  "(1) If a housing authority have reason to believe—

  (a) that a person who has applied to them for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation is homeless or threatened with homelessness, and

  (b) that there is a danger of loss of, or damage to, any movable property of his by reason of his inability to protect or deal with it, and

  (c) that no other suitable arrangements have been or are being made,

  it shall be the duty of the authority to take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of the property or prevent or mitigate damage to it.
  (2) For the purpose of discharging the said duty, the authority shall have power at all reasonable times to enterany premises which were the last usual place of residence of the person in question and to deal with any movable property of his in any way which is reasonably necessary.
  (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, the power conferred by that subsection includes power to store or arrange for the storage of any movable property."—[Mr. Stephen Ross.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  11.6 a.m.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this, we may take the following amendments:
  No. 30, in Clause 3, page 3, line 36 leave out subsection (4).
  No. 34, in Clause 4, page 4, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  "(2) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above shall have effect in relation to a housing authority and the Greater London Council as if the references to sections 2 and 3 above in that subsection included a reference to section (Duty of housing authorities to provide temporary protection for movable property) above.".
  No. 36, in Clause 6, page 4, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  "(2) Any reasonable expenses incurred—

  (a) by a housing authority in protecting or dealing with property under section (Duty of housing authorities to provide temporary protection for movable property) above, or

  (b) by a housing authority or the Greater London Council in so protecting or dealing with any such property by virtue of section 4(1) above,

  may be recovered by them from the person whose property it is".
  Mr. Arthur Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having looked at the provisional selection of amendments, may I ask you to take time to have another look at Amendment (b) to New Clause 3? I understand that the proposal for an appeal procedure of the kind mentioned in Amendment (b) was dealt with in Committee, which might well have led you to believe that it would be improper to take this again on Report.
  When we come to debate New Clause 3, it will emerge that there are two important new principles which are matters of judgment and which would possibly lead to a justifiable re-cxamination of the case for a right of appeal, not in relation to homelessness or priority need but in relation to the means of the person concerned, and also in relation to whether he is intentionally homeless.
  In view of that, may I ask you to have another look at this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that the House might have an opportunity, if those two new principles are approved, of considering whether it would now be proper to have a right of appeal on behalf of the applicant?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I have, in fact, looked very closely at the point he has made and have considered it, but I regret that I cannot change my mind on the selection which has been made.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: Further to your statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, concerning the provisional selection of amendments. One matter has just come to my mind, and I regret that I have not been able to mention it to the Minister or to the sponsor of the Bill. It relates to Amendment No. 35, which at the moment is grouped with Amendment No. 17. It
  1592
  appears to me that it might be more appropriate to take Amendment No. 35 with Amendment No. 37. Amendment No. 37 would be totally meaningless without having Amendment No. 35 taken with it at the same time. Amendment No. 37 seeks to remove certain wording from subsection (1) of Clause 6, and the removal of that wording will make nonsense unless we are at the same time considering Amendment No. 35, which substitutes wording in place of that which is to be taken out by Amendment No. 37.
  I can see why the selection has arisen in the way that it has. It is simply because Amendment No. 35 seems to deal with the threat of homelessness being brought about intentionally, and, therefore, for that reason it was grouped with Amendment No. 17, which deals with the substantive point. But on careful reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will find that Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 go better together rather than having one of them grouped with Amendment No. 17. If there is no objection, might we have the grouping amended in that way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the Minister wish to comment?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I would support that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Minister agrees, that will be arranged. Mr. Stephen Ross.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: The effect of the clause is to place a duty on housing authorities to take reasonable steps to protect the movable property of a person whom they have reason to believe to be homeless or threatened with homelessness and to be unable to protect it himself. The clause confers power to enter the previous home of the person concerned and to store or arrange storage of property. This replaces the power to store furniture in Clause 3(4), which is to be deleted by Amendment No. 30. Amendment No. 34 empowers housing authorities and the Greater London Council to co-operate by undertaking the functions in New Clause 1. Amendment No. 36 empowers authorities to make reasonable charges for dealing with property in this way.

  1593
  This proposal follows discussion of the question of the protection of furniture and other possessions of homeless people in Standing Committee. Social services authorities currently have a duty under Section 48 of the National Assistance Act to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to the movable property of homeless people in temporary accommodation who are unable to protect their own property. Clause 3(4) of the Bill provides a power to store or arrange storage of the possessions of people for whom the authority secured accommodation, but this was felt not to be adequate. It was the view of Committee that an equivalent duty should be carried forward in the Bill. The proposed clause would place a duty on housing authorities to take reasonable steps to protect the movable property of persons who they have reason to believe are homeless or threatened with home-lessness, if it seems that there is a danger of loss or damage to property because of an owner's inability to deal with it and that no other arrangements are being made.
  A person might be unable to deal with his property for various reasons—for example, if he was given temporary furnished accommodation and he could not afford to put his own furniture into a commercial store, or if he had been illegally locked out by his landlord and could not gain access to the house to remove his possessions. However, it seems likely that in almost all cases the person would be able to deal with his property himself, and that the authority would not have to act. It could also be noted that the authority may recover the costs from anyone so assisted.
  I have brought the clause forward in the light of our discussions in Committee. But I ought to add that I am not sure that we have got it quite right in relation to the duty on the authority to secure that accommodation is available, which will apply only in certain cases. The drafting covers people from the moment they seek help so that there is no avoidable gap, but I think that we need to consider whether this duty should be more closely tied to the people to whom the accommodation duty applies and that whatever length of time for which it applies should be added. Perhaps, after all, it would be more appro-
  1594
  priate to express this as a power rather than a duty. We shall hope to come back to this in another place.
  Section 48 of the National Assistance Act will, of course, continue to apply to persons admitted from existing accommodation or directly to hospital or to residential social services accommodation.
  On that basis, I hope that the House will accept the clause and the amendments.
  Mr. Rossi: I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for tabling this new clause. As he said, it concerns a matter that we raised in Committee, when my hon. Friends and I sought to bring into the Bill provisions that appear in Section 48 of the National Assistance Act 1948. It arose from a request made to us by SHAC and the other six charities associated with it in considering the effects that the Bill will have upon their work.
  As the Bill originally came before the House, there was a provision in Clause 3(4) enabling a housing authority to store or to arrange for the storage of furniture where the authority was under a duty to rehouse someone. Unhappily, in incorporating that power into the Bill, not the entire obligation contained in the National Assistance Act was put in, especially the obligation to protect the person's property from damage or loss.
  As I read this clause and compare it with the amendment that my hon. Friends and I proposed in Committee, there is very little difference except for a certain rearrangement of the wording and its splitting into paragraphs. Apart from that, the wording follows what we suggested, which was taken from Section 48 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
  However, since the clause went on to the Notice Paper in this form I have received a representation from the Association of District Councils, which indicates that in rearranging the wording the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has possibly gone a little further than we were contemplating in Committee, and, therefore, that it may be necessary in another place to look at the wording again not only from the point of view mentioned by the hon. Gentleman but also from that of the representation made to us by the ADC.

  1595
  Two matters were drawn to my attention by the ADC, which I invite the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to consider. First, in the title to the new clause, our attention is directed to a duty on housing authorities to provide temporary protection for movable property. However, when one looks at the wording of the clause itself, one finds that there is no reference to a temporary obligation. The obligation imposed is a permanent one, and the Association of District Councils feels that this may impose too onerous a duty upon housing authorities.
  The second matter to which the ADC wishes to draw attention is that it is conceivable that where a person is rehoused by an authority that person will move with him the belongings that he wants and will abandon quite happily, as frequently happens, a lot of stuff that he does not want—rubbish, junk or furniture which does not fit into the new accommodation being offered to him.
  As the clause reads at the moment there is nothing to suggest that the housing authority would have the right to dispose of that unwanted property. it may find itself under a complete obligation to continue to store and protect it and to pay charges for it being in store, for handling and for insuring it, when it is of no benefit to anyone that that should happen. Therefore, the ADC has requested that the new clause be reconsidered so that at some stage there may be incorporated into it a power for a local authority to dispose of unwanted personal possessions.
  These are matters that we need not deal with this morning, but I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will make the necessary arrangements for the clause to be put right in another place.
  11.15 a.m.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I give the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) the assurance that the matters that he raised will be noted. On first hearing, they seem to be very reasonable ones. I quite understand the situation that he describes. As I said just now, it is possible that the clause will have to have some slight amendment made to it and, when considering that, I shall also consider the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

  PAYMENT OF NEEDS ELEMENT OF RATE SUPPORT GRANT TO DISTRICT COUNCILS
  "(1) Not later than the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State should make regulations under section 2(4) of the Local Government Act 1974 providing for an appropriate proportion of the needs element of rate support grant to be payable to the councils of districts within a county instead of the council of the non-metropolitan county.
  (2) The appropriate proportion under subsection (1) above shall be such amount as in the opinion of the Secretary of State after consultation with the local authority associations reflects the transfer of responsibility for homeless persons from the councils of non-metropolitan counties to the districts within counties."—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The clause deals with the payment to district councils of a proportion of the needs element of the rate support grant. The need for the clause is foreseen in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, which provides that
  "The Bill will require a transfer of resources from social services to housing authorities to meet the commitments hitherto met by the former for payment for hotel (bed and breakfast) accommodation and for providing and managing temporary accommodation."
  There is no argument between the Government and the Opposition about the need for this transfer of resources.
  The first part of the clause provides that not later than the day on which this legislation comes into force the Secretary of State should make regulations under Section 2(4) of the Local Government Act 1974 providing for an appropriate proportion of the needs element of rate support grant to be payable to the councils of districts within a county instead of the council of the non-metropolitan county.
  The second part of the clause provides that
  "The appropriate proportion under subsection (1) … shall be of such an amount that in the opinion of the Secretary of State after consultation with the local authority associations reflects the transfer of responsibility for

  1597
  homeless persons from the councils of non-metropolitan counties to the districts within counties."
  We are not anxious to be hard on counties, but we know that a part of the needs element is intended to cover their duties in respect of the homeless. Now that that duty and obligation is to be transferred to the district councils, we think it only right and proper that the money to cover the expenditure should be transferred as well. At the same time, we know of the financial pressures faced by county authorities in the social services.
  The fact is that the Government are not prepared to make extra financial provision to implement this Bill. Although the cost is not very great—about £16,000 per authority, as we were told in Committee—that money must be found from somewhere. It seemed appropriate that we should look for it in the needs element given to the counties.
  The second part of the clause is important, since it lays a duty on the Minister to liaise with the local authority associations in deciding the appropriate amount to be transferred. In a sense, the Minister is being forced to meet the associations and to discuss the matter with them.
  Mr. Armstrong: The needs element of rate support grant is at present paid only to London boroughs, non-metropolitan counties, and metropolitan districts. The Government have, however, already accepted in principle that it should be paid to the non-metropolitan districts, and are considering with the local authority associations how best this could be achieved. To date, however, no agreement between the associations has been reached, but when agreement is reached, no new legislation would be required to effect it. It would be inappropriate to take steps now, in this Bill, but I hope that this explanation will enable the hon. Gentlemen to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Mr. George Younger: Perhaps I should tell the House that it is my fault that the clause as drafted does not cover the Scottish situation. I hope that the Minister's undertaking will apply also to Scottish local authorities, in the same way. Will he give an assurance on that point?
  Mr. Armstrong: Yes. I am assured that that is so.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I should like to press the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.
  My hon. Friend said that the additional cost that would fall on housing authorities for assuming these extra responsibilities was £16,000 per authority. Is the Minister satisfied that in practice the burden will turn out to be as little as that? Such housing authorities as I have consulted on this matter are concerned that this commitment may turn out to be, if not open-ended, much less easily quantifiable than the figure quoted by my hon. Friend. In other words, they might find themselves involved in heavy expenditure —not so must because of extra staff as because of the elaborate verification procedures that will be required to ensure that applicants who claim to be homeless really are in that category within the definitions of the Bill.
  Mr. Armstrong: I do not want to mislead the House. The figure of £16,000 was quoted by me, but it related to a statement by the Association of District Councils, which gave estimated figures of the extra staff and the obligations involved. I said in Committee that even if we accepted those figures—and one could argue about the matter—it would mean an average of £16,000, but I think I added that averages are not very relevant because the incidence of the obligations in the Bill will vary from place to place. We have had discussions about the allocation of resources and we believe that it is a matter of shifting resources from one priority to another rather than requiring any extra expenditure. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. Clearly, he accepts the principle of the new clause and I am glad that we had his assurance. I am also glad to hear that discussions are taking place with the local authority associations. The House appreciates that the Government are following the recommendations of the Layfield Committee in this respect.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clauses 3

  DUTY TO NOTIFY DECISIONS AND REASONS
  "(1) On completing their inquiries under section 2 above, a housing authority shall notify the person who applied to them for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation of their decision on the question whether he is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
  (2) If they notify him that their decision is that he is homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall at the same time notify him of their decision on the question whether he has a priority need.
  (3) If they notify him that their decision is that he has a priority need, they shall at the same time notify him of their decision—

  (a) on the question whether he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, and

  (b) on the question whether it is probable that he will be able, with advice and appropriate assistance, himself to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation.

  (4) If they notify him—

  (a) that they are not satisfied that he is homeless or threatened with homeless-ness, or

  (b) that they are not satisfied that he has a priority need, or

  (c) that they are satisfied—

  (i) that he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, or

  (ii) that is is probable that he will be able, with advice and appropriate assistance, himself to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation,

  they shall at the same time notify him of the reasons for their decision.
  (5) Any notification required under this section shall be given in writing and is to be treated as having been so given if the housing authority have made it available in writing at their office to the person to whom they are required to give it."—[Mr. Rossi.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take the following:
  Amendment (c), in line 8, leave out subsection (3).
  Amendment (a), in line 17, leave out from "need" to end of line 22.
  Amendment No. 24, in Clause 2, page 3, line 10 leave out subsections (4) to (6).
  Amendment No. 25, in page 3, line 12, at end insert
  "and he shall have a right of appeal against that decision to the Secretary of State within 14 days of the notification of the decision".
  Mr. Rossi: The key to the new clause is Amendment No. 24, which seeks to remove from clause 2 subsections (4), (5) and (6).
  Mr. George Cunningham: Is it not Clause 3?
  Mr. Rossi: No. Clause 2, subsections (4), (5) and (6).
  Mr. Cunningham: In that case there must be a misprint on the Amendment Paper, because Amendment No. 24 on my copy has been printed as referring to Clause 3.
  Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I had not noticed that. It is indeed a misprint, and I shall proceed to explain the situation.
  In Committee we considered the obligations of a local authority to carry out inquiries to ascertain whether a person was homeless and, indeed, whether, when somebody was found to be homeless, it was a priority case. Having considered that, we then felt it right that the local authority should notify the applicant in writing of its decision and give reasons. When the Bill first appeared before us, although there was an obligation on local authorities to give reasons, that obligation existed only if the applicant asked for the reasons. There was no obligation on the local authority to give reasons in writing. In Committee we introduced wording to ensure that the notice and the reasons were to be given in writing.
  In Committee the sponsor of the Bill and the Minister thought that the wording was not wholly satisfactory from a legal point of view. It was indicated that a better way of dealing with the matters would be to remove subsections (4), (5) and (6) from Clause 2 and to bring in an entirely new clause dealing as a whole with the obligations of local authorities under the Bill to give notice in writing and also to give the reasons for decisions reached.

  1601
  11.30 a.m.
  I am indebted to the Minister, who has requested the parliamentary draughtsman to produce a suitable new clause in a language that would have proper legal effect. I am also grateful to the Minister for offering me the opportunity of moving the new clause in my name and that of my hon. Friends, since the concept of requiring the authorities to give notice in writing and the reasons for their decisions in writing emanated from us in Committee.
  I wish to acknowledge that the suggestion that this requirement should be placed on local authorities was put to us originally by the seven charities which felt that the Bill was defective in the first place. That is the history of New Clause 3. In effect, the clause and its wording have been proposed by the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: I do not wish to anticipate the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), but what he is saying could appear to be rather ingenuous, because in dealing with a separate clause and provision for notification of reasons, I take it that the hon. Gentleman will go on to mention that two additional criteria are written into the clause which are far more serious than simply the mechanics of how the applicant should be notified.
  Mr. Rossi: I take the point. I was just about to come to it, because I wanted to refer to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and to Amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. While I understand what motivates the hon. Gentleman in putting down those amendments, I must point out that he was mistaken. He has put down amendments to the new clause, but he should have put them down to Amendment No. 28, which we shall discuss in due course.
  As I understand the amendments, the hon. Gentleman objects to two concepts. First, there is the concept that the local authorities will be required to consider whether a person has become homeless intentionally. That is one point that I feel the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The second point that appears to worry him
  1602
  is the requirement that, other than securing accommodation, the local authorities can discharge their obligations to a homeless person by tendering advice or by giving other assistance. Those are the two matters to which the amendments in the name of the hon. Gentleman are directed. However, those two concepts would be introduced into the Bill sub-stantively by Amendment No. 28.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: They will be introduced substantively into the Bill only if Amendment No. 28 is carried.
  Mr. Rossi: I take that point, but our debate should be on Amendment No. 28 and not on this clause, because if we assume—contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has just indicated, that Amendment No. 28 is carried, it would be singularly inappropriate to exclude from the duty of the authority to give notice a requirement that it should also tell the homeless person that it has decided that he is intentionally homeless and that it has decided to deal with him other than by securing accommodation.
  Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not surprisingly, we have got ourselves into an impossible situation here—and not for the first time during the passage of this Bill. As has been said, the substantive amendment relating to the whole matter is Amendment No. 28, even though it is not first in the group of amendments in which it appears. That amendment will give the House an opportunity to decide whether a person excludes himself from the category of those who must be housed if he intentionally makes himself homeless. It is another qualification. Amendment No. 35 is grouped with that amendment. Amendment No. 35 relates to the question whether it is an offence to mislead people about one's intention. We are now in the process of deciding what should be notified to such a person before we have had an opportunity of considering whether that amendment needs to be made. That is preposterous. One cannot consider a Bill in that way.
  I respectfully suggest that New Clause 3 and all its attendant amendments should have been grouped with Amendment No. 28 or, at least, ought to be considered after Amendment No. 28 and not

  1603
  before it. Failing that, I respectfully suggest that we should take this matter on the nod, one way or the other, and leave it to the Lords to sort out. We could then get on to the substantive discussion of intention in Amendment No. 28 when we come to it.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I go along with a great deal of what has just been said, but it might be that if the House and the sponsor were willing to accept the new clause, and if, at a later stage, the House were not willing to accept what is, in effect, subsection (3) of the clause, the Lords would have to correct it. The House would therefore save a great deal of time if the sponsor were willing to accept the new clause and we could come to the heart of the matter later on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That point of order was useful. However, we shall have to wait and see whether New Clause 3 is accepted. There is a possibility that it will be.
  Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was absolutely right. We are in this difficulty because, according to our procedures on Report, we consider new clauses first, and the amendments to clauses are taken subsequently in clause order. However, the hon. Gentlemen, in putting down these amendments to New Clause 3, were, in a sense, mistaken in not at the same time putting down amendments to Amendment No. 28. All that they are attempting to do is to remove from the local authority an obligation to give notification of part of its decision and the reasons for it. I can easily understand how hon. Gentlemen have got themselves into that difficulty by reading the offending wording, which appears early on the Order Paper, deciding that it was not acceptable and that something must be done about it, and then not reading through to see whether other parts of the Bill were being amended in a substantive manner.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: The House faced the difficulty that New Clause 3 and Amendment No. 28 appeared on the Order Paper for the first time yesterday. I concede, naturally, that our consideration may have been hurried and imper-
  1604
  fect, but the hurry was not of our making. We have tabled amendments to New Clause 3, which we intend to press. If we are successful in carrying them and, indeed, if we can debate the principle of the amendments, I suggest that the easy way out for the House—if the Chair will agree—will be for us to move subsequently a manuscript amendment to Amendment No. 28, which will be consequential if our amendments to New Clause 3 are successful. That would be the procedure. These amendments were tabled last week and consideration has not been as cool, calm and collected as it might have been.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That might be helpful to the House. If I may look at the manuscript amendment that the hon. Gentleman proposes to Amendment No. 28, I will get a ruling on it.
  Mr. Rossi: The House is now in a procedural difficulty, because we do not wish to avoid or exclude debate upon important matters that have been raised by the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham). It is merely a question whether it is most appropriate to have the discussion at this point.
  We should put ourselves in an extraordinary difficulty if we debated the matter now, when we are dealing only with giving a notice and the reasons for that notice in writing. The suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is reasonable. We could take the new clause as it stands, on the basis that we are dealing with formal matters. If the House thinks, when we reach Amendment No. 28, that the duty should be different from that proposed in the amendment, consequential amendments dealing with notification could be moved in another place. The most logical way out of this procedural difficulty would be if you would accept a manuscript amendment to Amendment No. 28, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the form in which hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have sought to amend the new clause.
  Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am puzzled where that would leave us on

  1605
  Amendment No. 25. I do not know how that fits in with this lot. It is one of the most crucial amendments, and deals with the question whether there should be a right of appeal for an applicant against a decision of the local authority that he is not homeless or in priority need. It has been put in with a group dealing with notifying people about things that have, substantively, been decided.
  We cannot process a Bill on this basis. It is a hopeless combination of amendments, which have nothing to do with one another.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that I can do about that at this stage.
  Mr. Rossi: We leave Amendment No. 25 entirely between the mover, the Minister and the sponsor of the Bill. We have no view on that question.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Amendment No. 25 stands in my name, and my hon. Friends and I are also concerned about the grouping. We should have preferred to debate it later. It is a substantive issue concerning a right of appeal and we believe that it is an important amendment. We are in some difficulty, and this is reflected by the Report stage procedure of taking new clauses and amendments to them first.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may not be so convenient, but there is no difficulty in discussing Amendment No. 25 now. That is why it has been grouped with the new clause. The hon. Gentleman is not debarred from discussing it. He can make his contribution in this debate.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not clear whether the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has finished his speech on New Clause 3, or how we intend to handle Amendments (a) and (c). I think that the most sensible way to proceed would be for the House to take our amendments and use them for a debate on the principle. We shall abide by the result of that debate, and if we are successful—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising an unnecessary point. The amendments have been grouped with the new clause and if the
  1606
  hon. Gentleman wishes to divide upon them he may do so at an appropriate stage
  Mr. Stephen Ross: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been asked about my view on the way in which we should proceed. I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that it would have been more helpful if we could have discussed Amendment No. 28 first. I should prefer the House to accept New Clause 3, although I am unhappy about two elements of it, namely—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are getting mixed up between points of order and general contributions to the debate. Has the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) finished moving New Clause 3? I thought that he had.
  Mr. Rossi: If the House decides that we should now debate the substantive matters raised in Amendments (a) and (c), I shall want to address hon. Members on those matters. If it is decided, in answer to the invitation of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, that we should take the new clause as it stands because it deals only with procedural matters and discuss the substantive point later, I have nothing further to say.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I gather that the intention is to continue the discussion on Amendments (a) and (c).
  Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether you take the full nature of the point. The substantive issue, namely, whether intention should be important, is raised in Amendment No. 28. Some hon. Members are saying that we should discuss the whole business of intention, and not only in relation to whether a person has been notified and what the local authority thinks. May we have now the discussion that we would have on Amendment No. 28? It would be sensible to do that if it were in order, but I understand that we should not be in order in doing so.
  11.45 a.m.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The situation is getting a bit complicated. We are discussing New Clause 3, with Amendments (a), (c), No. 24 and No. 25. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr.

  1607
  Cunningham) has raised a point about the substantive question. If the House agrees, we could combine with this group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 17, 28 and 49. Then we shall get somewhere. Is the House agreeable to that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Very well. With this group we may also take the following amendments:
  No. 17, in Clause 2, page 3, line 3, leave out
  'whether he has a special need '
  and insert—

  '(i) whether he has a priority need, and

  (ii) whether he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, and

  (iii) if the authority are satisfied that he has a priority need, any further inquiries necessary to satisfy them whether it is probable that he will be able, with advice and appropriate assistance, himself to secure that accommodation becomes or does cease to be available for his occupation; and

  (iv) if they so wish, as to the area in which he was normally resident prior to his application or with which he has some special connection by reason of family ties or employment.'.

  No. 28, in Clause 3, page 3, line 25, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
  '(2) Where—

  (a) they are not satisfied that he has a priority need, or

  (b) they are satisfied that he has a priority need but arc also satisfied—

  (i) that he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, or

  (ii) that it is probable that he will be able with advice and appropriate assistance, himself to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation,

  their duty is to furnish him with advice and appropriate assistance.
  (2A) Where—

  (a) they are satisfied that a person who has applied to them for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation is homeless, and

  (b) they are subject to a duty towards him by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above, they shall secure that accommodation is made available for his occupation for such period as they consider appropriate.

  (2B) Where they are satisfied that he has a priority need and are also satisfied—

  (a) that he did not become homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, and

  (b) that it is not probable that he will be able, even with advice and appropriate
  1608
  assistance, himself to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation,

  their duty is to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation.
  (2C) A housing authority may perform their duty to a person under subsection (2B) above by making available accommodation held by them under Part V of the Housing Act 1957 or Part VII of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 or under any other enactment or by securing that he obtains accommodation from some other person or retains his existing accommodation.
  (2D) Where a housing authority would otherwise be under a duty by virtue of subsection (2B) above but are satisfied that he was not normally resident in their area prior to his application or that there is some other area which he has a special connection by reason of family ties or employment, they may notify the making of the application to the housing authority of the area in which it appears to them that he was so resident or with which he has such a special connection.
  (2E) It shall be the duty of an authority receiving a notification under subsection (2D) above on being satisfied that the applicant was normally resident in their area prior to his application or had some special connection with their area by reason of family ties or employment to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation as if the application under Section 2(1) had been made to them in the first instance.
  (2F) Upon an authority receiving a notification and becoming under a duty by virtue or subsections (2D) and (2E) above the authority giving the notification shall cease to be under a duty to secure that accommodation becomes available for the applicant's occupation.
  (2G) In the event of there being disagreement between the authority giving and the authority receiving the notification as to the area in which the applicant is normally resident or with which he had some special connection by reason of family ties or employment and accordingly as to which authority is to secure that accommodation becomes available such questions (including questions as to what constitutes normal residence or special connections) shall be determined in accordance with arrangements to be made between housing authorities generally or in default of such arrangements as provided by general guidance given by the Secretary of State under section 7 of this Act.
  (2H) Until any disagreement between authorities is resolved in accordance with the provisions of the preceding subsection it shall be the duty of the authority to whom the application under section 2(1) was made to secure that accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant.
  (2I) Notwithstanding the right of a housing authority to give a notification under subsection (2D) above such an authority shall remain under a duty to ensure wherever possible that the applicants accommodation does not cease to be available for his occupation.
  (2J) Nothing in this section shall affect any right of a housing authority to secure vacant

  1609
  possession of accommodation, whether by virtue of a contract or of any enactment or rule of law.'.
  No. 49, in Clause 11, page 7, line 22, at end insert—
  '"appropriate assistance", in relation to any person, means such assistance as a housing authority consider it appropriate in the circumstances to give him in any attempts that he may make to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation;'.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we also take Amendment No. 35, which goes with Amendment No. 28?
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that we had agreed that Amendment No. 35 would be taken with Amendment No. 37.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has agreed to my suggestion that we should combine the amendments to which I referred. Let us now proceed.
  Mr. Rossi: I invite the House to consider Amendments Nos. 17 and 28 together. We spent a great deal of time in Committee considering the problems that could arise for local authorities if some people sought to take advantage of the absolute obligation to rehouse homeless people by making themselves homeless.
  On Second Reading a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House expressed concern over what we termed self-induced homelessness. The example was given of someone living in not very attractive privately rented accommodation who was aware that the local authority had been carrying forward an ambitious programme of attractive new building. In those circumstances a tenant might stop paying his landlord his rent or start breaking some of the obligations under his tenancy, with the result that the landlord would naturally make an application to the county court for a possession order. The tenant, having no intention of wanting to remain in his accommodation, would not defend that action and would have a judgment for possession made against him automatically.
  Under Clause 1 such a person is defined as a homeless person. That person, as the Bill is drafted, would be perfectly entitled to go to a local authority and say "I am
  1610
  homeless. You are not entitled to inquire how it was that I became homeless. I fall within the definition of homelessness under Clause 1. Therefore, you must rehouse me."
  Some of us may say "If a chap is in desperate circumstances and in unsatisfactory housing accommodation, why should he not try to get the local authorities to rehouse him into something decent?" That is all very well up to a point if one is prepared to ignore the fact that the council will probably have an obligation to hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have been patiently on a housing waiting list to be rehoused by the local authority. We could well be creating a situation in which some people would seek to jump the queue by introducing circumstances in which an authority would be obliged, under the Bill, to rehouse them in priority over every other family irrespective of needs and irrespective of conditions. They would be given priority over those who had been waiting patiently on the housing list to be rehoused.
  That is one example of how the system could be worked by someone who was extremely astute, who came to know what the law really said and who was, in a sense, prepared to be dishonest in com parison with his fellow citizens who were equally in need of rehousing. Possibly his fellow citizens would be in greater need of rehousing bearing in mind the unsatisfactory conditions in which they might be living.
  Mr. George Rodgers: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that, while the new clause might deal with a minority who go to the lengths he has described to abuse the system, it would debar many decent and honest people who become homeless because they have had no option, perhaps through circumstances of violence or poverty?
  Mr. Rossi: I shall come to the wording of the clause in a moment. First, I want to outline the reasoning that leads us to attempt to make an amendment. We can discuss at a later stage whether it is the right amendment.
  I have given one example of where there could be queue-jumping. That is self-induced homelessness so that a person may take advantage over other citizens in unfair circumstances. There are other

  1611
  ways in which that can be done. There is an anxiety that is shared especially by local authorities in seaside resorts or other highly attractive parts of the country in which to live.
  Under the Rent Act 1974 the House has excluded from security of tenure holiday lettings or lettings of holiday accommodation off season. If a tenant goes to the seaside and has a fortnight's holiday or a three-week holiday, he has to leave at the end of that period so that other holidaymakers can rent the accommodation. Under the Rent Act there is no security of tenure. That seems to be common sense.
  Similarly, if the landlord, the owner of the property, lets the cottage or flat for eight months of the year outside the holiday season but normally provides the accommodation to accommodate holiday-makers, the person who takes the property off-season for eight months of the year will not be entitled to security of tenure. At the end of the winter, when the landlord wants to start letting to holiday-makers, he can say to the person who has taken the property for eight months of the year off-season "Your contract is at an end. I now want the accommodation for holidaymakers who have booked with me months earlier. You must go. There is no security of tenure."
  That is the situation that everyone accepts and recognises, but under the Bill as drafted and unamended it is possible for holidaymakers, or those taking holiday accommodation out of season, to say at the end of the term "We have to go and you, the local authority, must rehouse us." The obligation under Clause 1 as it stands would be absolute upon the local authority. It is the fear of Bournemouth, Brighton, Worthing, Eastbourne, Thanet, Margate, Ramsgate, Wales and Scotland, where there are substantial holiday lettings and which are very attractive parts of the country in which to live, that they will find themselves in a situation in which they will be obliged to rehouse holidaymakers in priority to their own people for whom they are making provision in the normal way on their housing list. There is no protection against that situation arising. It would be to the detriment of the residents in those areas if that door were left open.
  1612
  It is not only holiday areas that are in this difficulty. Any main city that has a main railway terminus, seaport or airport within its area could find itself in precisely this difficulty. The magnet areas could find themselves with the burden of taking in and rehousing others from all over the country in priority to their own citizens, their own residents.
  In Committee we tried to deal with this possibility by making amendments to the definition of homelessness. We sought to speak of homelessness in unforeseen circumstances. We tried to speak of someone being homeless through no fault of his own. In Committee there was unanimity among the three parties that we had to revise the Bill in some way so that we removed from local authorities the obligation to rehouse the self-induced homeless person, the person trying to work the system. We were not successful in finding the correct wording.
  It was fairly pointed out that the wording "due to unforeseen circumstances" could create a situation in which someone became homeless because he defaulted on his mortgage repayments. It could be argued that those circumstances were not unforeseen.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: Before the hon. Gentleman continues with his other illustrations, perhaps he will complete the story in his first illustration of the seaside town or somewhere near an airport. It seems that he is covering that illustration in Amendment No. 28 in subsection (2D). Under that subsection there would be no need to have the reference to intentional homelessness because the individual would be referred back to the district from whence he came.
  12 noon.
  Mr. Rossi: If I may be allowed to develop my argument in my own way, I shall cover the points that seem to be causing the hon. Gentleman anxiety.
  The Committee was unanimous in its concern about the problem of self-induced homelessness and the impossible burden that could be imposed upon local authorities in attractive parts of the country— the magnet areas. We were unsuccessful in arriving at a form of wording that

  1613
  could give effect to our intention. Therefore, it was agreed that the amendments to Clause 1 should be withdrawn. The Minister kindly offered to make his Department and the parliamentary draftsmen available both to the sponsor of the Bill and to myself in order to help to produce a form of wording that would give precise legal effect to the expressed intention of the Committee.
  I am indebted to the Minister for his help in this matter. But, in so far as there are critics of this form of wording who were not parties to the long and detailed discussions in Committee, I should point out that this wording has been produced by parliamentary draftsmen to give effect to the Committee's unanimous decision.
  Perhaps I might now indicate to the House how the problems that I have outlined are sought to be solved by the wording in these amendments. The first amendment that we have to consider is No. 17. Clause 2 deals with the situation where a local authority has to make inquiries into the requirements of a person claiming to be homeless. As the Bill stands, under Clause 2 (2) (a), when a person applies to a housing authority for accommodation or assistance and the authority has reason to suspect that that person is homeless, the authority has to make certain inquiries. First, it has to make inquiries to satisfy itself that the person is actually homeless or threatened with homelessness as defined in Clause 1. It then has to go on to decide whether the homeless person is a priority case.
  In addition, if the House accepts that local authorities ought to be put in the position of being able to say "We are not accepting this case because it is self-induced homelessness and is unfair to those on our general housing waiting list", they should be able to make inquiries, if they wish as to whether the person concerned was homeless intentionally. The word "intentionally" was chosen not by myself or my hon. Friends but by parliamentary draftsmen to be put in place of the words that we suggested in Committee,
  "through no fault of his own or through unforeseen circumstances",
  to which there are certain objections. I put forward "intentionally" on the basis
  1614
  of its being the best word that we are advised can be used to give effect to the Committee's intentions.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: I have been trying unsuccessfully to follow the hon. Gentleman without asking him where I might find the evidence in the Committee's proceedings for the suggestion of unanimity about the purposes behind the amendment. If he can assist me with that, I shall be most grateful.
  Mr. Rossi: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has come to the House today wishing to raise these matters without having looked at the Committee's proceedings. If he looks at the reports of the first, second, third, fourth and part of the fifth sittings, where we consider the definition of homelessness, he will find in those five sittings, which took three days of work, the discussion on these matters that I have raised.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: I was endeavouring to be polite or to give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, after studying those proceedings I cannot draw the conclusion that there was unanimity about the purposes behind the amendment.
  Mr. Rossi: I ask the hon. Gentleman to re-read the whole of the debate upon the wording
  "by reason of unforeseen circumstances."
  He will see reiterated time and again by myself, the sponsor of the Bill and the Minister that there would have to be acceptance of the view of the Committee. I do not know whether the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) wishes to intervene, but he knows about the pressure that the Committee as a whole placed upon him to consider the question of self-induced homelessness.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: There is no question but that in Committee there was a substantial body of opinion on both sides which felt that we should deal adequately with the question of the mobile homeless and the person who deliberately contrived to make himself homeless. I accepted from the early stages of our discussions that those matters had to be dealt with to try to satisfy the genuine fears of many local authorities.
  Mr. Rossi: Following the discussion on Amendment No. 17, apart from self-induced homelessness, there was also the

  1615
  question of authorities in seaside and rural areas—the magnet areas—which found themselves having to rehouse people from other areas.
  Amendment No. 17 enables local authorities, if they wish—there is no obligation upon them; they can accept the responsibility without any difficulty— to make inquiries as to where the person making the application was normally resident or had special connection by reason of family ties or employment prior to making the application. The amendment relates to the inquiries that a local authority has to make when a person claiming to be homeless presents himself to it.
  Those inquiries having been made, we come to the duty imposed upon the local authority when someone claims to be homeless. Therefore, we turn to Amendment No. 28. That takes out from Clause 3 subsections (2) and (3), which require the local authority to secure accommodation for somebody who comes as a priority case. They also enable the authority, where there is not a priority case but a request for rehousing on the basis of homelessness, to deal with the situation other than by providing accommodation—for example, helping to settle a family row by assisting the person concerned to find accommodation for himself. Those two propositions are now dealt with and expanded in Amendment No. 28.
  We start with a series of propositions with an ascending degree of duty on the part of the local authority, depending on the circumstances of the individual who has applied to that authority. Under subsection (2) of Amendment No. 28, where the authority believes that there is not a priority need as a result of its inquiries, that there is a priority need but that it is self-induced homelessness, or that the circumstances of the individual are such that it is possible for accommodation to be found for him without making a demand upon the limited stocks of the local authority, the authority is simply required to give "advice and appropriate assistance".
  I do not think anyone would cavil at that suggestion for non-priority need. There might be cases where there is a priority need but the authority believes that it can discharge its obligations by giving advice and assistance. It is to that
  1616
  point that the amendments to Clause 3 direct themselves.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: One of the aspects that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned causes me anxiety. He suggested that homelessness could be overcome by patching up a family quarrel. Is he suggesting that the local authority might discharge its obligation, when a wife has left her husband and taken her children with her—not in circumstances when there is a threat of violence, but when she has left for valid and sound reasons—by persuading the husband to let her return?
  Mr. Rossi: I do not think that that would be right in every circumstance. We would not want to force battered wives to return to their homes. I have pointed out that I am dependent on the Government and parliamentary draftsmen for the form of wording. As for the question of intentional homelessness, my hon. Friends and I take a strong view. We would not wish to see that concept eroded in any way. We had the support, if not of every member of the Committee, certainly of virtually every member. I cannot recall anyone speaking against this concept who did not eventually accept it as a reasonable proposition. That was why I used the word "unanimous."
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I shall return to that last point when I address the House later, if I catch the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would, however, like to return to the exchange between the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) earlier and to the circumstances which are referred to in the new clause, which may indeed have been drafted by the Government but which appears in the hon. Member's name. As I understood the hon. Gentleman, he said that in his view it would not be reasonable to ask a battered wife to return to the home. I cannot see that that necessarily arises from a strict reading of the clause. I would have thought that the clause leaves it open to the housing authority to provide such advice and assistance as it may think necessary to patch up that marital problem. If that is not what it means, will the hon. Gentleman explain the clause?
  12.15 p.m.
  Mr. Rossi: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when this wording was put to

  1617
  me I asked about it. I was advised that it was within the experience of local authorities that the simple giving of advice and social service assistance could deal with a homeless problem without the necessity to provide new accommodation. The example given was that of a family quarrel, net necessarily involving a battered wife. Suppose that a youngster has a row with his parents. The father says "How dare you speak to your mother in that way? Never darken my doorstep again." In the heat of the moment, the youngster slams the front door and is gone. He goes to the town hall and says "Rehouse me, I am homeless." [Interruption.] It could be a priority group in the sense that it was a married daughter and son-in-law living with the parents. Unhappily, too many people are forced into such a situation.
  In such a row, hard things are said in the heat of the moment and are immediately regretted. Often matters can be resolved by the intervention of a third party who can smooth the situation. Local authorities have found it possible to patch up such family rows. It is better to do that than to perpetuate the row by physical separation, which rehousing would cause. Given our limited resources, if local authorities are to be obliged to rehouse in such a situation, without there being any alternative open to them, we could be spending a great deal of money.
  It was put to me that when moving these amendments to deal with self-induced homelessness I should leave it open to the authorities to deal with the type of problems I have referred to— and which were given to me as an example—by incorporating in the amendments wording which would give freedom of action and flexibility to local authorities, allowing them to help people in ways other than rehousing.
  Obviously, I would not wish local authorities to use this as an escape route, a means of avoiding their obligations. Where a wife has been battered or in other extreme cases where there is no possibility of reconciliation, or where it would be impossible to require people to live under the same roof together, we would not wish local authorities to use the formula that I have just outlined to escape their obligations. I accept that at once. I have discussed this matter with
  1618
  the sponsor of the Bill. When that possible interpretation was put to me, I replied that if a local authority could act in such a way we must look at the clause again and tighten it up.
  The arrangements between myself and the sponsor of the Bill is that he will see that this matter is looked at again between now and the Bill's appearance in another place. He will discuss the problem with parliamentary draftsmen to see in what way this phrase can be tightened up so that local authorities will not be able to take advantage of the technical wording of the Bill to escape their responsibilities.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that all the cases he has mentioned would be covered by the definition of homelessness? If the person concerned could reasonably go somewhere else, he should not be regarded as homeless. Therefore, this provision of getting a place which is reasonably available is unnecessary. The person would not be regarded as homeless if the circumstances were reasonable.
  Mr. Rossi: I am advised that that is not the legal situation and that the term "homelessness' is badly defined in Clause 1. In our debates on Clause 1, we tried to widen that definition. It is because we did not succeed that we now have to deal with it on Clause 3.
  Mr. George Cunningham: To get this right, is it not correct that a person would be homeless only if he had no title to occupy? The fact that he could go somewhere but without a title to go there would not mean that he fell within the category denned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann.)
  Mr. Rossi: I am obliged; that is the precise legal point. Homelessness, as defined in Clause 1, simply means not having somewhere to live, without going into the circumstances that I have been trying to outline. It is therefore necessary to modify the concept of homelessness, either by definition in Clause 1, which is what we tried to do in Committee, or now in New Clause 3, where we apply the duty of the local authority and, therefore, try to vary the duty in accordance with the circumstances.

  1619
  It is not the method which attracted me in dealing with it as pan of the duty. I should have preferred to deal with it as part of the definition of homelessness. But we must give and take in these matters to try to reach a sensible working solution. I accept the advice of the Minister and his legal advisers that it is better to deal with the problem by seeking to redefine not homelessness but the duty of the local authority in different circumstances. That is why the amendment is in this form.
  Therefore, when it comes to the new subsection (2)(b)(ii) in Amendment No. 28 on the question of advice and appropriate assistance, I should not be averse to that being looked at again in order to meet the anxieties expressed by Labour Members. Those anxieties came to my mind when I first read this provision, but I was assured that it could not be applied in that way. The provision will be backed ultimately by the code of guidance to be laid down by Clause 7. In that code, to which the local authorities will be obliged to have regard, the Secretary of State will spell out in detail the circumstances in which advice and assistance would be appropriate rather than the duty to rehouse, It was on the basis that they would be so spelt out that I put my name to this wording.
  However, whether we deal with the matter ultimately by altering this wording or by ensuring that the code of guidance is sufficiently tight to ensure that battered wives and others are accepted by the local authorities, but that where a family discussion can resolve the problem it should be dealt with in that way, I am happy to leave it to the code of guidance. This, however, is a matter which the House of Lords will have to discuss if we are to make progress with the Bill today.
  I have dealt with the situation in which local authorities have to give advice and assistance. We now come to the higher duty imposed upon them by subsection (2) (a) in Amendment No. 28, which states that the authorities must secure accommodation for someone for a period which they consider appropriate where the person has made an application claiming to be homeless. This arises where there is not a priority need, where there is a general claim of homelessness and
  1620
  where the local authority's existing obligation under the Social Security Acts is to provide temporary shelter.
  The third and highest duty arises where the authority is satisfied that the person concerned has a priority need, that the homelessness is not self-induced and that the problem will not be resolved by advice and assistance. The duty on the authority then is to secure that accommodation is made available or does not cease to be available.
  There is an entirely different concept in the remainder of Amendment No. 28.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should tell the House that the manuscript amendments to Amendment No. 28 have been accepted.
  Mr. Rossi: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We come now to the problems which arise not on the question whether the person is genuinely homeless and how the local authority can best deal with that person's problems but on the question of which authority shall have the responsibility for rehousing. It is only the question of rehousing which is dealt with by the remainder of Amendment No. 28.
  If someone goes to a local authority as a priority case and claims to be homeless, that authority is immediately obliged to try to advise and assist and, failing that, to provide temporary accommodation. Then the question of permanent accommodation arises. We then have the difficulty of the holiday areas and the question of who shall have the primary responsibility to rehouse. The amendment seeks in those circumstances to enable the authority to which the application is made to look into the circumstances and, if it finds that the applicant has a greater tie with another authority, to notify the other authority that the person is its responsibility.
  If the second authority accepts that responsibility, the duty to rehouse immediately impinges upon the second authority and the first is relieved of it. The second authority may not be prepared to accept that responsibility, perhaps on the grounds that the person was not normally resident in its area or that he had roamed around the country and could not be said to have a definite connection with any area.

  1621
  To deal with that situation, Amendment No. 28 proposes, first, that a homeless person shall be secure and that there is no question of his falling between two stools. Therefore, the first authority has the obligation to give temporary accommodation until the discussion with the second authority is resolved. As originally drafted, the suggestion was that the two authorities should agree between themselves. I felt that that was unsatisfactory because an interminable stand-off could result.
  Therefore, in the suggested subsection (2G), which is the key to this concept, we have sought to require local authorities throughout the country to work out among themselves a code defining where an ultimate responsibility will lie. There is, therefore, no question of any individual homelessness not being the responsibility of some local authority. Throughout the Greater London area, the London Boroughs Association has for some time successfully operated a practical code under which the boroughs decide which borough should in certain circumstances be responsible for housing a homeless person. We see no reason why such an arrangement should not be nationwide. The local authorities would then determine among themselves the criteria by which responsibility for housing a homeless person was achieved.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: The hon. Gentleman has now come to my question about his subsection (2D) as he kindly said he would. Will he now apply this argument to his illustration about intentional homelessness and say why he does not feel that his own subsection (2D) would be sufficient to deal with the holidaymaker who deliberately overstayed?
  12.30 p.m.
  Mr. Rossi: This part of Amendment No. 28 deals with the problem of which local authority shall take primary responsibility for rehousing. We are trying to establish that that responsibility should fall on the authority in whose area the person concerned has a principal connection and is normally resident. That would deal with the holiday-maker. Self-induced homelessness is another matter, which has to be determined separately.
  If it is decided that someone has deliberately brought about his own home-
  1622
  lessness the authority will not have an absolute duty to provide accommodation. Authorities have to protect other citizens who are on waiting lists for accommodation. They are two different situations.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: This is an important matter. The hon. Member has sought to justify his proposals by saying that there are genuine fears that need to be met. In order to establish that there are genuine fears the hon. Member used the example of the holiday-maker who took temporary accommodation, decided it was a nice place to live, gave up his own accommodation elsewhere, claimed to be homeless and therefore became the responsibility of the local authority. Subsection (2D) would enable that local authority to refer the applicant back to the authority in whose area he originated. That is not a case in favour of having a provision to disqualify him because he became intentionally homeless.
  Mr. Rossi: One has to go further back and look at the circumstances of the person concerned before he took holiday accommodation. If that person was reasonably housed in another part of the country, decided that he wanted to get on to the housing list of a seaside authority and deliberately forsook adequate accommodation, the local authority would be entitled to decide that he had deliberately and intentionally made himself homeless, and would be entitled to say that he could not queuejump.
  There could be other circumstances in which a family had no home and in desperation moved from one area to another in search of temporary accommodation. In that case the local authority would say that this was not self-induced homelessness, that the family had not deliberately created the situation but had been trying to help itself by moving around. The homelessness would not be intentional and therefore the provisions of subsection (2D) would apply to decide which authority had the primary responsibility for rehousing that family. The example I gave earlier of holiday lets could spread over these two concepts. I hope that that answers the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. Sainsbury: One could simplify the question by giving examples. Let us

  1623
  suppose that a family living in Paddington in private rented accommodation is evicted and presents itself to the housing authority. It is genuinely homeless and is entitled to be rehoused.
  Another family might be living in the same area in privately rented accommodation which it decides it does not like, because of the noise of trains, for example. This family moves out and turns up at the local housing authority offices and says that it wants to be rehoused. That family has become intentionally homeless, and would be dealt with by a part of Amendment No. 28. That same family, having become intentionally homeless, might decide that it did not want to live in Paddington. It might go to Hove and turn up at the local housing authority there saying that it was entitled to be rehoused.
  If the first family went to Hove and demanded to be rehoused it could be sent back to Paddington. It would be rehoused because it had not become homeless intentionally. The second family would not be entitled to be rehoused in Hove or Paddington because it became intentionally homeless.
  Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) for explaining in practical terms what I have been trying to say in abstract terms.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Subsection (2G) contains the provision whereby, if there is a dispute on the question whether authority A or B is responsible, it has to be settled according to arrangements by local authorities or, in default of such arrangements
  "as provided by general guidance given by the Secretary of State under section 7 of this Act."
  That arbitration would be binding. Guidance under Clause 7 is not binding. One has only to have regard to it. Does that position not apply in the drafting of the provision?
  Mr. Rossi: I do not think so. Clause 7 provides for guidance to be given to local authorities, to which they shall have regard. We have said that a dispute "shall be determined". That goes further than "shall have regard". Under Clause 7 the Secretary of State is given power to give general guidance, to which, for purposes other than this, local authorities
  1624
  merely have to have regard. Later we import firmer terms.
  Mr. George Cunningham: If that is the intention it would be necessary to delete the words in Clause 7. I hope that you take this argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I shall refer to this exchange on another matter. We are discussing subsection (2G). If the hon. Member's intention is that the arbitration provided for in subsection (2G) is to be binding, the words in Clause 7 will have to be deleted. The Secretary of State does not need power to issue guidance. There would be a confusion if this provision stated that there was to be binding arbitration, when Clause 7 states that there shall be regard.
  On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to satisfy you that this is a proper point of order. I submit that the point that I have just made is one of dozens and dozens that show that the Bill is not in a fit condition to be proceeded with on Report. That is the private opinion of probably everyone in the Chamber.
  I am sorry to say to friends of mine "I told you so", but I did tell them so in Standing Committee. We simply cannot go on passing on to the statute book provisions which are the dog's breakfast that this is. I seriously make this proposition to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and ask whether you would be prepared to accept a motion at this stage, or at a later stage, that the Bill be recommitted to a Standing Committee of the House.
  I shall not argue the case at length, but I put it in this way: there are in relation to this Bill only a few really serious central issues. They are, first, the definition of the people who are to have an outright right to be housed; secondly, the question of which authority has the obligation to rehouse; thirdly, the question whether a person escapes that right by his own intentional act in making himself homeless. None of these issues was settled upstairs in Committee. All have been left to the Report stage.
  The main amendment, No. 28, which we are now discussing, was tabled only yesterday, and we have seen how defective it is. We have already said that we shall have to leave it to the House of Lords to sort the thing out in a week or two's time. From Standing Committee

  1625
  until this stage there has been no clarification of the issues, and I doubt whether they could be made clear-cut between now and the Bill being considered by the House of Lords. We are in danger, with the worthiest of motives, of putting absolute nonsense on the statute book, and I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you would be prepared now to accept a motion for recommittal of the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): I cannot accept that motion at this time under the Standing Orders. I could consider such a motion after the end of this debate. The correct time to do it would be at the end of the series of amendments we are discussing.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is in a difficult position. I understand the situation in which the Standing Orders leave you. I suggest that it might be in order for the sponsor of the Bill or for the Government to consider whether the Bill in its present form should not be withdrawn at this stage. Since the debate began on this clause, a further two points have been drawn to my attention which complicate the matter further.
  I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) to what he is moving in Amendment No. 28. If he looks at the first line of sub-paragraph (b) in subsection (2B), he will see that there is a redundant negative in it and, therefore, it would achieve the reverse of what he wishes to attain. Secondly, since we began this debate my own manuscript amendment has been returned to the House typed the wrong way round. Of course we can get over that procedural point, but in view of what has happened since we began consideration of the Bill it is the last straw on the camel's back.
  If my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) had sought to move a motion for recommittal at the beginning of consideration, I would not have supported him because I would have regarded it as a delaying tactic, unfortunate and regrettable. But, given the chaos into which we have sunk I doubt whether it is responsible for us as a legislature to continue with the Bill in its present form.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already indicated that at the moment there is nothing I can do about it. If the Undersecretary of State wishes to say something about it, it is a matter for him.
  Mr. Armstrong: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). It is not the first time that he has made this submission. We are trying in the Bill to find the right balance between the obligations that we lay on local housing authorities and the desperate needs of the homeless. This morning's debate has not been new at all. We are dealing with issues which have been discussed with local authorities, with voluntary bodies, in Committee upstairs and in all sorts of conversations as well.
  12.45 p.m.
  I have lived with this it alter for a long time. All I can say to my hon. Friends is that recommitting the Bill or withdrawing it would not remove any of these issues. They would not go away. We have to make a judgment. In the end, it is a judgment in trying to spell out the duties of local authorities. We know that the attitudes and the will of local authorities differ throughout the country, and we also know the very desperate and pressing needs of the homeless, I think that we would be unfair to those in desperate need if we said "Let us discuss the whole of these issues all over again" in the belief that we could find an answer that would satisfy everybody.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whether we are to take steps to recommit the Bill to a Standing Committee or whether we are to try to improve the procedures in the course of consideration today, we have in this group of amendments four major issues which have to be resolved.
  First, there is the question of intention —whether a family is intentionally homeless and whether that should debar it from being treated as being entitled to the benefit of the terms of the Bill. Secondly, there is the issue of whether the family can provide for itself. Thirdly, there is the question of whether some other area is responsible rather than the area to

  1627
  which the family has applied. Fourthly, there is the question of the right of appeal.
  The question of the right of appeal is a relatively easy issue, and we shall have a separate vote on Amendment No. 25. But I find it difficult to see how we can vote on each of these specific issues on the amendments which now stand before us. Presumably, the first vote will be on Amendment (c). the effect of which would be to leave out subsection (3) of New Clause 3. That, however, deals with both the issue of the intention and the issue of whether someone is capable of providing for himself. We have no opportunity of dealing with these two matters separately from each other, but they should be treated as being separate issues rather than be taken en bloc.
  Then we have Amendment (a), which would deal with the question of need also. We cannot effectively separate these issues in the selection that we have before us. Then we have the latter part of Amendment No. 28, which deals with other authorities, and Amendment No. 13, dealing with issues specifically rather than as part of the general package. We thus have amendments in a form which expresses the intentions of four specific points which we need to decide.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I understand the situation correctly, you have said that you might consider accepting a motion for recommittal at a slightly later stage in these proceedings. I hope that that is the case.
  May I refer to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State? Whether I am correctly or incorrectly informed, and whether he feels able to admit it or deny it, my understanding is that he may have been a party to agreeing certain matters without being absolutely convinced that they were the best way, or forming a judgment that they were the best way, in which to achieve the Bill. Although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), I started this morning feeling somewhat unhappy about the Bill, it is clear that in the last couple of hours—it has become apparent to everyone, including, I hope, the Chair and the Table—that the Bill is in an awful mess.
  1628
  Now, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has to face a second set of choices. If, in the first place, this is the Bill that he accepted rather than have no Bill at all, he may now have to face the fact that the Bill will have to go back to Committee for some sensible tidying up, irrespective of the merits or demerits of particular proposals, or he must face the fact that the rest of us will be convinced that, in the end, the homeless would be better off without any Bill rather than have this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have indicated that during Report stage I cannot entertain the motion that hon. Members have been trying to ask me to consider. I am sure that the Minister is listening to everything that is said and will be making up his mind as to the right course to adopt.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I understand then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I cannot move to recommit at the end of consideration of this group of amendments since the Report stage is still proceeding. I also understand that when the Report stage is terminated I can move such a motion. If so, is it possible to move to adjourn the debate now and then to move the motion to recommit? Obviously, it is a bit daft for us to go on until 4 o'clock discussing the Report stage if I am then to move to recommit, if that motion is accepted and if we then go over the same ground again. We have three hours left, and I have better things to do with my time than to do things to the Bill only to undo them at 4 o'clock. Can we not short-circuit the debate in the way I have suggested?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret that during the Report stage the hon. Gentleman may not do what he has suggested.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am saying that we should terminate the Report stage by moving to adjourn the debate so that I may then move to recommit.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hoped that I had made clear that the hon. Gentleman can adopt some of the courses he has in mind when the Report stage is completed but that during the Report stage he is not able to do what he wants to do.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can I not stop the Report stage and then do what I want to do? If you say that I cannot and that we must go on for three hours and 10 minutes—
  Mr. Arthur Latham: Or longer.
  Mr. Cunningham: The suspension motion has not yet been passed, and I do not believe that even the House of Commons would pass a suspension motion in these circumstances. If you tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the rules and practice of the House dictate that we should go on talking about the Bill for three hours and 10 minutes before we are able to stop, I shall not be the least surprised. That is exactly what we expect from House of Commons procedure. I would hope, if possible, however, to avoid that.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would enable the House to have a breather and to discuss the matter if I moved the closure on the debate on New Clause 3—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Since everyone is anxious to make progress, I can help the hon. and learned Gentleman by telling him that I cannot accept such a motion while the new clause is being moved.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Will you answer my question, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Is there any way of preventing the absurd situation in which we must go on talking about the Bill for three hours and seven minutes when we may recommit it at 4 o'clock?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already indicated to the hon. Gentleman that he must wait until the end of the Report stage. If in the meantime the Minister wants to adopt some other course, that is entirely a matter for him.
  Mr. Armstrong: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to adopt some other course. We are dealing with a Bill which seeks to give legislative effect to a circular which has been acted upon by most local authorities to the considerable assistance of the homeless. I am concerned about the homeless. I realise that people may say, on reading about what is now hap-
  1630
  pening, that my hon. Friends were attempting to delay the Bill, but I absolve my hon. Friends completely of such a charge because I know that they are genuinely concerned—just as I am— about the plight of the homeless. I have lived with the Bill, however, and I have weighed all the possibilities. The course proposed by my hon. Friends would do no service to the homeless, to the local authorities or to the House. I contend that it would help the Bill for us now to proceed.
  The Bill places upon local authorities instead of upon social service authorities an obligation and duty. I have visited many of the local authorities and I know that they take that obligation and duty seriously, which explains why I have had so many submissions from them. Secondly, the Bill specifies priority groups, and that is of great benefit to those who fall within those groups and who desperately need housing. Therefore, I think that on reflection my hon. Friends, having suggested that no Bill is better than this Bill, will concede that that is not a fair judgment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should have made one other point clear. It is that the Bill is not the Minister's Bill but is sponsored by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), and he has the right to do whatever he thinks fit.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: If you are inviting me to comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad to do so. I am surprised that one or two of my co-sponsors are adopting the line they are. I think I could quote from their speeches in Committee indicating that they agreed with me that there were four basic points that the Bill should attempt to meet and on which I gave fairly firm undertakings. We are discussing the clauses and amendments dealing precisely with those points.
  I do not say that I am satisfied that we have the Bill right. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has indicated an area on which he concedes we might have to look at the wording again in case it can be interpreted differently from what was intended. We have, however, made plain that we think that the notes of guidance would cover these points adequately.
  I ask hon Members to allow the Bill to proceed. I cannot believe that the

  1631
  social service authorities, the people who are concerned about battered wives, and all the other people who have written to us wish to see the Bill defeated. I cannot believe that the local authorities are not reasonably satisfied with the amendments that are before us today. Those amendments meet most of the points, if not all the points, that the authorities have been making to us. We seem to be covering almost every point made by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in its letter.
  Mr. Rossi: Before I resume my arguments may I raise a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? In the light of the views of Labour Members on the question whether we should proceed with the Bill, let me make the Opposition's attitude clear. When we first saw the Bill we had considerable reservations about how well it would work. However, I gave it a welcome on the basis that it simply sought to give legislative effect to my Government's Circular 18/74. We reserve our position to make amendments to deal with otherwise serious weaknesses which cast doubts on its practicability. We have made proposals about self-induced homelessness and the obligations of local authorities to rehouse people who come from other areas and also on the question of the priority groups which should be included and given the entitlement to demand housing from local authorities as an absolute right. There have been considerable discussions on this both in Committee and outside.
  We have sought not to deny to the homeless the opportunity of having their problems solved in a proper and practical manner. To that extent we have supported the Bill and have done everything in our power to ensure that it reaches the statute book in a proper form. If the House takes the view that the Bill should be recommitted it must appreciate that that will serve to defeat the Bill. I understand that the parliamentary timetable is such that all the efforts of the seven charities and the sponsors of the Bill will come to nought.
  1.0 p.m.
  That is a decision that hon. Members must take. The Opposition wish to help the Bill reach the statute book at an early date, and our conduct in Committee and today has been directed to
  1632
  that purpose. We have negotiated and received assurances on the aspects of the Bill that troubled and concerned us. Having been given what we asked for, we are prepared to see the Bill reach the statute book quickly. If any hon. Members wish to frustrate it, it must be on their consciences whether the homeless are to receive the kind of help that this Bill could give them.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: What the hon. Gentleman has just said appears to stand events on their head, certainly as conveyed to me by those who served on the Committee. Given the difficulties that many of us see arising from the amendments that the hon. Gentleman has tabled, no matter what their origins, would he be prepared to facilitate the Third Reading of the Bill if the House, in its wisdom, did not accept New Clause 3 and Amendment No. 28? Or would the hon. Gentleman then say to the sponsor and to the Government "We shall not let the Bill go through unless you amend it in the way that we demand"?
  Mr. Rossi: We consider Amendment No. 17 and Amendment No. 28 to be absolutely crucial to the workability of the Bill. If the House were so minded as to reject these amendments we could not see our way to supporting the Bill on Third Reading.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the frankness of his reply. That puts what he said earlier into its proper perspective.
  Mr. Rossi: It is no different from the attitude that we have adopted from the very beginning—from Second Reading —and it is one that was accepted in Committee. The sponsor of the Bill gave us firm undertakings, on the basis of which the Bill is proceeding, and we hope that it will reach the statute book. But we should find it intolerable to accept a Bill the consequence of which would be to encourage self-induced homelessness, to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of people on the housing waiting lists throughout the country. It is to this that our amendments are directed, and without this the Bill would not be acceptable to us.
  I revert, if I may, to the question that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was

  1633
  raising with me in our discussion on subsection (2G) of Amendment No. 28. I think that that was the point I had reached when the points of order were made. The intention of subsection (2G) is not to set up a procedure for arbitration. To that extent the hon. Gentleman misled himself. It is for that reason that I invite the House not to accept Amendment No. 25, because it would create an impossible situation to have an arbitration system whereby the Secretary of State or the Department of the Environment would be required to adjudicate on every individual case that might arise where there was disagreement between two local authorities as to the application of a particular person.
  If one were to require arbitration by the Secretary of State between two disputing local authorities it would also be necessary to give an audience to the applicant whose case was being considered by the two authorities. It would be an intolerable burden upon Government, and an entirely new principle of government, for the Department of the Environment to have to consider individual housing cases.
  The concept contained in subsection (2G) therefore, is simply that a code be prepared to cover all possible circumstances. We cannot write it into the Bill, because we should then have a Bill of many hundreds of pages. The code must operate voluntarily between local authorities. The London Boroughs Association already has one which operates quite happily.
  There is no reason why the principle should not be extended on a nation-wide basis. The local authorities would agree virtually between themselves on the principles to be applied in determining which authority, in given circumstances, had the primary responsibility to rehouse people claiming to be homeless. But should it so happen that local authorities cannot or do not prepare this code in time, the Secretary of State, through his code of quidance, would lay down the criteria to determine the way in which these disputes would be decided. It is no more than that.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that when these dis-
  1634
  putes are resolved the provisions of subsection (2D) of Amendment No. 28 will be much too rigid? They lay down that
  "Where a housing authority would otherwise be under a duty … but are satisfied that he was not normally resident in their area prior to his application or that there is some other area with which he has a special connection by reason of family tles or employment, they may notify",
  and so on. There is no scope there for the homeless woman to say that she cannot go back to a particular area because her husband will find her and beat her up.
  There is no scope for discretion under (2D), and therefore the provision for arbitration under subsection (2G) will be of very little effect. Would not the hon. Gentleman prefer the sort of provision that is contained in Amendment No. 13, which provides for flexibility at the beginning of the determination of the question of which authority is responsible, rather than at the late stage provided in the hon. Gentleman's amendment?
  Mr. Rossi: I am assured by those advising the Minister that this is a better way of dealing with the matter, and the code of conduct or guidance will indeed cover all the possibilities that appear to be troubling the hon. Gentleman. It will also, in effect, cover the problems that exist in hon. Members' minds on subsection (2B), which might be looked at again. The code of conduct would cover that point quite happily.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I realise that the code drawn up by the Secretary of State to decide whether authority A or authority B has the responsibility in any particular circumstances would operate only where there was disagreement, and where that disagreement was not resolved by arrangements made generally between local authorities. Let us suppose that we have got through those preliminary stages and the code that the Secretary of State is having to apply. Am I right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman wants that code, irrespective of the decision, to be binding upon the two authorities concerned? If it is binding, may I suggest to him, with no apologies for semantics, that it cannot be called guidance?
  Mr. Rossi: It is semantics, because when one uses the word "determine", it makes clear the responsibility and

  1635
  where it lies. The use of the word "guidance" and the reference to Qause 1 is simply to facilitate matters for the Secretary of State in incorporating all the items that he has to deal with under the Bill in one document instead of half a dozen. As to which local authority shall have the primary responsibility, I understand that that part of the guidance will determine the circumstances in which the responsibility will fall on one authority or another.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Therefore the guidance will not be guidance.
  Mr. Rossi: It will determine the issues between the parties, as the wording of subsection (2G) states.
  I have spent a great deal of time on this group of amendments, partly because I responded generously to the invitations of Labour Members to try to explain the thinking behind the wording of the amendments and also because the matters raised by these amendments really go to the heart of the Bill. It is upon these matters, so far as my hon. Friends and I are concerned, that the Bill will stand or fall. I think it is necessary, therefore, to detain the House a little in order that I may explain precisely why we have tabled the amendments in this way.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I wish to speak to Amendments (c) and (a) which are grouped with New Clause 3, and in so doing I want also to speak to the manuscript amendments of which I have given notice and which, I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from your predecessor in the Chair, have been accepted. Copies of them are now available in the "No"' Lobby. Unfortunately, their proper order has been reversed. Nevertheless, the sense of them is clear.
  Before I speak to the substantive nature of these amendments, I must underline the difficulty in which we find ourselves. It is easy to see why we are in difficulty because, as the exchange between the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) revealed, we have at last come to the crunch issue at this very late stage of our consideration of the Bill. There was no Division on Second Reading. There was no Division in Committee on the question of self-induced homelessness. I take exception to the observation of the hon.
  1636
  Member for Hornsey that there was unanimous agreement on the point of view that he expressed. He will do me the justice of recalling that at no stage did I indicate my agreement with his view on self-inflicted homelessness.
  When I returned to the Committee on the second Thursday sitting, I indicated my unhappiness at the degree of agreement which had apparently emerged between the hon. Member for Hornsey and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). I attempted to summarise my views on that occasion when I said:
  "… as I recollect the arguments from the Labour side of the Committee … we said that the group of people suffering from self-inflicted homelessness, if indeed such a group exists, was a very small proportion of the whole and that, even if such people do exist, their number was so small it should not deflect us from our concern to assist the greater numbers of genuinely homeless."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23rd June 1977; c. 353.]
  I stand by that as a reasonable summary of the views expressed by me, by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman).
  Moreover, I have to admit frankly that on reflection I would have tabled my proposed amendments to the new clause in a different fashion if I had had more time to consider the matter. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) that it might have been more sensible to table these two amendments separately so that we had an opportunity to leave out the subsection which introduced the concept of intention and had the alternative option of leaving out the provision referring to ability to provide one's own solution to the housing problem. Unfortunately, my amendments are so drafted that we do not have an option. We have to strike out both or neither.
  This is one of our difficulties, bearing in mind that the two principal amendments which we are required to consider on Report—Amendment No. 28 and New Clause 3—appeared for the first time yesterday as starred amendments, giving me and my hon. Friends very little time to consider the matter in depth and to table appropriate amendments.

  1637
  The House has to look at its procedures when it finds itself in a position where, in effect, over the past four or five days, in private negotiation, more amendments and more changes in the Bill have been agreed between the Government, the Opposition and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight than were debated or agreed in Committee. That is one reason why we are in this difficulty.
  I now turn to the substantive amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham). The amendments have two objectives. They strike out the insertion of the grounds of intent, and they strike out the grounds for refusing rehousing on the basis that the applicant has the means with advice and assistance, of catering for his housing problems.
  It is fair to say that in Committee, when we discussed self-inflicted homelessness, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight indicated that he was prepared to negotiate and to make some concession. But it is important to recall his words. He said:
  "One would certainly not wish to widen the clause in such a way as to enable local authorities to avoid and shuffle off their responsibility for people who are genuinely homeless. Our objective must be to try to find the precise form of words."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16th June 1977; c. 67.]
  1.15 p.m.
  When we come to Amendment No. 28 and New Clause 3, we have to consider whether the precise form of words has been found. The form of words found is that
  "he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally."
  The argument turns not on the form of words but on the meaning of the word "intentionally."
  In an intervention, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) related the case of a family in Paddington who gave up their flat voluntarily because they could not stand the noise of trains and wished to be rehoused in one of the salubrious garden suburbs owned by the appropriate authority.
  We have to ask ourselves two questions. First, what evidence havs we that there is a substantial problem of people in Paddington giving up their houses, becoming voluntarily homeless and applying to the local authority for rehousing because
  1638
  they cannot stand the noise of trains? It emerged from the debate in Committee, that, although we could produce hypothetical examples and construct circumstances in which such fantasies could happen, we had no hard evidence of a single case of self-inflicted homelessness.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I did not say that the family could not stand the noise of trains. I said that they did not like it, which is slightly different. But a more substantial point was made a number of times in Committee, possibly on some occasions when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) was unable to be present, during our lengthy discussion of Amendment No. 1. It was agreed that there are not many cases now for the simple reason that people who make themselves intentionally homeless will not get a sympathetic response from the housing authority because the authority has a discretion. Unless we do something about the Bill as originally worded, people will be tempted to make themselves intentionally homeless because the housing authority will no longer have any discretion and will have permanently to rehouse them.
  Mr. Cook: I shall return to that later. For the moment, I say only that there is grave difficulty in passing legislation on the basis of hypothetical examples of what might happen after the Bill is passed when we have no evidence of it having occurred in the past.
  The second and more important question when we assess the purpose of New Clause 3 and Amendment No. 28 is whether, even if we accept that there are a number of such cases, this precise form of words provides adequate guidance about cases which fall into the category of self-inflicted, self-induced, voluntarily homelessness, as opposed to other cases.
  Let me run through the grounds of homelessness which we discussed in Committee. Does this form of words guide us about who is genuinely homeless and who is self-induced homeless? First, there is rent arrears eviction. That is still a substantial form of homelessness. Are those who are evicted because of rent arrears intentionally homeless? We know that some local authorities have traditionally taken the view that anyone evicted for rent arrears was, therefore, a foreseeable homeless case. Will there be

  1639
  authorities who will say that this is intentional homelessness as well? I put it as a genuine question: how does a local authority distinguish a person who intentionally fell into rent arrears in order to be evicted from a person who was unable to meet the rent and therefore fell into rent arrears? How does the authority identify them? How does this precise form of words help?
  Then there is pregnancy. We referred to pregnancy several times. In some circumstances it may not be foreseeable. Equally, it may be intentional. Are we to take the view that a local authority faced with a pregnant wife whose family are evicted from their lodgings because the landlord says that he will not tolerate children should be asked to make a judgment about whether the pregnancy was intentional?
  Then there is violence and the threat of violence from people residing in the house. Pretty well every case of a woman walking out on her husband because he is violent towards her is one where she walks out intentionally. She does not walk out unintentionally. Does this provision rule out that case from cases of genuine homelessness?
  Hon. Members who were on the Committee will reflect that I received a letter from a constituent who was in arrears with her mortgage. Her husband had abandoned her, but she had been unable to maintain her mortgage payments. The house was being sold up by the building society and she was about to become homeless—indeed, I think that that lady will shortly become homeless, if I remember the dates. She was passing on the case to the local authority, which, she hoped, would rehouse her in a convenient area of the city.
  In view of the form of words set out in New Clause 3 and the amendments connected with it, if the Bill goes through unamended what will the local authority do in those circumstances? Will it have to make inquiries about whether she failed to pay the mortgage payments intentionally or unintentionally? Will that authority have to speculate whether the husband left her intentionally with a view to their becoming homeless in order to obtain rehousing? Is it reasonable under the Bill—a measure that is intended to give them a right and not to subject them to scrutiny—to ask applicants to fulfil
  1640
  inquiries which the local authority might be obliged or entitled to make if these provisions are passed? I put it to the House to consider these cases and the precise forms of words used.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I suggest that the example quoted by my hon. Friend relating to a pregnant person does not stand up, because the intentionality provided for in Amendment No. 28 relates to somebody being homeless and not somebody in priority need. Pregnancy is a condition of priority need, not in the same category as homelessness.
  Mr. Cook: I take that point, but my hon. Friend will recollect that I was referring to the fact that a family who had become homeless would benefit. 1 was suggesting not that that would happen on the ground of the family being a special group but that they might become homeless because the wife had become pregnant. In those circumstances it seems reasonable for a local authority to ask whether the pregnancy was intentional or otherwise. Is that a reasonable question to put to the applicant? We should also recollect that it would not be an easy matter for anybody to invoke this legislation if it were to reach the statute book. Those concerned would have to fulfil a number of criteria and, whether those concerned were pregnant or not, they would have to leap over a number of hurdles.
  Will such people have to establish homelessness within the definition of the Bill? They will have to convince a local authority not only that they became homeless within its boundaries but that they did not have a job or relatives within another boundary to which the local authority could move them. They will have to establish that they are a priority group within the meaning of the Bill. Furthermore, if Amendment No. 15 is carried they will have to establish that they are not gipsies within the meaning of Section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. There will be authorities which will put all those points in a questionnaire, including the question "Are you a gipsy under Section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968?"
  It will not be easy to obtain a house under the Bill, and if we write in a further condition it will reduce the number of successful applicants to a trickle. It

  1641
  will open the door to local authorities which do not care for this measure— and we are aware that many local authorities take a sceptical view of this legislation—to find many ways of evading the responsibility which we are seeking to put upon them.
  Some hon. Members have said that these provisions carry Circular 18/74 into legislation. Let me quote one passage from that circular, which was written when the hon. Member for Hornsey was a Minister in a Conservative Government. That passage reads:
  "And in the last resort if homelessness becomes a real prospect, even if it does seem to have been self-inflicted, councils should give the degree of help necessary to secure that people are not left without shelter."
  I cannot but feel that if the Bill reaches the statute book as it is sought to be amended we shall not give statutory backing to the full extent of that circular.
  Moreover, we must ask ourselves what is the practical necessity for this change. I can see what will happen if local authorities make a practice of offering their most popular, best, quietest, most settled form of housing to those who apply for their rights under the Bill. By the law of averages, it may be that some people will receive good accommodation, but I fear that we should be deluding ourselves if we were to imagine that that would apply to the generality of cases.
  Let me refer back to a case I mentioned in Committee. Hon. Members who were present in Committee will recollect that one woman wrote to me because she was about to be evicted for failure to maintain mortgage payments. She was offered accommodation by the local authority, but she did not feel able to accept it because of the location of the property and because—I do not criticise the local authority as it was making available the stock it had at its disposal— it was at the lower end of the scale. It is plain to anybody who reads that letter that nobody will seek voluntary homeless-ness to become rehoused under the Bill, because it will be extremely rare that people will obtain rehousing in a greater standard of accommodation than they presently enjoy.
  I hope that I have satisfactorily outlined our objections to the first part of
  1642
  the new provisions. I find it difficult to express my objection to the second part of the new clause and the consequent amendments, for the simple reason that there has been no adequate explanation of what they mean.
  Let me quote from New Clause 3:
  "it is probable that he will be able, with advice and appropriate assistance, himself to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation".
  There was an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and the hon. Member for Hornsey in which my hon. Friend pressed for a case in which advice would be sufficient to meet the terms of the Bill and to preclude the local authority from being under a duty to offer rehousing.
  The case mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornsey related to a family dispute. He said that this was a case about which the parliamentary draftsmen were concerned. He suggested that the case might involve a second generation problem in which the people had been told to get out of a house and not to darken its doors again. If that involves a single person, he will have no remedy under the Bill; he will not succeed in invoking his rights under the Bill. A person will succeed in doing so only if he falls into a category to which reference was made.
  That category involves somebody who has dependent children living with him or in care, somebody who becomes homeless through flood, fire or other sudden disaster, or somebody who is vulnerable because of old age and so on. He will also succeed if he is in a category specified in regulations which we have yet to consider. A person who will not qualify under the Bill is, for example, a single teenager who has insulted his father, but the category of persons who will qualify will be a family unit of a son, daughter-in-law and dependent children, or a pregnant daughter-in-law
  1.30 p.m.
  What we are concerned about is the local authority which seeks to evade its duties by persuading the father to take back his son or pregnant daughter-in-law. Is that what the House really wants? Does the House really want to allow a local authority to be able to fulfil its duties under the Bill by persuading parents to take back the homeless daughter or son with children whom they

  1643
  had evicted for reasons that we all recognise in circumstances that can be stressful and that can reasonably arise? I do not find that a satisfactory duty to the homeless. Indeed, it is substantially weaker than that accepted by most local authorities now.
  It may bo argued that the hon. Member for Hornscy put it incorrectly or that he misapprehended the concern of the parliamentary draftsmen. In that case we are entitled to ask someone, whether the Minister or the sponsor, to explain to us what is meant by the amendment. For instance, docs it refer to means? It is certainly the view of the seven charities which have followed the proceedings on the Bill closely that the amendment would reopen the question of the means test and whether a family had adequate means to meet its own housing need. It is perhaps worth informing the House that we debated that specific point in Committee, divided on it and threw it out. I therefore take grave exception to its being presented to us again in a differently worded form that will reopen the question of means.
  I should like to quote to the House what was said on that by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight as we moved towards a Division during the debate in Committee. He said:
  "I confirm that I am rejecting it because I think that the hon. Gentleman is opening a completely new chapter. We had a term for it in the war: there were people known as 'duff snoopers'. Perhaps I am getting old. Bill the hon. Gentleman is opening a very wide subject"—[Oflkial Report, Standing Committee A. 16th June 1977; c. 169–70.]
  If the amendment was intended by the parliamentary draftsmen, if not by the hon. Member for Hornsey, to reopen the question of means-testing, it is plain that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight did not like it for reasons that I entirely support and agree with. However, if it means that if there is a family dispute— I put it to the House and to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that this is exactly what it means—we are back at the matter of snoopers. We are back at the housing authority raising sensitive and delicate questions about the relationship between two generations and other means by which a family might solve its own housing problem.
  In short we are, in both these proposals, adding large hurdles to the many that
  1644
  must already be successfully gone over if rights under the Bill are to be invoked. The clause and the amendment seriously increase the nature of the inquiry that local authorities will have to conduct and so broaden the Bill as to make it quite easy for a bloody-minded local authority which does not wish to accept the terms of the Bill to avoid them. Indeed, the amendment is so widely drafted that, if both these proposals go through, some of my hon. Friends and I shall be moved to ask whether the Bill will be worth having in that form at all.
  Because of that, it is unfortunate that we cannot adjourn this sitting until a future date when there might be more time to consider the matter and debate detailed amendments that would possibly meet the objections of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight and would find the precise form of words (hat these proposals do not have.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to my comments in Committee. While I have already indicated that I am not particularly happy about the wording of the subsection, "advice and appropriate assistance" can surely cover such matters as help with a mortgage, indications of accommodation with a housing association or. possibly, other financial assistance of some sort. That is really the object of the amendment. We discussed this in Committee and I pointed out that I strongly rejected the possibility of means-testing. I am opposed to that. The clause is trying to deal with somebody who has certain means of his own— and that comes out without his having to fill in a questionnaire—being asked whether he appreciates that the local authority could help with a mortgage or possibly an improvement grant. That is the sort of thing we are talking about.
  Mr. Cook: That which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight objects to so strongly is not necessarily discounted by the wording that he has put forward. We must consider not his feelings or views but the words of the amendments. The clause says that it would be appropriate for a local authority to offer "advice and appropriate assistance" to secure appropriate accommodation when it
  "becomes or does not cease to be available"

  1645
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight has given his interpretation of that as homeless persons being put in touch with a housing association or granted a mortgage. There is an answer to those points. In Committee we laid a duty on housing associations to co-operate in the interpretation of the legislation, and that plainly makes it a competent function of the housing authority to resort to housing associations to fulfil its duty under the Bill. I was keenly in favour of that and I spoke in its support. 1 accept that as a reasonable interpretation and fulfilment of the duty of the housing authority under the Bill.
  Surely the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight will recollect that, when we debated that precise point on Clause 3(2), he wanted the words
  "or had any other means".
  He will recall that there was grave disquiet in Committee that that was too wide, and. indeed, it has been dropped from the Bill. I should therefore be rather unhappy if we were to restore that wide interpretation in another form having withdrawn it from Clause 3.
  The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the amendment has no foundation in law. I must remind him that the interpretation of the hon. Member for Homsey was that the local authority would be fulfilling its duty if it were to give such advice and assistance as to restore the second generation to the family house. It is true that the hon. Member for Hornsey drew the line at restoring a battered wife, but that does not help us to understand the legal meaning of the clause and the amendment. If advice and assistance mean restoring the second generation, and if that meets the terms of the Bill, how does this proposal stop a local authority fulfilling its duty by restoring a battered wife to her former home?
  I repeat, the amendment strikes at the principle of the Bill. It is unfortunate that this matter should be raised at such a late stage of the Bill, particularly on the amendments that have been tabled, since we now find ourselves in a procedural difficulty whereby we cannot adjourn to a later date. If we are to consider this now, it is my intention and that of my hon. Friends to oppose these proposals. If they are carried, we shall have to con-
  1646
  sider whether such an amended Bill is worth having.
  Mr. Sainsbury: It is not surprising that we arc now spending a lot of time on this new group of amendments, because they deal with substantial points that came up in Committee, and upon which undertakings were given that the matters would be looked at again. The amendments were withdrawn upon that understanding.
  The largest part of our proceedings in Committee was concerned with the points dealt with in this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and—I gather from what he said—one or two of his hon. Friends have considerable reservations about the wording of the amendments. I sympathise with them because they have had only a relatively brief time to look at them. We are all in that situation. It is unfortunate that the Bill did not get into Committee earlier and that we could not have had a longer time between Committee and Report. The short gap between those stages has not left us much time to consider amendments.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central spoke about seeking a precise form of words to cover every circumstance. If we try to look for a precise form of words to cover every aspect of human dealings between people and families who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, we shall inevitably go wrong. It is not possible to find such a form of words.
  In Committee, the duty imposed on local authorities was drawn too strictly. There was no discretion for local authorities to exercise their judgment in a number of matters. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central is concerned that if we go back to allowing local housing authorities the right, in certain fairly closely defined circumstances, to exercise a degree of judgment, we may create a tiny risk that they will not exercise that judgment sensibly or sympathetically. However, we must recognise that unless we leave some element of judgment we shall fall into the trap of creating an irresistable temptation to some families to abuse the mandatory duty that would be put upon housing authorities to provide permanent rehousing. In imposing such a duty, we should take care that we do not create the

  1647
  opportunity for it to be abused, even in a relatively small number of cases.
  In his reaction to the amendments the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central has undervalued the humanity and sympathy of housing authorities. Many of them deal with this problem now and they will all have that responsibility when the Bill is enacted. We do not get perfection in the exercise of local authority duties and no authority would pretend that it performs its duties perfectly. In the Bill and the amendments we are trying to improve the treatment of families and persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, particularly in those areas where local authorities have not assumed the responsibility that they were invited to assume in Circular 18/74. If we do this in ways that some hon. Members may feel are marginally short of perfection, it is still worth doing.
  Unless we get on with the Bill and get it through there is a grave risk that there will be no change in the existing situation for six months or even a year, and it will take even longer for the legislation to be brought into effect. It is proposed that the Bill should not come into force before 1st December—and that is rushing things. If there is a delay, we could be through to the summer of 1978 before the Bill takes effect. It is worth getting it on to the statute book, even if some hon. Members feel that it leaves a little too much discretion to local authorities.
  1.45 p.m.
  There has been considerable comment on self-induced homelessness. Although there are not many such cases now, there will be a distinct possibility that people will attempt to abuse any mandatory duty that we impose on local authorities. The whole cause of trying to solve the problem of the homeless will be damaged.
  The provision of a right of appeal is included in this group of amendments. In Committee, I tabled an amendment to allow for appeals, but it was defeated. On reflection, I feel that there are objections to allowing appeals against the operation of the Bill because we should be giving a right of appeal to a person whose case for housing came up under the Bill but not to a person whose case came up because he had got to the top
  1648
  of the housing list through time or the accumulation of points. That would be an unreasonable distortion.
  Perhaps we should look at this problem in the wider context of some of the remarks that were made in the consultative document on housing—though they were not made strongly enough, in the view of many hon. Members. We could consider this topic in relation to the tribunals and courts that deal with housing matters.
  I wish to direct my remarks in support of the amendments to Amendment No. 28 and particularly the part that deals with the vital point of preventing abuses of local authority duties by persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness choosing to seek permanent rehousing in an area with which they have no special connection and in which they are not normally resident. This does not happen often now, because such people are sent back to their areas of origin. I know of families being returned from Brighton to Glasgow and from Glasgow to another part of Scotland because that was their place of normal residence.
  The amendments reflect a prolonged discussion in Committee on amendments moved by myself and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). I believe that they satisfactorily deal with the points raised in those discussions. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden stressed the importance of not leaving the family applying for rehousing without temporary accommodation while discussion took place on the question whether it should be permanently rehoused. This aspect is satisfactorily dealt with in subsection (2H) of Amendment No. 28. In subsections (2A) and (2E) the amendment provides a mechanism for transferring applications to the housing authority in whose area the applicant is normally resident. This is satisfactory.
  I believe that subsection (2G) provides for a satisfactory resolution of any dispute or doubt about which housing authority has responsibility. However, I hope that if a manuscript amendment were to be put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to delete the words at the end of subsection (2G), namely:
  "under Section 7 of this Act"

  1649
  it would find favour in your eyes and would be accepted for consideration.
  Amendment No. 28, in so far as it deals with areas such as my constituency and surrounding South Coast areas that have good reason to suppose that they might become magnets to mobile homeless, protects those who live in areas that might be considered to be at risk and who are on the housing list in such areas. It ensures temporary and eventually permanent rehousing for homeless people who might come to those areas. If there are minor difficulties in the wording of the amendment, they do not seem such that they cannot be satisfactorily and expeditiously dealt with in another place.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: I have been waiting to see whether the hon. Gentleman would attempt to develop the point that he introduced when he intervened earlier. It would be helpful to know whether there is evidence on which to base the hypothesis. We do not know that any people in Paddington have left because of the trains, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. It is true that the amendment will satisfy him, in that it might prevent people moving from Paddington to Hove but is there any evidence of conflict between Hove and neighbouring similar authorities about responsibility for home-lessness, as he suggested in his intervention?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber at the earlier stage of my remarks. I do not want to delay the House unduly. I can tell him that there is abundant evidence, to which I referred in Committee, as did other hon. Members, that Hove, Brighton and numerous local authorities, especially coastal authorities in various parts of the country—I quoted a Cornish local authority, Cleethorpes and a number of others—were desperately worried about the Bill as originally drafted. I believe that they believed correctly that it would impose upon them an unreasonable burden.
  Mr. Arthur Latham Mr. Arthur Latham rose—
  Mr. Sainsbury: I have nearly finished my remarks, and I shall not give way again. We have already spent a great deal of time on these matters.
  I believe that the amendments meet the arguments that we made in Com-
  1650
  mittee. If there are minor defects, they can be dealt with expeditiously in another place. We should be well advised to accept the amendment now to enable the Bill to make progress and get on the statute book so that it may come into force by 1 st December, thus giving further benefit to families that become homeless or are threatened with homelessness.
  Mrs. Millie Miller: I have listened with great sympathy but with growing horror to the discussions that have taken place today, especially in view of the comparatively amicable way in which these matters were dealt with in Committee.
  I remind hon. Members that when the promoter decided to promote the Bill he had in mind to put into legislative form the intentions behind Circular 18/74, which was drafted during the period when the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) was in office. It was the purpose of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) to put it into legislative form and to improve on it. I think that that is the crux of the argument that has taken place today.
  It is true that there were a number of issues on which the Committee was divided. However, they were genuine divisions and it was unanimously agreed that the issues should be taken away and discussed and returned in a form that seemed acceptable based on the Committee's discussions.
  As time has gone on, after discussing the Bill in Committee and in the House, I think that we have all come to realise that a Private Member's Bill of this type will create grave problems. I return to the days following the Queen's Speech, when I criticised the Government severely for not having put such a measure in their own legislative programme for this Session. It is inevitable that complications will arise when a private Member introduces a Bill of this sort, especially when the discussions have been taking place, politically speaking, in a three-cornered form.
  In spite of the difficulties I believe that the Bill should go forward. However, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to put certain aspects of the discussions that have taken place today to the hon. Member for Hornsey and appeal to him to reconsider some of his remarks. I

  1651
  wish to ask him whether he really thinks that the maintenance of an absolutely rigid insistence on the form of words in the amendment is worthy if it results in the destruction of the whole Bill.
  The three sides in these discussions, especially those who sponsored the original Bill, wanted desperately to do something to improve the plight of the homeless. I am sure that we still want to do that today. However, we are faced with the difficulty that when the clauses and amendments were taken away for consideration outside the Committee it was almost impossible to have any discussion in depth on some of the crucial points that would decide whether the Bill reached the statute book before they returned.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: I interrupt my hon. Friend to seek to underline on the record the point that she has just made. She referred earlier to the three corners in these discussions. That is amplified in her most recent remark, namely, that the three corners are really the promoter, who is the Liberal spokesman on housing, the Minister and, most of all, the Tory Front Bench spokesman on housing. It bothers me—I was not on the Committee —that my Labour colleagues on the Committee and outside it have been excluded from the considerations. Does my hon. Friend agree that that makes even stronger the case that was made earlier for a recommittal? Surely it is quite wrong that the issues should have been dealt with in a private manner, without public discussion.
  Mrs. Miller: My hon. Friend is making a point that no one can dispute. The brevity of time for my hon. Friends to give the consideration that I have described is a serious defect in the negotiations. However, I still feel that we should make every effort to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book.
  I want to throw the Bill and the homeless to the mercies of the hon. Member for Hornsey. In Committee we discussed interminably the element of intention in homelessness and the self-inducement of homelessness. We discussed how to introduce a form of words that would not cause injustice to those who wait patiently on council housing waiting lists only to find newcomers coming in and leapfrogging over them.
  1652
  I am sure that the form of words that has been decided upon will have the opposite effect from that which the hon. Member for Hornsey is suggesting. We must remember that it is necessary to have a Bill on homelessness because we have not been able to depend on 40 per cent. of local authorities accepting Circular 18/74, although the other 60 per cent. have been operating it throughout. It appears necessary that some form of pressure by legislation must be applied, mainly for the purpose of influencing the 40 per cent. For that reason it is difficult to accept that if the words are included in the form that the hon. Gentleman has produced the local authorities that have not accepted the circular until now will begin to apply it in the way that he suggests, and in particular will apply it to the plight of battered wives. This group concerns us all very much.
  2.0 p.m.
  As has already been said, the woman who leaves her home with, or even without, her children and seeks refuge, is intentionally making herself homeless. Sympathetic authorities will accept her as a priority need category, but authorities which have to consider whether or not they accept his legislation will find an easy way out by using that intention against that group. It does not matter what the hon. Member for Hornsey thinks will happen; what matters is the form that the legislation takes and the judgments made by authorities that accept it unwillingly. I beg him to consider this matter from that point of view.
  I deeply regret that the hon. Member for Hornsey should have said in the House that it would be impossible for him and his colleagues to support the Bill unless Amendment No. 28 and New Clause 3 were accepted in toto. I suggest that he is accepting the onus of saying that be has such faith that the 40 per cent. of authorities that have so far been recalcitrant will accept the responsibilities that we wish them to take that we can leave this matter as wide open as it is.
  We had a long discussion in Committee on the question of a means test. I said:
  "The point the hon. Gentleman is making"
  —the hon. Member for How (Mr. Sains-bury)—
  "raises the whole question of how one deals with applicants for housing".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16th June 1977; c. 150.]

  1653
  I pointed out that there was no question of a means test for housing applicants in the normal way.
  The hon. Member for Hove, who is not in his place, said that I had made an interesting point, and went on to imply that it might be a good idea to have a means test for the homeless, which might at some later date extend to those who were on the normal council house waiting list.
  After a lengthy discussion the amendment was voted on, and it was conclusively agreed that there should not be a means test. That is another matter that I ask the hon. Member for Hornsey to consider. By putting this amendment back in this way he is forcing Labour Members, who have already voted and considered the matter in great detail, to find the amendment unacceptable. If the Bill founders—if it is by chance recommitted—the plight of the homeless in 40 per cent. of local authorities will stay as it is now—a scandal to all of us.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Does the hon. Lady agree that bearing in mind the tenor of the debate and the unanimity of thought over a wide area it is extremely likely that many of those authorities will now reconsider their policy?
  Mrs. Miller: That may be. It is sad to think that, whereas in Committee all three parties were able to reach agreement over a broad spectrum, even knowing the pressure that was being put on by certain groups of local authorites, some authorities might reconsider their policies to the detriment of the homeless. It is a tragedy. The difficulties of homeless people—single people and families— represent probably the gravest social problem that we face. If local authorities mistakenly think that it is not the Commons' intention to give further aid to homeless families, they would be acting in a paltry and inhumane manner.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: The point that I want to make is crucial to how we treat the subsequent stages of the Bill. My hon. Friend said that, despite the defects that seem likely to arise, the Bill is still worth having. She also referred to the 40 per cent. of recalcitrant authorities. Does she agree that the references to intentional homelessness and the require-
  1654
  ment that the applicant should use other means to rehouse himself undermine the Bill to such an extent that those 40 per cent. of recalcitrant authorities will use those provisions as loopholes to escape their obligations?
  Mrs. Miller: That is the point that I am endeavouring to make. That is why I make this appeal to the hon. Member for Hornsey, who has tabled the amendments. If he makes his stand—if he does not accept some way of getting round this matter to ensure the life of the Bill— the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) is undeniable. Surely it is possible to reach agreement on the amendments to delete these two offending subsections and for the clause to be accepted without them. That would provide the opportunity for more detailed discussion between now and the arrival of the Bill in the other place, where a form of wording could be introduced that would satisfy our grave fears and doubts. I sincerely beg the hon. Member for Hornsey to reconsider the stand that he has made. I believe that he would find it easier than we should to persuade those in the other place to accept amendments that would have any hope of victory. If he will do that, it will go a long way towards satisfying our fears. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Rossi: I wish to respond as helpfully as I can to what the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) has been saying to me.
  First, I should like to deal with the point concerning a private clandestine arrangement being made between the Minister, myself and the sponsor of the Bill and excluding Labour Back Benchers from our discussions. That was not the intention. We took the Committee proceedings and looked at the undertakings that had been given. The parliamentary draftsman was then instructed to try to give effect to the spirit of what the Committee had indicated was its collective wish. No more and no less than that happened.
  Mr. George Rodgers Mr. George Rodgers rose—
  Mr. Rossi: Please let me finish. I have already spent a lot of time on my feet answering interventions from hon.

  1655
  Members who did not serve on the Committee. Please allow me to try to explain the situation in answer to the genuine plea that has been made to me by the hon. Member for Ilford, North.
  We finished in Committee on Thursday last week. Between then and now we have had continual meetings about the form of wording that would give effect to the Committee's intention. The hon. Lady knows that it is not the easiest thing in the world to produce clauses in legal language that give effect to people's intentions. There was no intention of trying to slip something in other than what the Committee really wanted. The Minister and the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), were there to see that that was what we achieved. The wording on the Amendment Paper is the best form of wording that we could achieve in the time limit given to us.
  I have listened very attentively to the debate and the representations that have been made. I indicated earlier that when I first saw the wording on Amendment No. 28 I was somewhat troubled by subsection (2)(b)(ii) which states that the local authority may give advice and assistance in priority cases instead of rehousing. I was given an explanation which satisfied me at the time, and this explanation also satisfied the hon. Member for Isle of Wight at the time, inasmuch as it was suggested that in suitable cases the local authority could help people by granting 100 per cent. mortgages for rehousing. What is wrong with giving to local authorities the opportunity to do that where it is appropriate? The advice that we were given was accepted in good faith.
  We adhere to the view expressed throughout the Committee stage that we want to help cases of genuine homeless-ness in every possible way, and we want to ensure that local authorities should not be able to escape their responsibility where there is genuine homelessness. We also want to prevent some poor wretch falling between two stools and being sent backwards and forwards. That is still our intention.
  I understood that the code of conduct to be produced by the Minister would cover that situation, and I was satisfied on that point. If it should be that the advice that we have been given—which
  1656
  was accepted in good faith by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and myself— is wrong, and that subsection (2)(b)(ii) is incorrect, I should certainly not urge my noble Friends in another place to resist the insertion of a more appropriate form of wording to reflect what we should like to achieve, and if the Minister feels that an appropriate form of wording can be achieved, rather than leaving it to the code of guidance as we had expected.
  However, I must tell the hon. Member for Ilford, North that I could not go as far as accepting in toto the manuscript amendments that we have before us. The manuscript amendments seek not only to leave out the reference to "advice and assistance" but all reference to the distinction between genuine and non-genuine homeless people. I am afraid that, for all the reasons that we discussed in Committee—and with which I believe the hon. Lady agreed in Committee—we must provide that self-induced homeless people cannot make demands on local authorities to the detriment of other people on the housing waiting list.
  Some Labour Members are seeking to remove the distinction between genuine and non-genuine homelessness from my amendment. They have not drafted their amendments in such a way that we can discuss these matters separately. Therefore I must resist their amendment. I hope that the way in which I have expressed myself has indicated that there is no real difference between the hon. Lady and myself in our approach on this matter.
  2.15 p.m.
  Mrs. Millie Miller: Since the very first day of the Committee we have suffered grave disadvantages because of the different interpretations that have been given. I am somewhat hampered, because I have not even seen the manuscript amendments put forward by my hon. Friends and have to speak to the printed amendments alone. It is therefore difficult for me to make a judgment on what the hon. Member for Hornsey is saying, but I feel that there is a hope that we may be able to move forward, given the suggestion that he has made and the undertaking that there would be no resistance to a form of wording that would be acceptable and which would ensure that the people whom we are most anxious to protect are not excluded

  1657
  simply because insufficient consideration has been given to the Bill at this stage.
  We are still left with the question of the means test—the investigation of means —which troubles us. I said earlier—I think that the hon. Member for Hornsey was out of the Chamber at the time— that we had debated this and expressed all our fears and doubts about the means test in Committee and the Committee had rejected it.
  Mr. Rossi: I do not think that my name was on any means test amendments. It was not my intention to seek to achieve that in any way. I did not want it in the first place.
  Mrs. Miller: Time is short and there are still other things to be discussed. I hope that we shall have the kind of compromise that will make the Bill worth while. I believe that the hon. Member for Hornsey has genuinely tried to make a compromise on matters on which there were doubts. Other hon. Members have tried to do the same.
  It would be a terrible blow, not to the Labour Party, the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party if the Bill fell, but to all of us as human beings if we allowed it to fall for the lack of an extra hour, two hours or perhaps 10 hours of discussion between now and the time when the Bill comes back in its final form.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I shall be brief in what I shall say, but I think it is important to clarify and underpin some of the points that have been made in the debate. I believe that the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) were right to say that it would be better for the Bill to be recommitted and reconsidered. That probably would have been the wiser decision, because bad legislation is always a mistake and I am sure that this legislation, when it reaches the statute book, will certainly not be good legislation. It may, however, be beneficial to some degree. This illustrates the difficulty of striking a balance and trying to assist the homeless, trying to do good.
  Trying to do good is a dangerous thing unless it can be done in language which can not only be understood but which can be efficiently carried into effect. That
  1658
  is the problem confronting us. As Member for a part of the Isle of Thanet, a coastal resort, I believe that as this Bill was originally constituted it was a monstrosity. It was undoubtedly a charter for rent-dodgers, beach-scroungers, queue-jumpers and the deliberate home-leaver. I have abundant evidence to support all of those statements, and the statement that there are people whose homelessness is self-induced.
  If the Bill had remained in anything approaching its original form those people would have been able to achieve great advantage at the expense of others entitled to a home. Thus it was that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and his colleagues tabled their amendments, particularly Nos. 17 and 28. There are two aspects of this which are crucial. These deal with the question of inquiry. The simple issue is whether a person is intentionally homeless. The parliamentary draftsman has got exactly the right form of words. It is exactly what I want—someone who intends to become homeless
  "(i) whether he has a priority need, and (ii) whether he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally."
  I give some examples, because they have have been asked for time and again. First, there is the rent-dodger. There are many classic cases of persons who pile up substantial amounts of rent arrears. They have been receiving money through supplementary benefit for the purpose of paying their rent, but have not done so. These people are evicted and then claim that they are homeless, having induced that situation themselves through misappropriating the funds that they were given. There are many such cases.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: How many?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman should ask local authorities. There are thousands of such cases.
  My next example is the beach scrounger. To Margate in the summer comes the ne'er-do-well, often an Irish building labourer, with his family but with no home anywhere in this country. At present, he goes to the local authority because he is homeless, having spent all his money on the holiday that he has had, and asks for a home. These cases happen regularly. Under the Bill, if it is not amended, that person, although he had

  1659
  rendered himself intentionally homeless, would be able to get on the Thanet District Council list. No, thank you.
  Then there is the queue-jumper of the winter. A great deal of accommodation in the Thanet area is let in accordance with the Rent Act. I was directly instrumental in inserting in the Rent Act in the early hours of the morning a clause removing the effects of the Rent Act from seaside resorts, so that they could do winter lettings. At the end of the winter there are many cases before the local county court of people who will not leave that accommodation an have to be evicted by a court order. There is no doubt that they are homeless, but they have deliberately come to Thanet to try to get a home there. We say "No—a pox on you. Go back to where you came from. We will not be the local authority responsible for looking after you." There are many of that class of case.
  Finally, there is the mother-in-law or father-in-law who deliberately secures the eviction of a son-in-law or daughter-in-law, because if they then become homeless this Bill will provide that they have to be looked after. I could give many more such examples.
  It is therefore essential to have a clear test whether a person by his own intent has rendered himself homeless. That must be incorporated not only into the provision about inquiries but also into the duty imposed on the local authority.
  The second limb which is crucial is that people prefer to live in one place rather than another. Having had the honour to be chairman for many years of the all-party group dealing with seaside resorts, I know that those resorts are not prepared to let people go into those salubrious and attractive areas and give up their old ties and gate-crash or queue-jump.
  We want to be sure, by means of Amendment No. 28, that there is a clear procedure for these "demarcation disputes" to be resolved between local authorities. If it is done later by guidelines laid down by the Minister or by a statutory rule and order—whichever it may be—so be it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey that any type of change which the Government think is better we should accept, but what we will not accept is anything that will
  1660
  not ensure the retention of intent and a good procedure by which local authorities can solve the problem whether an assisted person should be in one area or another.
  Mrs. Millie Miller: In Committee, every hon. Member claimed to come from a constituency which was magnetic to people in other parts of the country. When we received the actual statistics from some of the areas that claimed to have been inundated with homeless families because of their magnetism, we found that the numbers were minuscule.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Probably the statistical numbers that the hon. Lady received would have been small. Many of these cases are not reported. One gets rid of them. For instance, the Irish labourer to whom I referred was, I am afraid, sent away—no doubt with some fairly strong language by those concerned. I dislike it intensely when a young couple manage to get on the housing list after they have deliberately left their father-in-law's house, but many of these cases would not be reflected in the statistics.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and Labour Members would be wise to accept the amendments, although there was a great deal in what they said. If the Bill went back to Committee, some difference of degree might emerge, but it is very difficult to get something that will be acceptable to all local authorities.
  It would be a good thing if we could get some accepted national practice. There is a divergence of view among local authorities, no doubt because of matters like those that I have mentioned. Obviously some authorities are worried. A similarity of practice set out in a code would be useful. A Bill along the lines that we have suggested would go much further towards achieving such a common standard. We might not have done much, but we should have done something for the homeless. I hope that the Minister and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will now be prepared to accept the amendments.
  Mr. Armstrong: We are dealing now with the guts of the Bill, and I should like to give a quick reaction to some of the things which have been said.

  1661
  I have been involved in recent months in a large number of discussions with people and groups and local authorities who are concerned about the Bill. It has been put forcefully to me that there are genuine anxieties at both ends of the spectrum. First, there is an anxiety about those—we must not exaggerate; they are a very small minority—who would deliberately play the system and declare themselves homeless. We should not react too strongly to that.
  On the other hand, I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) say that there was no intention to allow housing authorities to escape their obligation to deal with the genuinely homeless. I accept that the wording must be tight so that, if there is any doubt, it should be in favour of the homeless. Wording is very difficult and we have been going backwards and forwards.
  I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) that the amendments were produced late. I apologise to all concerned, but wording is always difficult to establish. We are trying to get a wording which will work.
  In the light of the debate—I am sure that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) will agree—I shall gladly look at this again in consultation and will talk to the parliamentary draftsmen before the Bill is considered in another place. Genuine anxieties were expressed in Committee, and the wording is an attempt to reflect them.
  2.30 p.m.
  I have been concerned about the references that have been made to subsection (2B) and to those who it is said, can fend for themselves. I want to have another look at that. I was pleased about the response of the hon. Member for Hornsey to the submission made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller). I hope that that can be adequately dealt with in another place.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: There is another objection to subsection (2B). What will happen until it is decided whether a person can obtain accommodation? Are he and his family to be left in the street in the meantime?
  Mr. Armstrong: They have to be housed temporarily.
  Mr. Silverman: It does not say so in the Bill.
  Mr. Rossi: Yes, it does.
  Mr. Armstrong: As I understand it, it does. In the light of what I have said about reconsideration and talking to the parliamentary draftsmen before the Bill reaches the Lords, I ask the House to accept the clause.
  Mr. George Rodgers: I am in a difficulty. We failed to secure a definition in Committee. We have failed in the collusions or consultations at which I was not present to find a definition. Now it is suggested that a formula will be produced in another place. I find it difficult to accept. If we have been unable to find a satisfactory phraseology by this stage, it is difficult to see how one will be produced later. The word "intention" destroys the purpose of the Bill. A person might leave home intentionally without having a malicious reason. Harsh circumstances could bring that about. If the clause is carried, it will alter the whole purpose of the Bill, I should be reluctant for that to happen.
  Mr. Armstrong: I am anxious that the obligation shall be spelt out and that the words should be such that the matter is tightened up. I understand the difficulty of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers). If we had been able to spell it out clearly and simply, it would have been done originally. In the light of the earlier discussions, the genuine anxieties which have been expressed throughout the country and the discussions we have had today, all I can say is that I am willing to look at it again. I have no desire to restrict the discussions. At no time have I tried to arrive at any form of words or compromise in secret. I have lived with the Bill and I know the difficulties. There is no question of going behind closed doors.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: I am grateful for that assurance. I have been led to understand that the Minister, in his anxiety to get the Bill through, felt it essential to make certain concessions and that, therefore, it was not possible to discuss some of the principles again.

  1663
  My hon. Friend has said, when talking about some form of appeal—which is also part of this group of amendments— that these are difficult matters to define. That means that the homeless will be put at the mercy of petty bureaucrats. There is no provision in the Bill to enable a person to challenge the arbitrary decision of a local authority. Will my hon. Friend consider whether a safeguard and suitable appeal machinery can be inserted into the Bill in the Lords?
  Mr. Armstrong: I want to be honest with my hon. Friend. One of the main aims of the Bill is to bring the homeless into the mainstream of housing activity. From time to time representatives are made about the misallocation of housing generally. We all know the difficulties involved in allocating housing. To insert separate appeal provisions in the Bill would, in the view of people on the housing lists, give some of the homeless an unfair advantage. I do not want to mislead the House. I was not making a concession in that respect. It is a matter of principle. Legislation across the board would be required if we were to do that. The services of the local ombudsman are available to those who feel that houses are not allocated properly.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has indicated that it is possible that the wording is rather wide and that there is room for tightening it. He has said that he is willing to discuss this matter with all those who have expressed concern. We now find ourselves in an odd position. My hon. Friend has indicated that he will organise the redrafting of a clause or an amendment to a Bill which is not in his name but in the name of an Opposition Member. He will appreciate that there will have to be a response from those in whose name the Bill stands before we withdraw the amendments.
  Mr. Armstrong: I shall not go into the difficulties of a Minister who is responsible for a Private Member's Bill and which is subject to a number of other considerations which I do not particularly enjoy. I thought that the hon. Member for Hornsey had responded.
  Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) was not
  1664
  present when I intervened earlier. I said that an amendment to subsection (2B) would not be resisted in the House of Lords so far as I have any influence with my noble Friends. Ultimately it will be a matter for them. I have accepted that it is possibly capable of a wider interpretation than we understood it to have when it was first put to us.
  I hope that in looking at the wording of the clause the Minister will not seek to erode the several principles that we recorded in Committee and to which we have tried to give effect in the clause and the amendments. If he erodes, the principles, what I have said will not necessarily apply.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am in the difficult position of having heard a ministerial reply before I speak. There are a number of matters which I should like to stress since I was not a member of the Committee and have not been involved in the discussions.
  Self-induced homelessness has been raised as a major issue. I have yet to see statistics from any Department—the Welsh Office, the Department of the Environment or the Scottish Office—which indicate the extent of self-induced homelessness. Inquiries into the incidence of self-induced homelessness would show that in the majority of cases homelessness was environmentally or socially induced. One would therefore want to attack the whole concept of self-induced homelessness. Indeed, I would want to attack the possibility that we should, by Amendment No. 28, have some kind of subjective criterion, the criterion of intention, as a major part of the Bill.
  How does one in effect objectively prove an intention to make oneself homeless? Even if a local authority were able to prove to its own satisfaction the intention of the head of a household in a family unit, what is the effect of that individual's intention on the rest of the family? Is the homelessness of the children or the dependants within a family unit to be regarded as intentional? Does the intention of the head of the household cover the position of the other members of the family unit? We have to ask what validity there is in real terms to the notion of self-induced homelessness and to the basic notion of the intentionality which would be written into the legislation

  1665
  in the context of these proposals. This is a step back from the position taken in the circular, where self-inflicted home-lessness was clearly indicated as being in the last resort a matter for which the local authority was to take responsibility.
  Mr. Tony Durant: We have had a lot of quotations from the circular, from paragraph 33 in particular. Those quoting it should read the beginning of the paragraph, because it makes reference to the fact that the local authority should use "every endeavour" —which is what we have been trying to do in legislative form—so that if a family came back it would go right at the end if "every endeavour" failed in its case.
  Mr. Thomas: I accept that point, but the balance of the circular between "every endeavour" and "last resort" protects the interests of the homeless in a way in which the whole of Amendment No. 28 does not do. We have also heard a lot about conflict between different local authorities and the syndrome of the magnet areas, whatever the jargon is to be. This conflict arises because there is inconsistency in the level of implementation of provisions for the homeless in different areas. The crux of the problem is the failure of local authorities in certain areas, particularly in the stress areas, to implement the circular. It is that failure which creates the extent of mobile home-lessness that exists.
  I may be deficient in the imagination of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), but I cannot conceive of a family deliberately making itself homeless in a mobile way unless there were other social and environmental stresses upon it. After all the discussions on this issue. I have yet to be convinced that we have, in the extent of the mobile homeless, a wide-ranging problem, a problem which should bedevil the course of legislation and bedevil the right to accommodation of what are known as the genuine homeless.
  We are in danger in our discussions of spending far too much time on a very minimal problem, although it has been raised as an issue by local authority associations. Before we enshrine in legislation a protection of the rights of the homeless and ensure that we do not have an abuse of the legislation, we should define the extent of that abuse. That could be, and
  1666
  has been, done in surveys of homeless-ness, which indicate that the number of mobile homeless, or the number of people who are homeless entirely for their own reasons of self-infliction, is very small. Although we can have figures from the hon. Member for Hornsey and others who advocate a restriction of the rights under the Bill by the clause and amendments and others that were moved in Committee, I cannot accept that there should be a limitation of rights.
  2.45 p.m.
  Mr. George Cunningham: What does the hon. Gentleman say to this point? It has been raised before. Whatever the numbers that one could find of people abusing the system, we cannot judge from those numbers how many people would abuse a system if by abuse they had rendered themselves beneficiaries of an obligation as against the beneficiaries of a discretion. What relevance have statistics to the first situation, the one we live in, and to the situation we would live in if we created that obligation?
  Mr. Thomas: In the case of practical provision by the authorities which have accepted representations, we are already in virtually the same position as we shall be when that provision has statutory backing in the Bill. Are we to establish a principle of anticipatory legislation of this kind whereby we anticipate, or legislate to anticipate, abuse? Would it not be better, if we see abuse as a major factor, to legislate in perhaps a more permissive way to establish a right, tightening up the legislation later if there were massive abuse? That is surely a better way than endangering the position of the genuine homeless because of the way in which certain local authorities may use the words of the clause and the amendments in exercising their discretion. It would be better to do that than anticipate in legislation a small degree of abuse, thereby affecting the rights of a far bigger group of people.
  Mr. George Cunningham: In that case, would the hon. Gentleman support an amendment to make the provisions of the Bill lapse after two years?
  Mr. Thomas: I would not support such an amendment. There will be the means to amend the legislation without having to make it lapse in that way.

  1667
  Amendment No. 25 concerns the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision of a housing authority. The Minister has indicated that he is opposed to it. The reasoning behind the amendment is to try to ensure parity of treatment of homeless persons and families throughout each authority. The hon. Gentleman took the view that this could be done through the guidelines to be issued. Until those guidelines are published, after the Bill receives Royal Assent, I cannot comment on that proposition in detail. But my concern is that the guidelines may be in such a form that they could be avoided, as the provisions of the circular were avoided.
  An appeals procedure would provide an effective way of monitoring the performances of local authorities under the Bill. Clause 7 refers to local authorities having to have regard to the guidance of the Secretary of State and to furnish him with information referred to in subsection (3). Clause 7 does not allow the Departments concerned—the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office—sufficient scrutiny of the way in which the Bill should be operated, and we will once again find ourselves in the pre-Bill, the circular, situation whereby local authorities not keen to carry out their obligations will still be failing to carry them out. Only a limited number of such cases would go to appeal, and they would be cases where there was genuine disagreement between the local authority and the individual concerned, with possibly voluntary groups and housing action groups advising individuals taking cases to the Secretary of State where there was severe disagreement.
  The hon. Member for Hornsey said that such an appeals procedure would be exceptional and without precedent. But we have similar appeals procedures in planning legislation and many other cases. It would not be without precedent, therefore. I take the point that there is recourse to the local government ombudsman in cases of this kind, but I still hold the view that, in anticipation of specific arrangements for monitoring and of the wording in the guidelines, an appeals procedure is required, since 40 per cent. of local authorities have up to now been unprepared to carry out their obligations
  1668
  to the homeless. Therefore, I still stand by Amendment No. 25.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I had hoped that we would be able to bring the discussion of this clause and the amendments to a close, because we have had a very long debate and it is perhaps time that, as sponsor of the Bill, I indicated my attitude to them.
  I shall deal first with the appeal procedure sought in Amendment No. 25. Both the Minister and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) made the point that to create an appeal procedure on home-lessness would be embarking on far-reaching aspects of housing administration which do not apply in other areas. I do not think that my Bill is the right measure in which to introduce an appeal procedure. A person who wishes to challenge an adverse decision can do so under the general law on receipt of a written notice containing the decision and can seek an appropriate order from the High Court if the circumstances warrant it. Such a person could also take the matter to the local ombudsman. There is in general housing legislation no specific appeal system, and the aim of the Bill is to bring the problem of homelessness into the main stream of housing activity.
  Amendments Nos. 17 and 28 go to the root of the Bill. I have tried to honour undertakings and promises that I gave in Committee. I am sorry if Labour Members feel that some of the negotiations have been too clandestine. That was not our intention. We have made various attempts to meet the problems—and they are difficult problems—of legislating. This matter has been discussed extensively and I saw the final drafts only yesterday.
  I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey for being so helpful in these negotiations and in Committee. We have had much assistance. It is an all-party Bill, with all-party sponsorship, and I am sorry that it has run into difficulties at this late stage. On the whole, there was general agreement in Committee—with one notable and one less notable exception—about the main points that we should try to cover. The hon. Member for Hornsey has given specific undertakings about subsection (2B). Like me, he is a little disturbed about it. We talked about it yesterday and we feel

  1669
  that it may be misinterpreted. We know what is intended by the clause, but as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) pointed out, in a very good and eloquent speech, it could be misinterpreted. We have received a promise that amendments to tighten up the wording would not be resisted.
  We then come to the question of deliberately contrived homelessness. I have to tell Labour Members that such a practice exists. I am frightened, as I know the local authorities are, that the practice could become more widespread if we did not deal with in the Bill. Perhaps we have not yet got it quite right, but I am concerned about publicity that has been given in some area that the Bill would be a charter for people to move from district to district and be able to demand a house. It should therefore be made abundantly clear here and now that that is not the effect of the Bill, and somehow that sentiment should be written into it.
  Only last weekend a family with two children voluntarily gave up a council house in Portsmouth and arrived on the Isle of Wight, asking to be rehoused. The woman's mother was ill and the daughter was finding it difficult to travel back and forth once a week to treat her. The family gave no indication to the local authority or anyone else of its intentions, and it finished up in my office on Monday asking for help. I do not know whether these people got the wrong end of the stick about this Bill, thinking that as I was the hon. Member for Isle of Wight the Isle of Wight was the place to be. I shall have letters from people everywhere—from Bournemouth, Thanet and Margate—saying that they are coming to the Isle of Wight—
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I accept that cases such as that described by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) occur. I indicated in Committee that there was a problem with the migrant homeless. But surely such a problem would be covered by the other provisions of Amendment No. 28. I cannot see why that family could not have been shipped back to Portsmouth under subsection (2D), regardless of what happened under subsection (2B).
  Mr. Ross: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I trust that that hap-
  1670
  pened in the case that I described. However, it would clearly be better if we could make it abundantly plain, if necessary by writing the provision into the Bill, that the Bill does not give such people a divine right to a house, so that the tragedy that could arise in such cases— because it would be a tragedy if, in the meantime, their old houses had been relet—did not arise.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the hon. Member agree that it is preferable to get an objective criterion about those intending to make themselves homeless? The case that he has described would provide an objective criterion. The voluntary giving up of a tenancy of a dwelling in one area in order to secure a house in another area would be an objective criterion of homelessness, and enshrining that in the Bill would be better than enshrining the general point of self-induction.
  Mr. Ross: I must tell the hon. Member that I was asked for examples and I gave one that occurred only last week.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the hon. Member agree that it would be desirable to tighten up this provision a bit more? As the amendment stands a tenant of tied accommodation who is deliberately rude to his employer, is sacked and loses his home, could be argued by the local authority to have intentionally risked homelessness. Does the hon. Member not think that a form of words such as
  "with the principal intention of taking advantage of the provisions of this Act"
  would meet the point better, in that it would restrict application of the term "intentional homelessness" to someone who had become homeless with the intention of getting better accommodation under the Act?
  Mr. Ross: We all know what we are trying to do, but different interpretations are being read into different forms of words We must leave it to the parliamentary draftsmen to get it right. They have heard the arguments ad nauseam here today. I ask the House, and particularly the sponsors of the Bill, to accept the amendments put down by the hon. Member for Hornsey, on the basis of understandings that have already been given and in the light of undertakings by the Minister, which I fully support.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I feel very churlish in expressing the fear that the Bill may join the long and melancholy procession of Acts of Parliament which, with the best intentions in the world, were counter-productive in their effect. I have a very nasty feeling that, with all its good intentions, the Bill will produce an increase in the sum total of homelessness. However, we must do what we can to make sure that it does not, if we can possibly avoid it.
  In particular, I feel that the principal amendment that we are discussing here, No. 28, as at present drafted, is probably about as good an attempt as can be made to ensure that the measure is not used by those seeking to work the system in order to push themselves further up the queue. There has been a lot of argument on the question whether people do this, but common sense suggests that once we make it certain that anyone who can demonstrate that he has become homeless is thereby entitled as of right to be rehoused we are quite certain to produce an increase in the number of applicants under that head, and no amount of theoretical arguing will wish that away.
  3.0 p.m.
  This is a very real fear for local authorities such as the one in my constituency, which is in an attractive residential area close to some large industrial areas which are less attractive from a housing point of view. One of the worries is that this kind of measure will aggravate the situation in this country, where we have an overall surplus of housing, with a great shortage in certain places. I have a nasty feeling that the Bill will suck people away from areas where there is a surplus into areas in which there is a shortage, and that from the net housing point of view it cannot be anything other than a mistake. However, having said that, I shall appear somewhat contradictory in suggesting that there is a fairly strong case now for arguing that local authority housing ought more and more to be regarded not as the normal method of housing people but primarily as a method of housing people who are in a state of housing emergency.
  The Bill represents a step in that direction and away from the concept of the orderly queue—away from the system under which a couple get married, put
  1672
  down their name for a council house, wait a long time, and in due course get one. The Bill marks a step away from that and towards the concept that the local authority house should be something held in reserve for people who find themselves in an emergency. If that is what we are doing we ought to be fairly clear about it, and do everything we can to ensure that those who use this device in order to push themselves to the front of the queue are the needy rather than the knowing.
  None of us can be absolutely certain that the form of words included in the amendment is that which is best designed to achieve this objective but, having listened to the argument, I am convinced that for the time being this is probably as good a form as we can find, and I shall have no hesitation whatever in supporting the amendment if it comes to a vote.
  Mr. George Rodgers: I can shorten my intended speech considerably, as the ground has been very well explored. I shall address my brief remarks to New Clause 3 and Amendment No. 28.
  I have great sympathy for the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). He has undertaken a formidable task, and he has met with enormous difficulties during the passage of the Bill so far. None the less, he chose a Bill that certainly needed choosing. Someone was needed to grasp this nettle, and at least we have demonstrated the difficulties that lie along the path.
  I think that the hon. Member's original intentions have been diminished in attempting to secure that the Bill will get on to the statute book. He has—unfortunately, perhaps—had to compromise in some areas. I am, however, relieved that we have established today that the amendment containing the word "intentional" is not sacrosanct, that this is subject to variation and that it will be reviewed—I hope—on the next occasion, when we may secure a definition that has common consent.
  There are many circumstances in which homelessness can arise. A family or an individual can become homeless as a result of a calculated decision. This does not mean that it is underhand or fraudulent; indeed, the reasons may be highly virtuous. An obvious one is a threat of

  1673
  violence towards a mother or a child. But it can happen where the wage earner seeks employment elsewhere, even if the employment fails to materialise.
  There may be a change in family circumstances, perhaps, because of a death or illness in the family. There may be unavoidable debt, because of a lack of resources in changed circumstances. All these instances can lead to the point where a person says "I can no longer cope with this property, and I must become homeless." But the step is not taken casually or lightly. Frequently a person becomes homeless reluctantly but intentionally at the same time. The two attitudes are not necessarily contradictory.
  It is quite feasible that the authors of this new interpretation did not mean to insert a word that could have such far-reaching and unhappy consequences in certain cases. I accept that the intention was to discourage a handful of villains who might be tempted to become homeless for ulterior and underhand purposes. I accept that there will be a few misguided souls who believe that once they are homeless their local authority will leap forward and produce for them splendid, well-appointed, semi-detached houses with all mod cons. But things do not work like that at all.
  The overwhelming number of homeless people are simply the victims of circumstance. It would be very sad if we tailored legislation to frustrate the tiny minority who abused the system and in so doing deprived a great number of decent people of accommodation—the very people whom the Bill is designed to protect.
  We have heard a great many astonishing stories, especially about rascally Irishmen. They popped up again and again throughout the proceedings in Committee. But they are largely the exception, and, in a number of instances, the stories were nonsense. Throughout our scrutiny of the Bill we have paid far too much attention to the possibility of a misguided few benefiting from the measure when the purpose behind it is to relieve the misery of many.
  I hope very much that those who have proposed this changed phraseology, with whatever good intent, will reconsider the
  1674
  position and allow the Bill to proceed without this daunting provision.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

  HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS
  Mr. Durant: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out
  'might reasonably be expected to reside with him'
  and insert
  'normally resides with him as a member of his family or in circumstances in which the housing authority considers it reasonable for that person to reside with him'.
  This amendment follows on our proceedings in Committee, when an amendment was moved to incorporate the words "blood relation or marriage". It was felt in Committee that this was too narrow and that it was necesary to consider some slightly wider wording. As the Bill is drafted, the word "reasonable" is very difficult to interpret. Therefore, it was felt necessary to amend the legislation to clarify the position. But then it was felt in Committee that the words "blood relation or marriage" were too narrow, and there was considerable discussion about it, the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) having tabled a similar amendment.
  This present amendment arises from what might be described as a manuscript amendment which was put forward in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). Of course it was not permissible to move a manuscript amendment, but my hon. Friend virtually wrote it on the spot.
  We are anxious that priority should be given in the Bill to the family of the person found to be homeless. Both in Committee and on the Floor of the House we have had discussions about Irishmen. I do not wish to raise this matter again. I raised it in Committee. I shall now drop the subject of Irishmen, otherwise I shall not be able to go into certain pubs in my constituency.
  People take into their homes lodgers who pay the cost of a room. As the legislation now stands, when a family is made homeless those extra people, the

  1675
  lodgers, would have to be rehoused, but they have no direct relationship with the householder. We feel that this is too wide, and we are pressing for a keener definition.
  In Committee some hon. Members raised the subject of companions to old people, and that is one category about whom we are worried. The phrase "blood relation" was felt to be inadequate. Here we have an attempt to use the word "family", which will still give the local authority an opportunity to interpret the situation. I hope that the amendment will meet the point which was made in Committee. Since I wish to expedite the business before the House, I shall now resume my seat.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I ask the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) not to press his amendment, because if it were passed it would place us in some difficulty.
  We considered generally in Committee the question of how best to describe the people who should be considered as a unit for this purpose. We saw difficulties about the terms "family" and "household" as such, but we undertook to look again at this and at the wording suggested by hon. Members. We have done so, and I believe that the original form of words should stand. There is a great diversity of household forms. This covers all those that may occur, and it leaves to the authority a certain discretion to decide, in doubtful cases, whether it is reasonable for the people concerned to expect to live together. It is for the authority to consider whether it is satisfied that a person is homeless. This forms a necessary part of its inquiries.
  The proposed amendment appears at first sight not very different from the words used in the Bill. I would in that case anyway urge the shorter form in the Bill as I shall, if I am permitted, seek to use it elsewhere in the Bill also. But I would question, too, the effect of the amendment. It might well be taken to some extent to narrow the authority's field of discretion. If a person normally resided with the applicant as a member of his family—which does not, of course, necessarily mean that they must be related by blood or marriage— the authority would apparently be bound to accept him as a member of the house-
  1676
  hold, even if there were circumstances in which the authority did not regard it as reasonable that they should continue to live together. I hesitate to give examples, but a family where the father had been battering the children could well present real difficulties for an authority.
  We are not very far apart on this matter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Rossi: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view of the matter. I thought that it had been made clear in Committee that the wording in the Bill was far too wide and imposed an objective test. It is not a matter of who, in the opinion of the local authority, might reside in the accommodation in question but a matter of who might be expected to reside there which could create difficulties. It could lead to circumstances in which people were sharing households for temporary reasons and would demand to be rehoused by the local authority simply because somebody had moved in temporarily and, therefore, could claim to be homeless. For this reason, we wish to import into the Bill a discretion on the part of the authority to be able to distinguish cases on their merits and decide whether rehousing should take place. We felt that it would be wrong for a local authority to have a discretion so wide that it could break up a family.
  It was suggested in Committee by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) that in the case of blood relatives a local authority would be under an obligation. It was also pointed out that a lady companion to an elderly person might not be a blood relative but might live as a member of the family of the person concerned.
  3.15 p.m.
  It is with those circumstances in view that we move the amendment, so that the local authority, in rehousing a homeless person, will also be obliged to rehouse someone who normally resides with that person as a member of that person's family household, whether a blood relative or not. It is important that we should impose upon local authorities an obligation to do that and not to seek to rehouse only a part of that person's household.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said that there could be a

  1677
  household in dispute, with a particularly disagreeable member of the family such as a father who had ill-treated everybody. The amendment would not require the local authority to house those people together. It merely means that the local authority must make housing provision for all the members of the household. The local authority could in appropriate circumstances do that, and no doubt in such circumstances the family would be the first to demand it. The local authority could ensure that appropriate accommodation was made available for, for instance, a wife and children who felt that they were being particularly ill-treated. However, to leave it in the objective way that the wording of the Bill seeks to do would leave matters far too wide.
  We must import an element of discretion on the part of the local authority to prevent abuse but to ensure that the local authority has discretion when there are such family circumstances. It is for that reason that we have separated the family from all other cases and made it absolutely obligatory for a local authority to house not only an applicant but the people living with him as members of his family, whether they happen to be blood relatives, companions or others.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight has indicated to us what the parliamentary draftsmen said in advance of the Bill. However, that was not in the mind of the Committee because we departed from the parliamentary draftsmen's concept, and we shall make it narrower by the amendment. I hope that the hon. Member will accept it. If he wishes, he can come back to the matter at a later stage. That would be the right way to do things.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13 leave out 'a' and insert 'an express or implied'.
  The effect of this amendment is to make clear that a licence to occupy accommodation may be expressed, that is, in the form of a written agreement, or implied. A person would not then be homeless for the purposes of the Bill if he were permitted to occupy accommodation. This is essentially a technical
  1678
  amendment, to make clear that those whom the local authority are satisfied have implied licence to occupy accommodation are not to be regarded as homeless. That has been the intention all along, but doubt has been expressed that licence in Clause l(a)(ii) covers cases where there is no formal agreement, such as young couples living with parents. The amendment puts it beyond doubt. Such couples are not, because they have no expressed licence, to be regarded as homeless.
  The amendment is more desirable, because Clause l(a)(iii), which refers to Scotland, refers to an implied right to occupy accommodation. The term "licence" is not used in Scottish law in the same sense as in English law. Thus, reference to implied right in Scotland might, in the absence of any similar word such as "licence" referring to England and Wales, cast doubt upon the intention to include expressed and implied licence. I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 7 leave out from 'that' to 'or' in line 9 and insert
  'occupation of it will lead to violence on the part of some other person residing in it or to threats of violence from some other person residing in it and likely to carry out the threats'.
  This point was discussed in Committee during our second and third sittings. The amendment seeks to change the wording of the Bill but to retain its effect. We found the wording unsatisfactory, because of the use of the term "threats of violence "This made empty threats a cause of homelessness, and in the normal proceedings of family life there are sometimes empty threats of violence. We want to exclude them as a cause of homelessness.
  I hope that it will be agreed that our wording better meets the need to cover violence that leads to homelessness. I am sure that we agree that such is the incidence of violence that it is necessary to recognise the threat or likelihood of violence as something that can lead to homelesness that must be treated in the same way as homelessness from other causes. We believe that the amendment deals with the problem more satisfactorily.
  Mrs. Millie Miller: In Committee there was some doubt whether the phrase "threats of violence" was satisfactory, because it would be difficult to define. Since then, I have discovered that the same term appears in the Criminal Law Bill that is before Parliament. The phrase has also been discussed with reference to the Law Commission's view of its acceptability. If it is acceptable to the Commission it may not be necessary to amend it. I have a lengthy explanation from the Commission about the term, but perhaps it would be better to put the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Rossi: The amendment does not seek to remove the words "threats of violence" from the Bill. They are repeated in the amendment. There has been a rearrangement of the paragraph. The Bill says that a person will be treated as homeless if it is probable that his or her occupation of a property will lead to violence or to threats of violence. However, a threat of violence is only a probability of violence, so the Bill is saying that there should be the probability of a probability of violence. We regarded that as a tortology and have spelled out that it should relate to a person who is subject to violence or to threats of violence.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I am pleased to accept the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 18, leave out 'special' and insert 'priority'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Gal-pern): With this, we may take the following amendments:
  No. 52, in page 2, line 21, leave out
  'living with him or in care'
  and insert
  'who are residing with him or who might reasonably be expected to reside with him '.
  No. 6, in page 2, line 21, leave out from 'with' to end of line and insert 'or apart from him'.
  No 7, in page 2, leave out line 22 and insert—
  '(b) he is homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of any emergency or as a result of flood, fire or any other'.
  No. 53, in page 2, line 24, leave out
  'is vulnerable because of old age, disability, pregnancy'
  1680
  and insert
  'or any person who resides or might reasonably be expected to reside with him is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability'.
  No. 8, in page 2, line 23, after 'age' insert
  'pregnancy or is handicapped by mental or physical illness, injury or other disability, or has in the housing authority's opinion a priority need for accommodation or any other reason '.
  No. 9, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'pregnancy'.
  No. 12, in page 2, line 25, at end insert—
  '(cc) he is a single person who fulfils the conditions for admission to a reception centre in terms of Schedule 5 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976'.
  No. 10, in page 2, line 25, at end insert—
  '(d) is pregnant'.
  No. 54, in page 2, line 26, leave out from beginning to' has' in line 30 and insert—
  '(4A) For the purposes of this Act a homeless person or a person threatened with homelessness who is a pregnant woman or resides or might reasonably be expected to reside with a pregnant woman has a priority need for accommodation.
  (4B) The Secretary of State may by order—

  (a) specify further categories of persons as having a priority need for accommodation, and

  (b) amend or repeal any part of subsection (4) or (4A) above.

  (4C) Before making an order under subsection (4B) above the Secretary of State shall consult such associations representing relevant authorities as appear to him to be appropriate.
  (4D) No order under subsection (4B) above shall be made unless a draft of the order'.
  No. 15, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
  '(5) Notwithstanding subsection (2)(c) above, a person is not homeless for the purposes of this Act if he is a gypsy within the meaning of section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968'.
  No. 20, in Clause 2, in page 3, line 6, leave out 'special' and insert 'priority'.
  No. 46, in Clause 10, in page 7, line 18, leave out' A' and insert
  'Subject to section 1(4C) above, a'.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I intended to make the point that I am about to raise on Amendment No. 4, but I was unable to do so as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr.

  1681
  Douglas-Mann) was not in the Chamber. In fact, Amendment No. 5 applies to the same subsection, which refers to the regulations and the categories to be prescribed by the Secretary of State after consultation with associations representing housing authorities.
  As Vice-President of the AMA, I wish to say that in general it is satisfied with the Bill as it has been amended while going through Committee. It is sympathetic to the aims and objectives but it wants an assurance from the Minister—not from the promoter, because, as he appreciates he has no standing—that there will be adequate and full consultation before any regulation specifying further priority categories under Clause 1(4)(d) is prescribed by the Secretary of State. I ask that the temporary Minister, if he is able to do so, will give such an assurance even if we do not reach the end of this stage.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): The answer is "Yes".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) wish to say anything further?
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I have nothing further to say.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know how we shall do this, but Amendment No. 52 was to be grouped with Amendment No. 4. Of course, Amendment No. 4 was not moved and we have reached Amendment No. 5. As Amendment No. 52 has not been discussed with any other amendment I take it that it is discussable, although I do not want to discuss it at any length. I merely want to raise one point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The purpose of grouping amendments is to allow a debate to take place on the amendment that heads the grouping. Surely the proper place for the hon. Gentleman to raise his point was during the consideration of Amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 5 was the next amendment heading the group.
  Mr. Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does that mean that I
  1682
  cannot raise anything on Amendment No. 15, which is in the same group?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Strictly speaking, no. I read out each individual amendment that had been grouped. The mover of Amendment No. 4 was not in the Chamber and the next amendment in the grouping was Amendment No. 5. The time to raise the matter was during the consideration of Amendment No. 5. Now we shall have a whole series of debates each time, which is contrary to the usual practice of the House. If each amendment is treated as an individual amendment, it will create difficulties for the Chair.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I suggest, Sir Myer, with respect, that just as the Chair made an alteration in the selection earlier for the convenience of the House, you can allow separate debates on the remainder of the amendments. I do not think that there will be very much debate on any of the remaining amendments in this grouping. If that is not possible—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am concerned about the convenience of hon. Members. I do not stay in London over the weekend—I do not know about other hon. Members—but on this basis we could be sitting throughout Saturday and Sunday and create an emergency situation. In view of the circumstances, I am prepared to allow a brief discussion on individual amendments, although that is not, strictly speaking, in order.
  Mr. George Cunningham: If it is not in order for me to talk on Amendment No. 52, it would not be in order for a vote to be taken on it. That means that we would lose the amendments as well.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not up to his usual standard. As he will know, we are discussing a group of amendments. The amendments are all discussed together. Having disposed of the amendment that heads the group, we deal with the others formally. The hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the position. Anyway, someone has slipped up. It has not been the Chair. Therefore, I am prepared—
  Mr. George Cunningham Mr. George Cunningham rose—
  3.30 p.m.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must deal with the point of order. In view of the situation and the lack of attention of some hon. Members to what I read out, I am prepared to allow this discussion. The amendments will be dealt with as we reach them. We shall not discuss Amendment No. 52 until we reach it. We shall take each one separately. We shall now deal with Amendment No. 52.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 52, in page 2, line 21, leave out "living with him or in care" and insert
  "who are residing with him or who might reasonably be expected to reside with him".
  Mr. George Cunningham: I should like to ask the sponsor of the Bill whether I am right in thinking that the effect of Amendment No. 52 will be to remove from definition of the beneficiary group all reference to people having dependent children living with them or in care. It is those last words "or in care" that I am concerned about.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) will recall that I raised this matter in Committee. It would be preposterous to say that a couple from whom children had been removed and taken into care by a local authority, because that couple were maltreating the children, should be defined as being within the priority group. Am I right in thinking that Amendment No. 52, which substitutes other words for the words to which I referred, will have the effect that the definition of the priority group will no longer in any place in the Bill contain the words
  "living with him or in care"?
  Mr. Stephen Ross: That is the intention. The comments made by the hon. Member for Islington, North and Fins-bury (Mr. Cunningham) were taken on board. They were relevant. That is why we propose to change the wording to
  "who are residing with him or who might reasonably be expected to reside with him".
  Mr. Durant: In view of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that I should speak now on Amendment No. 15.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have now had an opportunity to reflect on what I said earlier. I was taking into consideration the convenience of hon. Members who, when I referred to the weekend, clearly showed that they would like to get away by 4 o'clock this afternoon.
  I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we took Amendment No. 15 as the leader of the group and discussed with it the whole group listed on Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments. Therefore, we are now to discuss Amendments Nos. 5, 52, 6, 7, 53, 8, 9, 12, 10, 54, 15, 20 and 46. That will tidy up the whole of our deliberations.
  Mr. Durant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance.
  I wish to speak to Amendment No. 15, which brings in the word "gipsy". We are anxious, as are most local authorities, about caravan dwellers. We have taken the definition of "gipsy" as it is expressed in Section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968:
  "'gipsies' means persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or of persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such ".
  We are in no sense having a go at real gipsies—the people who live in gipsy caravans and travel the country and who make and offer for sale various objects, including onions. We are referring to the itinerant worker who gets himself a run-down caravan, moves into a district, dumps it in an inconvenient place and, when asked to move on, goes to the local authority and says "I have nowhere else to put my caravan. I am therefore homeless."
  Most of the local authorities, particularly in areas which have a number of these itinerant workers, particularly the Midlands and certain parts of the South, are concerned about this. I felt that we should not let this occasion go by without expressing those anxieties All the letters that we recived from the district authorities mentioned this problem. We should seriously consider accepting the amendment, which defines what we are talking about in the terms of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. It provides a clear definition and enables local authorities to

  1685
  refuse to deal with such people, who cause difficulty and disturbance.
  All local authorities, under pressure from the Government and recent legislation, are urging county councils to provide adequate sites. I am happy to say that this is being done. There are, however, still some areas where sites are not provided, where people arrive and dump themselves into a community. They usually do this in the most awkward places. I have had recent experience of this. Some people dumped themselves on the riverside at a place where we were to hold our Jubilee celebrations. They were moved on and dumped themselves in a street in another part of the town.
  It would be a mistake to use the Bill as a means of rehousing such people ahead of many people already on the housing list in a district and ahead of those who were genuinely homeless through no fault of their own.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant). This is a matter of great interest to a large number of local authorities. If the amendment is not carried, there will be a further inducement to itinerant workers to come into an area with their caravans in the hope that if anything goes wrong they can get to the top of the housing queue.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann Mr. Douglas-Mann rose—
  Mr, Deputy Speaker: I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) in the Chamber again. If he had been present earlier, we could have saved 10 or 12 minutes. We are not now discussing Amendment No. 4.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came back in to the Chamber within seconds of your having said that Amendment No. 4 had been called. I have been present for almost all of today, but I am afraid that we sped on rather more quickly than I expected. I had intended to seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4 because the majority of Government amendments are great improvements on mine.
  I wish to refer to Amendment No. 53, which still retains a central weakness in
  1686
  that it leaves open the question of vulnerability. I urge my hon. Friends to consider whether it would not be preferable to incorporate a form of words which would ensure that those who were in certain defined categories were in the priority groups. In Committee there was an attempt to extend the discretion of local authorities so that they could cater for those in need even if they did not precisely fall within the priority groups. That is now incorporated in the Government amendments. However, local authorities are still left with too great a discretion to say that such and such a person, although old, blind, dumb or handicapped, is not vulnerable. That is unsatisfactory. I hope that it will be found possible in another place for an amendment to be accepted which would impose a basic duty upon authorities to consider such categories referred to in the amendment, irrespective of whether they are considered to be vulnerable.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I wish to express my strong opposition to the exclusion under Amendment No. 52 from groups with priority need of families with children in the care of a local authority. This is a retrograde step. I have read some of the discussion in Committee but I do not accept as valid the arguments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). The position of social workers working with families will be made more difficult and their attempts to reconcile families and to ensure that children are restored to a family environment will be hampered if this category does not become a priority need group.
  I should like to hear from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) why he has accepted that amendment so readily. Part of the serious problem of homelessness for families is the way in which it often leads to the splitting up of families, with children taken into care. Many local authorities have not taken up their responsibility for homelessness, and social service departments have been far to willing to take children into care as opposed to giving the whole family temporary accommodation. I do not want such situations to be exacerbated.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: My amendment No. 12 in this group extends the priority groups to include those who would

  1687
  qualify for a reception centre under the Social Security Acts. This is logical, because the philosophy of the Bill is to transfer responsibility from social work authorities to housing authorities. It seems anomalous not to accept that same philosophy in relation to the Supplementary Benefits Commission and local housing authorities, because the Commission has, if anything, less accommodation available than social work authorities have.
  It would also make sense since both the Commission and the local housing authorities date back to the parent Act of 1948, which first laid an obligation on social work authorities to house the homeless and provided for reception centres. In February of this year the Chairman of the SBC himself, Mr. Donnison, said that this would be more appropriately dealt with by local housing authorities, especially since many of those in the reception centres have been in the area for some time, are as entitled as married people to assistance from local authorities, have stayed in the area even after becoming homeless and in many cases have been in the reception centres for over six months.
  I originally intended the amendment as the basis for a wide-ranging and fairly lengthy debate on the single homeless, a debate in which some of my hon. Friends hoped to take part. In view of your suggestion, Sir Myer, that we should aim to finish by 4 o'clock, that is not feasible and I shall not press it, but a marker should be put down that many of us are unhappy about the continuing neglect of the single homeless which is given statutory effect by this Bill.
  For too long, local authorities have concerned themselves with the housing problems only of married people. They must be forced to face the fact that a growing number of single people also have a serious housing problem and a genuine case for rehousing. There is a growing number of single homeless but there is a cut in provision for them.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has left, because he had intended to tell the House of a hostel for single homeless in his constituency. It is to be closed on 1st August and 30 inmates will be made homeless. The local housing authority has offered to rehouse only six
  1688
  of them. That is one illustration of a widespread problem, examples of which exist in many constituencies. Obviously we cannot remedy it in the Bill or debate it now, but I hope that the other place will find more time to debate this aspect. It requires urgent Government attention. I fear that it might require even more Government attention as a result of the Bill, which puts into legislative effect a bias towards homeless families which local authorities already have.
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. Rossi: Amendments Nos. 52 and 6 seek to deal with the same problem. They involve the provisions which require the local housing authority to house a homeless person plus dependent children
  "living with him or in care".
  The wording follows that contained in Circular 18/74. On reflection, they are clearly defective. The children could be neither living with their father nor in care. The family could have become separated because it is homeless. If we leave the Bill as it is, that category of child will not be provided for. It is important that we modify that provision.
  Amendment No. 6 seeks to deal with that problem by taking out the words "or in care" and inserting the words "or apart from him". That would have dealt with the problem of the child living apart from its parents. Since then, we have seen the sponsor's amendment, the wording of which is preferable to that of my amendment.
  One must bear in mind the different situations that can arise. A child could be in care because it is undesirable for that child to remain in the family because of the danger of child battering. The child could be in care because the family has not been able to give a home to that child. One must be able to distinguish between those situations.
  It would be reasonable to require a local authority to rehouse the child who is in care because the family cannot cope, although it is capable and should be allowed to cope with the child. It would be unreasonable to require rehousing if the child is in danger from the family. The sponsor of the Bill has dealt with that by using the words
  " reasonably be expected to reside with him ".
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: My main concern is that a decision whether a child should

  1689
  be placed in care should rest solely with the social work department and not impinge upon decisions made by the local housing authority. I am also concerned about the exclusion of the man with children in care from the priority group.
  Mr. Rossi: The decision to put a child in care is one for the social services department and not the responsibility of the housing department. It is reasonable to include provision for whether a child should be removed from care and placed with the family. I leave that argument to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross).
  I draw the attention of the House to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, which meet an undertaking that we gave in Committee about the problem of pregnancy. We propose words based on the Circular 18/74. We have heard of examples of some local authorities drawing a dividing line based on whether a mother is six or seven months pregnant. Some authorities have said that they rehouse only if a woman is seven months pregnant
  We want to avoid that situation. We accepted the argument in Committee and therefore, in Amendment No. 9, I seek to remove the word "pregnancy", and in Amendment No. 10 to put in a new paragraph (d) saying "is pregnant". The effect will be that if a young woman is pregnant she will be treated as a priority case, and there will be no question of the local authority being able to say that it wants her to be so many months pregnant beforehand.
  Mr. George Cunningham: That means that if the young woman in question is pregnant but has the absolute intention of having an abortion, nevertheless she is within the priority groups irrespective of that absolute intention as quickly as possible to have an abortion.
  Mr. Rossi: I foresaw that difficulty when we were considering the matter in Committee. That is why I adhered at first to the use of the word "pregnancy" rather than "is pregnant". By using that formula one leaves a discretion on the part of the housing authority to be able to say "Where there is the likelihood of a terminaion of pregnancy, our obligation does not remain." In trying to meet the other objections raised. I
  1690
  thought that perhaps one would have to sacrifice that particular situation.
  If the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) can think of a better way of putting it, perhaps he can persuade a noble Friend of his to deal with it in another place. I do not think that we can go beyond that now, other than to refuse these amendments, and if that were to be the case we would be in greater difficulty. I have done my best to meet what I understood to be the wishes of the majority of the Standing Committee in proposing amendments in this form.
  Mr. Clement Freud: I want to speak to Amendment No. 15 specifically as it was raised by the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), who was concerned about the number of gipsies in his constituency. I probably have as many gipsies in my constituency as any hon. Member has, predominantly because of the fruit-picking that occurs in the north of Wis-bech. I was deeply concerned about this but I think that I am now convinced, in view of the fact that the definition of a gipsy is that he is a nomadic man, and in view of the provision on deliberately contrived homelessness. I cannot see the case of a gipsy going to the local housing authority ever putting it into a situation in which it would even have to consider putting someone on its priority list one place down in order to put up a gipsy. Therefore—really, for the sake of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross)—I say that I am satisfied with this provision as it stands.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: We had a lengthy discussion in Committee on the subject of gipsies. The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) will know that, generally speaking, it is the job of county councils to provide sites for them. It is also improbable, as my hon. Friend for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said, that gipsies want the kind of accommodation provided by local authorities. It would be wrong to say that just because someone happens to be a gipsy who may no longer be nomadic he should be denied accommodation. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman means that. It would be unjustified to incorporate such a provision in the Bill, so I hope that he will not put it to a vote.
  Mr. Rossi: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Amendment No. 7? Representations have been made by the Association of District Councils that the use of the words
  "any emergency as a result of flood, fire of any other "
  goes far too wide and could possibly lead to abuse. The wording in the circular was "emergency such as", for example, the consequences of flood, fire, and so on. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that this wording will be looked at again in another place?
  Mr. Ross: I take the point, but I put this to the hon. Gentleman: we live in rather violent times, and one can think of emergencies which are not flood or fire. For example, there may be homelessness as the result of a siege, such as that in Balcombe Street, with people unable to get into their homes because they are under siege. Fortunately, it is a rare occurrence, and one hopes that it will be even rarer. But that is one reason for using the words "any emergency". I shall certainly look at it, and if the point requires amendment this will be considered, but I do not want to give a firm undertaking.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Will the hon. Member say something about his attitude to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 on the question of pregnancy? His name is not attached to the amendments, but I would have thought that it was in line with what he had done elsewhere to retain the wording as it stands, which is that a woman who is vulnerable because she is pregnant should be treated exactly like someone who is vulnerable because of disability.
  Under Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 a person who is disabled will not automatically fall within the definition, however badly disabled, but a woman who is pregnant and who definitely intends, and says that she intends, to have an abortion would qualify. That is absurd, and it would be in line with the other provisions not to make Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
  Mr. Ross: I am sorry to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman. It will be a rare case if someone demands a house because of pregnancy and then undergoes an abortion. A local authority could find out about that and take some action about it.
  1692
  We are trying by the amendment, however, to stop authorities refusing to house pregnant women until they are, say, seven months pregnant. That is how some local authorities are implementing the original wording of the circular. I know of cases in which local authorities have told women to come back when they are seven months pregnant. In Committee we felt that it would be better for there to be a binding obligation that when a pregnancy is confirmed—and obviously a local authority would want to be assured that the lady in question was intending to have the baby—
  Mr. George Cunningham: What could it do?
  Mr. Ross: We are nit-picking over these things. I cannot believe that there are many single people in this country who will see this as a way of getting a house. It would cause uproar with the neighbours. The intention is to get a pregnant woman housed much sooner in pregnancy than is happening now. It is early in pregnancy that things can go wrong.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken to this group of amendments. Is the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) giving way?
  Mr. Ross: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have finished.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case I shall put the Question.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 2, leave out line 22 and insert—
  '(b) he is homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of any emergency or as a result of flood, fire or any other'.
  No. 53, in page 2, line 24, leave out
  'is vulnerable because of old age, disability, pregnancy'
  and insert
  'or any person who resides or might reasonably be expected to reside with him is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability'.
  No. 54, in page 2, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'has' in line 30 and insert—
  '(4A) For the purposes of this Act a homeless person or a person threatened with homelessness who is a pregnant woman or resides

  1693
  or might reasonably be expected to reside with a pregnant woman has a priority need for accommodation.
  (4B) The Secretary of State may by order—

  (a)specify further categories of persons as having a priority need for accommodation, and

  (b) amend or repeal any part of subsection (4) or (4A) above.

  (4C) Before making an order under subsection (4B) above the Secretary of State shall consult such associations representing relevant authorities as appear to him to be appropriate.
  (4D) No order under subsection (4B) above shall be made unless a draft of the order'.— [Mr. Stephen Ross.]
  Mr. Rossi: I understood that it was the wish of the House that we should deal with Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you have passed them over.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 9 fell when Amendment No. 53 was carried.
  Mr. Durant: What has happened to Amendment No. 15 in the middle of all this, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have not come to it yet. We are in a bit of a muddle, but we shall sort it out.
  It being Four o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Graham.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with a substantial number of amendments, and there is a danger that by an oversight we may confuse amendments which are in a group with amendments which are not. We have dealt with the Government's amendments, but it was understood to be the wish of the Committee and of the House that Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, which deal with pregnancy, should be dealt with by the Committee. As you went through the list, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought you would be putting these amendments formally. You have not called Nos. 9 or
  1694
  10, and these are amendments which—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already indicated that Amendment No. 9 has fallen, consequent upon the carrying of Amendment No. 53, and Amendment No. 10 is now superseded because Amendment No. 54 has been carried. The hon. Gentleman may take it that that is authentic, because I am saying it from the Chair. That is the position.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are now, presumably, about to go on to the group headed by Amendment No. 13, will you tell us at what stage you will be permitting Amendment No. 15 to be voted upon?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In its proper place on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
  '(5) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of this Act by order specify the principles upon which the particular housing authority with responsibility for providing permanent accommodation (by reason of previous residence, employment or other circumstances) should be identified.'
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 18, in Clause 2, in page 3, line 4, at end insert—
  '(c) such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy the authority whether there is any other housing authority which in accordance with any order made under section 1(5) of this Act has a responsibility for the provision of permanent accommodation'.
  No. 23, in page 3, line 9, at end insert:
  '(irrespective of where he may have been normally resident prior to the application)'.
  No. 26, in page 3, line 16, at end insert:
  'and of their decision as to whether there is any other housing authority with responsibility under section 1(5) above; and if their decision is that any other housing authority has such responsibility, they shall also notify that authority'.
  No. 27, in page 3, line 19, at end insert—
  '(7) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of this Act by order lay down procedures for the resolution of disputes between housing authorities, or between housing authorities and homeless persons as to which authority has responsibility for providing permanent accommodation; for the provision of temporary accommodation pending the resolution of

  1695
  the dispute; and for the provision of financial and other assistance to the homeless person to enable him to move from such temporary accommodation to accommodation provided by the responsible authority.'
  No. 29, in Clause 3, in page 3, line 30, at end insert—
  '(2A) Where in accordance with the provisions of section 1(5) and 2(7) of this Act another housing authority has the responsibility for providing permanent accommodation the duty imposed by subsection (2) above shall also be imposed on that authority; and the duty of the authority to whom the application has been made may be fulfilled by making appropriate arrangements with the authority responsible for providing permanent accommodation for the acceptance of the responsibility under subsection (2) above (whether or not it is in a position to provide permanent accommodation immediately) and by providing temporary accommodation until that responsibility is accepted and to provide such assistance to the homeless person as may be reasonable to enable him to travel to the area of that authority.'
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: The amendments have to a substantial extent been superseded by Amendment No. 28, but I urge the sponsor of the Bill and my hon. Friends and Conservative Members to consider whether the procedure outlined in Amendment No. 13 is not preferable to that contained in subsection (2D) of Amendment No. 28. Under subsection (2D) it will be the local authority which decides that a person has a connection with another area, rather than applying certain principles which should have been laid down by the Secretary of State.
  I do not wish to detain the House for any length of time over these amendments, and there is not likely to be any very deep thought at this stage of the afternoon on how best to deal with this issue. But as consideration will be given to the Bill between the time it leaves here and its arrival at another place, I hope that the procedure outlined in Amendment No. 13 and the other amendments in the group, which is alternative to that suggested in subsection (2D) and the rest of Amendment No. 28, will be considered by the Government Front Bench and by the sponsor. I hope that, if they agree that Amendment No. 13 is preferable, appropriate amendments will be moved in another place.
  Having said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I indicate that, with the leave of the House, I shall seek to withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The amendment involves some extremely important matters affecting my constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I must outline them. The particular problems which may arise out of the Bill are in my case those of a garrison town. The term "garrison town" is given to local authorities which have a large number of Service residents. My own constituency, Gosport, is such a town.
  In the Portsmouth Home Command, 3,500 families leave the Services each year. It was shown recently that over a 17-month period, of the 4,900 people who left the Services, about half of them, 2,500 families, left within four years of joining the Services, or prematurely. By definition, those who leave the Services within four years or prematurely may well have a housing need. Most of these families manage to solve their housing problems by buying houses, but because of the absence of rented accommodation those who cannot buy their houses find that they have a need to apply to local authorities for their housing.
  I have put this point to the Minister before and had his reply during an Adjournment debate. The Department of the Environment spells out advice that is given to local authorities. To me, it has a horrible similarity to the guidance which may be given under subsection (2G) in Amendment No. 28, which has been accepted by the House.
  If I may remind the House, the advice given by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence in Circular 54/75 reads:
  "Local authorities should be prepared to accept an application from any ex-serviceman, as they should an application from any other kind of applicant: and, as recommended previously, there should be no residential qualifications. Those ex-servicemen who are returning, alter several years' absence, to the locality in which they lived before joining the forces have a special claim to sympathetic consideration."
  I have raised this point before with the Minister, when I said that the circular was not accepted by a very large number of local authorities and was ignored. At column 197 of Hansard of 9th February 1976, hon. Members will see that I gave an example. I pointed out that Mr. and Mrs. A came from Lewisham, as did their parents. They wanted to go back to Lewisham, where Mr. A thought that

  1697
  he could get a job. They applied to Lewisham for accommodation six months before leaving the Service, as they had been advised to do, only to be told by Lewisham:
  "If you are able to secure private accommodation (however temporary and inadequate and especially if it is in this Borough) your application can be considered in accordance with the terms of the points scheme."
  This is a kind of Catch-22 situation— "We will provide you with housing if you can provide yourself with housing."
  A very large number of Service families cannot get themselves housed and have to throw themselves on the garrison town authorities for housing. In the same 17-month period to which I referred earlier, 273 families in the Portsmouth Home Command area were holding over in their Ministry of Defence housing because they could not find accommodation elsewhere. Of these, 173 were in my constituency of Gosport and six were in bed and breakfast accommodation.
  When I raised the matter of Circular 54/75 on a previous occasion, the Minister's answer was:
  "Our circular was issued only last summer and it is too early to give a view about its general efficacy, though we shall, of course, keep it under review. Our present view would be that the circular strikes as good a balance as it is possible to strike between the particular needs of ex-Service men and housing needs generally and recognises the special difficulties in garrison towns."—[Official Report, 9th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 206.]
  I maintain that nothing has happened to improve my view of the efficacy of that circular. There are still severe problems.
  I refer to the case of a lady who came to see me in my advice bureau about two weeks ago. She had links with a number of towns—Portsmouth, Bristol, Bournemouth and Fareham. She has two children and is expecting another child this month. She wrote to Bournemouth, where she had links—I ask hon. Members to remember that the Ministry had recommended sympathetic consideration— and here was a woman with two children, pregnant and with a divorce pending. She had no one to whom to turn. Bournemouth told her:
  "in view of the very difficult housing situation which now exists in Bournemouth, applications for registration on the Housing Waiting List can only be accepted from persons who are either
  1698
  living or working within the Borough, and a residential qualification of three consecutive years prior to the consideration of any such application is required."
  That was the sympathy she got from Bournemouth.
  She tried Bristol, from where she came originally. Bristol told her:
  "before an application can be accepted, an applicant must be able to show an assessable housing need and also be resident or have employment within the City boundary at the date of application. This means that you could not be registered until you were residing or actually working in the City ".
  She is expecting a baby this month.
  "But if you wish to apply at that time a waiting period of twelve months is stipulated before an application from a newcomer to the city could receive consideration."
  The Portsmouth authority did not waste much paper. It said:
  "I regret that I am unable to assist you with accommodation and, in the circumstances, I would advise you to contact the Gosport Borough Council to see if they can assist you."
  Fareham, on which she felt she had a claim, told her that she required two years' continuous residence in Fareham immediately prior to the date of application, or four years' continuous resident in the Fareham Borough in the past 15 years.
  Those who are in the Services are, as it were, stateless for housing purposes. They cannot establish residence in any particular area. Therefore, the housing need is thrown on the garrison town where the people happen to be living at the time of the termination of their period of service.
  I accept that Amendment No. 28, which has been accepted by the House, seeks to deal with this matter and to resolve the difficulty between the local authority in which the person becomes homeless and the area where the person may have a prior connection. This is fortunate, because it cannot be fair, right, logical or efficient that all those who leave the Services should be provided with houses in the area in which they happen to be living when they become homeless. However, I am not sure that Amendment No. 28 is either effective or strong enough. I find the wording rather opaque.
  I have not had an opportunity of raising this matter with the Minister. However, I cannot let this opportunity pass

  1699
  without asking him to clarify the situation. I hope he will give guidance on what is meant by subsection (2G) of Amendment No. 28, which says that if there is a disagreement between the local authority in which the housing need arises—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman mention Amendment No. 28. It is not included in this group. We are now discussing Amendments Nos. 13, 18, 23, 26, 27 and 29, but not No. 28.
  Mr. Viggers: I have been sitting here since 11 o'clock and I have avoided commenting on Amendment No. 28 because I thought that it would be better to raise this matter on the present grouping. Amendment No. 28 is relevant to this discussion and runs parallel with the amendments in this grouping. However, if the Minister can satisfy me that the point is already covered, I shall not need to press the matter.
  Mr. Armstrong: Perhaps I may intervene at this point to assist the hon. Gentleman. He knows that there has been correspondence on this matter and, indeed, an Adjournment debate. There are a number of wide issues to be considered other than those provided in that Bill, but Service families who are homeless are, as are other families, covered by the provisions of the Bill. We are giving careful consideration to the matter and in various circulars, and even in the Green Paper, we have referred to residential qualifications which are of interest to Service men. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this matter is receiving consideration.
  Mr. Viggers: My particular concern is that the garrison towns should not be prejudiced by the implementation of the Bill. Circular 54/75 refers to the housing problems in garrison towns. The amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and myself would strengthen the implementation of subsection (2G) of Amendment No. 28, which has already been agreed. Would it be possible for the Minister and his officials to consider whether it is necessary to take further action in terms of strengthening the circular, or even by means of further provisions to be added to the Bill at a
  1700
  later stage? We should make certain that justice is done to the garrison towns.
  I should be happy to concur in the withdrawal of the amendment, but I feel that these points needed to be made.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: In view of the discussions that we have had, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 31 at end insert—
  "(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section a person is not homeless for the purposes of this Act if he is by reason of age infirmity or other circumstances in need of care and attention under section 21 (l)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948.".
  The relevant section of the National Assistance Act 1948 states that
  "It shall be the duty of every local authority, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, to provide—
  (a) residential accommodation for persons who by reason of age, infirmity or any other circumstances are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them".
  We pointed out in Committee that there is clearly an overlap between the Act and this Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to make the position clear to the authorities concerned and to the people who might find themselves in this grey area.
  The local authority upon which a duty falls under the National Assistance Act is the social service authority, while the authority which has a duty under the Bill is the housing authority. The effect of the amendment would be to increase the stress upon the distinction between those requiring accommodation from social service authorities and those to be cared for by a housing authority. The distinction is, of course, between those who simply require a house and can fend for themselves thereafter and those who require care and attention in residential accommodation.
  The distinction must be clear, otherwise the responsibilities of the different authorities will not be clear. A number of arguments against the amendment were

  1701
  rehearsed in Committee. The main argument was that the amendment excluded those in need of care and attention from benefit under the Bill and I admit that there is some substance in that argument. However, it is not the will of Parliament that those in need of care and attention should be simply rehoused. Parliament has provided for them under the National Assistance Act by imposing a duty upon a social service authority to give residential accommodation to those in need of care and attention.
  I am bound to say that the guidelines are somewhat confusing, in that they imply that the housing authorities have the primary responsibility for homeless people in need of care and attention. The Minister told us in Committee that his advice was that the amendment that he proposed was unnecessary. However, he said that he would re-read the argument and discuss it with his colleagues.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I suggest to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) that it would have been better if this provision—with the purposes of which I agree—had been drafted in a slightly different form, and that it would be desirable to make that change at a later stage. The hon. Member has excluded from the definition of a homeless person, the person who—although he has no title to occupy a place or is threatened with the loss of that title— is entitled to assistance under the 1948 Act. Surely we ought to keep to commonsense definitions as much as possible.
  If a person does not have a right to occupy a place, he is, in commonsense terms, homeless. We ought to exclude such a person not from the definition of homelessness, since that flies in the face of common sense, but from the definition of priority need. We do not want the housing authority to be obliged to provide accommodation if the social services authority is under a statutory obligation to provide assistance.
  This can be done by excluding the man from the definition of priority need—this will not fly in the face of common sense, because there is someone else charged with assisting him. Otherwise, a person may be literally on the street, but be told that he is not homeless within the
  1702
  terms of the Bill. The local authority will be under a duty to provide an explanation in writing to the unfortunate character of why they are not going to do anything for him. The authority will have to say "We know you are homeless and you know you are homeless, but you are not homeless for the purposes of the Bill because you can apply for assistance to the social services authority".
  We should alter the definition later to exclude such a person from the definition of priority need rather than from the definition of homelessness.
  Mr. Armstrong: I indicated in Committee that I would raise this matter with my right hon. Friend. My officials have been in touch with the Department of Health and Social Security and we are satisfied that no change is required.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to the Minister. Since he has carried out his promise to look at the matter again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  PRELIMINARY DUTIES OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES IN CASES OF SUSPECTED HOMELESSNESS, ETC.
  Amendments made: No. 16, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'suspect that he is' and insert
  'believe that he may be '.—[Mr. Stephen Ross.]
  No. 17, in page 3, line 3, leave out
  'whether he has a special need'
  and insert—

  '(i) whether he has a priority need, and

  (ii) whether he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, and

  (iii) if the authority are satisfied that he has a priority need, any further inquiries necessary to satisfy them whether it is probable that he will be able, with advice and appropriate assistance, himself to secure that accommodation becomes or does cease to be available for his occupation; and

  (iv) if they so wish, as to the area in which he was normally resident prior to his application or with which he has some special connection by reason of family ties or employment'. —[Mr. Rossi.]

  No. 19, in page 3, line 5, leave out
  'suspect that the person who applied to them is'
  and insert—
  'believe that the person who applied to them may be'.—[Mr. Stephen Ross.]
  No. 20, in page 3, line 6, leave out 'special' and insert 'priority'.
  [Mr. Stephen Ross.]
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 7. leave out 'his'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 8, after 'occupation', add
  'by him and any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him '.
  Mr. Thomas: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that while inquiries are being made by a housing authority into the position of a potentially homeless family, that family should be housed as a unit and not split up. The amendment aims at ensuring that an obligation is spelled out in the clause for the housing authority to house not only the homeless person referred to in subsection (3), but any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him. It clarifies the obligation and does not substantially change it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 22, in page 3, line 8, after 'occupation', add
  'by him and any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him'. —[Mr. D. E. Thomas.]
  No. 23, in page 3, line 9, at end insert
  '(irrespective of where he may have been normally resident prior to the application)'.— [Mr. Rossi.]
  Amendment made: No. 24, in page 3, line 10, leave out subsections (4) to (6).

Clause 3

  DUTIES OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES TO HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS
  Mr. Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you be putting the sub-amendments to Amendment No. 28?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, if they are moved.
  Mr. Rossi: In that case, I do not wish to move the sub-amendments. I beg formally to move Amendment No. 28, in page 3, line 25, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
  '(2) Where—

  (a)they are not satisfied that he has a priority need, or

  (b)they are satisfied that he has a priority need but are also satisfied—

  (i) that he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, or

  (ii) that it is probable that he will be able with advice and appropriate assistance, himself to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation,

  their duty is to furnish him with advice and appropriate assistance.
  (2A) Where—

  (a)they are satisfied that a person who has applied to them for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation is homeless, and

  (b)they are subject to a duty towards him by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above, they shall secure that accommodation is made available for his occupation for such period as they consider appropriate.

  (2B) Where they are satisfied that he has a priority need and are also satisfied—

  (a)that he did not become homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, and

  (b)that it is not probable that he will be able, even with advice and appropriate assistance, himself to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation,

  their duty is to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation
  (2C) A housing authority may perform their duty to a person under subsection (2B) above by making available accommodation held by them under Part V of the Housing Act 1957 or Part VII of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 or under any other enactment or by securing that he obtains accommodation from some other person or retains his existing accommodation.
  (2D) Where a housing authority would otherwise be under a duty by virtue of subsection (2B) above but are satisfied that he was not normally resident in their area prior to his application or that there is some other area with which he has a special connection by reason of family ties or employment, they may notify the making of the application to the housing authority of the area in which it appears to them that he was so resident or with which he has such a special connection.
  (2E) It shall be the duty of an authority receiving a notification under subsection (2D) above on being satisfied that the applicant was normally resident in their area prior to his application or had some special connection with their area by reason of family ties or

  1705
  employment to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation as if the application under Section 2(1) has been made to them in the first instance.
  (2F) Upon an authority receiving a notification and becoming under a duty by virtue of subsections (2D) and (2E) above the authority giving the notification shall cease to be under a duty to secure that accommodation becomes available for the applicants occupation.
  (2G) In the event of there being disagreement between the authority giving and the authority receiving the notification as to the area in which the applicant is normally resident or with which he had some special connection by reason of family ties or employment and accordingly as to which authority is to secure that accommodation becomes available such questions (including questions as to what constitutes normal residence or special connections) shall be determined in accordance with arrangements to be made between housing authorities generally or in default of such arrangements as provided by general guidance given by the Secretary of State under section 7 of this Act.
  (2H) Until any disagreement between authorities is resolved in accordance with the provisions of the preceding subsection it shall be the duty of the authority to whom the application under section 2(1) was made to secure that accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant.
  (2I) Notwithstanding the right of a housing authority to give a notification under subsection (2D) above such an authority shall remain under a duty to ensure wherever possible that the applicants accommodation does not cease to be available for his occupation.
  (2J) Nothing in this section shall affect any right of a housing authority to secure vacant possession of accommodation, whether by virtue of a contract or of any enactment or rule of law.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are two manuscript sub-amendments to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment No. 28. No one is moving them. The Question is therefore, That the amendment be made—that is, Amendment 28.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Which one are we on now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has formally moved Amendment No. 28. Earlier in our deliberations I accepted two manuscript sub-amendments to Amendment No. 28. I have been asking whether anyone wishes to move those sub-amendments. The two manuscript sub-amendments were handed in by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) but they are not moved. I am therefore putting the question on Amendment No. 28.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Graham and Mr Thomas Cox were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
  Question agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 30, in page 3, line 36 leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Stephen Ross.]

Clause 4

  CO-OPERATION BETWEEN AUTHORITIES
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 4, line 1, leave out from 'authority' to 'the' in line 4 and insert—
  '(a) request—

  (i) another housing authority;

  (ii) the Greater London Council;

  (iii) a development corporation;

  (iv) the Commission for the New Towns;

  (v) a registered Housing Association; or

  (vi)'.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Amendments:
  No. 32, in page 4, line 7, after '(b)', insert 'request'.
  No. 33, in page 4, line 11, leave out from begining to 'shall' in line 13 and insert 'they'.
  No. 48, in Clause 11, page 7, line 22, at end insert—
  "development corporation" means—

  (a)in England or Wales, a development corporation established under the New Towns Act 1965, and

  (b)in Scotland, a development corporation established under the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968;'

  No. 50, in page 7, line 28, at end insert—
  '"registered housing association" means a housing association registered in the register of housing associations established under section 13 of the Housing Act 1974;'
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: These amendments are brought forward in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Committee relating

  1707
  to new towns. The Committee discussed the rôle of bodies responsible for the towns—development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns. It was agreed that it was wrong to duplicate responsibility within one geographical area. As the nature of their responsibilities was different from that of local housing authorities, it was inappropriate that the corporations and the Commission should have the same duties towards the homeless as the Bill places on housing authorities. However, it was agreed that they should be required to co-operate with housing authorities by rendering such reasonable assistance as they could when requested so to do.
  The new town development corporations could help by making reciprocal arrangements with housing authorities for dealing with homelessness in their towns and by making accommodation available to people becoming homeless in an exporting area who wish to start life in a new town.
  The Commission for the New Towns has been included because, although the bulk of the housing stock that it controls is to be transferred to housing authorities on 1st April 1978, it will retain some nomination rights. Therefore, it may be able to make a useful contribution.
  The amendment includes registered housing associations, as agreed in Committee, but it does not include the Housing Corporation, which, by amendment in Committee, was placed under the duty to co-operate. In practice, there is little that the Corporation can do to assist in securing accommodation for homeless people. It has powers to build houses, but in practice only housing associations have accommodation which could be made available. The Corporation has no nomination rights. Therefore, in practice it would not seem appropirate to include it.
  The definitions are technical and formal but necessary. As they are in compliance with an undertaking given in Committee, I hope that the House will accept the amendments.
  Mr. Rossi: I should like to express my thanks to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for complying with the undertaking that was given in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 32, in page 4, tine 7, after '(b)', insert 'request'.
  No. 33, in page 4, line 11, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 13 and insert 'they'.
  No. 34, in page 4, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  '(2) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above shall have effect in relation to a housing authority and the Greater London Council as if the references to sections 2 and 3 above in that subsection included a reference to section (Duty of housing authorities to provide temporary protection for movable property) above.'.—[Mr. Stephen Ross.]

Clause 6

  OFFENCES
  Amendment made: No. 36, in page 4, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  '(2) Any reasonable expenses incurred—

  (a)by a housing authority in protecting or dealing with property under section (Duty of housing authorities to provide temporary protection for movable property) above, or

  (b)by a housing authority or the Greater London Council in so protecting or dealing with any such property by virtue of section 4(1) above,

  may be recovered by them from the person whose property it is'.—[Mr. Stephen Ross.]
  Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 4, line 39, leave out from 'person' to 'a' in line 41 and insert ', with intent to induce'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we are to take Amendment No. 35, in page 4, line 43, leave out from 'person' to 'he' in line 44 and insert—

  '(a)is homeless or threatened with homelessness or

  (b)has a priority need, or

  (c)did not become homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, or

  (d)will probably not be able, with advice and appropriate assistance, himself to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation,

  knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular or fails to give information reasonably required by the authority in connection with the exercise of their functions under this Act.'.
  Mr. Rossi: We had considerable discussion in Committee about the offences that might arise from people giving false information to housing authorities to get

  1709
  priority over those on the general housing waiting list. I do not wish to rehearse the discussions we had in Committee. These amendments, which have been agreed in the way that most other amendment before us have been agreed, seek to give effect to what was decided in Committee.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I am pleased to accept this amendment, which is in accord with an undertaking given in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 35, in page 4, line 43, leave out from 'person' to 'he' in line 44 and insert—

  (a)is homeless or threatened with homeless-ness or

  (b)has a priority need, or

  (c)did not become homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, or

  (d)will probably not be able, with advice and appropriate assistance, himself to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation

  knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular or fails to give information reasonably required by the authority in connection with the exercise of their functions under this Act.'.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Clause 7

  GUIDANCE TO AUTHORITIES BY SECRETARY OF STATE
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 5, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
  Hon. Members who served on the Committee may remember that I said that I had given an undertaking to the district councils before Committee stage that we would be withdrawing subsection (3), which had aroused a feeling of abhorrence among local authorities. They felt that it involved too much bureaucracy. Unfortunately, we forgot to do that in Committee and I am honouring that pledge now.
  The prime objective of the subsection is related to statistical returns in respect of homeless households. I believe that co-operation is the way to secure this and am not convinced that it is necessary to place an explicit obligation on authori-
  1710
  ties in England which are co-operating handsomely. If the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) can also persuade the Welsh authorities to provide more statistics it would be helpful. The statistics derived from the returns made have proved of great value and I have no reason to believe that a statutory obligation is required to secure the continuation of the returns. I am aware that a statutory obligation would have the unwelcome implication that authorities might be unwilling to respond. I am confident that they will continue to respond and see no reason for inserting a statutory requirement.
  Mr. Rossi: We are grateful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for implementing an undertaking given in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

  FINANCIAL AND OTHER ASSISTANCE TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS CONCERNED WITH HOMELESSNESS
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 5, line 40, at end insert—
  '(2A) The conditions subject to which assistance may be given under subsection (1) or (2) above include, without prejudice to the generality of either of those subsections, conditions requiring the voluntary organisation receiving the assistance to keep proper books of account and have them inspected and audited'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 41, in page 5, line 40, at end insert—
  '(2A) The Secretary of State, Greater London Council and any housing authority shall be concerned as to the proper application of moneys for the purposes for which they were granted or loaned under this section.'.
  Mr. Ross: The effect of this amendment is to make clear that it is contemplated that the conditions which may be attached by an authority to assistance to a voluntary organisation would normally include requirements in relation to keeping of proper accounts by the voluntary organisations and to the audit and inspection of those accounts.
  Amendment No. 41, which I would be happy to accept, would require the Secretary of State, housing authorities or the

  1711
  Greater London Council to be concerned that loans or grants are spent for the purposes for which they were granted or loaned. Amendment No. 40 is brought forward in fulfilment of undertakings we gave in Committee. Members of the Committee were understandably anxious that Clause 8 should stress that public money should be adequately accounted for, especially in view of the concern caused by the film "Goodbye, Longfellow Road".
  This amendment provides that the body giving the grants, loans or other assistance, whether the Secretary of State, a housing authority or the GLC, may make it a condition that the voluntary organisation shall keep proper books of account, have them audited and allow them to be inspected. The amendment improves that which was considered in Committee, in that it says not simply that accounts shall be kept but deals with the means of ascertaining that they are kept, and kept correctly.
  Mr. George Cunningham: When I read Amendment No. 41 I thought that there must have been a misprint. It says:
  'The Secretary of State, Greater London Council and any housing authority shall be concerned as to the proper application of moneys for the purposes for which they were granted or loaned under this section.'.
  I do not know whether any other hon. Member has leapt to an understanding of what that means. It is most appallingly grammatically bad. I do not know to what the word "they" refers. It does not refer to the subject of the sentence and personal pronouns should always be used in a sentence as referring to the subject of the sentence.
  What does it mean? We are compelling authorities to be "concerned", but what do we do if they are not? Is this the normal thing? I know that "concerned" does not mean "worried"; I take it that it means "given some responsibility".
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I said that I was prepared to accept Amendment No. 41. I should have said that I would consider it. It would be better to look at its terms again.
  Mr. Rossi: When the hon. Member has finished his speech, perhaps I could explain.
  Mr. Cunningham: If I am to receive an answer from the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps you would regard my intervention so far as a question to him and allow me to come back when he has finished.
  Mr. Rossi: Again I thank the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for implementing at least in part an undertaking that he gave us in Committee to deal with the problem of accountability of public money loaned or granted for specific purposes. We suggested that there were two aspects of the same problem— the requirement that people should keep proper accounts and the requirement that they should show how they had used that money.
  Normally, we should have been satisfield if the sponsor had agreed to accept an amendment to Clause 8 to substitute for "voluntary organisations", "registered charities or registered housing associations". Registered charities are accountable to the Registrar of Charities and registered housing associations are accountable to the Housing Corporation.
  However, under this clause, the Secretary of State, housing authorities or the GLC are empowered to make loans or grants to bodies which are not subject to the disciplines of registered charities or housing associations. Any group of people could decide to band together for some ostensibly good purpose and induce an authority to grant or lend them money. When the authority sought to find out what had happened, there would be no books or accounts.
  That was the situation which received such notoriety in the film "Goodbye, Longfellow Road". One association was a registered charity and the other was not. The fact that one was suggested to us that the mere keeping of books of account was not sufficient in itself, that a public body dispensing money should be obliged to ensure that the money was spent for the purposes for which it was granted or loaned.
  Normally, borough treasurers are cautious gentlemen. When they lend money they take care to ensure that proper books of account are kept by the recipient and inspected regularly and that when the date for repayment falls due, the money is there to be repaid. But there

  1713
  is a different attitude to money which is granted. That is partly the reason for the Longfellow Road scandal.
  Grants were made by the GLC to voluntary organisations—one a registered charity and the other not—and there was absolutely no follow-up. Although one body may have been required to keep proper records because it was a registered charity, the other was not. But certainly the GLC was in no way concerned to see how the granted money was applied. In the event, it appears, or it would seem at first sight—I must use those terms because the matter is now subject to investigation by the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions—that the money was not used for the purpose for which it was granted.
  4.45 p.m.
  The intention is that the amendments should deal with that situation. Amendment No. 40 deals with the requirement that these organisations shall keep proper books. Amendment No. 41 provides that a public authority lending or granting the money has a legal obligation to ensure that the money is used for the purpose for which it was granted or loaned.
  The language in those amendments is that which is frequently used in trust documents where trustees are appointed and directed under a will to carry out the deceased person's wishes and make payment to a third party for specific purposes.
  In some wills the trustees have an obligation to ensure that the money is used for the purposes that the testator intended. In other cases the will is so worded that they shall not be concerned about the proper application of the monies. The language used is borrowed.
  In this case the Secretary of State, the Greater London Council or the housing authority has granted money which is entrusted to a third body. The Secretary of State, the Greater London Council and the housing authority must be concerned about the proper application of the money.
  Clause 8 deals with three bodies—the Secretary of State, the GLC and the housing authority, who may grant or lend money to third bodies which are then entrusted to use the money in a certain way. I hope that that explanation, how-
  1714
  ever inelegant the language in the amendment, will satisfy the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). It follows the form used in private documents.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I am grateful for that explanation. It clearly explains the purpose behind the amendment. However, I suggest to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and the Minister that this is not the proper way to do it. It would be better to use such words as "authorities must take steps to ensure—" or something of that nature which is similar to the wording used by the hon. Member for Hornsey in his commonsense explanation.
  The hon. Member invoked the language of wills but his example does not meet the purpose. He said that sometimes a will provides that trustees shall take steps to ensure that the money is used for a specific purpose and that in other wills that the trustees will not take those steps. The purpose of that is to exclude the trustees from any responsibility. That is not only elegant but effective language for achieving that purpose. The matter can be dealt with in another way. I hope that some peer will get his beady eye on that language and find some other way of achieving the same purpose.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: Amendment No. 40 covers the point made in Amendment No. 41. I appreciate that it is a worthwhile attempt to put a more positive duty on the authorities and I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will give it attention in another place. I hope that that will satisfy him.
  Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I would like to press him further and ask him to accept the amendment at this stage. We all know that these things can be lost sight of. I should like the principle of a positive obligation on a public authority to see how money is spent to be put into the Bill. If the wording is not correct, it can be altered in another place, but I am rather frightened of letting it go and not indicating to their Lordships that we were concerned to see that an obligation was placed on a public authority to ensure that money granted or loaned was properly spent. I do not think that Amendment No. 40 goes far enough to

  1715
  ensure that their Lordships will understand what is in our minds, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept my amendment on the basis that it can be corrected at a later stage.
  Mr. Ross: Time is marching on, and at the special request of the hon. Member I will accept his suggestion.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 6, line 13, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
  '(6) A housing authority shall debit to the housing revenue account costs or expenses incurred in carrying out their duties under this Act only in so far as they conform to the categories of expenditure laid down in the Housing Finance Act 1972 and the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 '.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 43, in page 6, line 13, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
  '(6) A housing authority may debit any expenditure and credit any income attributable to functions undertaken under this Act to their housing revenue account maintained under the Housing Finance Act 1972 and the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972.'.
  Mr. Brown: This is a clarifying amendment. I would like to leave the matter there, but I gather that there is difficulty about it. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for the Environment will give further clarification of any points that may be raised.
  The amendment states that expenditure under the Act is to be charged to the housing revenue account only on those items already specified in statute— mainly loan charges on accommodation provided and management and maintenance costs. Other expenditure such as that on bed and breakfast is excluded from the account.
  Subsection (6) was inserted in Committee, following an amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). He has apologised for having to leave. He accepts Amendment No. 42 and has asked me to convey as much to the House.
  I understand my hon Friend's reasons for moving the amendment carried in Committee. He wanted to ensure that the costs of providing accommodation for the homeless did not fall on the housing
  1716
  revenue account, except where that was already the statutory position, and so become a charge on rent income from tenants. This was a major point in the representations made by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the Bill.
  The subsection as it now stands, however, may appear to allow local authorities discretion to decide whether or not to charge any expenditure arising from the Bill to the housing revenue account. If it has this effect, it is at cross-purposes with the statutory basis of the housing revenue account, set out in the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 and its English equivalent. Under those Acts, no discretion is available; they prescribe the housing costs which must appear in the housing revenue account.
  I think that that is sufficient explanation to give the basis of the case. The spirit of what prompted hon. Members to support the amendment in Committee was clear. But the difficulty is twofold. The discretion envisaged in Amendment No. 43 is quite inconsistent with the present mandatory basis of the housing revenue account, and including bed and breakfast in the account would undermine its status as a property account, and would have wide implications, perhaps calling into question the position of other major items, such as housing advice centres.
  We therefore suggest that the House should leave matters as they are under general legislation. Perhaps something will need to be done, not necessarily arising out of homelessness, and there may be ideas for discussion, within the context of the Green Paper, on what should be in the housing revenue account in future, because the system is intended to be changed in any case. Nevertheless, I hope that for the immediate purpose the House will accept Amendment No. 42 and reject Amendment No. 43.
  Mr. Younger: We are in a little difficulty here, because the situations are different north and south of the Border. I think that Scottish hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with the Minister and will accept Amendment No. 42. It is in line with what COSLA wants and it is in line with what some of us argued in Committee.

  1717
  The basic aim of both sides of the House on Scottish accounting is that the present expenditure for dealing with homeless persons should in future still qualify for needs element or the equivalent of the rate support grant. The Government have given an undertaking that they will find a formula for ensuring that that is so. If any of this expenditure were put into the housing revenue account that could not take place, and the full weight of it would fall upon rent payers, who fund the housing revenue account.
  Both sides of the House therefore would prefer Amendment No. 42 and would be glad to agree to the Minister's proposal. I think that my hon. Friends from south of the border have reservations, however, and would prefer Amendment No. 43 to apply to England. No doubt they will wish to make their points about that. If that is so, I presume that something will have to be done to sort the matter out in another place.
  As matters stand I do not think that we can satisfy both these problems by accepting either of the amendments, and we clearly cannot accept both of them. So the point will have to be cleared up in another place. But, from the Scottish point of view, we would be glad to accept Amendment No. 42.
  Mr. Rossi: Obviously in seeking to ameliorate the situation for authorities in England and Wales, I do not wish to create a situation which would cause difficulties for Scottish authorities. I am not quite sure where the difference lies between the two. I suspect that it arises from the fact that nowhere in Scotland will one find a housing revenue account in credit.
  In England and Wales, one finds frequently that housing revenue accounts are in surplus. That immediately gives rise to the problem that, where a housing revenue account is in deficit, any additional expenditure incurred by the authority on housing has little effect upon the ratepayer, in the sense that it does not matter to the ratepayer which account is charged for the additional expenditure. If it were charged to the housing revenue account, the deficit would be increased, and at the next financial year the deficit would have to be mopped up by increasing the amount to be demanded from the
  1718
  ratepayers and by a transfer of money being made from the general rate fund into the housing revenue account.
  When there is a surplus, a different problem arises. If there is a surplus on the housing revenue account and a local authority incurs additional housing expenditure but is unable, because of artificial accounting rules, to debit that to the housing revenue account and use up the surplus, the ratepayers have to make up the money out of an additional rate increase the following year. This is the anxiety that has been put to us by the Association of District Councils, which is the association representing the English and Welsh interests in these matters.
  5.0 p.m.
  I should like to read to the House, so that it may be on the record, a note that I have received from the Association of District Councils setting out its request. It is essentially the association's request and not mine. I regard this more as a matter between the Government, the Department of the Environment and the local authorities themselves. It is something that the Government will have to sort out, and no doubt discussions will take place following the debate.
  The association states:
  "By virtue of section 12 and schedule 1 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 only specified income and expenditure may be included in the statutory housing revenue account of a housing authority. Without this amendment some expenditure on homelessness e.g. the cost of bed and breakfast accommodation or housing advice could not be included in the housing revenue account. Inclusion of expenditure in the HRA gives a housing authority the option to meet it from rent income or from a rate fund contribution to the account. If the expenditure is not in the HRA it could only be met from the rates."
  That is the anxiety of the association.
  The statement continues:
  "The Association considers that the principle on which the inclusion of homeless expenditure in the HRA could be based is that this account should include all expenditure in relation to persons for whom the housing authority accepts a housing responsibility (including any necessary investigations).
  Bed and breakfast charges should be within the HRA because this enables rent pooling e.g. high bed and breakfast charges could be abated by pooling where necessary.
  The HRA is at present more than a proerty account since the cost of housing welfare officers are included in it. It is expected that most expenditure on homelessness will be

  1719
  included in the HRA without this amendment, but this merely strengthens the case for all homelessness expenditure to be included therein. Items such as bed and breakfast, the giving of advice, caravans/mobile homes, and the cost of storage of furniture should not be left out. It would seem doubtful whether expenditure on homeless persons accommodated in caravans (a flexible method of providing accommodation in emegency) can be in the HRA because the account is limited to houses and other buildings (section 12 HFA 1972)."
  That is the case that the Association of District Councils has asked me to put to the Minister in support of Amendment No. 43. It has raised a number of valid points, and I hope that they will not be rejected out of hand.
  Mr. Armstrong: I do not reject the arguments out of hand. They have been put to us by the district councils. The hon. Gentleman having put the matter quite clearly, and, knowing that we take it seriously, I hope he will not press Amendment No. 43.
  The housing revenue account is a property management account and is confined to expenditure and income in respect of action related directly to the local authority housing stock. Authorities at present have no discretion as to which items of expenditure or income are in the housing revenue account. Therefore, expenditure on homelessness is chargeable to the housing revenue account where it relates to the use of local authority stock, but not in other cases.
  There are two difficulties, if I may put them to the hon. Gentleman. The first is that the discretion that is envisaged in Amendment No. 43—and I understand the case—is quite inconsistent with the present mandatory basis of the housing revenue account. Secondly, to include bed and breakfast in the housing revenue account would undermine the status of the housing revenue account as a property account and would certainly have wider implications. Nevertheless, housing finance is constantly under review.
  The truth is, of course, that the majority of expenditure on the homeless —the House ought to be aware of this, and I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of it—comes within the housing revenue account, because a great number of the homeless are on the housing list and are eventually housed in local authority property. The rest of the expenditure amounts to a very small propor-
  1720
  tion of the expenditure by councils, by housing authorities, on the homeless.
  Following the Green Paper, however, we are discussing more widely the function of the housing revenue account, and I suggest that it is too wide an issue to be dealt with in this Bill. I take on board the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made and those made by the council, but I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will consider not moving Amendment No. 43 and accepting Amendment No. 42.
  Mrs. Millie Miller: Before my hon. Friend finally sits down, may I point out to him that there are other considerations in this matter? As he said, the major authorities dealing with homelessness are those under the metropolitan districts. For them, the cost of bed and breakfast accommodation can be very great, and it represents an impost on council tenants many of whom find rents difficult to meet. It would be laying the burden of the greatest number of homeless persons on a very small number of authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear this in mind in his further consideration.
  Mr. Armstrong: As I say, the allocation of resources in this way is, a very difficult matter and a subject for continuing discussion between us and the housing authorities. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend, as well as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), said.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

  TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY AND STAFF
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 6, line 22, leave out 'and'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, we may consider Amendment No. 45, in line 24, at end insert—
  'and (c) without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, for any matter incidental or supplemental to paragraph (a) or (b) above'.
  Mr. Ross: The effect of this amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to provide, in the order for the transfer of property and staff, for matters incidental or supplemental to the transfer of property or employees.

  1721
  This is a technical amendment to allow matters incidental or supplemental to the transfer of property and staff to be covered in the order to be made by the Secretary of State. As the clause stands, the order may provide only for the transfer of property and of staff; but it is envisaged that there may be other related matters which ought to be covered also. I understand that it is common practice to include a general provision of this sort.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 45, in line 24, at end insert
  'and
  (c) without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, for any matter incidental or supplemental to paragraph (a) or (b) above '.—[Mr. Stephen Ross.]

Clause 10

  ORDERS
  Amendment made: No. 46, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'A' and insert
  'Subject to section 1(4C) above, a'.—[Mr. Stephen Ross.]
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in line 19, leave out
  'other than section 13 below'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, we may take Amendment No. 51, in page 8, line 38 leave out from 'force' to end of line 5 in page 9 and insert—

  '(a) in England and Wales, on 1st December 1977, and

  (b) in Scotland, on 1st April 1978'.

  Mr. Roberts: The purpose of these amendments is to tighten up the Bill in terms of the date of its coming into force. Amendment No. 51 specifies the date in England and Wales as 1st December of this year and in Scotland as 1st April 1978.
  The reason for the difference is that none of the Scottish housing authorities has borne the responsibility for housing the homeless in the past. They were not subject to Circular 18/74, or anything similar. In Committee the Scottish Under-Secretary told us, in effect, that the Scottish local authorities would require until April to prepare themselves for their new responsibilities. We
  1722
  argued then that 1st April 1978 was a sensible date for England and Wales as well, being the start of the financial year, But, regretfully, other counsels have prevailed, and we now suggest that the Act comes into operation on 1st December.
  As a result of other changes in the Bill, it is unlikely that the difference in the dates of operation will result in an influx of Scottish homeless people into England or Wales.
  Amendment No. 47 is consequential on Amendment No. 51.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendments made: No. 48, in page 7, line 22, at end insert—
  '"development corporation" means—

  (a) in England or Wales, a development corporation established under the New Towns Act 1965, and

  (b) in Scotland, a development corporation established under the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968;'.—[Mr. Stephen Ross.]

  No. 49, in page 7, line 22, at end insert—
  '"appropriate assistance", in relation to any person, means such assistance as a housing authority consider it appropriate in the circumstances to give him in any attempts that he may make to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his occupation;'.—[Mr. Rossi.]
  No. 50, in page 7, line 28, at end insert—
  '"registered housing association" means a housing association registered in the register of housing associations established under section 13 of the Housing Act 1974;'.—[Mr.Stephen Ross.]

Clause 13

  CITATION AND EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 51, in page 8, line 38, leave out from 'force' to end of line 5 in page 9 and insert—

  '(a) in England and Wales, on 1st December 1977, and

  (b) in Scotland, on 1st April 1978'.—[Mr. Rossi.]

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to Third Reading.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Are we now on Third Reading?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman want to say something before Third Reading?
  Mr. Cunningham: Not before Third Reading, but on Third Reading.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: On Third Reading I would normally call the Minister or the hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill.
  Mr. Armstrong Mr. Armstrong rose—
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg formally to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  5.13 p.m.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I am not surprised that neither of the parents of the Bill wants to say anything about it. There is not much that can be said anyway.
  I hope that I shall never again have anything to do with as sloppy a Bill as this one, or that I shall be asked to help process through this Parliament a Bill which has begun so ill-prepared—a Bill on which, since it is in effect a Government Bill, the Government have so manifestly and lamentably fallen down on their duty to provide a professional backup to ensure that legislation that reaches the statute book is of some minimum quality in drafting and construction.
  The main fault at the beginning of this wretched Bill was that it contained a huge hole. The sponsors of the Bill said that all was well and that they merely wanted to establish a legal obligation to house beneficiaries. Their attitude has been "Do not bother us about who the beneficiaries are, because that will come later". But that did not happen in Standing Committee, because that was not their original intention. Their original intention was that it should be done by order, subject only to negative resolution of the House.
  Surely anybody who has been connected with this Bill will know that the task is far more difficult than that. Whether the task is possible—or, if possible, worth while—depends on the definitions laid down in respect of the class of beneficiaries who are to have an obligation to be rehoused, the way which one lays down the responsibility to house those people as between one autho-
  1724
  rity and another, and the qualifications which are introduced in respect of people who render themselves homeless. Whether this whole exercise is possible—or, if possible, worth while—depends whether one can find answer to those questions.
  The Government had not begun to clear their thoughts before the Bill was introduced. Indeed, they had not begun to clear their thoughts before the Bill received a Second Reading or by the time it reached Standing Committee—and, indeed, they have still not cleared their thoughts on this legislation. It will be left to the House of Lords to patch it up. Some judges say rude things about parliamentary legislation. I disagree with them frequently because I think that if judges were to draft legislation they would make a botch of it, but nothing judges could say about this legislation would be excessive. This is not the way to produce legislation in terms of language, construction or common sense. I hope that that point is taken. The Permanent Secretary of the Whitehall Department which produced this kind of stuff should be thoroughly ashamed of himself and should not remain in that post for long.
  The Bill will now go to the House of Lords. The truth is, as I suggested in Standing Committee, that what we have been doing from the beginning is to throw out in advance any commitment in principle, and resolutely, step by step, we have been marching back to square one. We are now back at square one and in some respects it could be argued that we are at an even earlier stage than square one.
  The blame for this does not attach to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). The unfortunate fellow had this draft foisted upon him. Any hon. Member is in difficulties in drafting a Bill, but if the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight had not had the "assistance" of the Department of the Environment in producing the Bill, with his couple of hundred pounds he could have produced a better Bill himself. Anyone could have done so. I repeat that the Bill, as it came to the House, could have been drafted on the back of an envelope in an evening, while watching television.
  Since then we have been doing the difficult bit that neither Ministers nor officials in the Department of the Environment had the common sense to tackle before the Bill came forward. There

  1725
  attaches the blame, and also to the charities. We have all been bombarded with heartfelt pleadings during the proceedings on the Bill from SHAC and other charities which have led hon. Members to believe that the important thing was just a question of principle and of whether one wanted to help the homeless. They asked whether one had a heart. They did not use their heads at all to see the difficulties involved in the task that they were trying to get us to perform.
  The blame does not fall at all on the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, but it attaches strongly to the Department of the Environment, at official and ministerial levels, and in part to the charities.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: If I may intervene now it will save me from making any contribution separately on Third Reading. Will my hon. Friend pause for a moment in his remarks to remember the rôle of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi)? I did not serve on the Committee, but it has been my impression today that the hon. Member for Hornsey has a lot to answer for and I was confirmed in that impression when, after the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) had moved an amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) asked him what it was about and the hon. Member for Hornsey had to rise and explain what the amendment was concerned with.
  Mr. Cunningham: That amendment was in the name of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). Certainly as this Bill has emerged and now goes to the House of Lords it owes a great deal to the hon. Member for Hornsey. Whether one believes that the hon. Member was responsible for creating the Bill or ruining it is a matter of opinion, but certainly it is no longer the Bill of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight or the Department of the Environment. Such merits or demerits as the Bill possesses derive from the hon. Member for Hornsey.
  I hope that the lessons of the Bill have been learned. It is not enough to take a worthwhile objective and to get everybody steamed up about the importance of it without ever getting them to use their brains about the way in which it
  1726
  is practical and possible, and how one can get over the obvious difficulties of drafting and construction.
  During the later stages of the conideration of the Bill hon. Members who have been closely responsible for the Bill really thought that the guidance issued under Clause 7 would not be just guidance, but would affect the nature of the obligations under the Bill. That is typical of the sloppy-mindedness that has gone into the Bill from the beginning.
  I apologise to my colleagues and others to whom I have been such a nuisance during the consideration of the Bill, but I repeat that we shall have cause for regret if this monstrosity goes on to the statute book.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: I congratulate the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) on having piloted the Bill so far, although faced with so many difficulties. I and my hon. Friends will assist him in giving the Bill a Third Reading. In doing that, I do not wish to imply that we consider this to be a perfect Bill—even as amended. Part of the trouble that has just been outlined by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), has been due to the fact that the Bill appeared for our consideration at a late stage in the parliamentary year and we have had to rush through its stages to ensure that it will reach the statute book. That experience is not new to me. I have had the misfortune during the past four successive summers to be put in that situation by the Government in respect of legislation.
  In the summer of 1974 we had the Rent Act, in the summer of 1975 we had the Community Land Act, and last summer we had the Rent (Agriculture) Act. Each presented us with the same difficulty. They were technical Bills that required a great deal of work—first to understand them and then to consult outside bodies and try to consider them within the time scale allowed by the Government, who said that they would not get on the statute bok unless they were dealt with by a particular date.
  The task placed on Members from both sides of the House in considering these measures was intolerable, and in consequence enormous problems have

  1727
  arisen in implementation of the Acts. We all know the problems of second-period fixed lettings under the Rent Act and, as indicated in their Green Paper, the Government's anxiety to alter them. We know that the Community Land Act has not been operating and that within six weeks of enacting the Rent (Agriculture) Act we had to introduce an amending Bill because we had produced a piece of nonsense in one of the sections.
  It would not surprise me if we had the same problems with this Bill. It would not be the fault of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight or my hon. Friends and myself. We are put in this position by the Government deciding to organise the parliamentary timetable in such a way that we are forced to sit late at night, attend Committees and sit for up to 27 hours at a time to get the work done.
  I agreed with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, but I believe that the Bill has made tremendous advances since Second Reading. We gave it a cautious welcome then, because it sought to transfer responsibility for housing the homeless from social service departments to housing departments, and that seemed to make sense. We welcomed it because the intention was to give legislative effect to Circular 18/74 of the last Conservative Government. Beyond that, it seemed that the Bill was defective and would create many problems unless steps were taken to amend it in many drastic respects.
  We were concerned about the definition of homelessness and the difficulty that would arise if people caused themselves to be homeless in order to oblige a local authority to rehouse them. We have spent a great deal of time trying to cure that defect. By ensuring that local authorities are not obliged to rehouse people who become homeless intentionally, we have dealt with that problem, relieved local authorities of the burden and ensured that there will be fairness between one citizen and another on housing waiting lists. We have also ensured that there will be no possibility of queue jumping. We have succeeded in safeguarding families on housing lists and in preventing distortions of local authority housing points schemes.
  1728
  We were also tremendously concerned about the problem of some local authority areas acting as magnets. The areas that we had in mind were particularly seaside and country authorities, those near railway termini and airports, and the areas in which there would be Service families leaving Service accommodation. We wanted to ensure that the reception authorities did not find themselves landed with virtually the totality of homelessness because of drifts of population to those areas.
  One of the matters that we regarded as of major importance to the Bill was to ensure that the primary responsibility for rehousing the homeless fell upon the authority with which the closest connection could be established—for example, normal residence, family ties and employment—so that the burden would be spread equitably among local authorities. That has been achieved.
  We were also concerned to ensure that the priority cases were clearly defined in the Bill and not left to regulation, or to guidance to be given by the Secretary of State at some later date. We have now spelt out in the Bill the classes of person to whom priority shall be given for housing as homeless families over and above the generality of families on housing waiting lists. It is a great advance that we have now secured that definition.
  There are a number of other matters to which we have directed our attention both in Committee and on Report. In consequence we have now obtained a Bill that is workable in the sense that local authorities will be able to manage the burdens that are being imposed on them. There will be an even-handed and fair system between one authority and another in dealing with this tragic problem that is still in our midst.
  I still have one reservation, apart from the technical wording of the Bill, which we have discussed at great length today and which, no doubt, their Lordships will consider and try to put right in due course, the principles now having been firmly established and agreed. I am still troubled about resources. Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have insisted—they said so in the Financial Memorandum when the Bill was first

  1729
  published—that there is no need for additional resources to be made available to local authorities. The local authorities say that that is not so. They calculate that they will need another £2 million to £3 million a year to employ the additional staff that will be required to carry out inquiries into homelessness, to deal with the various situations that the Bill creates and to deal with the new obligations that are imposed upon them.
  This is a Private Member's Bill, and that must be an argument between Government and local government. It is not something in which we can intervene. All that can be said is that if the authorities are right and the Government fail to make the resources available that the local authorities need, the Bill cannot work. We can pass as many pieces of paper as we like and stamp them as Acts of Parliament, but if it is physically and practically impossible to implement them they will remain waste pieces of paper.
  We do not wish to see a situation arise in which a local authority pleads the Bristol Corporation case. The Minister will remember that in that case it was said that where Parliament imposes a duty on a local authority, even in the most absolute language, if that duty is impossible of performance because the authority does not have the resources to discharge it, the courts will not require the authority to carry out the obligation that Parliament has sought to impose. If Parliament wishes to impose an obligation, it must make the money available so that it can be discharged. I leave that as a cautionary warning to the Minister. I do not want it to be thought or said that because the Opposition are giving the Bill a Third Reading we accept that it is a Bill that is workable without additional resources being made available to local authorities. That is a matter about which negotiations must take place.
  I have congratulated the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight on his success in piloting this difficult Bill through its various stages. I should also like to thank him for the co-operation that he has given to me and to my hon. Friends in meeting the various points that we have raised from time to time. The fact that he has met us on these points has enabled us to assist him in
  1730
  ensuring that the Bill has reached this stage today. If it had not been for give and take and common sense on both sides, he would not be in this happy position today. I thank him for meeting the many genuine objections that we had to the Bill as originally drawn.
  Finally, it would be churlish of me not to offer my thanks also to the Minister and officials in his Department who, in a sense, have acted as honest broker between the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight and myself. They have given us professional assistance and expert advice in trying to translate the principles that troubled us into language that would have legal effect. It is clear that some hon. Members still do not feel that the language gives complete effect and is still legally defective. I am satisfied that all parties concerned have tried their hardest to produce a workable Bill that will deal with the desperate problem of homelessness. With good will, I trust that the Bill will work.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: First, I thank hon. Members who have stayed through this long Friday sitting. I particularly express my thanks to those of my sponsors who have been present, especially the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) who has not been enjoying the best of health recently, but who has been a sponsor throughout and a loyal supporter of the Bill.
  I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) for his kind remarks. I appreciate the assistance that he gave to me and to the Committee in general. His advice, which has been well worth while, has been taken fully on board. I readily accept that without his co-operation the Bill would not have made the progress that it has.
  I have tried to meet the reasonable demands of local authorities and at the same time to listen to the voluntary bodies, which have great experience in this area. I think that on occasions one side or the other has perhaps overreacted. I suspect that the voluntary bodies may have over-reacted to some of the amendments that we have discussed today. However, we have undertaken to look at some of the points that they have made. If we have erred, I trust that we shall be able to put matters right in

  1731
  the other place before the Bill, as I hope, receives the Royal Assent.
  I should point out to the hon. Member for Hornsey that the Second Reading was on 18th February, so it is unfair to say that it has been rushed. One has to wait to get a place in Committee. Originally it was put in on a Wednesday. It is not entirely the Government's fault that it came on later. I suppose that if I had drawn No. 1 in the Ballot it might have been better, or No. 4 would have been better still.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was a little unkind in his comments. I think that hon. Members listen to him with respect, because often he makes good points. I think that for a Scotsman to tell us how to put our English right is notable.
  It is a fact that I went to the Department of the Environment with a draft prepared by outside bodies. When we were shown what the Government had in mind in draft form, it was clear that their ideas were superior to ours. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to being able to write the Bill on the back of a matchbox, I think. He may be able to do that, but I should not be competent to do so.
  It is not my wish to see the Bill go through in a form that would mean that it would not work. I have fears that some interpretations of the measure may be misunderstood or misused. That is the last thing I want to see happen. I want to see the Bill work. The Bill concerns a non-party political matter. It was the last Conservative Government that tried to deal with hopelessness after local government reorganisation. It was obviously not working out correctly. Circulars 18/74 and 13/74 dealt with these matters in the Administration in which the hon. Member for Hornsey held office. It has been the consistent view of this Government that they would have to legislate and they have given undertakings to that effect on many occasions.
  Obviously this legislation has been difficult to produce. It becomes increasingly more difficult to find suitable words to deal with the complicated situations we now face. I do not know how much further we can go. One of the problems
  1732
  is asking parliamentary draftsmen to find legal definitions for these increasingly complicated situations. I hope that the ideas in the Government's Green Paper, the Housing Finance Review, which makes a few moves in the right direction —and a few more ideas we have, on which we might be able to influence the Government—will release more accommodation into the general housing pool. If that happens we shall be making progress in dealing with the problem of homelessness.
  It is a disgrace that in this country today we have increasing homelessness. We have the highest number of homeless people anywhere in the Western world, despite the fact that we have a slight surplus of houses over households. This is something that we have obviously got wrong and ought to be doing our best to put right. I am certain that when the Bill gets to the other place there will be some pleas, from clerics and others, to the effect that we have left out a vital group, namely, the single young homeless. I am sad that we have not been able to deal with them. From the word "go" I made it clear that the Bill could not cover them. It does not have the facilities to do so.
  Nevertheless, included in the Bill is the provision that further priority groups can be considered and I hope that, as the country moves towards a more prosperous state we can give such persons greater consideration. I hope that whoever is Secretary of State in the future will be able to introduce the necessary measures to bring such people into the priority groups. I apologise to such people and to others who cannot be covered by the Bill.
  I accept everything that the hon. Member for Hornsey has said about the financial situation. I think that some authorities could do more than they do at the moment with what they have and that there could be better dispersal of staff and better utilisation of premises. No doubt it is right that there will have to be further finance, and I hope that that can be found by the Government in their negotiations which are now taking place.
  I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your forbearance, and all hon. Members for assisting me through a tricky Bill. I

  1733
  thought at one time that we would fail. I am glad that we have got to this stage.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Motion made, and question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c),

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
  That the Customs Duties and Drawbacks (Tobacco) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 921) a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.—[Mr. Graham.]
  Question agreed to.

  TOURISM
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
  5.39 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I want to ask the Government to see what more they can do, with the British Tourist Authority, to foster our tourist industry. They are doing well, but I want them to do better. The 1969 Act, on which many of us took part, has been a success. A total of 11½ million overseas visitors will come to Britain this year, compared with 10 million last year, and 1½ million of them will be Americans. They will spend £2,750 million in Britain and in fares to British carriers—about £7 million a day.
  Those figures show that tourism is big business. Each summer I am given clear evidence of the increase in the overseas invasion because of where I work and where I live. My House of Commons office is in Dean's Yard, Westminster. For several months of the year I must walk to the House through hundreds of people going in and out of Westminster Abbey. It is annoying, but I calm myself with the thought that a few summers ago I was one of hundreds of visitors in Florence who made things uncomfortable for the ordinary people there.
  My home is in Cambridge. So great has been the annual invasion of Cam-
  1734
  bridge that the colleges this summer have had to introduce a system of passes to travel agents allowing them to bring in a certain defined number of visitors. This has been done with reluctance in view of our tradition of open hospitality, but it has become essential.
  The crowds visiting Cambridge are a serious problem. One hundred years ago, the Master of one of our colleges was horrified that Mr. Thomas Cook was contemplating running excursion trains to Cambridge on Sundays. He wrote:
  "Allow me to inform you that this must be as displeasing to Almighty God as it is to myself …and to all right-thinking Christians."
  Right-thinking Christians or not, the crowds are there to stay, on Sundays particularly so.
  The colleges of Cambridge and other universities will be increasing competitors for the housing of conferences. Hotels will have to recognise this. As the colleges get more experience, they will find that people like the atmosphere of learning and leisure. That is why they come here from abroad, particularly to our ancient cities. The attraction of this country is not sun-drenched beaches or the rustle of grass skirts: it is our buildings, our language, our history, our institutions and, I like to think, our people.
  I said that the Government and the BTA were doing well but could do better. London has a large tourist burden and many tourist advantages. It has a tremendous problem in the summer on the buses and in the Underground, but I am surprised to hear Londoners talk of taxing visitors. I wonder whether they realise that London's population and the number of jobs are falling and whether they have studied what has happened in New York. I do not want that to happen here.
  As a London ratepayer, I want London to make itself even more attractive to tourists. I want the Underground particularly to use the imagination it used to show. I remember a very good poster with a picture of Henry VIII at the ticket office saying "A return ticket to the Tower and a single for my wife." It is that kind of imaginative approach which visitors to London find so interesting.
  I do not want London either to increase or to decrease its number of visitors. It is just about right—about as

  1735
  much as we can take. With the increase in tourism, more and more of them should go outside London, especially to regions far away, like the North-East. Some of the loveliest country in Europe can be found outside London but it is seldom seen by overseas visitors. In the Midlands there are fine villages, beautiful churches and a great deal of interest.
  At any one time about 60 per cent. of our visitors sleep outside London and about 40 per cent. sleep in London. My constituency is not well known as a tourist resort but it is typical of many places outside London. It has villages and churches, a castle—Rockingham Castle—and a remarkable new steel town which interests town planners and architects. I want to hear from the Government their plans for spreading the load and the advantages of having tourists to the furthest parts of the country.
  I turn to the problem of the quality of service, in hotels and restaurants in particular. We must build up a sound service industry. It is not enough to remark on the decline in the number of work permits granted to foreign workers who are not needed so much today. Is my hon. Friend the Minister sure that we have the trained staff to take their place, not only in London but in the provinces? We know how difficult it is to organise hotel staff into unions. We know that we are behind other countries in some respects. Kitchen staff and waiters in other countries regard their work as a profession or a craft and have a ladder and ambition to get to the top. May we know more about the Government's plans for encouraging the training of waiters and cooks? At how many technical colleges are courses provided?
  Most of us would agree that the tremendous boom was caused by the 1969 Act which allowed us to build hotel accommodation. The Government must follow that up. If hotels seek to modernise, they should be treated as fairly as manufacturing industry when it comes to building grants. Without that, I do not see how hotels will be able to maintain their high standards.
  I referred earlier to the English language drawing people to this country. The spread of our language and institutions such as the British Council have
  1736
  contributed enormously to the interest throughout the world in our living, modern theatre, which is closely connected with our language and which we do so well. We must help the theatre to prosper. We must go out of our way to relieve it of the completely unnecessary burden of VAT.
  My fear for the future of the tourist industry is complacency. We are doing well, but we must not fall into the trap into which the Spaniards fell. They thought that their boom would go on for ever. Today our rate of expansion is far greater than theirs. I take no pleasure in the knowledge that the Spanish tourist industry is not increasing. It must be regarded as an example and a warning.
  We have to maintain the standards of our hotels, improve our services and do a little more about languages. How many British waiters speak a foreign language? We must remember that of the 11½ million visitors only 1½ are American, with perhaps another 2 million—though that is probably an excessive figure—from Canada, Australia and countries like India and Japan, whose first world language is English. The rest of the millions who come here have other Western languages, such as French, German, Italian and Spanish. We have to consider having more language teaching and demanding it from those who are in contact with tourists.
  British Airways has an excellent system of highly-qualified linguists, but I want all its cabin crews to have at least a few sentences in some of the major languages. If an Italian passenger speaks French, it is a great asset to be able to reply to him not only in French but with a few words of Italian. It only amounts to a few words of encouragement to tourists.
  The 1969 Act has worked very well. The British Tourist Authority has done well, and so have the three national tourist boards. The results can be measured in the thousands of millions of pounds which come in. There is, however, a danger of complacency. I ask the Government to convince me that they are aware of it and are doing something about it.
  5.52 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): The main theme

  1737
  of the entertaining, balanced and comprehensive speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) was very important. He said that there was too much emphasis on tourism in London and suggested that not enough was being done to disperse tourists elsewhere. He will agree that in many ways London is Britain's No. 1 resort. It is a major artistic, commercial and business centre. Its location in relation to airports and seaports naturally encourages visitors to stay there. All this brings a great deal of business to London—to shops, theatres, public transport and hotels. The benefits to Britain and to Londoners from this traffic should not be underestimated. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not do that.
  But I am at one with him in saying that it is important to consider, first, how to cater satisfactorily for the increasing number of tourists in Britain, not least those from overseas, so as to avoid harm to the very sites and amenities that attract them in the first place, and, secondly, how to bring the benefits of tourism to those parts of the country where tourists, especially foreigners, are still comparatively rare, but where the economic benefits that tourism could bring would be particularly welcome.
  The new tourism policy guidelines initiated by the Government in November 1974 were aimed at precisely those objectives. With the assistance of the four statutory tourist boards, we have been actively implementing these policies ever since. The consistent thread of these various efforts is dispersal from London, Oxford, Stratford, Edinburgh and other traditional areas, where practical and sensible, to the attractions on the periphery.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned the effect of value added tax on London's attractions, including the theatre. The Government take the view that the theatres, in common with all other discretionary leisure expenditure, should be subject to the tax. That is for a good reason—because reliefs are confined to items of essential expenditure, in particular those which are important in the budgets of low-income families.
  I turn now to what my right hon. Friend regarded as an important part of
  1738
  his speech, and that is Government assistance towards, and encouragement of, tourism investment. Now that the £57 million hotel development incentive scheme has ceased, Government help for tourist investment is channelled through the scheme of selective assistance to tourism projects in the development areas administered by the national tourist boards.
  The English Tourist Board alone has given assistance to no fewer than 500 projects to the tune of £4·5 million over the last six years. That is a significant achievement. The mam disadvantage, however—and I am not complacent—is that so far it has been primarily responsive. The boards have waited for projects to be brought to them rather than the boards themselves actively going out and initiating good schemes in suitable places. It is for this reason and to pursue further the ideas inherent in the 1974 guidelines for encouraging part of the tourism market to go to new tourist areas that we announced on 20th May proposals to establish three new tourism growth points.
  If these pilot schemes, which are located on the high Pennines, on the Yorkshire coast and on the North Devon and Cornwall coastal strip, work well, we hope to be able to go on and apply the same technique of encouraging tourism development in other parts of the country with plenty of tourism potential and the need to benefit from jobs and income which tourism can bring. A vital ingredient of this experiment is full public consultation with the communities affected. These proposals are for discussion and they may therefore be modified. They may be added to before they are put into effect, or even abandoned.
  I shall be visiting Durham next Monday in order to begin this consultation, and similar meetings are being arranged for the other two localities. The essence of the proposals is that in each case the prospects for tourism development are suited to their character, that the possibilities of each locality look good, that the locality itself would benefit from an economic boost, and that it could readily absorb more tourists without environmental harm. These are the principles which underline the three areas we have initially chosen.

  1739
  Total investment from all sources, public and private, under the scheme in each locality should be £2 million to £3 million over three to four years. The English Tourist Board may be authorised to contribute up to one-third of this from its existing Section 4 funds if, and only if, a successful partnership for the scheme as a whole can be worked out between the various interests concerned. That is the purpose of the consultation I shall initiate on Monday. If it works well we shall consider employing the same techniques elsewhere.
  My right hon. Friend asked, with due modesty, what had been done for Kettering and other such areas in the Midlands. We recognise their potential interest. But the experiments that I have outlined do not mean that other areas which are not proposed as tourist gowth areas, or are not eligible for Section 4 assistance under the Act, are in any way being neglected. The need is not always for help with bricks and mortar. The main requirement may in particular cases not be for this at all. It is rather for better marketing, for training or for more research. Assistance in these instances does not come from Section 4. The whole of Britain benefits from the research, development and promotional activities of the statutory tourist boards, which are very largely funded by their grants-in-aid, from the help which they give to the regional tourist boards— covering my right hon. Friend's constituency area—and from the expenditure on training by the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board.
  My right hon. Friend's second main point was about working permits and special training in the industry. It has been policy since 1972, as he will know, to reduce the industry's reliance on overseas labour by limiting the number of permits issued annually. In pursuance of this, and taking into account the persistent level of unemployment, the ceiling for this year if 2,000.
  In deciding the figure, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment took note of the advice that he received from the Manpower Services Commission that there was no risk that the industry would find itself short of facilities and resources to provide the training necessary to sustain domestic recruitment of untrained labour. Very
  1740
  great improvements have been made in training in the industry in the past few years, and the number of students has likewise been quite considerably increased.
  I assure my right hon. Friend that such training is by no means confined to the London area. I think he was also concerned about that. Courses are sponsored by the Training Services Agency under the training opportunities scheme— TOPS—in all parts of the country. This is not in any way a London matter. Training for hotel and catering work is an important part of the scheme, but discussions have been taking place with the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board about the further expansion of facilities, under TOPS, for training in the industry. In addition, the Training Services Agency has been making use of loan sanction arrangements to encourage local education authorities to put forward proposals for further TOPS training, including hotel and catering training.
  My right hon. Friend asked how we can prevent standards slipping. I entirely accept that we should not be complacent here either. There are two relevant element. The first is the improvement in training in the industry, which I have already mentioned. I am not complacent. It could certainly go further. The quality could improve. We are striving to achieve that. We expect it to continue, with a beneficial effect on standards.
  Tourism is an extremely competitive industry. There is international competition and there is competition between resorts in Britain and between individual establishments. I think there is every incentive—this is where the market is effective—for all sections of the industry to do everything possible to maintain standards. If they slip, or merely fail to improve, it is all too easy for the tourist to go elsewhere.
  My right hon. Friend also asked me about tax allowance on hotels. The question of tax allowances for capital expenditure on the construction of commercial buildings, including hotels, was discussed, as my right hon. Friend may well know, on 22nd June in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill. The report of the debate on that occasion, covered, I think, 13 or 14 columns of Hansard. I have not time to go over that but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be able

  1741
  to refer to that debate. I am also sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have taken note of the plea which my right hon. Friend has made this afternoon.
  My right hon. Friend made a perfectly fair and valid point about languages. He mentioned waiters—I cannot answer his question in that respect because I have not the facts—and also British Airways cabin crew, who can by no means always speak foreign languages. I know that he was asking not for fluency but for relatively limited ability to speak in a foreign language.
  The airline's current recruitment literature for cabin crews stipulates that an ability to converse in one foreign language is desirable. It also points out that British Airways also regard experience in nursing and catering as essential, together with general all-round capability. These are also very important qualifications. I assure my right hon. Friend that language laboratory facilities are provided by the airline to assist cabin crew to improve their language ability. Employees are encouraged to become proficient by
  1742
  the payment of a supplement to wages. But I am sure also that British Airways will take note of the perfectly fair point that my right hon. Friend made.
  My right hon. Friend asked us above all not to display complacency. That the industry is doing well I have no doubt. My right hon. Friend quoted the figures showing that both the gross and the net earnings are enormous and growing fast. It can be regarded as one of the great success stories of Britain.
  However, there is no complacency about this. I hope I have indicated that we are aware of the problems and of the areas in which we can do better. We are especially concerned about dispersal and about improved training.
  In the brief time available to me, I hope that I have given my right hon. Friend an assurance that we are very far from complacent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Six o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Pricing
  Milk Pricing
  Animals (Exports)
  Animals (Exports)
  Radioactive Caesium
  Radioactive Caesium
  Coast Defence Works (East Anglia)
  Coast Defence Works (East Anglia)
DEFENCE
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  ECONOMIC PROSPECTS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC PROSPECTS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS APPOINTMENTS
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS APPOINTMENTS
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inflation and Economic Growth
  Inflation and Economic Growth
  Public Expenditure (Pay Costs)
  Public Expenditure (Pay Costs)
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
  Low-income Families
  Low-income Families
  Health Services Expenditure (Nottinghamshire)
  Health Services Expenditure (Nottinghamshire)
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Rheumatology
  Rheumatology
  Prescriptions (Dispensing)
  Prescriptions (Dispensing)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Joint Replacement
  Joint Replacement
  Arthroplasty
  Arthroplasty
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Hospitals (Waste Collection)
  Hospitals (Waste Collection)
  Hospital Kitchens
  Hospital Kitchens
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Acupuncture
  Acupuncture
  Deferred Retirement
  Deferred Retirement
  Stroke Patients
  Stroke Patients
  Dispensing Pharmacies (Norfolk)
  Dispensing Pharmacies (Norfolk)
  BCG Vaccine
  BCG Vaccine
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Trade Unionists
  Trade Unionists
  Primary Schools (Leek)
  Primary Schools (Leek)
  Truancy and Absenteeism
  Truancy and Absenteeism
  Teachers (Superannuation)
  Teachers (Superannuation)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Kent
  Kent
ENERGY
  Area Electricity Boards
  Area Electricity Boards
ENVIRONMENT
  European Community
  European Community
  Great Welnetham (Water Supply)
  Great Welnetham (Water Supply)
  Members of Parliament (Paintings Exhibition)
  Members of Parliament (Paintings Exhibition)
  Noise Control Experiment
  Noise Control Experiment
  Housing (London)
  Housing (London)
  Commons Registration
  Commons Registration
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Council Property Sales
  Council Property Sales
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Overseas Representation (Report)
  Overseas Representation (Report)
  Masirah Radio Station
  Masirah Radio Station
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Rape
  Rape
  Television Advertising (Confectionery)
  Television Advertising (Confectionery)
  Local Government Grants
  Local Government Grants
  Alcoholic Beverages
  Alcoholic Beverages
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  MAGISTRATES (IPSWICH)
  MAGISTRATES (IPSWICH)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Irish Republican Army
  Irish Republican Army
SCOTLAND
  European Community
  European Community
TRANSPORT
  European Community
  European Community
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Ripley Bypass (Derbyshire)
  Ripley Bypass (Derbyshire)
INDUSTRY
  German Federal Republic
  German Federal Republic
  Government Factories
  Government Factories
  European Community
  European Community
  Government Loans
  Government Loans
  Cable and Wireless Limited
  Cable and Wireless Limited
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Bus Fares
  Bus Fares
TRADE
  British Airports Authority
  British Airports Authority
  London and Scottish Stock Exchanges
  London and Scottish Stock Exchanges
  Current Cost Accounting
  Current Cost Accounting

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

BALLISTIC MISSILES: USE IN WAR
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the meeting of the NATO Nuclear Planning Group at Ottawa on 7th and 8th June regarding the use of ballistic missiles in the event of war.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in general terms the meeting reaffirmed the value of ballistic missiles in contributing to the NATO deterrent, although on this occasion there were no specific issues which required more particular conclusions to be drawn about the use of these systems.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether a decision was reached that, unless the Soviet Union makes concessions in the SALT talks, nuclear weapons will be used even in answer to a conventional attack?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer that question. May I refer the noble Lord to the final Communiqué, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, these decisions were reported in The Times and surely, when millions of lives are at stake, the public have the right to know. Did the plan include that the Cruise missile, which is 10 times more destructive than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, should be stationed in a British base among others?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a subject which for security reasons
530
I cannot answer. I can only repeat that a general discussion took place and there were no specific issues that required particular conclusions to be drawn about the use of these systems.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, when millions of lives may be at stake as a result of the use of this new nuclear weapon, have not the British public the right to know?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, negotiations are continuing.
Lord HAILSHAM of ST. MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is there not another side to this matter? Is it not a fact that since 1945 we have had a remarkably long period of peace? During that period the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and those who think with him, have been urging us to give information on the basis that lives are at stake. Is it not possible that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is risking millions of lives more than are Her Majesty's Government?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the fact is that the policy of deterrence has succeeded and we have lived through a period of great tension without war between the major Powers.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would not Her Majesty's Government agree that the policy of deterrence is used in two ways in opposite directions, and that the Soviet are just as convinced that they have saved peace by their policy of deterrence as we are convinced that we have done it by our policy? Would Her Majesty's Government agree that without any question of unilateral disarmament it is important that, in the interests of mankind, we reach as soon as possible an agreement about the use of the nuclear deterrent?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords; that is exactly the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

TDI: BROMPTON HOSPITAL REPORT
11.10 a.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have now considered the report from the Brompton Hospital on patients suffering from the toxic effects of TDI (toluene di-isocyanate) and whether they still propose to continue to maintain a control of 0·02 parts per million of air as an effective safeguard.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: understand from the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that there have been no recent published studies of the work done by the Brompton Hospital on the toxic effects of TDI.
On the present information available, the Health and Safety Executive considers that the control of 0·02 parts per million does provide an effective safeguard for the health of normal workers. Nevertheless, as with all standards it is kept under review in the light of fresh evidence. It is recognised however that exposure of workers to concentrations of TDI above this figure may lead to sensitisation. In such cases it is difficult if not impossible to set any level which offers protection to such a sensitised worker on subsequent exposure.
Lord HALE: My Lords, would my noble friend recall that the insertion in his Answer of the word, "published" is to assert something that was not asserted in the Question? Is he now saying that he and his Department have not heard of comments in newspapers like The Sunday Times on the report provided by the Brompton Hospital at the request of trade unions representing workers who claim to be poisoned? It is said—and I have not seen the report—that if the present safety level were divided by 20, according to their computations, a concentration of 0·001 parts per million would still be dangerous to health and life. Finally, will the noble Lord say whether they have fixed their 0·02 parts per million figure because that is the lowest percentage which they can readily detect in situ without expensive scientific instruments?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, although there have been no published reports, there is constant contact between the Health and Safety Executive and Brompton Hospital. A
532
member of the Health and Safety Executive staff specialising in cardiac problems is working in close relation with the professor at Brompton Hospital, Professor J. Pepys, who is dealing with this matter. Furthermore, there is not an air of contentment about this so far as the Health and Safety Executive are concerned. They have published safety rules which have already been made available. The Health and Safety Executive and the Medical Research Council are at an advanced level in the planning of a study of the amounts of respiratory disease present in workers exposed to this chemical.
Progressive investigation is going on. There are extremely difficult technical problems in monitoring, in providing a suitable monitor, and so on, but to say that the Department is satisfied is certainly an understatement. It is not true. The Department is following the matter very closely indeed. I am aware of the action of the trade unions, carrying out their responsible duties as usual, in making approaches at the moment. although not to my Department. They are making approaches in other directions and are conferring with employers at the present moment about the possible provision of a substitute for this material.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, for the benefit of the ignorant—which means, for this purpose, myself, and perhaps other members of the public—can the noble Lord tell us, first, how many workers are at risk in this matter? Secondly, what is the substance used for? Is it a high explosive, an insecticide or a component of lipstick, for example? Are there substitutes available and how important are the products into which it goes?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I cannot give the number of workers involved. The problem has arisen mainly over printing. It apparently gives a clearer print but gives off fumes which can affect some people. The problem has arisen in the printing industry, but the chemical is also used in other ways: in polyurethane paint and varnish, in the manufacture of plastic foam and so on. There has been some concern about the effect of this chemical. I understand the trade unions are discussing the matter with the manufacturer with a

533
view to an alternative being provided. That is a discussion which is going on outside the Department. The Department is concerned with the health risks, and naturally everything is being done to ensure that workers are safeguarded with regard to the use of this chemical.
Lord HALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to look first at his brief Answer to my Question and wonder whether, on reflection, it did not contain some element of suggestio falsi or suppressio veri, as is clearly shown by his very long second answer? Is the noble Lord saying that he is unaware of the fact that workers near Liverpool are threatening to strike until the use of this material is stopped? Is he not aware that I had a similar Answer to a similar Question—I would say roughly at least 12 months ago, because I have not the date—giving the same assurances? Does the noble Lord realise that this is a serious question?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, most certainly I realise it is a serious question, and I can assure my noble friend that the Department is also very concerned about this. I believe the unions are pressing for sensitisation to this chemical to be made a prescribed disease, but that is not a matter for the Department of Employment; it is a matter for another Department and the unions are pressing them on this. I must apologise to my noble friend that, at the beginning, my control of Latin is minimal and, therefore, I could not understand exactly what the phrase was. I personally try to translate initials into legible and understandable English.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that when some chemical of this type, which can be injurious to health, is used, strict precautions ought to be taken and that the use of respirators is probably desirable in handling such a material?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Yes my Lords, the Department is very well aware of this. My noble friend who put down the Question has been to see the work of the Health and Safety Executive and was very impressed by their work concerning asbestos. As I say, the Department is well aware of the problem
534
and I have here an available document, which is issued to all manufacturers, trade unions and others, on the use of this chemical and the safety precautions that must be taken. In one case in Bristol where a worker died of asthma, the Department is satisfied that all safety precautions were taken, and that is, of course, a pointer for continued research into the effect of this chemical.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: But, my Lords, where things are of known danger, is not the simplest way of protecting the worker to prohibit the use of the material, where possible? Does the noble Lord know whether, for example, the Health Organisation of the United States, which is very particular about such matters, allows it to be used in the United States? Has he explored with the manufacturers possible alternatives to the chemical in this country?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, unfortunately I am unable to give a direct answer to the first part of the question put by the noble and learned Lord, because I have not the details available. So far as a substitute is concerned, negotiations are going on in this matter between the trade unions and the manufacturers.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a very big difference between incorporating such a substance in an end-product like printers' ink and its use as a chemical intermediate in the chemical industry by people who are accustomed to handling dangerous chemicals? Would he also agree that the printing trade has got along without toluene di-isocyanate for centuries and it would be a very simple matter to withdraw it until we have more knowledge of the subject?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I will certainly pass that information on to my right honourable friend and to the Department, but this is a matter on which I cannot give a specific answer at the moment. I would agree with the noble Earl that this is not an immediate problem, and it has been building up over a period of some years.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whatever

535
artefact or liquid they use to make print more visible, modern printing and typographical errors, through the use of the computer, are greater than they have ever been in the history of printing?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, that question hardly calls for an answer. I would advocate a visit to the optician and the provision of better spectacles.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one more question? He used the words "manufacture" and "use". Does the danger arise principally in manufacture, where safety measures are relatively easy to enforce, or in the use of this chemical?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the short answer to that question is that the danger is probably more in the use than in the manufacture. I give a spot answer on that, but that is my reaction.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL
11.21 a.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3*.—(Lord Lye.)
On Question, Bill read 3*, with the Amendments.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, before moving that the Bill do now pass, I wonder whether it might be in order to say a few words of gratitude to all those noble Lords who have contributed to the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. I am advised by my noble colleagues that I must move that this Bill do now pass. Thanks to my noble friends on the Front Bench and the aid of a little red book, I now continue to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and her Department and helpers for all the advice—
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I just want—
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, this seems to be the department of utter confusion. Perhaps if the noble Lord moves that the Bill do now pass, he can proceed to address us with his customary felicity.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am immensely grateful, as always, to the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack and guides the whole House, and in this case he has guided me and my noble colleagues on the Front Bench. For the third time, may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and her Department for all the valuable work which they have done on this Bill. When I first looked at this Bill, I had visions of many of the comments—
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has still not moved that this Bill do now pass. He is therefore betraying the Orders of the House.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I am completely to blame. I must admit that I had slightly misleading advice from a very distinguished colleague behind me. But the noble Lord is making his speech in support of his Motion that the Bill do now pass. He will then, when he sits down, say, "I beg to move". The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will put the Question, and then the debate will be open. That is the procedure of your Lordships' House, and I must apologise for having made a mess of it.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, my leg muscles are becoming ever stronger. But I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who is not with us today but who contributed some very valuable advice and tidying-up Amendments to the Bill. I hope that the Bill will be able to cure some aspects of what I would call selfish behaviour among

537
various citizens in the countryside, who seek to blight open fields and other open countryside with activities which are, at the least, anti-social and, at the very worst, can do grave damage to the environment. This was the main purpose of the Bill which, when I first examined it, I thought was something akin to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, which we passed yesterday. The Bill that I understood I was to pilot through your Lordships' House was called the Tropical Fish Bill, but I was told that it applied to town and country planning amendment. Certainly, I found great difficulty in planning legislation. But I am very greatful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and her Department, and indeed to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Lyell.)
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have been hovering anxiously in the wings. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, for the very excellent way in which he has conducted this Bill through the House. With so many Bills, we start off by saying how very simple they are and, in the event, they are not simple. The noble Lord had to cope with a considerable number of Amendments, and through his efforts he was able to get reconciliation and get the Bill on its way, and it is now to pass. My Department and I are extremely grateful to him.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

DEER BILL [H.L.]
11.26 a.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Deer Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3*.—(Lord Northfield.)
On Question, Bill read 3*.
Clause 3 [Unlawful weapons, etc.].
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 29, after ("to") insert ("section 9 of this Act and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple Amendment. Clause 9 of the Bill concerns exceptional circumstances in which certain things can be done in the use of weapons, and other matters; for example, in mercy killing or in veterinary activity. It is thought—and I agree with the advice—that these exceptions should apply to the use of vehicles et cetera as detailed in the subsection on page 2. It is a very simple Amendment, and I move it on advice. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Prohibition of poaching, etc.]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 1, leave out (Subject to section 9 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 together? These words which it is proposed to be left out are unnecessary, in view of the rephrasing of Clause 4 which occurred at an earlier stage. They do not alter in any way the meaning of the Bill, but tighten it up. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("on").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("Subject to section 9 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Taking etc. of live deer]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 21, after ("takes") insert ("and removes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to clarify an offence as defined in the Bill, and is drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [General exceptions]:
11.30 a.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("section 3(1)") and insert ("subsection (1) of section 3").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this is purely a drafting Amendment. It has no effect on the meaning of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 24, leave out from ("any") to ("not") in line 26 and insert ("weapon or article mentioned in paragraph (c)(i), (iii), (iv) or (v) of that subsection, for the purpose of taking or killing any such deer and in a manner which did").
[See Lord Northfield's statement which begins at 12.37 p.m. in today's proceedings.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a slight misprint in this Amendment. It should read: "leave out from the first ('any') to ('not') in line 26". Although it is rather long, again this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, the words proposed to be inserted are "for the purpose of taking … any such deer". A few moments ago we deleted the word "takes" in Clause 5 and inserted the word "removes". Should we now use the word "removing" instead of the word "taking", or are two separate operations involved?
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I point out to my noble friend that we did not delete "takes". We left it in and added "and removes". In other words, the phrase "of taking deer" is used throughout the Bill, and it is quite correct in these circumstances.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his explanation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 29, leave out ("or (iii)") and insert ("(iii), (iv) or (v)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to widen the way in which a person may defend himself or another person threatened by a deer in a deer park. In such circumstances, the Amendment would permit the use of articles which are otherwise prohibited by Clause 3(1)(c)(iii), (iv) and (v). Your Lordships will find a reference to these sub-paragraphs in Clause 9 which has the rubric "General exceptions". Sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) relate to missiles carrying or containing any poison, stupefying drug or muscle relaxing agent and to any type of artificial lighting or light-intensifying or infrared ray devices.
There are various reasons which appear to the Government to justify the widening of the exemptions in this way. First, such articles would be permitted under Clause 9(2) of the Bill for the purpose of dispatching injured or suffering deer. It seems to be anomalous that they should not also be permitted to prevent the suffering or possible injury of persons threatened by deer. Secondly, if a person in possession of a tranquillising gun happens to be on land, it seems to be unnecessarily restrictive not to allow him to use it so that the person threatened may escape unharmed without the need to kill the deer. Thirdly, a person driving in a deer park—for example, Richmond—might well instinctively flash his headlights to drive away a stag. By doing so, but for this Amendment, he would commit an offence.
The Promoters of the Bill are understood to be apprehensive that this exemption

541
in respect of lights might be abused by poachers at night. It is, however, inconceivable that a poacher would be able to convince a court that his unlawful activities at night were unintended. A good deal of consultation has taken place between my noble friend Lord Northfield and other interests, and we feel that this Amendment meets a situation which, in the circumstances, appears to be realistic. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I am not quite clear who it is who is supposed to walk about with a tranquilliser gun.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Amendment is designed to try to cover every eventuality. I do not know whether the noble Lord likes tranquilliser guns. However, it is conceivable that certain people may walk about with such a gun. We are trying to remove the exemptions, so that if a person is threatened by a deer and he happens to have a weapon which is prohibited by Clause 3, he can use it. In fact, most of us would not have much more than a piece of wood—if that.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has expressed exactly my concern. My noble friend has said that we have reservations about the Amendment which he is moving, but we have had so many consultations with and good will shown by the House Office in the redrafting of this very complicated matter, that I should not like to take issue with him on this Amendment. It will not do a great deal of harm. Although we have reservations, I feel sure that the House should pass this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("or 3") and insert ("3 or 5").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this small Amendment is designed to give greater exemption from the controls contained in the Bill to vetinerary surgeons who may need to do various things to deer in the course of their lawful activities with deer. This very laudable Amendment has been suggested by the Home Office. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("sections 1 to 5") and insert ("section 1, 2, 3 or 5").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this purely drafting Amendment. It arises because the exemption from the redrafted Clause 4 is not necessary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 7, at beginning insert ("that he had reasonable grounds for believing").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11. If noble Lords will look at this Part of the Bill, they will see that it relates to a situation in which farmers and others have the right to shoot deer which are marauding their crops. It is the concern of the Promoters of the Bill to ensure that this authorisation to farmers to shoot deer should not be so wide that a farmer may shoot at any deer that he sees anywhere, on the pretext that perhaps six months ago, or at any other time, he had seen some other kind of deer eating his crops. The object of the Amendment is to narrow the scope of this paragraph so that the farmer has full protection but cannot at the same time take undue advantage of the right to shoot any deer which he sees.
At the Report stage of the Bill the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, suggested that it was rather restrictive to say that the farmer must be able to prove that it was deer of exactly the same species that he had seen eating his crops, and that therefore he was now shooting them. The noble Earl asked whether we could obtain a slight relaxation in favour of the farmer. These words indicate that the farmer must have reasonable grounds for believing that deer of the same species had been seen marauding his crops and for shooting at them. I believe that this Amendment meets the point which the noble Earl made at the Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to say a word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mansfield. This is only one example of the tremendous trouble that the noble Lord has taken

543
throughout this Bill to meet all interests. Although it is only one small example, none the less we are grateful to him for it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.40 a.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 24, after ("of") insert ("not less than").
The noble Lord said: I must ask the indulgence of this House at this point because there is a slight printing error. In fact to follow the phraseology used in the whole of the body of this Bill in respect of the gauge of weapons the phrase should be, for example, "not less gauge than 12 bore" or whatever might be the appropriate phraseology at any one point. In other words, in this Amendment the word, "gauge" is missing. It should be transposed from slightly later in the line of subsection (7)(b) and therefore the Amendment should read, "not less gauge than" in order to get the sense in line with the remainder of the Bill. I give noble Lords the assurance that this is no more than a printing error. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think formally at this stage the debate should be confined to the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I know of no rules in your Lordships' House which will permit of an Amendment of this kind, and certainly at Third Reading unfortunately we cannot move a manuscript Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Northfield feels that this is of supreme and paramount importance. If it is not, I hope that it may be left as it is. I do not quite know that we can deal with it in any other way.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, with the leave of the House I am happy to accept the guidance of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell to leave the Amendment as it is on the Marshalled List.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 13:
544
Page 5, line 29, at beginning insert ("that he had reasonable grounds for believing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in effect I spoke to this Amendment when moving Amendment No. 11. I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 4, leave out from ("by") to end of line 5 and insert ("adding further matters as to which the person charged must satisfy the court").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a redrafting of a phrase inserted at an earlier stage of the Bill, allowing the Minister to attach conditions to the use of any firearm or ammunition. It was felt by Parliamentary draftsmen, who have been very kind in advising on this Bill, that this is a better phrasing of the intention in the words at present in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, could assure the House that the new wording does not add any more strength to this particular provision. Does it, for instance, give the Minister any more powers to limit possibly one or two of the safeguards that are already in the Bill than did the previous form of wording?
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say that the Bill as drafted laid down that the Minister could prescribe conditions to be attached. Prescribing conditions is a very wide authority for the Minister and I should have thought that adding further matters on which he must satisfy the court is almost tautologous. I do not think that it would increase the powers, but for reasons on which I am not an expert the Parliamentary draftsmen said that it was a more felicitous way of reaching the same objective.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to intervene at this stage, I think the wording of the Amendment puts beyond doubt the fact that the power of the Secretary of State could be used to introduce a provision prohibiting deer drives. The important point is that it puts it beyond

545
doubt legally, and in a Bill of this kind that is important.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("pasture or woodland").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 16. These two Amendments are consequential on an Amendment moved at Report stage to leave a very broad definition of the land on which certain activities should take place, and therefore the words, "pasture or woodland" are not necessary. Amendment No. 16 is consequential. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 15, leave out ("that land") and insert ("the land on which the action is taken").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Power to grant licences]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 21 and insert "provisions of—

(a) section 1 of this Act in respect of the taking or killing of deer for scientific or educational purposes;

(b) sections 1 and 2 of this Act in respect of the taking of deer alive for scientific or educational purposes;

(c) section 3(1) of this Act in respect of".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, while moving Amendment No. 17 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. These are purely redrafting Amendments as advised by Parliamentary draftsmen and they do not alter the sense of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
"(d) section 3(1) of this Act in respect of the use of any type of artificial lighting or light-
546
intensifying or infra-red ray device authorised by the licence for the purpose of taking deer alive for scientific or educational purposes;".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, leave out lines 31 to 44 and insert—
"(e) section 5 of this Act in respect of the removal of deer from one area to another or any act done for scientific or educational purposes.".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 1, at beginning insert—
("()The Council may charge such fees as appear to them to be appropriate for the grant of a licence under this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been represented to us that if any demand for licences under this part of the Bill grew it might be necessary for the Nature Conservancy Council to begin charging fees for them. Therefore this Amendment is designed to allow the Council to charge those fees if it should become necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("Nature Conservancy").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 together. They are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("and") and insert ("(4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment when moving the previous Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 9, at end insert:
"(5) If it appears to the Secretary of State expedient that the Council should cease to be

547
responsible for exercising the functions conferred on them by this section, he may by order transfer those functions to himself or to any other Minister of the Crown.
(6) An order under subsection (5) above may make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been suggested by the Government, because it may prove expedient in the future to try to transfer the licensing functions, mainly concerning the movement of live deer throughout the country, from the Nature Conservancy Council to some other body and perhaps even to a Minister of the Crown if deer were to become a responsibility more directly of any particular Department of State. The Amendment is very sensible and provides for the future. I hope that it commends itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Licensed game dealers to keep records]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 41, after ("forthwith") insert ("full particulars of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment and reinstates words the need for which we did not appreciate in an earlier Amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Northfield. There is nothing hidden in the Amendment; it is perfectly straightforward. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Powers of search, arrest and seizure]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10, line 8, leave out ("forfeiture") and insert ("be detained and forfeited").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to make it even clearer that when the police exercise their power to seize a deer under the provisions of Clause 14(1)(d) they are not required to keep the animal itself right up to the date of the proceedings. Anxiety has
548
been expressed that the inclusion of the words:
"detain for the purpose of proceedings"
might be construed by the police as requiring them to keep the animal until the actual day of the proceedings—an obligation which might deter them from seizing the animal at all, even though it would be right for them to do so. This anxiety is entirely without foundation. The power to detain the animal is purely permissive and not mandatory in any way. By making clear that the proceeds of a sale may be detained as well as forfeited, the Amendment emphasises that the sale itself may take place at any time, certainly before the date of the proceedings. It is a sincere attempt to make the position so far as possible watertight. I therefore beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I shall not, of course, resist the Amendment and I must assume that my noble friend, Lord Wells-Pestell, has cleared this with the police. However, the advice that I have—and perhaps my noble friend could check this—is that it may well be that in practice the Amendment could slightly (I do not want to exaggerate) inhibit the police in seizing illegally killed carcases. However, that is something that can be looked at and made up for in some other way in due course. I have that slight reservation about the Amendment, but I have no wish to resist it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful for the observation of my noble friend Lord Northfield. It was with that point of view in mind that we tried to make it clearer by saying that they do not have to detain. If the Bill said that they had to detain until the date of the proceedings I think that it could work against the purpose of this clause. However, as it does not do so, I should have thought that it would help the police rather than hinder them. I cannot say what consultations have taken place, but I shall convey my noble friend's point of view to my right honourable friend and see whether this point has been cleared.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Advisory Committee on deer for England and Wales]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 26:
Leave out Clause 17.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26 which stands in my name. In doing so I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to refer to Amendment No. 27 which is an Amendment to Clause 18 and also the Amendment to Clause 20. Noble Lords will recall from the Report stage proceedings of the Bill that the Government did not feel able to accept the proposed Advisory Committee on Deer, despite the fact that the case was so persuasively argued by not only my noble friend Lord Northfield but a number of other noble Lords with a great deal of experience in this area who were in your Lordships' House during the Report stage.
The Government's objections were that the powers conferred by the Bill did not in themselves call for the creation of such a Committee and that some of the wider functions contemplated for it went well beyond the existing responsibilities of Government Departments. The Government considered with care everything that was said on the last occasion and I think that my noble friend Lord Northfield will admit that a good deal of thought and care has been given to the matter. However, I am sorry to tell your Lordships that we have felt unable to arrive at any different conclusion from the one that I tried to state on behalf of the Government at the Report stage. There have, however, been discussions at which my noble friend Lord Northfield has been present, and as a result of those discussions I am able to make a statement to the House about the Government's intended course of action when the Bill becomes law which will, I believe, justify the deletion from the Bill of the proposal for a statutory Advisory Committee.
I know that some noble Lords feel extremely keenly about this matter and that is why I think that I should put the Government's point of view. The statement that I wish to make falls into two parts. The first part deals with the phasing out of the use of the shotgun by farmers and occupiers in Defence of their crops. The second part deals with the wider question of future policy in relation to deer.
As regards shotguns, the Government have taken full note of everything that has been said in the debates on the Bill and fully accept, as a matter of principle, that the use of the shotgun can cause cruelty.
550
Indeed, this was a conclusion that the Scott Henderson Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals reached as long ago as 1951. The situation is further demonstrated by the fact that, although it has not been possible to establish the situation authoritatively, as I understand it, the United Kingdom is one of the very few remaining European countries to permit the use of shotguns against deer. If we are not the last such country, we must be very nearly the last. Accordingly, we accept that it is desirable that the machinery provided by the Bill for phasing out the use of the weapon ought to be used, so as to achieve this objective as soon as it is practicable.
I can give the assurance that the Government will accordingly keep this issue under constant review and will seek to achieve progress, so far as may be proved possible, consistent with any representations made by the various interests involved. I should particularly like to stress that last point; namely, having regard to
"representations made by the various interests involved".
The Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall consult all the interested bodies before exercising his powers. I assure noble Lords that not only will he do that, but he will also give full weight to all the representations and objections he may receive, and, before exercising his power over shotguns, the Home Secretary will consult with the Minister of Agriculture. I wish to make that quite clear.
As regards the future policy concerning deer, the Government propose to set up an inter-Departmental committee to examine this question. The purpose of the review will be to obtain as much accurate information as possible, and, in the light of that, to study what need there may be for further measures to be taken relating to the management of deer, what forms these might take and how they might be effected. The performance of the licensing functions covered by the Bill and which Department should be responsible for their exercise is likely to form part of this review. As noble Lords will realise, the time which has elapsed since the Report stage has left very little opportunity for discussions to go into detail about the precise machinery of the review. It will have to be worked out,

551
and we propose to write to my noble friend Lord Northfield about this in due course.
The deletion of Clause 17 requires a consequential Amendment to be made to Clause 18 to remove the reference in that clause to the Advisory Committee. The revision of Clause 20 also takes account of the fact that no adaptations in respect of the Advisory Committee provisions will now be needed.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord say which is the consequential Amendment?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is Amendment No. 28, my Lords. I do not think I can say anything more. I have given the assurance that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will consult before making decisions about the shotguns; he will consult with the Minister of Agriculture and will consider representations from a very wide area, and also any objections he may receive.
I would like to emphasise again the setting up of an inter-Departmental committee to examine the whole of this question. I should have thought, with the very greatest respect, that would have met the situation of noble Lords who have pressed for an Advisory Committee. As we have had a long discussion about this behind the scenes and the various interests have been consulted, I hope that your Lordships will agree.
12.3 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, your Lordships will be under a considerable difficulty at this stage in discussing an Amendment which has such a major effect on the Bill. Such Amendments are not usually moved at Third Reading. I propose to say more on that when I speak on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will realise the difficulties which it does put us under; only he and the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, have the right of reply. I hope he will try as fully as possible to answer any questions he is asked.
I am not yet completely happy, after hearing the noble Lord, with the safeguards provided by these new arrangements
552
in relation to orders to ban shotguns in various instances, and other points of view. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will appreciate that a very great deal of discussion had gone into arriving at what everybody thought was an ideal solution, the Advisory Committee. The noble Lord said that since Report stage there have been wide discussions in respect of this new proposal. I do not think any views from the National Farmers' Union or various other interests had time to be taken into consideration.
What really worries me is this. The Advisory Committee was going to be a widely representative body on which various interests were to be represented, spokesmen for various interests were to he involved. When these various proposals were brought before it anybody could have come to put their point of view. It is true that in the Bill as the noble Lord proposes to amend it the Minister has a statutory obligation to consult all bodies as appear to him to represent persons likely to be interested in or affected by the orders. I wonder whether the noble Lord could go a little further into what will appear to him to be bodies interested. Obviously, they must include the NFU. Will they include the British Field Sports Society? Will they include the Deer Society?
This Advisory Committee would have had representatives of various interests who would have been in a position, when evidence was being given before them, to see how that evidence was going. When people come to give evidence before a committee sometimes they are not accustomed to doing it, they are very nervous; sometimes they do not make the really telling points. Very often it is possible for one member of the committee, not to affect it in any way, but just to bring out by questioning points that ought to be made and considered. This, I feel, will be lost in the Minister's considerations. Again, on the Advisory Committee, while consideration was being given to these various points, representatives would be able to see how the general mind of the committee was going; and if they thought it was going wrongly, they could bring in possibly another argument or suggest that another point of view should be heard. Will the Minister keep the various bodies representing the various interests informed during the course of his consideration?

553
The third point is that the Advisory Committee would, I think, on certain occasions have gone to certain parts of the country to have a look for themselves. For instance, they might have gone to see a deer drive conducted before they started making an order. Will the Minister himself go to see a deer drive conducted before he makes an order which will affect it? That is my worry about the safeguards. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to settle all those worries so that I will not have them any more.
My Lords, I still am not quite clear as to why the Home Office should object to this Advisory Committee. It seems to me such a suitable solution to all the problems that appeared in the course of this very difficult set of discussions, during which we tried to get general agreement. Is it that it is going to be too expensive, or is it that it is going to be too much trouble? This Advisory Committee was going to do quite a lot of things. It was going to act as the advisory body to the Minister when he was making his orders under this Bill. It was also going to act as a controlling body to advise on and bring about the control of deer in the right way.
Instead of this one body the Minister is now going to set up a Departmental inquiry—that is going to mean a lot of trouble and expense—to find out whether in fact we should have an Advisory Committee or a commission or something of the sort in the future. I think anybody who has been into the deer question is fairly convinced that some form of advisory body or commission will be necessary in the future. So that body will eventually have to come, and it will not have the use which it would have at the moment of acting as a watchdog to the Minister over these various orders. Also, there is to be some form of internal machinery within the Home Office to look into these various points of where the orders should be made, to interview all the people, to take all the interests into account, to go to see the various parts of the country. It seems to me that there ate three bodies in place of one. I am not convinced that the Minister is right. The reason I am not convinced is that this complicated Amendment changing the whole purpose of the Bill has come at Third Reading. It may be that when one has had more time to
554
study it one will be satisfied. I hope the Minister will be able to say something that will set at rest the worries that some of us certainly have.
12.10 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I have a few questions to ask about this Amendment. I have to say at the outset that I am disappointed by this Amendment, which does away with the Advisory Committee. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would have expected me to say anything else. I think I am correct in saying that every noble Lord welcomed the idea of this Advisory Committee, which is no doubt why it has now lost its head! That may be the answer to Lord Denham's question.
When introducing it on Report the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, emphasised that the Advisory Committee was an integral and essential part of the agreement with the farming community. He said that they, that is, the National Farmers' Union:
"…would be happy to accept, and, indeed, to support, [the package] provided that the whole thing is there".—[Official Report, 30/6/77; col. 1308.]
Sadly, half the package has gone; hence my disappointment and, much more so, my sadness. Sadness, because I fear, like my noble friend Lord Denham, that there will be very little constructive deer culling and conservation compared to the amount there would have been under the Advisory Committee. Why do I say that?—because I do not know who will advise the Home Secretary to take this action.
This morning we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that various bodies, inter-Departmental committees and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will be involved. If it is the Minister of Agriculture—which in my opinion should be so, and not the Home Secretary—will he really bother to argue a deer case with his Cabinet colleagues, particularly if he has more pressing matters on his mind which he wants to put to those Cabinet colleagues, such as the devaluation of the Green Pound? Anyway, who will advise the Minister of Agriculture? Will it be his pest officers?—they have not been particularly effective in controlling rabbits. I

555
do not see the Minister of Agriculture, the Home Secretary or, indeed, this inter-Departmental committee really becoming involved—as my noble friend Lord Denham said—with any degree of success in controlling on the ground excessive numbers of deer, particularly if in the end the responsibility lies with the Home Office.
Although I do not feel particularly strongly about it, I also feel that the Minister will be at risk of severe criticism from the farming community—no doubt he gets used to that—should he advise the Home Secretary to change the method of shooting or culling deer; whereas if he had an Advisory Committee it would have seen the problem on the ground and spoken to farmers; the farmers would be able to put their views to the committee and would have discussed it with them, as my noble friend said. They would be live human beings with dirty boots and hands.
I am sorely tempted to be unpleasant about the Home Office and its civil servants. I do so dislike being so. They have destroyed this excellent, practical solution to the deer problem, which was so well achieved by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in consultation with all parties. I think that it was a quite remarkable achievement, particularly with the farming community. I frankly admit that I do not understand their reasons or their mentality, although that does not, of course, matter. Ours is to do and die, and all the rest of it—not to reason. But what does matter is that I very much doubt whether they—and that probably means the inter-Departmental committee—understand farmers; and even if they do, farmers will not understand them, which is really the point. They will lose the obvious confidence that I believe this Advisory Committee would have created.
Lastly, I find it difficult at this eleventh hour to understand the implications of this change. I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said. Perhaps he could reaffirm one or two remarks that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on Report. The noble Lord said that the Advisory Committee would pay particular attention to farmers' crops and to the responsible culling of deer. Can the Minister say
556
that that too will be a prime responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, or whoever will deal with this Bill now? I should also like to raise a technical query about the inter-Departmental committee. If the Minister wishes to make an order under Clause 9, which alters the method of killing, will he consult the inter-Departmental committee before doing so, or will he do it straight off his own bat?
I certainly do not wish this Bill ill. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has shown me what can be achieved by hard work and understanding. I hope that whatever Department takes on the job, it will follow his example. Certainly I would have wished his Bill, with the Advisory Committee, a straight path to heaven. I now fear for the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I can only wish it paradise.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, there is one aspect of this Amendment which disturbs me a trifle. It arises out of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Denham. Only a few days ago the noble Baroness the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, charged us all very straitly to confine Amendments on Third Reading to matters of spit and polish, clarification of the Bill, and so on. The noble Baroness emphasised that we should not do anything to change the character of the Bill by way of amendment on Third Reading. Here is a Government Amendment which does exactly the opposite of what, only a few days ago, their own Chief Whip told us they should not do.
Lord SWANSEA: My Lords, I should like to support other noble Lords who have spoken on this point because I am surprised that the Government have seen fit to introduce on Third Reading an Amendment of such substance as this. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will not press this Amendment because, as the clause was introduced on Report only a few days ago, it is a little too soon to whip it out of the Bill now. If any further consideration is to be given to it, that should wait until the Bill has gone to another place.
The Government seem quite unwilling to listen to any sort of expert advice.

557
When this clause was tabled on Report from all parts of the Chamber it received support from noble Lords with first-hand experience of the control and management of deer. It seems extraordinary to me that the Government are not willing to listen to such expert advice from people who have practical experience, as my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has just said. I very much hope that the noble Lord opposite will not press this Amendment.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend, Lord Swansea. We have been strictly charged, and yesterday when I spoke on the Third Reading of the Minibus Bill I was told that I was wrong to do so. The Committee of your Lordships' House took a long look at this matter and there were wide-ranging negotiations on it. But with one sweep of the pen on Third Reading the matter of principle has been completely changed. I join with my noble friends in asking the Government not to press this Amendment. Further consideration should be given to it when it goes to another place. This is contrary to everything that noble Lords have discussed throughout the Bill. Now, on Third Reading, we are told to change a matter of principle and drop the clause.
12.20 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, as noble Lords will well understand, I have listened to this short debate with great interest and a good deal of heartburning. I think noble Lords will appreciate that it would have been quite open to me at this point to leave this Amendment simply in the name of my noble friend. I should explain why I have added my name to it when it makes it look as though I am eating words—and words which I stand by—which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has read out again today, and which I uttered as recently as the Report stage a few days ago.
Why then did I add my name? May I tell your Lordships that this Bill, which is an immensely complicated Bill to be a Private Member's Bill—normally Bills like this that we hope to get through, so to speak, on the nod in the other place are very short Bills—is also very long and has been the subject of continuous consultation by Ministers in groups and
558
individually at the very highest level to be in the Cabinet—such is the importance of it and so difficult has it been.
If I may lighten the proceedings, I may tell your Lordships that the last letter I had on this issue was from the Home Secretary, Mr. Merlyn Rees, himself. I do not know what had got into him, whether it was being sick and tired of this Bill or some reaction inside him, or whether it was a leg pull, but I can tell your Lordships that it began: "Deer Donald"—the "Deer" being spelt d-e-e-r. This Bill has got to that level in Government. I think they will be very glad when we are through with it and even senior Ministers can see the back of it and get it finally on its way.
This leads me to the precise point I want to make. I added my name to this Amendment because I believed that the only hope for a Bill of this kind at this stage was if it was agreed upon all sides, because the slender chance is that it might go through on the nod in the other place and become law reasonably quickly. That can be done only if it is not blocked by very simple procedures. I had to get agreement not only with all the interested parties—the people outside the Chamber, including farmers, whose opinions and needs and fears I respect—but I had also to get agreement with the Government.
The Government have compromised to a considerable extent in this Bill. For a start, the Government, against their own will, have accepted a Clause 4 which, for the first time, outlaws poaching and makes it a criminal offence. This was bitterly opposed by the Government in the early stages. They have accepted, under pressure from your Lordships, a whole section concerning the control over the sales of venison, which they did not particularly want. I could give other examples. In other words, I want to make it clear from the beginning that the Government, too, have compromised with your Lordships, just as we have compromised among ourselves, in order to get an agreed Bill. I accept this final Amendment very reluctantly indeed, but as another point on which we are compromising in return for these other compromises that the Government have already made against their better judgment in other parts of the Bill.

559
Secondly, may I look on the bright side. If we are not to have an advisory committee, we are now being offered an inter-Departmental Committee. I think that this may, in the end, prove to be a good thing. What it will mean is that, instead of an Advisory Committee swimming against the stream of Government thinking in Departments, if the inter-Departmental Committee, on whom pressure can be put by the Deer Society and by farmers and everybody else, comes out finally and says that it is time that deer in England be properly managed as they are in Scotland, we shall have made an immense piece of progress compared with having an advisory committee on the edge battering at the Government and only reluctantly accepted by them. Because the outcome of that report from the inter-Departmental Committee might well then be a deer commission with real powers of management and quite wide duties that could go well beyond what we had envisaged in an Advisory Committee. So I look on the bright side; that is, that if this inter-Departmental Committee is pressured by all of us, it may, in the end, lead to a quicker use of a more scientific approach to management of deer in England.
As to the other half of the package about shotguns, I apologise to noble Lords that it was not possible to consult with the National Farmers' Union about the proposals to abandon the Advisory Committee which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, correctly said, was an integral part of the package arranged with them. This was simply a matter of timing. I only knew of the Government's final opposition to the Advisory Committee two days ago. I spent a whole afternoon then consulting with Ministers, who each received me in order to discuss this issue at the highest level of Government. I do not think I am speaking out of turn when I tell you that Mr. Silkin, the Minister of Agriculture, has himself been in touch with the National Farmers' Union to reassure them of his view on this matter, that he will want to be consulted, exactly as my noble friend has said, in any moves to outlaw the shotgun, and that, I would suspect, although I did not hear the conversation with the Minister, that the National Farmers' Union firmly understood at the end that they had a
560
friend in Government on whom they could lean if they felt that the Home Office was moving too quickly in beginning to outlaw the shotgun. That is the level at which Ministers have tried to involve themselves in this Bill and tried to get this final compromise agreed.
May I make a final point. The Minister has an absolute power to do this phasing-out of the shotgun. After all the consultations he has to do it by order, and that order is subject to debate and annulment in Parliament. If the Home Office, even against the advice, or with the advice, of the Minister of Agriculture brings forward orders for the outlawing, perhaps even area by area, of the shotgun in due course, that is subject to debate in your Lordships' House as it is subject to debate in another place, with the possibility of annulment of the order.
I am unhappy, of course. I am trying to make the best of an unhappy situation. I do it because I want this Bill through after all the hard work we have put into it, and the last thing I want, in view of all that has happened, is to have a situation where, in another place, Government Whips simply blocked this Bill because we had not reached this final point of compromise. It is a great deal to ask of the farming community to give up this part of the package, and I have only done it reluctantly after the Government have pressed me. I can only apologise to them and to tell them my own belief, which is that I do not think that they have lost a good deal because we may get a better form of Advisory Committee in the end. Meanwhile, we have the Ministry of Agriculture as firmly their friend and their protector in place of an Advisory Committee when these issues are argued out by the Home Office. On the whole, therefore, I have added my name to this Amendment, albeit with the greatest of reluctance.
12.29 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend Lord Northfield has just said, I do not think it is necessary for me to take up much of your Lordships' time. However, I should like to answer one or two points I have been specifically asked. I would remind your Lordships that when this Bill came before the House originally there was no one in your Lordships' House who thought

561
that it stood much of a chance. We have come a long way. We have had to follow the old sort of British way of life, and that is by deciding issues by compromise. There has been a compromise, so far as this Bill is concerned, but let me say, with great respect, that it has been a good compromise.
I do not want to go over the reasons why we found it impossible to have an Advisory Committee. I tried at the end of the Report stage to persuade your Lordships not to include in the Bill an Advisory Committee, and I gave my reasons, which I thought were, and still think are, quite sound. At no stage in this Bill and in many Bills like it has such a responsibility been put on the Secretary of State. There was the problem, "How can you possibly lay this at the door of the Home Secretary?", which is what noble Lords wanted. It was not exclusively a matter for the Minister of Agriculture because the Minister for the Department of the Environment could be brought in.
I think we have a much more effective way of dealing with the matter and the proposed committee will probably serve the deer interests far better. It will be much more widely representative. The inter-departmental committee should, in my submission, consist of far more people than the advisory committee was likely to have, yet still retain the interests and representation not only of the National Farmers' Union and the British Deer Society but also of the British Field Sports Society. It could bring in a whole wealth of experience and a fund of knowledge that I think would not have been possible with an advisory committee.
I do not like Amendments of this kind coming on Third Reading, but it is tabled today in order to save the Bill. I never like misleading the House; I like to be honest and frank. Without the Amendment the chances of the Bill's survival in another place would be very remote because there would remain one or two major contentious matters and we must deal with those matters in this House. I hope noble Lords will take, not necessarily the advice I am trying to give but the advice which my noble friend Lord Northfield gave.
Ministers have been involved. I do not want to take my old friend the noble
562
Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, to task when he remarked that he would like to say some very unpleasant things about the Home Office and civil servants. We do not criticise civil servants, as the noble Lord knows; in the last analysis civil servants do what the Minister requires. Of course they are available for consultation and I know that my noble friend Lord Northfield would be the first to say that he has had almost their undivided attention over a long period of time. There has been one meeting after another and, to my personal knowledge, four Ministers, including two Secretaries of State, have been involved in the final decision. If we have any criticisms we must make them to the Minister or Ministers concerned and, so far as your Lordships are concerned if you have any unkind things to say they must be directed to me, and I shall not mind that one bit.
I do not think I need say more. Lord Stanley asked whether the inter-Departmental committee would range over the whole field. The whole purpose of this inter-Departmental committee is to work out a policy for deer for the future. I cannot see that it could exclude anything pertinent and relative to deer. I cannot see that it could exclude opinions, objections and observations coming from people who have a competence in that field. I should have thought—Lord Northfield reinforced this—that ultimately this will probably prove to be much better than what was intended by an advisory committee.
I hope your Lordships will not put the Bill at risk, and I am sure you will not. I again apologise for the fact that we have had to do this on Third Reading. The time between Report and Third Reading was all too short, as is often the case, both in this House and in another place, but we take this action to send to the other place a Bill which we hope—perhaps I should not use the expression—will be taken on the nod.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Orders]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 11, line 27, leave out from ("consult") to ("bodies") in line 29 and insert ("such").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move what is a consequential Amendment and I need not delay your Lordships by speaking to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Application to Northern Ireland]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 12, line 29, at end insert—
("and for any reference to a Minister of the Crown there shall be substituted a reference to a Northern Ireland Department;
() for the reference in section 9(5) to a requirement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under section 98 of the Agriculture Act 1947 there shall be substituted a reference to any scheme made by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland under section 2 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1959;
() for the reference in section 9(5) to any power conferred on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or on that Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly, by or under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, the Rabies Act 1974 or section 9 or 10 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 there shall be substituted a reference to any power conferred on the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland by or under the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 or the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1975;
() in section 10 subsections (5) and (6) shall be omitted and for any reference to the Nature Conservancy Council there shall be substituted a reference to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland;
() in section 12(9) the words "or London borough, or of the Common Council of the City of London" shall be omitted;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will with the permission of the House speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31. These Amendments deal with the application of various provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. They transfer paragraphs (g) and (h) to what are now their appropriate places in the subsection and make some further adaptations which were overlooked at an earlier stage. Some of the Amendments are consequential on earlier Amendments in the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 13, leave out lines 13 to 38 and insert—
("() in section 18, subsection (2) shall be omitted;").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 13, line 39, after ("19") insert ("(1)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 13, line 41, at end insert—
("() for any reference in section 19(2) to any enactment there shall be substituted a reference to any enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or of the Northern Ireland Assembly;").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.37 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House to point out that, inadvertently, I misled the House when speaking to Amendment No. 7. The word "any" occurs twice in line 24 and the Amendment on the Marshalled List did not make clear to which "any" the Amendment referred. I told the House that we were talking about the first "any" but I am now advised that I should have said that we were talking about the word "any" where it occurs the second time in the line. I apologise to your Lordships and I hope that the Amendment can be accepted in that form and that my mistake may be rectified.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sorry always to appear in the role of having to say, "You can't do that", but even a simple change is contrary to the Rules of your Lordships' House. The matter has been decided and it is impossible to alter it at this stage. It may seem rather ludicrous that we cannot make such a simple alteration but I must point out that to do so would be contrary to our procedure. I must, therefore, advise against it. However, I think it is a very simple matter that can be put right in another place without any problem.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will accept that the

565
Amendment without this correction is incorrect because the Amendment does not say to which "any" it refers. The word "any" appears twice in that line and we must say to which "any" it refers. It was a slip of the tongue on my part when I was talking about the first "any" in that I should have been referring to the second. In other words, I am not seeking to alter the words but simply to amend my reference to the word "any". Perhaps if the matter were left there it would, in view of my remarks, be put right by the printer.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the House is looking to me for guidance I can only say that once an Amendment has been moved, whether it has been moved wrongly or if, inadvertently, something has been left out, that must remain the position.
Lord NORTHFIELD: It was a slip of the tongue, my Lords.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it may have been a slip of the tongue, and I should like to help, but we are bound by our Standing Orders and, so far as I can see, there is no way round this problem. I suppose in the last analysis it is a matter for the House because it is your Lordships' House and your Lordships can do more or less as you please. I do not know the procedure from here, but—
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, surely one cannot correct an Amendment, but at any time any Member of this House, or any other House, can correct his speech. The noble Lord said that in his speech he made a slip of the tongue; he is not asking to correct the Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in that case I would leave it to my noble friend Lord Northfield to check his speech with Hansard.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I hope it will be accepted at this moment that I say that I was wrong in saying the first "any"; I meant to say the second "any".
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that that will have been heard in the right quarter, and I am also sure that
566
your Lordships would support my noble friend in correcting his speech with Hansard.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I am much obliged.
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Northfield.)
12.41 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House, because there is another debate coming on, but I think it would be wrong for this House not to pay some tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for the tremendous work he has done on the Bill. When he first took on the task I thought it was impossible, but he had achieved it until last Thursday when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, came and threw a little spanner in the works. It was a little spanner, but it did quite a lot of damage.
I said I would return to the procedural point, but the procedural point has been made. I submit that this is an abuse of your Lordships' procedure. The Companion to the Standing Orders says that one should not reverse an Amendment that has been refused at an earlier stage; this is in fact putting out an Amendment which was accepted at an earlier stage, which is much the same thing. I think that it is wrong. If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was going to bring this matter to the House, he should have done so at Report stage. At that stage the Bill could have been recommitted, and we could have discussed the matter thoroughly.
I asked the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, a number of questions, to none of which he replied, although I had explained to him beforehand the importance of him doing so. Had it not been Third Reading, I could have come back to him and asked him for an answer but I could not do it; I was tied, because this Amendment of great substance has been put in at Third Reading. I hope that the Procedure Committee will look into this matter and see whether it should be ensured that what I think is an abuse does not occur again.
I was looking forward at this stage to welcoming the Bill on behalf of the

567
Opposition and then to taking a metaphorical step backwards to the Back-Benches, and saying on behalf of the British Field Sports Society that they expressed active support for the Bill. I cannot do that. I want to choose my words very carefully. It is very difficult for a Private Member's Bill at this stage in the Session to go through another place, and I do not want to say anything that will prejudice the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I cannot express active support for the Bill in its present form, because we do not know, and we have not had time, to consider exactly what it will do. So while I am not expressing disapproval, I cannot express active welcome.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, I should like, in turn, to thank noble Lords who have been very kind to me. I am a complete novice with regard to deer, and now I feel that I am only half an expert on the subject after several months of learning. But noble Lords opposite and on the Government Front Bench have taught me much about deer, and they have been very kind in understanding my ignorance, and in guiding me along in this very complicated issue.
I wish to thank in particular the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who have been kindness itself in meeting me on all occasions to get agreement and who have made very valuable suggestions regarding the drafting of the Bill. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, always a model of courtesy. He has excelled himself even in that quality in dealing with me on the Bill, and lie has been kindness at every point. His colleagues in the Government, Dr. Summerskill, Mr. Silkin, and the Home Secretary, have all taken a hand in the Bill, and have been very helpful. I cannot thank them enough. I believe that, as a result of all this—and whatever may happen to the Bill—deer will now be much more actively studied and managed in this country in years to come, in one way or another, following the proceedings we have had and the undertakings and interest that we have elucidated from the Government.
568
Finally, I should like to thank the Deer Society, and in particular Mr. John Hotchkiss who has been the man behind the Bill for many years. It has gone through years of preparation. He has worked tirelessly almost day and night, with civil servants and draftsmen who have been kindly put at our disposal, to produce what is now, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has just said, virtually an agreed Bill. I hope that noble Lords, however much they may have a jaundiced view of this final compromise, will help me to see that there is no opposition to it in another place, because our best chance in curing some of the desperate cruelty now going on in this country in the slaughter of deer by poachers, and our best chance of eliminating this blot on our life at the moment, is in the passing of the Bill as quickly as possible. I therefore hope that that will be the guiding principle which will enable us to get it through another place and, hopefully, into law without too much delay. I conclude by expressing my gratitude to everyone who has helped in every way on the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1977
12.47 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM rose to move, That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1977, laid before the House on 14th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue in force the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts for a further year, that is until 31st August 1978. I intend to be brief. This debate is essentially about whether or not the Services Discipline Acts should be renewed for another year. Noble Lords have, however, taken the opportunity in previous years to widen the debate to cover discipline, recruiting, conditions of service and morale. Although I shall not cover all these aspects in my opening remarks, I shall, of course, listen with interest to what noble Lords have to say.
This is the first time that the order has been considered at this time of the year.

569
As your Lordships will recall, the order has normally been taken in the autumn. This was changed by the Armed Forces Act 1976, because it was considered that this would allow for greater flexibility in the use of Parliamentary time. Noble Lords will also recall that the Armed Forces Bill 1975, when introduced, provided for the abolition of the annual continuation order. But, during the Committee on the Bill this was rejected; so the continuation order is still with us.
With regard to discipline, a commencement order brought into effect, as from 1st July, the major provisions of the Armed Forces Act 1976. Although the Act received the Royal Assent on 26th October 1976, an interim period of a few months was required to enable us to make arrangements for implementing the provisions of the Act, and to issue the necessary regulations. Among the most significant of these provisions were an extension of the powers of summary punishment exercisable by commanding officers in the Army, the RAF and the Royal Marines; the establishment of new courts (known as Standing Civilian Courts) for dealing with civilians who are subject to the Army and Air Force Acts 1955; and the introduction of new powers of punishment for civilians under the jurisdiction of the Discipline Acts of all three Services.
Under the provisions relating to summary powers, commanding officers in the Army, the RAF, and the Royal Marines can now award periods of detention of up to 60 days, in place of the previous maximum of 28 days, or fines of up to 28 days' pay. This should provide a quicker, less cumbersome, and less expensive means of dealing with a range of essentially disciplinary offences whose seriousness does not really justify the full panoply of court martial proceedings. In the main, the individual Serviceman will probably feel that it is preferable to he tried by his commanding officer than by a court martial; however, he will have the right to opt for a court martial.
Hitherto the arrangements for dealing with civilian offenders overseas under the provisions of the Service Discipline Acts have been rather too inflexible, particularly in the case of juveniles. The new Standing Civilian Courts in Germany and the new range of punishments (which include the power to sentence young
570
offenders to a form of borstal training in the United Kingdom) will mean that in future the treatment of civilians will he much more in line with the general arrangements in this country. This reflects the willingness of the Services to modify their disciplinary procedures in the light of civilian practice.
Also on 1st July 1977, members of the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and the Women's Royal Naval Service were brought under the Naval Discipline Act, and became a legal part of Her Majesty's naval forces. Their Army and Air Force equivalents have been subject to the Army and Air Force Acts, respectively, since 1941. Since these new provisions became operative only last week, we cannot draw any conclusions as to their general effectiveness; but we shall naturally be keeping a close watch on their operation. Discipline in our Armed Forces is excellent. This, my Lords, is a reflection of how fair and sensible are the codes of discipline we seek to continue. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1977, laid before the House on 14th June, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
12.51 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord for what he has already said and the description he has given. It is very difficult, I think, as he so rightly said, to talk to this order because it is so tightly drawn. While I realise that one has difficulty in being out of order in this House, I see that an ex-Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Mawbray-King, is on the Woolsack, and, having read the debate in the other House, I shall try to keep in order on this very important subject. The reason why I am speaking on it, my Lords, is that I have had the opportunity of seeing the Services at work, in Indonesia for 14 months and in Malaysia for four years; I visited Kenya during Mau-Mau, and also Aden, Borneo during confrontation and, of course, Ulster. This has proved to me that we have the finest Armed Forces in the world, and I should like to pay a tribute to the high standard of discipline, about which the

571
noble Lord has already spoken, especially of those serving in Ulster. When I was visiting Ulster I met a sergeant whom I had met previously in Aden, and he said that one of the difficulties there, in Ulster, is recognising who is your enemy.
My Lords, this order is a difficult one as it imposes conditions on a comparatively small section of our community, and one wants to be certain that discipline has been carried out in the manner intended by the Armed Forces Act 1976, and that it is fair; so I hope we shall keep this yearly debate, because it is very useful. For example, it is extremely difficult for a man in Ulster, having received normal training, to find himself constrained from using those methods when in Ulster—having, for example, to consult the yellow card before firing a live round. This, I think, is where real discipline is shown: expecially, too, when the individual is subject to personal abuse and physical assault by civilians.
My Lords, I want to raise two matters, of which I have given the noble Lord prior notice. He has answered me to a certain extent with regard to the WRNS and the nurses; but I should like to know whether since the WRNS became subject to the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 1976, which was for them the first time, the number of jobs they can do has now been extended; because, as I understand it, owing to the fact that they were previously civilians, there were some jobs that they were not able to undertake. So would the noble Lord let me know whether this change, which many of us were rather worried about at that time, has been successful, and what effect it will have on the careers of women in the Service? Are they able now to go to sea, or to undertake other jobs with regard to our security which they were previously not allowed to do? I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me some information on that.
I should also like to know what difference it has made to recruiting; because one of the points suggested previously was that, as civilians, they did a very good job, but many young women would not like to join if it became a Service under the Act. How many, if any, have been before a court martial; and particularly I want to know, in view
572
of the extended powers of commanding officers with regard to sentencing, which increased in 1975, how that affects the women, because they did not come under this procedure at all in the past. The noble Lord mentioned something about the civilian courts in Germany. I should like to know whether he can tell me—I have asked him previously—how many Service personnel have been before such a court and what has been the result; and are these courts helping to make relations more friendly between the civilians in Germany and those serving there, bearing in mind that there has been trouble in the past?
My Lords, I end by saying that anyone who saw the parade of the Army and the RAF on television when Her Majesty the Queen visited Germany, and the Review at Spithead of the Royal Navy, must feel very grateful that there are in Britain men and women of such a high calibre, who are willing to undertake the many tasks assigned to them, which shows how discipline, if fairly applied, really works. When I was Member of Parliament for Devonport, I was fortunate in having good training by all three Services, and when I am home now I go to live on Salisbury Plain, so I can continue my education and my interest in those members of Her Majesty's Forces who serve our nation so well.
12.56 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I make one final comment on what the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has said. I think she will be quite pleased to know, although she must realise it, of course, that all these new provisions came into effect only last week; so we cannot really assess what their effect will be on recruiting for the Women's Royal Naval Service, or what the impact of the special civilian courts will be, and so on. These things, perhaps, will demand a debate next year, when we have had a look at the first year of their operation.
My Lords, before I sit down, I should like to say that the bringing of the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and the Women's Royal Naval Service under the Naval Discipline Act will give the members of these forces more equal opportunities, and will also provide greater flexibility in the operation of naval

573
discipline. Within the disciplinary code men and women will have equal powers, both in the administration and the receipt of punishments. For the first time the WRNS officer in charge of HMS "Dauntless", which is the WRNS new-entry training establishment, as the noble Baroness will know, will become a commanding officer in her own right and have full powers of punishment over all naval staff serving there. So this is a raising of the status of the WRNS under these new arrangements, where a commanding officer can be a woman with the full powers of a commanding officer. I am certain the noble Baroness will welcome that.
That is all I can add, except to say that the recruiting field generally is buoyant. The Services are able at the moment to be fairly selective in their choice of recruits, and that selectivity can be seen in the excellence of the Armed Forces which represent us in the world today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOUTHERN AFRICA: USA POLICY
12.58 p.m.
Lord CHALFONT Lord CHALFONT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in full agreement with the United States of America on policy towards Southern Africa. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. My reasons for asking this Question today and initiating this short debate are not in any way polemical or contentious. This is an extremely important subject, and one upon which, from time to time, very extreme and intemperate views are expressed. There is a tendency to lecture people in Southern Africa, both black and white people, in very strident and sanctimonious terms about their duties, and it seems to me that in a matter of this importance it is the understanding of the situation that counts. I realise that this is perhaps an unsuitable time to raise an issue of this magnitude, at the end of a week in your Lordships' House; but it was the only occasion, I understand, on which it was possible to put this Question before the Recess, and I must say that, in that context, I appreciate how Members of your Lordships' House have put their names down to speak although the time must be, for
574
many people, very unsuitable and very inconvenient.
My Lords, events are moving very fast in Southern Africa, and I feel it is essential that, in the context of my Question, we should be clear what the policy of the West is towards events in Southern Africa; and, of course, for that reason it is essential to know what the policy of the United States of America is, the United States being still the strongest, the most influential and the most important member of the Western Alliance, and then to decide whether we in this country wish to follow that line and, if not, what attitude we should take towards these important events in Southern Africa. In a short debate of this kind it is clearly not possible to cover the whole field, which is a vast and complicated one. Therefore, today I am not going to spend as much time as I should like on Rhodesia or South West Africa. There are a number of reasons why I prefer not to deal in detail with those areas today. One is because there are delicate negotiations going on at the moment in regard to both those areas and, in the case of Rhodesia, the attempts to find a solution have reached a crucial stage. I think that it might be irresponsible and unproductive to have too detailed a debate about them.
In any case, my Lords, in the case of Rhodesia and South West Africa, it seems to me that a number of principles are already clearly established. It is the mode of bringing about a solution which is still at issue. Majority rule, I think, is clearly now inevitable in the near future in Rhodesia and, perhaps, in the slightly more distant future, in South West Africa. The questions which remain to be settled are whether that majority rule will be established with or without bloodshed or with or without widespread violence, and, perhaps more importantly for us in the West, although, of course, not unimportant for those who live in these places, whether the Governments which take the place of the existing regimes will be simply black nationalist Governments or whether they are also to he Marxist Governments as well. These, I think, are the questions which still remain to be solved in those areas.
My Lords, I should like today to concentrate on the Republic of South

575
Africa which is a problem of an entirely different kind. It is not a post-Colonial problem. The white people of South Africa have nowhere else to go. As they say in South Africa, there are no ships in the harbour waiting to take away the Afrikaners. This is where they live and where they will continue to live, whatever may be the political solution in their country. There are for the West two separate, interconnected but equally important problems in Southern Africa. The first, and the one which, perhaps, receives for various understandable reasons the most attention in the West, is the problem of human rights, the problem of civil rights, in the Republic of South Africa. The policy of the present Government of South Africa, the policy of what is sometimes called separate development, which involves the fundamental application of the principle of apartheid, is a policy which is, quite rightly and understandably, condemned in most of the rest of the civilised world if for no other reason than that it relies openly and professedly upon institutionalised racial discrimination.
The policy relies specifically upon four bodies of legislation which cover what they call the Immorality Act, the forbidding of sexual intercourse between people of different races; the Mixed Marriage Act, which speaks for itself; the legislation covering education, which forbids the integration in schools of people of different races; and, finally, the Group Areas Act which forbids white people, black people and coloured people from living together in the same part of the country of South Africa.
This policy, as I have said, is recognised in the West by most people as being indefensible and unacceptable. But the point I should like to make forcibly is that it is recognised as being unacceptable and indefensible by many people in South Africa as well—and I do not mean only the black people in South Africa. There is, I would guess from my own experience and from the studies that I have made of South Africa recently, a very broad spectrum of white South African opinion which recognises that political change is not only desirable, not only important, but urgent, and who are determined to see that change come as soon as they can.
I need only refer your Lordships to certain recent developments in the Republic of South Africa. There was a speech a few weeks ago by Dr. Koornhof, one of the Cabinet Ministers of the present Government, in which he put forward a new blueprint for political development in South Africa to take the place of the classic, conventional doctrines of the homeland, of separate development and apartheid. Dr. Mulder, another important and influential Member of the Cabinet of Mr. Vorster, put forward similar views. More recently Mr. Botha, the new Foreign Minister of the Republic of South Africa, has made an important statement on the Immorality Act. He has said that he does not believe that for the political future of South Africa it is necessary to retain this Act on the Statute Book. That remark was reflected by the Minister of Agriculture, also. Two quite influential Members of the existing Cabinet of the National Party have said that this Act is no longer necessary for the future development of South Africa.
I should like to put an important point to your Lordships which is fully appreciated in South Africa, but perhaps not so well appreciated here. If a Minister can say that about the Immorality Act, he is undermining the whole basis of the institutionalised racial discrimination of South Africa, because what he is saying is this: if you remove the Immorality Act from the Statute Book, then, of course, the Mixed Marriages Act becomes a nonsense; and if you are prepared to consider removing the Mixed Marriages Act from the Statute Book, then, clearly, the Group Areas Act and the Education Act are immediately undermined. Therefore, if you once start to dismantle this odious paraphernalia of racial discrimination, then the momentum will continue. This, I believe, is the view and desire of many enlightened people in the National Party and, certainly, in the white Opposition in South Africa. It is their desire and aim.
My impression, from recent visits to South Africa, is that there is a movement towards peaceful change across a very wide spectrum of the political establishment—not only among the black people, most of whom want peaceful change. There is a small extremist minority who want nothing but violence and black power, but this is inevitable and predictable.

577
They exist, but, in my view, they are a small proportion of the spectrum of black opinion. Similarly, in the white political establishment there is a small body of intransigent, unregenerate Afrikaner nationalism which refuses to contemplate any political society change. They, too, are very small. Throughout the rest of the spectrum, including, in my view, a majority of the National Party in the South African Parliament, there is a desire for change.
My first point in these remarks is to say that I believe that one of the first aims of foreign policy in the West should be to encourage that desire for peaceful change; not to abort it by strident public lecturing, but to encourage it quietly and intelligently and to make it clear to the people of South Africa that it is peaceful change which we in the West are interested in as much as are they in South Africa.
This leads me to what is the second of the two problems. Clearly, the problem of human rights is urgent and one which occupies our minds; but there is a second problem which does not get as much publicity in this country. It is the immense importance of a stable, prosperous and friendly South Africa for the economy and security of the West. There was a time when this was a clear article of faith, certainly in the USA. In the time of President Kennedy, it was quite clearly accepted by him—and stated by him—that the USA regarded Southern Africa as one of the battle grounds in the continuous struggle that goes on between the Communist and the Free World.
I think that there was a very good reason why he should say this. In those days, the days of President Kennedy, the degree of Soviet strategic penetration in Southern Africa was not as great as it is today. But in those days there were still the minerals of South Africa upon which a good deal of prosperity of the West—and security of the West—depended. There is the fact that so far as this country and many other countries are concerned, South Africa, and Southern Africa as a whole, is one of our biggest and most important markets. There is the question of the ports of South Africa, the security of the routes around the Cape which bring our oil from the Middle East, oil upon which depend not only our economy but the very ability that we have
578
to maintain Defence establishments for our security and the security of our allies.
I said that in the days of President Kennedy those factors obtained, but there was not then the degree of Soviet penetration which there is today. It is extremely important that we in this country should recognise the degree of that penetration; we should recognise that it is a clear priority of Soviet foreign policy to establish itself politically, economically and strategically in Africa—Southern Africa specifically—and to do it, if necessary and if possible, at the cost and expense of our interests in the West.
One has only to look at the events that went on during the civil war in Angola, the régime that has established itself there since, and at the situation in Mozambique. One has only to look at the rest of the continent of Africa, at the presence of Soviet advisers, Cuban troops and other elements of a Soviet or Soviet-influenced presence in a dozen or more countries in the continent of Africa. One has only to look at the extent to which the Soviet Union is now able to rely upon facilities for its rapidly growing navy that it did not have only a few short years ago.
I do not want to spend too much time on this subject—we do not have that much time—and, indeed, these arguments have been developed at great length in other places. I merely want to make a point which I think is important to the whole of the consideration of our policy towards South Africa, and it is this. If South Africa—and I am not saying that this is imminent—were to come under the influence of the Soviet Union, if the Republic of South Africa, as a result of future political developments, were to come under the domination or influence of the Soviet Union, the dangers for the security and prosperity—and possibly even the survival—of the West would be very great indeed.
This is why I say that there is need for quiet diplomacy in South Africa. We must try to encourage peaceful change, because if there is violent change in South Africa, this is the breeding ground of the kind of régime that will eventually prove to be hostile to every single interest that we have in the West. It is as much in our interests as in the

579
interests of the people of South Africa to head off the violence which is daily becoming more likely in that area. One of the things we must not do in attempting to express our sympathy for the aspirations of the black people of South Africa, is to use language or policies which will drive the present Government of South Africa into positions of intransigence, to drive them into what they call—in their own language—the laager mentality; so to reduce their freedom of manoeuvre by our sermons, bullying and blackmail, that they will retreat into their laager and say: "If that is your attitude, we are on our own and we will defend ourselves". If they do, we are in for a long period of bloodshed in South Africa
The present Government of South Africa, make no mistake—whatever may be our views about its rights or wrongs—is powerful and strong enough to defend itself internally and externally for quite a long time. It will do so if we drive it to do so. If we drive it do so, the loss will be the loss of everyone in South Africa, not just a small proportion of white people who live there but the large proportion of black people who live there as well.
What then is the policy that is being adopted towards this problem, and what is the policy that should be adopted? Unless one is in government and in the corridors of power it is difficult to know what any given current policy is. So far as the United States are concerned, I suppose the most recent exposition of American policy was the speech made last week by the American Secretary of State on American policy towards Africa. It seemed to me from my study of it to do one important thing which represents a change from the policies of previous American administrations. That is, it seems to discount the importance of South Africa as a ground of strategic confrontation between Communism and the Free World. If any analysis is correct, then that is a disturbing change.
Whatever the United States may say about strategic confrontation in South Africa, I do not believe that the Soviet Union is in any doubt whatsoever about the strategic importance of South Africa, and it is in no doubt whatsoever about its own resolution to become the most
580
important world Power in that area. In present American policy statements there are also some confusions about what is meant by the term "full political participation for all the people of South Africa" which they constantly use in their speeches and policy statements. It is said by thos who are paid to interpret American policy in their foreign service that this is all that they will say about it: full political participation. The details, they say, are for the South Africans to work out. There are no blueprints.
However, it is worth saying, and important to say, that when Mr. Vorster met Vice-President Mondale in Vienna, in response to a question from a reporter at a news conference, Vice-President Mondale said that full political participation means one man, one vote. If the United States really believes that one man, one vote is a feasible and practical policy for South Africa in the near future, then I fear for Western policies in that part of the world. Furthermore, there is talk of United Nations economic sanctions against South Africa, and talk that, if such a mandatory resolution should come before the United Nations, South Africa can no longer rely upon the United States' veto. That may or may not be so.
If the United Nations really believe that they can solve the problems of South Africa by applying economic sanctions for that area, they will make one of the biggest mistakes they have made in their existence. If they take that kind of action against South Africa, everybody in South Africa will suffer. It will not be just the white ruling establishment that will suffer; it will be the 20 million black and coloured people as well.
This brings me to my last remarks. I have overstepped my time already, but I think it is necessary to ask Her Majesty's Government, not for specific answers to questions, because I know that that would not be possible and practical here today, but simply whether they will consider a few general questions. This country has a vital role to play in South Africa. It is a role that cannot really be played by the United States of America. For all their power and influence, for all their newly found evangelical commitment to the cause of human rights, they cannot play the role that we can play. They are not

581
historically, temperamentally or psychologically suited to it. We can play a big part. I should like Her Majesty's Government to consider the possibility that the cold war is not yet over. Certainly, even if there are people in the West who believe that it is, I have been unable to detect anyone in the Soviet Union who thinks that it is.
I should like Her Majesty's Government to consider the possibility that Southern Africa as a whole, and Southern Africa especially, is an area of vital strategic and economic importance to the West and that that importance is underlined by the degree of effort which the Soviet Union is putting into strategic, economic and political penetration in the area. I should like Her Majesty's Government to consider the possibility that the Westminster model, and especially the concept of one man, one vote, may not be the answer to the problems of Southern Africa.
Finally, I should like Her Majesty's Government to recognise that change is taking place inside South Africa. Anyone who has been to that country recently will recognise that under the surface—and at the moment it has to be under the surface—fundamental changes of approach and psychology are taking place. I should like Her Majesty's Government to make it clear that they are willing to encourage those changes, that they are willing to set their face against policies which, as I have said before, will drive white South Africans into positions of fearful intransigence and into positions which will cause there to be the most fearful and prolonged bloodshed in that part of the world.
Let there be no more strident public preaching, no more talk of economic sanctions, but let there be quiet, eloquent and effective diplomacy of the kind at which this country is adept and in which, I may say, it has already proved itself to have had some success in South Africa. If, at any rate, the attitude of South Africans, whether black or white, towards us is any guide, I may say that when I was in the South African Parliament a few weeks ago there was a debate when Mr. Vorster had just returned from Vienna. A number of Members of Parliament made very disobliging and critical remarks about the United States of America and its policy towards South
582
Africa. These were greeted with approval by Members of the South African House of Commons, but any remark of a critical kind made about this country was received in a stony silence. There is a difference in the attitude of South Africans towards us and towards the Americans.
I end by saying that I believe that a stable, prosperous South Africa, friendly to the West, is crucial to our security. What happens there—which may to some extent depend upon the attitudes of Western Governments and even, in the long run, may depend on the attitude of Her Majesty's Government—is important not only to all South Africans, white, black and coloured, but to all of us in the Free World as well.
1.23 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I know that my noble friends and, I believe, every noble Lord in this House owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for having introduced a subject which is of vital international concern, and indeed of similar concern to the national interests of the United Kingdom and other Western industrialised nations. He emphasised the importance of the time factor in this part of the world. The noble Lord has drawn our attention to the inherent dangers in Southern Africa and the consequences, not only for that part of the world but also for Western Europe, if we do not propose and implement policies which will contribute to the defusing of these dangers and also to the establishing of stability and peace in that part of Africa. I should like to express our gratitude to the noble Lord for having so clearly outlined the dangers involved and for putting the problems to your Lordships in the way that he has done.
It is both in our own interests and in the interests of Africans that those objectives must be achieved, for the present delicate situation in South Africa combines unstable government, the threats of, and actual, revolt, and armed attack on account of a denial of the rights to self-respect of millions of Africans in the political, economic and social fields in the territories in which they live. No one denies the immense contribution made in the past by the British in the development of these countries in Southern Africa, but it is clearly time for not only the

583
Government but individuals throughout the country to look at this problem in a new light.
The threat of Marxism will be all the more intense if we do not realise that the West must co-operate to recognise the right of a black majority to govern in their own territories. It is the failure to recognise that right which will create further opportunities for Marxist incursion, with all the consequences spelled out by the noble Lord for the West and for Africa itself, as well as for other parts of the globe. The Africans themselves know that Marxist economic theory is old-fashioned, and where it has been implemented it has proved to be a failure wherever it has been introduced. They know that the Marxist philosophy is totally alien to their historical and cultural traditions, and that their very existence is based on the individual or collective private ownership of land and not on some form of State collectivism. They know that the acceptance of a totalitarian régime leads to less liberty rather than to more, to economic disaster and not to economic wellbeing, and possibly even to bloodshed.
We in Western Europe demand recognition of our basic rights, and this insistence by Governments on recognition of these basic rights and freedoms is our strongest bulwark against a totalitarian or Marxist regime. It is the Western response to the Communist ideological struggle. But the principle also applies in Southern Africa. If we, in cooperation with the United States, want to ensure that Marxist domination does not succeed in Southern Africa, we must be prepared to recognise, to encourage and assist by peaceful negotiation the attainment of African majority rule in territories in which they live.
That response to the situation in Southern Africa—recognition of African nationalism, and encouragement for Africans to enable them to govern themselves without any external influence from any world force—is surely the policy we should follow in co-operation with the United States Administration. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has already drawn attention to the very important speech made by the Secretary of State, Mr. Cyrus Vance, on 1st July, and I
584
should like to quote from page 3 of his statement, where he refers to the policies of the United States Administration towards Southern Africa. Among the five points that he makes, he says:
"Our policies should recognise and encourage African nationalism. Having won independence, African nations will defend it against challenges from any source. If we try to impose American solutions for Africa problems, we may sow division among the Africans and undermine their ability to oppose efforts at domination by others. We will not do so".
I think that is a very important aspect of the American approach, and it may well be the answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that Mr. Mondale's statement on "one man, one vote", is not to be taken quite so seriously as might have been originally implied.
Despite having residual responsibility for Rhodesia, the British are no longer a major Power, either through military or economic strength. Previous attempts at reaching some sort of settlement, for instance at Geneva, have failed. Cooperation with America, therefore, is to many of us both welcome and necessary. However, that is not to underestimate the respect that still remains for Britain and the contribution made by the British people to the economic, social and cultural development of South Africa. In addition there is an even more incalculable asset, which is sometimes overlooked—the value of the English language, which is the only language universally used in that part of the world as a means of communication between all the races of South Africa. That, I believe, plays an integral part in our contribution to the development of that part of the world.
The Africans themselves know full well that if they are not able to raise the living standards of their own people they will need financial assistance from international funds and contributions from the United States, as the Secretary of State declared; and above all they need trained, skilled, white professional people who are prepared to remain under a new régime and contribute to the development of an independent State and to their ownstability. If we were to encourage the departure of white Rhodesians, we should be opening the door to further disaster. It surely must be part of Government policy to guarantee, by all means—financial, political

585
and otherwise—the safety of the lives and property of white Rhodesians who are prepared to remain in Rhodesia, and who are being encouraged to remain. If co-operation between the United States and British Governments can achieve a peaceful settlement on this basis, then there will be a better prospect for the development of a gradual movement in South Africa.
While the United States may wish to pursue a dynamic overall policy, the United States does not share with Western Europe, and particularly with the United Kingdom, the same immediate concern for its supplies of raw materials and for the retention and safety of the Cape shipping route. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has already emphasised this point. The Africans know that it is only if we in the West are strong economically that we can contribute to their economic development. It is as much in their interest as in ours, that provision of raw materials for the maintenance of Western industrial output is guaranteed.
As the noble Lord has very rightly pointed out, the internal situation in South Africa is a very different one from that in other Southern African areas and I do not believe that overt and oppressive interference in South Africa, with the strong characteristics and traditions of the Afrikaaner, will be productive. They have no attachment to another part of the world. In every sense, South Africa is their home and this must be recognised in the reaching of a peaceful solution. I am sure that all noble Lords will be grateful for the comments which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has made on this aspect of the situation in South Africa. This is so often misrepresented in the British Press, and I am sure it is welcome to all noble Lords to have had a personal opinion and the report of a personal visit from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, as to the political position of many of the leaders in that country.
I am sure that we all believe in the necessity for peaceful change in that country. But if we want to prevent Marxist domination—the greatest threat to world peace and economic development that now exists—then we in the West, together with our American allies, must wake up to the fact that our role must be positive and constructive, and we
586
must take measures to encourage and enable the Africans not only to develop their abilities with maximum scientific and technological assistance, but also to realise their political and civil aspirations. Ultimately, it is only by the recognition of the basic human rights and freedoms of individuals, be they black or white, that the ideological struggle against Marxism can ever be won, and we cannot deny to others what we in this country cling to for ourselves.
1.33 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I should first like to associate myself and my colleagues with the thanks which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for enabling us to debate this immensely important subject before the Recess. Perhaps I may say, at the outset, that I am not today speaking necessarily on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, still less representing any official Liberal point of view. Nor do I propose to examine the possible effect of our policy on our relationship with the United States as such. I wish simply to express some individual thoughts on our policy, as I see it—and perhaps I see it wrongly.
First, as regards Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. The position of the small white community in that country is obviously becoming more and more precarious. I believe that emigration is increasing, and I understand that at long last the effect of sanctions, to which the whole Commonwealth is now firmly devoted, will be in some way decisive, more especially if the United States comes in a big way and prohibits the export of chrome. Even if elections are now held in some way by Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa—I hope with the support of Mr. Sithole—I doubt whether that will solve the problem. After all, the Smith régime is obviously cracking up and it may well be that major developments, including the eventual return of Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe to Salisbury, with some enforced constitutional changes, cannot be ruled out. We must hope that that will not be so. We must trust that the present negotiations will be successful, but we cannot possibly be optimistic. I do not know whether the representative of the Government can say anything to calm my apprehensions, and enable us

587
to be a little optimistic. I hope that he can. That is all I propose to say on that matter.
So we approach the much greater problem of our relations with the Republic of South Africa, and here the whole situation is totally different, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, rightly said. If I read the very long Communique of the last Commonwealth Conference correctly—and perhaps the noble Lord will say what he thinks about this—we are committed to assisting what is called,
"the cause of liberation throughout Southern Africa as a whole".
After the "liberation" of Rhodesia, whatever form this may take, the next objective, we understand, is to liberate Namibia,
"the heroic struggle of whose inhabitants against South Africans"
is recognised and applauded. This operation will no doubt be just as successful as the eventual liberation of Zimbabwe, even if it takes a little longer to bring about.
So I come to the present Government of the Republic of South Africa, which, incidentally, is referred to in the Communique as,
"a racist minority regime whose survival depends on external military and economic support",
which should, if I understand the Communique correctly, be terminated as soon as possible. It must be stopped, we read, in order to achieve,
"the speedy liberation of the oppressed peoples of Southern Africa".
More specifically, we are on record as holding that
"the policies and the actions of the South African regime"
—not the Government—constitute—
"a grave threat to the security and stability of the whole area",
and we, the United Kingdom, with our Commonwealth colleagues are urging what is called the international community—which can surely only be an indirect reference to the United Nations, because if it is not a reference to the United Nations, to what does it refer?— to take effective measures to "compel" South Africa to bring about majority rule.
588
In other words, we are apparently committed, in default of some early acceptance of our terms, to do our best to overthrow the present Government, or the present regime, in South Africa by all means in our power, short, presumably, of the direct application of military force, if only for the reason that such force is not any more at our disposal. To this end, we also vigorously, and I have no doubt rightly, oppose the constitution of the so-called Bantustans which, as we see it, are merely designed to give the illusion of independence to a considerable number of black citizens of the South African Government.
Presumably, all these are serious and far-reaching statements of intent, and we ought to examine them, however unpleasant that may be, in the light of what we know to be the state of mind of the Afrikaaners, who have, I believe, been called the largest white tribe in that part of the world. I suppose that we ought, too, to consider how likely it is that these intentions of ours will eventually be agreeable to the United States Administration. In any case, we can hardly carry them out unless they are agreeable in some way to that Administration. If the phrases which I have quoted are to be taken seriously we must soon, presumably, support some initiative in the Security Council of the United Nations in order to determine, under Article 39 of the Charter, whether the policies of the Government of South Africa, notably their failure to enforce, presumably, the principle of one man, one vote, are a threat to the peace under that Article. If we say that this is a threat to international security, presumably that is what we mean. However, if we did so, I feel that the proposal is unlikely to get past the Security Council, if only for the prospective veto of France. It may well also be that the United States would veto it, although the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that this was not necessarily so. However, it is quite possible that the United States would also veto such a proposal.
I am trying to be as objective as possible. Those who vetoed it would do so on the grounds that South Africa is not the only country in which majority rule is not accepted and in which minorities and, indeed, majorities are ruthlessly oppressed. In other words, I

589
am sure that in one way or another the proposal would he vetoed. I imagine that we might then, under the resolution "Uniting for Peace", get the matter referred, or have it referred by somebody else, to the General Assembly and endeavour in that body to rally support for extensive economic sanctions and even eventually for all the measures of coercion listed in Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter, with the general object of compelling—and "compelling" is the operative word—the South African Government to hold elections based on universal adult suffrage, and thereafter to allow a Government to be formed in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Members of the Parliament resulting from such elections. I imagine that that is our objective? If it is not our objective, then what is the exact meaning of the phrases employed in the long Communiqué of the Commonwealth Conference?
In view of the tragic development of South African policies since the Boer War, and, more particularly, of the more recent development of the disastrous doctrine of apartheid, it is scarcely imaginable that a Parliament such as the one I have been describing, resulting from a majority vote on the basis of universal suffrage in the near future, would agree to have any white representation in the new Government. It would be much more likely to result in a black republic, or republics, or, rather, that such a black republic, or republics, would emerge from an armed struggle for power. In the circumstances this would be almost inevitable.
Indeed, the Commonwealth Communiqué admits that the white South Africans may possess and be prepared, if necessary, to employ nuclear weapons. If we came to this extremity, it seems that any freedom which the majority population of South Africa might enjoy would be hardly worth having, the situation being clearly much worse after such a struggle than it was before. Nor can it reasonably be denied that if things went from bad to worse, with some black régime, or régimes, installed in Cape Town or Pretoria, they might he just as regardless of human rights as the present South African Government, if not more so. If possible, we should not wish the
590
black population of South Africa to be transferred, as it were, from the frying pan into the fire.
Therefore, even at the risk of some Commonwealth disunity, I believe that we should be well advised not to associate ourselves with any proposal for sanctions—here I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—but, rather, be prepared to do everything in our power to persuade the South African Government to abandon, or at least to relax, its apartheid philosophy and to put members of the black community into positions of responsibility in both the economy and the Civil Service.
Already I believe that, happily, there are signs—again, I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said on the subject—of a certain willingness to go in that direction. If, however, at the behest of our Commonwealth colleagues we give the impression—I only say "give the impression"—that we are building up a force sufficient to "compel" them to enfranchise all their citizens at an early date and, so to speak, at one fell swoop, and, if they do not, some black leader, probably armed by the Soviet Union, will occupy the country and put all the whites into concentration camps, we shall surely be promoting a despairing and almost hysterical reaction that will do no good to anybody.
In saying all this, I trust that I have not given the impression that in some way I am trying to ensure the maintenance of white dominance in the Republic. I am not. Still less am I trying to excuse or justify the doctrine of apartheid, which, even if it is not necessarily so devilish as certain other régimes in this wicked world, is not one that can be persisted in without calamitous results. All I am suggesting is that it would probably be unwise for us to give the impression—again I say "give the impression"—that we are prepared to lead, not only a crusade but an armed crusade to stamp out by force a régime to which we have a fundamental objection. After all, we are not proposing to lead an armed crusade against President Amin or even against the Government of Czechoslovakia, though both, in varying degrees, are obviously governing their countries against the will of the great bulk of the inhabitants.

591
Nor, I am afraid, are crusades usually successful in accomplishing what they set out to do. In the 11th century, the First Crusaders had a very successful bloodbath in Palestine, but eventually the hosts of Midian triumphed. Oliver Cromwell led a crusade against the Irish, which was also successful for a time, although its effects, unhappily, are still with us. I confess that I am against all talk of bloodbaths and crusades. On the contrary, I firmly believe that, given time, some transformation of South African society is inevitable. In 10 years (shall we say?) if it is not violently uprooted it will, quite likely, be unrecognisable. More and more, if only to get the economy going, the authorities will be obliged to allow elected blacks to occupy positions of authority in both industry and the Administration. With luck, in a reasonable time the new mixed society could be a model for the whole of Africa. If, despite everything, we are visionaries, that surely is the kind of vision which we ought to see.
1.45 p.m.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, may I begin as have other noble Lords by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for giving us the opportunity, both by his original Question and by instituting this debate today, to speak in deeply serious and, so far as I am concerned, in moving terms about a great problem that is affecting an area of the world with which Britain has long been associated, both to the advance of Britain and to the advance of that part of Africa.
I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was temperate, informed and challenging. Certainly it was received in that way by all sides of the House, although I doubt whether it will be received in that way in all parts of African opinion. It will be heard with great joy by those liberal white politicians in South Africa whom he rightly claimed to be working for a détente of that local situation, who are desperately struggling to create the time in which they can move forward to a more ordered realignment of their society which they know to be unjust, which they know to be founded on principles which cannot long endure in the second half of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, because
592
there are men who are in the jungles at this moment.
We might think with Lincoln that the world,
"will little care nor long remember"
what we say here in this House at two o'clock on a Friday afternoon. But our voice is heard on both sides of the battle lines; so I welcome more than anything the temperate nature and the lifting emphases which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, gave to the introduction of this debate. I have no stature from which to answer the questions which he put specifically, but like him I have been reading, like him I have been talking and like him I have been gathering information from people who know far better than I how desperately difficult the situation is, how challenging it is and yet how it has within it cause for optimism that must not be put down.
I found the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pessimistic; I found that he was making what sounded to me to be a dated comment, that it was redolent of pessimism and I wanted to answer that charge specifically at the beginning. On the other hand the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked a series of questions. What was America's position in this changing world? There was a major reappraisal of America's position and my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts referred from the Front Bench to it, and I know that other noble Members of this House will have read it in preparation for this debate. At the Notre Dame University on 22nd May 1977 the new President of the United States, Mr. Jimmy Carter, whose own initiative we all welcome, said that our challenge in the next five years is to demonstrate against the dark faith of the times. It seems to me that pessimism is as dark a faith as any and can be as dangerous as any in a situation where we need to encourage all those working to create light in a dark situation.
"We have to demonstrate",
said President Carter,
"that our Government can be both competent and humane".
The noble Marquess who is to speak after me may be surprised if I quote from a Lord Salisbury who said,
"If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe".

593
We are in fact in a situation where, if we are not very careful, soldiers regular and soldiers irregular, soldiers resurgent and soldiers insurgent will be taking over the debating. They are already on the march, they are already killing one another and they are already killing innocent bystanders while we—Americans, Britons, Canadians—are attempting to show that our democratic way of life is not only relevant but is humane and actually works.
I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made very carefully about the ability of America to participate in Africa and our own competence the better to do so. The Americans think they have as a fundamental tenet of their foreign policy a belief in human freedom such as we have. They believe—and here again I can quote from President Carter—
"In ancestry, religion, colour, place of origin and cultural background we Americans are as diverse a nation as the world has ever known. No common mystique of blood or soil unites us".
So in regard to Britain's particular role, I think all that the Americans would say at this time is let us help from the basis of what we understand from our own difficult and tangled past, from our own civil war, from our own loss of freedom immediately after winning it, from the economic difficulties we went through, from our new stature, from our new position. And did you not notice, my Lords, that the Americans withdrew from the joint chairmanship of the Committee precisely in order to make it seem to Africans that the Britons with whom they had been working were in charge of the second conference on this particular vexed issue.
America's foreign policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, knows very well—and he only asked the question in order that it might be aired in this Chamber—is based on five main principles. They believe in the cause of human rights, and who will say that the new President has not gone a very long way in establishing this as one of his major preoccupations to such a point as to give offence to some of those areas of the world that people have feared most in the time of cold war.
Secondly, they believe in co-operation with industrial democracies. I want to come in a moment to the value of the industrial basis, in exactly the same way
594
as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did. They believe in preserving—and I thought this was worrying the initiator of this debate in his original Question; it was replied to strongly by the noble Lord leading from this side of the House—a strong defence capability while they also seek to improve relations with the Soviet Union and China. They believe in co-operation with the developing nations. They want to alleviate suffering and to reduce the chasm between the world's rich and poor; total and common identity with all noble Lords in this House who share that kind of preoccupation and faith. They believe in an international effort to rise above narrow national interests, addressing itself to the threat of nuclear war, to racial hatred, which is at the core of these great difficulties in South Africa; to the arms race, to environmental damage and to hunger and disease.
So I have picked out from the statement of new American foreign policy some emphasis of my own. The Americans say, "We are committed to a peaceful resolution of the crisis in Southern Africa. The time has come for the principle of majority rule to be the basis for political order, recognising that in a democratic system the rights of the minority must also be protected". How can you question that, my Lords? Twice in one week in this House I have heard the principle of "one man, one vote" challenged. I even heard in a frivolous comment last week the principle of voting at all being challenged. All elections apparently are bad.
I know that it would be trivialising this debate to go into that area, but I would remind the House that it was only in 1945 that it was considered that everyone in Britain was capable of casting a vote. It was only between 1945 and 1950 that we established the principle of "one man, one vote" in this country. Although others who take a different view from mine might say that that argued for a gradual introduction of the "one man, one vote" principle in Africa, surely we must be careful to underline the point that basic to all democracy, imported or exported, is the right of a man to say how he wishes to be governed and the right to be taught how to use that very valuable privilege, which too many, incidentally, in our own country do not choose to use at all

595
because they are disillusioned with some of the temporising that we do on massive issues of this kind while preoccupying ourselves with trivialities instead.
To be peaceful, change must come promptly. The United States of America is determined to work with us; we are determined to work with the United States, if I understand the conferences which I have attended in a professional role. We are determined to work together, with our European allies and the concerned African States, to shape a congenial international framework for the rapid and progressive transformation of Southern African society, which is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was asking for. So it is the matter of time upon which the emphasis falls, and to help protect it from unwarranted outside interference, which again is something which the noble Lord was seeking to establish. To me the principle of majority rule is a sacred principle of democracy, whether one seeks to apply it in Africa or in my own home town and its community council. The Carter speech at Notre Dame on 22nd May, although I have elaborated it, was only a part of a five Power initiative.
The new stage of that five Power initiative began on the 7th April when a demarche to the South African Government expressed the increasing concern of the five Western members of the Security Council—the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, Germany and Canada—about finding an acceptable solution to the problem of' Namibia. On 27th and 28th April representatives of the five Powers—I make this response in detail because of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—held talks with the South African Government in Cape Town. They laid their emphasis on and approached the talks on the basis of Security Council Resolution 385. Therefore, that is a specific reply to why the resolutions of the United Nations were not, in fact, being brought to bear upon the situation. They asked for territory-wide free elections supervised and controlled by the United Nations; that all political Parties should participate and SWAPO was particularly mentioned; that the political prisoners be released and that South African troops should be withdrawn. That was a major initiative taken by our Government in
596
association with their allies to help to resolve some of the problems of this continent.
From 8th to 10th June there was a second round of talks. As a result, the South African Government—and I emphasise the South African Government—announced the abandonment of their own plans for Namibian independence. That was a direct reply to the question that was raised as regards whether the South Africans were prepared to cooperate. They did that through the Turnhalle Constitutional Conference. They also passed enabling legislation committing the State President to govern Namibia by decree through an administrator general. One of the administrator general's tasks would be to arrange for the elections that apparently are wanted and at the same time feared, on the basis of one man, one vote, and for them to be held for a constituent assembly. The constituent assembly would draw up a constitution for an independent State.
It is already publicly known that the South African Government have agreed that these elections should be held with a measure of UN involvement. Therefore, we are not in a vacuum. It is likely that this will take the form of a special representative or commissioner of the Secretary General. It is understood that the Secretary General's representative would be present to ensure the fairness and impartiality of the political process. Even the elections on the day, and the day-to-day administration of Namibia, will in fact be overseen and overlooked by the representative of the UN. The five Powers have informed the other parties mainly concerned in Namibia—the UN Secretary General, the front line States, Nigeria, SWAPO and the other Namibian political groups—of the progress of their talks with South Africa.
The next steps are not clear. It may be that it is to those next steps that the House will wish to address itself. There will probably be further talks. We have had the Downing Street Conference of the Heads of State. Every aspect of the conference and of the report given in both Houses emphasised not only the agreement and co-operation of the United Kingdom and the United States Government on Southern Africa, but the helpfulness of the other Heads of State involved in this particular problem.

597
As regards trade, I should like to insert that on 25th May our Foreign Secretary, Dr. Owen, whose initiative has been so much welcomed on both sides of both Houses, spoke about the real and important issue of trade and said:
"Our trade with black Africa last year was worth almost £2½ billion. Nigeria has now supplanted South Africa as our single largest trading partner on the continent and is the fastest growing British export market anywhere in the world. For Britain, as a great trading nation, black Africa is an area of rapidly growing importance".
That supports and lies beside the information and points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, because black Africa, too, is important not just to the economy of Africa but to the economy of the world in a perilous time.
I come to the end of my intervention in the debate. Only last week the Prime Minister, the right honourable James Callaghan, made a speech in Wales. Prior to that speech he made a Statement to the House on the Commonwealth Conference and he said:
"We discussed serious and difficult issues without acrimony and with a growing understanding of each other's positions, and on many issues we reached a complete identity of view.
A distinctive feature of the meeting was a concentration on basic human values and rights.
One area where human beings are deprived of these basic rights is Southern Africa. All the Commonwealth leaders welcomed our current initiative to achieve an independent Zimbabwe enjoying majority rule in 1978, and all of them would prefer to reach that objective through a negotiated settlement, but a number were deeply sceptical about the chances of success. The exchanges reinforced my view that if the minority régime in Rhodesia fails to negotiate constructively, the fighting and the bloodshed will continue and the destruction will go on".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/77; col. 561.]
My Lords, I think that I need quote no more and carry the debate, so far as I am concerned, no further than to say that I sense that we, too, are able to debate this problem without rancour and bitterness, realising what a desperately important matter it is. We have talked about the difficulties, and had I more time I would have spoken about the dangers of poverty and of children who do not have enough to eat, or the revolt of the children of Soweto. All I wish to say, in conclusion, is that we in this House have a responsibility, too, to show that when we talk about this problem we talk not simply about the problems of the
598
white minority, for whom we have and treasure great respect and whom we hope to see through this difficult situation, but about the aspirations of those other human beings, the black Africans, who at this moment are bemused, frightened by the future, and very capable of being misled.
2.7 p.m.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred to my great-grandfather perhaps I might remind him that the problems we are discussing now result from the colonial policy of which he was the principal architect. However, if his ideas of gradual evolution had been pursued throughout, probably we should not be facing the problems, that we face today. Although I agree with the noble Lord entirely about the need to develop democracy in the emerging nations, I cannot agree with him that the time has yet come when they should receive the one man, one vote form of democracy, for reasons which I hope will become apparent in the course of my speech. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, had to say. Something of the line she adopted I thought that I heard many years ago, in the time of the leadership of Mr. Chamberlain. I merely point out to the noble Baroness that the Conservative Party survived that period and I hope that it will survive the line taken by the Front Bench today.
I should like to say something about the United States because clearly the attitude of this dominant Power will be paramount as regards what happens on the continent of Africa. There are three considerations to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. First, we must consider whether, in view of their record, the United States are capable of giving a lead to the West in any form whatsoever. I remind your Lordships that in the course of the last war an American general was reported as saying that his troops were like a bunch of bananas—some green, some yellow and some just rotten. Their record in Vietnam amply bears out that statement. Perhaps this accounts for the fact that they are unwilling to make any positive commitment on the Continent of Africa. So far as I am aware, a year ago last February, they offered to intervene in Angola and asked

599
the South African Government to cooperate. The South Africans honoured their commitment, but the Americans failed to turn up.
A senior American official told me that the reason was that the State Department knows perfectly well that whatever policy it would like to adopt it will receive no backing either from Congress or the American people which might commit them to any form of action. This American general might have added to his "bunch of bananas" that some are black; and this may well be the key consideration affecting the policy of the United States, because it seems clear that President Carter is aiming to consolidate his position and that of his Party by attracting the permanent support of the black element in the country. In other words, he is quite prepared to put internal considerations in his own country in front of the overall requirements of the West. On the international front, perhaps one significant feature is the effort being made now by the United States to achieve an agreement with Cuba, and this would, of course, account for their unwillingness to object to the Cuban intervention in Africa. For "Cubans" we should, of course, read "Russians". It was simply a convenient way of avoiding international complications that the role was given to the Cubans and not undertaken by the Russians.
This is a policy of appeasement, and it gives rise to a number of strategic considerations, some of which have already been dealt with. But I should like to mention one other, which is the problem of raw materials, for many of the raw materials that are essential to the industrial West are almost entirely only available from Africa. Should domination over Africa pass to the Eastern bloc, these supplies could cease to be available, or available only at a prohibitive price. We have recently had some experience of this over oil and we know the effect it has had on the Western economies.
It may be that the Americans hope that with their resources they can maintain control, but I fear that they have failed to understand the attitude of the Russians. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has dealt very extensively with the Russian drive, and I would merely say that I entirely agree with his remarks on this
600
point. The position, surely, is that the withdrawal of the colonial Powers has left a vacuum in Africa and that the indigenous populations are unable to fill it on their own. So, with Russia intent on doing so, they will surely achieve it if the Americans do nothing, and then the position of the West will be immeasurably weakened.
So far as this country is concerned, I had thought that the main object of our African policy since the days of Mr. Macmillan was to get shot of our commitments in Africa, and I believe this still to be so. But under the present Government there appears to be another objective—and here, if I may, I should like specifically to exclude the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, from what I am going to say. It has been evident since the establishment at one time of a Marxist régime in Cuba that there is considerable support from members of the Party opposite for Marxist régimes in the world. The Allende régime was much applauded. When it collapsed and was replaced there were cries of horror, despite the awful record it had produced. The same applies to Mozambique, or perhaps Maputo one should now call it; and the same pattern occurs in Angola. More recently, we had the case of the Seychelles, where Her Majesty's Government recognised the new regime with almost indecent haste, at a time when the head of the Government was here at their own invitation to represent the country. Again, possibly the reason was that the new regime was Marxist orientated.
I should like to say something now about the Geneva Conference, because we are leading up to another round of talks on Rhodesia; and here I should like to declare an interest. It seemed to me that the Rhodesian Government delegation received most unreasonable treatment at that conference, and it was made clear to them that they were there not to negotiate but to have terms dictated. So far as I understand the position, Her Majesty's Government gave general support to the Mugabe proposals, and his avowed objective was to establish a Marxist State in Rhodesia. After the breakdown of the talks there were further British proposals, and these are reputed to have been almost identical to the Mugabe proposals at the conference.

601
May I now say a word about the Commonwealth Conference, because this may give us some indication of the Government's attitude to Africa in the near future. It seems to me that much of the document that was published afterwards was based on two assumptions, both, in my view, demonstrably false: first, that Great Britain owes the emergent nations aid and grants of money because it has bled them over the past and never helped their development. The reverse, surely, is true. They are far better off now, with higher standards than before we went there, and now that we have gone there are signs in some of these countries that the standards are slipping.
The second one is, that with economic help the emergent countries are capable of developing and raising their living standards. I can see no indication that this is true either. Many cannot even feed themselves now, although they could do so under our rule; and we are obliged to support them with money, much of which, I fear, will be wasted because they have neither the experience nor the competence to make proper use of it. We gave them democracy. In most cases this has been translated into single Party government or straightforward dictatorship.
A great deal of the communiqué is devoted to high moral thought, notably a condemnation of Amin. While I hold no brief for him, I cannot help wondering why the conference picked on him. The records of many other African countries are just as bleak, but they have not received the same publicity, and perhaps it is only because Ugandan affairs have received publicity that it was thought necessary to condemn them. In Nigeria, if I may remind your Lordships, there were accusations not so long ago of a deliberate attempt at genocide against a number of the tribes there, and, if the Press is to be believed, millions were slaughtered at a level far above what was required for putting down a rebellion. In Tanzania thousands were murdered in Zanzibar. In Zambia the elimination of the Lumpa sect was an unpleasant occasion; they were rounded up, put in the village, and the village was fired and they were burned alive. This, surely, makes nonsense of Articles 21 and 35 of the communiqué.
I should like to refer also to Articles 9 and 14, where mention is made of the need
602
to achieve a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia. In view of the past record of negotiations which I have already touched on, this seems to be a euphemism and should read, "to achieve a dictated peace to a defeated country", and the result should be the establishment of Marxist rule. Article 14 also says that they:
"… noted that the armed struggle had become complementary to other efforts";
that is, to achieve independence in Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia as I believe it is still legally known, and which term should, surely, be used in an official communiqué.
I suppose that the frequent regrets which the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has expressed to this House on the use of force still hold, but I find it hard to believe that Article 14 does not mean that Her Majesty's Government are now giving full support to the use of force. That is an intolerable situation and raises the question whether, despite the noble Lord's previous assurances, we are not passing arms either to the terrorists or to the Government of Maputo. In fact, there are rumours that that is happening.
I should also like to refer to the current situation in Rhodesia, because I understand that talks have been renewed and that representatives of Her Majesty's Government and the American Government are currently in that country. Here may I say how grateful I was to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for kindly offering a debate on Rhodesia alone. However, it seemed unnecessary as we would merely cover many of the old arguments, and I thought that in a comparatively short time I could cover the matter in the course of the debate this afternoon. But this initiative could result in developments—I hope satisfactory ones. But as Parliament is rising shortly and does not meet for some time, we could be faced with developments of which some of us would disapprove. Therefore, I should like to raise two points in particular.
The first is, that if agreement is reached, there should be adequate safeguards for the maintenance of law and order. I should have thought that in principle there was no difference of opinion on that. My own view is that nothing less than the safeguards set out in the Kissinger

603
deal for the transitional period would be acceptable if they are to work. I would regard maintenance of law and order as an essential ingredient of any settlement if the transitional period is to go smoothly and the new State is to have any prospect of success.
To achieve those objectives the two portfolios should continue to be under the control of the transitional Government and, at least initially, should remain in the hands of Europeans, as envisaged in the Kissinger deal. Furthermore, if additional forces were thought necessary to maintain order—obviously they would have to come from abroad—they should he placed under the control of the Governments there and should be of a calibre that can perform the task satisfactorily. They must not be simply a whitewashing operation devised to give outward respectability to the proposed settlement.
The other point which I wish to raise has recently been canvassed and is the alternative method of maintaining order, by disbanding the Rhodesian Army and Police Force and replacing it by a peacekeeping force provided entirely from outside. I cannot see that being effective. For instance, who will take part? We have no troops; the Canadians have said that they will not. It seems to me that other African States are neither impartial nor competent, and their past record in peace-keeping forces is not inspiring. I also believe that they are likely to be ineffective against terrorist activity, which may still continue, or ineffective in the case of a civil war, which is not impossible, between the various tribal components, because their standard of training is inadequate, their lack of discipline would lead to more atrocities than they would prevent, and their lack of knowledge of the terrain and conditions would make their task impossible. I would therefore ask that these two considerations should be taken into account in the course of current negotiations.
2.25 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing forward this important Question and for the explicit terms in which he expressed it. His speech
604
held no surprises for me, and in saying that I mean no disrespect to him. I took heart from the splendid speech made by my noble friend Lord Parry. Before the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, condemns me or says that I am a Communist or a Marxist, I would point out that I have never been a Communist and have never been able to read Marx. I really must forestall his judgment because he may attribute both those things to me before I have completed my remarks.
We should all like a negotiated settlement in Southern Africa, but let there be no doubt that Britain cannot hope to achieve that alone because, quite simply, of our historical, economic and political associations in Southern Africa. Therefore, we can all welcome the help and intervention of the United States for I believe the first time in the politics of Southern Africa. Whether we agree with every move that is made by President Carter and Mr. Young, we can still welcome that intervention and help. As for the noble Marquess saying that the United States is not in a position to interfere, to make any headway or to help in Southern Africa, I would point out that every country has events in its political life of which it may be ashamed, but the great quality about the United States is that it can change its mind. This is a situation in which many countries have to change their attitudes to Southern Africa.
In recent years there has been an explosion of anxiety about human rights throughout the world. It would be wonderful if we could make progress in human rights and peacefully, step by step—by instalments so to speak—eliminate racialism. But, alas! that is not what happens in this wicked world. Human rights are rarely achieved on the "never-never". Our reactions to those suffering from hideous inequalities are too often hampered by phobias and fears—and I maintain that there is a difference between a phobia and a fear. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has a phobia about the Soviet Union. In saying that I mean no disrespect to him. I am not saying that the menace of Communism and the threat of Communism does not exist in the world or in South Africa; nor am I underrating the efforts that the Soviet Union has made in trying to establish bases all round the coast of Africa.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, is not the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, a little disturbed—as I think we all are—by the terrifying build-up of arms on the part of the Soviet Union? What is it for?
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am really disturbed about the terrifying build-up of arms all over the world, and perhaps especially in South Africa. I heard the other day that the South Africans had three years of arms laid in. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, feels about that kind of thing. I heard that from somebody very reputable in this House. The concern about the Soviet Union and what many noble Lords in this House feel, is the menace of Communism. We are in a competitive world and I do not think that the Communists with their ideology will win. They cannot win because they have to produce freedom, whereas we have to produce equality. That is what South Africa has to produce in order to survive.
I must say that I regard apartheid as far more dangerous than Communism. It has allowed the Communists, the Soviets, in the United Nations to steal the whole of the propaganda from us. They have worked on this. They have associated themselves with the idea of apartheid being such a menace and they have won through in their propaganda.
Lord BOOTHBY: Czechoslovakia is worse.
Baroness GAITSKELL: Yes, my Lords, I know. There are two men at present, Prime Minister Vorster of South Africa and Mr. Ian Smith of Rhodesia, who could be heroes in our time and make history if they had the vision. Each of these men could, if they changed their ideas, go down in history as the greatest men of their time. But it does not look like that. In South Africa and in Rhodesia neither Government want to share the power with the majority of their people; their black people. They simply do not want to share power.
The involvement of the United States, with a President like Jimmy Carter, who has been more plain spoken on human rights than many a national leader for years, holds out some hope for a troubled but peaceful outcome of the tangled,
606
irrational attitudes of the white people of Southern Africa. The Anglo-American attempt to establish the framework for a Rhodesian constitutional conference—no easy task—makes the statements of Joshua Nkomo, which embody a refusal by him to share power with any interim Rhodesian Government, lead many of us to the conclusion that both sides are intoxicated with the idea of war. I take a very critical attitude to Nkomo on this. He, too, would be a greater man if he agreed to an interim Government which did not go the whole way.
As someone who has worked in the United Nations, I have often felt sad that, despite the speed of our decolonisation over the last 30 years, we have not earned as much good will as we deserved. Worse than that, the Russians have, by fair means and foul, won the propaganda battle there. All the same, I must repeat that apartheid has proved far more dangerous than Communism there. The oppressed people living under apartheid are not concerned with the hypocritical attitude of the Soviets on human rights. They accept the arms which are given as aid to help them in their struggle. After Soweto we should consider the change that has happened there among the young people. The young people do not want to go along with their parents. They are going to fight against apartheid, not put up with it. They reckon that their lives could not be worse under Communism than they are under apartheid, and I myself would not dispute that.
President Carter has taken on a gigantic task in order to give help to us. It is only the beginning, and we have yet to see what happens. The American Administration, having tackled the white-black struggle in their own country seriously and put it on a progressive basis, is in a unique and strong position to attempt to help us settle some of the problems in South Africa—and I say, "attempt"—and to rationalise the power game in South Africa.
2.36 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I am among the many who will read Lord Chalfont's speech and who will be grateful to him for his decision to put this timely Question at this moment. It is regrettable

607
that our procedure makes it not possible to follow the Minister and ask any question on the reply which he is going to give. The speech that we heard was of a character which was particularly timely. The Question which the noble Lord put was presented in so logical and informed a manner that all reading it will be curious to see what answer will be given as Government policy, particularly on the question of the degree of concurrence with the American Government. I was gratified to hear the forceful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, substantially concurring with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, put forward.
How one approaches this depends on whether one does, or does not, believe that the overall intention of the Soviet Government is gradually to impose its will and philosophy on the world, but more particularly at this time on the Southern part of the Continent of Africa. After what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said, one might say that there is no point in putting additional questions to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for when he replies. But as the opportunity presents, and being among those who are convinced that such is the policy of the Soviet Government, then it must be understood that any views put forward by a speaker are governed by that conviction. Therefore, on anything connected with Southern Africa the over-riding consideration of agreement or disagreement, concurrence or opposition, should be subordinated to the over-riding demand to oppose in every way, and at every point, the intentions of the Soviet Government.
We have some concern about the present policy of Her Majesty's Government. I remind noble Lords again that in the late 'thirties the policy recommended by the Foreign Office was wrong. Many speakers then said there was a danger in the rise of Hitler, but the Government ridiculed it. In the case of sanctions against Rhodesia, the advice given by the Foreign Office to Prime Minister Mr. Wilson was equally wrong, and we find ourselves with the situation we have today. In the United States one often hears the proverb that people should either fish or cut bait. Up to now the Government have been cutting bait and it is about time they started to fish and do something.
608
Lord Chalfont divided his remarks into two parts, Rhodesia and the Republic, and I will follow his lead. First, as regards Rhodesia, what I just said particularly applies there. In the many debates we have had in the last decade I have never heard this quotation from Cecil Rhodes' Will referred to. I ask the indulgence of the House to quote it and so put it in Hansard:
"No student shall be qualified or disqualified for election to a scholarship on account of his race or religious beliefs … my desire being that the students who shall be elected to the scholarships shall not be merely bookworms … I direct that in the election of a student to a scholarship regard shall be had to his literary and scholastic attainments; his fondness of and success in manly outdoor sports … his qualities of manhood, truth, courage, devotion to duty …".
There is abroad, as reflected in the Press, a belief that Britain should adopt an apologetic attitude—that we should feel the need for retribution for past activities—but I urge we put aside that absurd attitude. There was no exploitation. Was it not Britain and the early pioneers of Rhodesia who carried civilisation into what was previously savagery? Why, in the lengthy report of the Commonwealth Conference, should there be reference to Zimbabwe and not Rhodesia? Let us call it Rhodesia so long as it is Rhodesia—British and not a Marxist State!
An internal settlement is essential in Rhodesia. Why cannot we dissociate ourselves from all the external disruptive Communist-leaning bully-boys we are playing around with now? Fancy giving aid to a Marxist country which is assisting incursions into what we claim is British territory. Why not take a bold course and help the Rhodesian Government to select acceptable internal African leaders? Information has recently come to me from South Africa of the integration of two branches of the African trade union movement there; the two branches of the African National Trades Union Movement of Bulawayo and Salisbury, hitherto disassociated, have come together and, I understand, have presented a memorandum to Mr. Graham indicating that they are both in favour of an internal settlement. We know that the chiefs and ZUPO support an internal settlement.
Assuming that everything must be directed towards opposing Communist aggression in Africa, as we claim that

609
Rhodesia is British territory, is it not logical to assist Rhodesian economy against external incursion? Perhaps it is time to discard the outworn nomenclature of a rebel Government. What good are sanctions doing, now, for black Africans? The ball is in the Government's court to find a peaceful settlement.
I turn to South West Africa. I am among those who believe that the Turnhalle Conference gave a helpful indication of what might prove an example to the problems in Southern Africa. I cannot understand why the British Government lent their support in the United Nations to repudiating it. Why do the Government still attach so much importance—I say this in view of an Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, to a Question I asked him the other day—to SWAPO, a Communist organisation?
What is South West Africa? Under 1 million people. Why is so much attention paid to that one small area. It is simply to harass the Republic of South Africa, as Lord Chalfont indicated. I should like to see a different attitude adopted by the representative of the British Government in the United Nations on this quite minor area so far as the welfare of human beings is concerned.
I turn to the Republic. Lord Chalfont emphasised the strong feeling there is in South Africa among even the white people that there should be an early change. We all want to see some relaxation in petty apartheid. Give those who support and value South Africa the ammunition to oppose ignorance displayed by so many who are harassing South Africa. Time is needed. They forget that the problems there are great. But, in any event, why the continual interference with the internal affairs of South Africa? Goodness knows! there are enough places in the world that could more justly attract the attention of the United States in trying to save some loss of life. Consider Lebanon, Ethiopia, Cambodia and other parts of the world, compared with the continual niggling at the Republic.
People forget the language problems, not only of English and Afrikaans, but of the six leading African nations, all speaking different languages. In the African locations outside the big cities the sections of the Zulus and other tribes
610
all have to be kept separate from each other; they would all be fighting if they were allowed to get together. Think of it—nearly a thousand witch doctors still in Soweto location itself!
There is the attempt to oppose further investment in South Africa, the propaganda of the World Council of Churches and other organisations who do not know what they really are urging. The one thing that would destroy the welfare and employment of the Africans would be the cessation of foreign investment in South Africa. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, emphasised the qualities of the Africans. They are able, hard working, and tough, and indigenous, and they have nowhere else to go. They have pride in their country and in their achievements, as we have in our achievements.
My Lords, I was brought up in the Victorian era, with early impressions indelibly fixed on my memory. I think of the qualities of that era. For instance, patriotism (today almost a dirty word) was, together with duty, a dominant note. It was not only my country right or wrong, but my country's interests always first. I have apprehensions about United States behaviour towards South Africa, the inexperience of the State Department. In the six years before World War I I lived in the United States; I travelled all over it as a salesman. I learnt a lot.
I remember the fervour for enlistment for the Boer War, to defend Britain's interests. Alas! I missed it by only a year. I remember watching the crowds at the great Paris Exhibition, the crowds around the Boer Transvaal Pavilion, crying frantically, "Down with the British!"—"A bas les Anglais!"Our nation then was not deflected by its detractors. The world should remember that we, in two world wars, stood alone for freedom until the United States joined us, and may the United States negotiators bear that prominently in mind, as we are grateful to the former "rebel" country of nearly 200 years later.
I urge the Government now to encase toughness in their diplomacy. We have great interests in Southern Africa; we have not only investments but continuing great trade with the Republic. That is

611
why I urge the Government to press upon the United States our historical experience, and yet put our interests first.
2.56 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is not an easy man to follow. He brings alive memories of a greatness that was. I am devoting myself to a much more prosaic and a smaller canvas, to look for a moment at, and to draw your Lordships' attention to, the position in international law of the disputes that have arisen in Rhodesia. I do so largely because so much nonsense has been talked on this subject. The first point I would make is that Rhodesia and her neighbours must be regarded as subjects of international law. In law, a State does not depend on the legality of it régime, or on diplomatic recognition. A State depends on certain facts being present in existence. There must be a people, and by "a people" is meant a community that lives together and is subject to a common authority. There must be a country; that is, a geographical area with defined frontiers. And there must be a Government who are in their actions effectively independent from superior authority.
Of course all those facts are present in Rhodesia; they have been for over a decade, and we recognise them to be so. When our last Prime Minister met Mr. Smith on the "Fearless" and on the "Tiger" he was recognising that he was negotiating with a Government—and a Government with whom one could make an agreement. When our Foreign Minister went to Salisbury he went there accepting the protection, and the law, and the effect of a working Government. When the neighbours of Rhodesia take their complaints to the United Nations they lay those complaints against somebody whose power to rectify them they recognise; there would not be much point in doing otherwise. If one treats Rhodesia as being a State which owes responsibilities in international law, one cannot deny it as a State that has certain rights in international law. International law is about reciprocity.
What are these duties and rights of the subjects of international law? I turn first to duties, the most elementary of which is not to disturb the peace of your
612
neighbour. That is the duty which a State owes within the community of nations. The second is not to allow your territory to be used for purposes hostile to your neighbour. We got into trouble for that once. The "Alabama" was built at Birkenhead in circumstances from which we ought to have recognised that she was intended for hostile purposes. Her arms were assembled at Portsmouth and sent to join her at sea, and she did much damage to America. We submitted to arbitration, and, for being negligent in allowing this hostile action to have taken place within our shores, we were mulcted for, I think, about 13 million dollars. Of course, this does not apply immediately here. Rhodesia is not in a position w go to arbitration because her neighbours, unfortunately, are not sufficiently civilised to submit to arbitration but if they were so, she could take that course.
Again, what are the rights in international law? Here I would quote Oppenheim's International Law. There is, again, the elementary right of self-preservation. I quote from Oppenheim's International Law, Volume 1, at page 297:
"From the earliest time of the existence of the Law of Nations self-preservation was considered sufficient justification for many acts of a State which violate other States. Although, as a rule, all States are under a mutual duty to respect one another's personality, and are therefore bound not to violate one another, as an exception certain violations of another State committed by a State for the purpose of self-preservation are not prohibited by the Law of Nations".
The particular instance quoted on the next page is:
"When, to give an example, a State is informed that a body of armed men is being organised on neighbouring territory for the purpose of a raid into its territory, and when the danger can be removed through an appeal to the authorities of the neighbouring country, no case of necessity has arisen. But if such an appeal is fruitless or not possible, or if there is danger in delay, a case of necessity arises, and the threatened State is justified in invading the neighbouring country and disarming the intending raiders".
That, I think, is a simple, straightforward and common sense statement. We have relied upon it on two very famous and dramatic occasions: when we destroyed the Danish Fleet at Copenhagen and the French Fleet at Oran, because they were forces which clearly threatened us. An interesting case of this sort arose with the Americans, and again we took action. There was in 1817 a rebellion in Canada.

613
The rebels had chartered a ship called "Caroline". It was in an American port on the other side of the river, over the Falls. We sent a force across to take the "Caroline". It did; we drove her over the Niagara Falls and two Americans were killed. The Americans protested, and we said it was a necessity, "You had not got the force there in time to deal with it". The Americans looked into the matter and said, "Yes, we recognise it; you were entitled by the necessity to intervene". Again, on a number of occasions when the State of Mexico was anarchic from 1916 to 1919 and in its civil war, I think there were no less than 14 interventions by American troops into Mexico. As to Israel, again, Israel has perfectly legally taken steps to protect herself from guerrillas entertained in neighbouring countries, and has every legal right to do so.
My Lords, that being the legal position, what is the rule with regard to intervention for self-preservation? First, either that the neighbour cannot prevent the international delinquency which is proposed, or that it will not prevent it. If we look at the neighbours, what is the position here? First, there is Botswana. Botswana has a territory which I believe is considerably larger than that of the United Kingdom. She has a population almost equal to that of the City of Nottingham, and a literate population smaller than that of Market Harborough. She has no army. How can Botswana perform her international duty to prevent that great desert area being used for hostile purposes against Rhodesia? And, since Botswana cannot do it, cannot take effective action when Rhodesian schoolchildren are kidnapped in order to be recruited for the guerrilla movement hostile to Rhodesia, Rhodesia is fully entitled to do so.
Then one turns to Zambia. As to Zambia, it is not so much a case of cannot do it but of will not. She is entertaining, encouraging, supplying the guerrilla movement of Mr. Nkomo; that is, the Matabele. True, they have not been offering very much threat to Rhodesia, because at the present time the white régime in Rhodesia is not their target. Their target is Mr. Mugabe's followers, the Makonde, for the civil war which is to happen when the Patriotic Front moves in; because neither the Makonde nor the Matabele have any doubt that
614
they are going to war if the country is handed over to the Patriotic Front. For those reasons, because on the whole the Zambian guerrillas are waiting for another objective, they do not pose much of a threat. The threat has been coming from the active invaders of Rhodesia who are, basically, the Makonde in Mozambique.
So far as Mozambique is concerned, I think that it is probably true to say that she neither can nor will. She is expressing every support of the guerrillas. In fact, the guerrillas who are, in the main, in the Northern part of Mozambique are not under the control of the Mozambique Government; they are under the control of the Russian Government. Mr. Mugabe has no following in Rhodesia; he is not a Makonde and he is certainly not a guerrilla. He is, in fact, a lawyer; he is simply the Russian's man and he speaks for nobody except the Russians.
My Lords, this is the situation we are up against here. I would ask the Government just one question, and I think it is an important one. Is self-government for the inhabitants of Rhodesia still the policy of Her Majesty's Government? It certainly is not the policy of the Patriotic Front; and it certainly is not the policy of the five front line Presidents. Their policy is for the Government of Rhodesia to be handed over to the Patriotic Front. Nobody for a moment suggests that the Patriotic Front represents anybody much in Rhodesia except the Matabele, who were the warlike tribe who for a generation really used the Mashona as game, and against whom there is intense tribal hostility. The Makonde who are supplying most of these guerrillas are a Mozambique tribe, very few of whom are in Rhodesia at all. It is not the policy of the OAU, because they have again said that it is the Patriotic Front that they are supporting.
The person who represents the majority of the Africans is Bishop Muzorewa and the Mashona. They are to be sacrificed here. Unless we have changed our policy, unless we have ceased to believe in self-government for the inhabitants of Rhodesia—and for all the inhabitants of Rhodesia, according to the votes of the inhabitants of Rhodesia—we must he very careful where we stand here; because freedom for Rhodesia, self-government for

615
Rhodesia, cannot possibly occur until the Makonde guerrillas across the frontier, armed, organised and, in effect, commanded by the Russians, have been defeated.
You cannot defeat them if you give them a safety base out of Torn Tiddler's Ground. It would be fatal for us to recognise the limitations, for if we believe in this policy it will become our obligation to find and defeat the people who are entertained for the purpose and maintained for the purpose of invading Rohdesia. This is the simple legal point which I make, and I hope that the Government will apply their mind to it.
3.12 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Paget of Northampton, is also if I may say so a difficult man to follow. I wish I had the learning and the depth of perception to comment and to continue in some ways what he has said. As I have not, I think I had better confine my own attention for the moment to picking up the remark and advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Parry. He said that his own and original advice came from President Lincoln: "The world will little note nor long remember what I say here this afternoon …"—therefore I will little speak; but I will join the noble Lord, Lord Parry, in applauding his enthusiastic reception of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in opening the debate. Not only has this debate been of the greatest value, but I believe that Lord Chalfont's opening speech is itself the most valuable speech so far, in its moderation and in its plea for moderation and wisdom in dealing with the problems of Southern Africa.
I do not propose to speak about Southern Africa but only on one or two points in connection with Rhodesia. Here there is a link between what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said and the point that I want to make. He expressed concern at the possibility that the USA should seriously be considering—if they are considering—the application of full economic sanctions against South Africa. He will probably approve that I think I am following his line in saying: "For heaven's sake! are we really to go
616
through all this again? "We are now at the end of the line in our dealings with Rhodesia. It might be well to recall that as long ago as 1967 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution, which we subsequently debated in this House, in which it said:
"Affirms its conviction … that sanctions, in order to achieve their objective, will have to be comprehensive and mandatory and backed by force".
That is from General Assembly Resolution No. 2262 of 8th November 1967.
We have come to the point now at which the end product of the process of sanctions against Rhodesia is in view. If I may quote a passage from that debate, in which we discussed the General Assembly resolution and the question of economic sanctions, I will say this:
"British colonial policy in Africa will have ended by turning her most successful Colony into a second Congo".—[Official Report, 17/6/68; col. 497].
The arguments that led up to that statement were simply that if you cannot provide a force yourself, you cannot win a battle of sanctions; therefore, somebody else will produce the force—in this case, the black African countries—and the black African Congo situation will arise. I only quote that remark, nine years later, because I made it myself and I prefer not to be thought to be speaking purely from hindsight or off the top of my head.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury drew attention to the probability—if I do not take him wrong—that it is almost certain that Her Majesty's Government are now committed to the idea that force is the only possibility that remains in bringing about a settlement in Rhodesia. I do not personally go so far as that. I hope it is not the case. There are some dangerous symptoms, including those that my noble friend quoted from the Communique of the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
I should like to know the answer to this question (although I do not suppose I shall receive it): who invented the deadly phrse "front line Presidents"? The phrase "front line is not a military term. It is a civilian term left over from the First World War. We know what it means; it must mean the line beyond which there is nothing in the way of people but

617
the enemy. Those who stand in the front line are divided from the enemy by nothing but the no-man's land. When there was a confrontation—as indeed there still is—between the Smith regime on the one hand and black Rhodesia on the other, it was possible, if one chose to use these dangerous terms, to say that there was a front line between the two. You could not have drawn it, my Lords, but it would have done well enough.
But when you talk about the front line Presidents, my Lords, where is the front line now? Is it between the countries of those Presidents and Rhodesia? The enemy—if that is not too strong a word—of these neighbouring countries is not Rhodesia; presumably it is what we refer to as the Smith regime. What about all the people in between? By using this phrase and constantly repeating it, Her Majesty's Government have brought about a climate in which these people, who have no responsibility and should have no interest in what goes on inside Rhodesia, except in so far as it affects themselves politically, economically or militarily, should not be interested in their internal affairs. They are an enemy of Rhodesia, not of the Smith regime any more. It is Rhodesia as a whole that is going to suffer if invasion comes from those countries, if the guerrilla situation blows up into what will be a full-scale invasion.
I want to ask a series of questions and I do not expect answers because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, cannot give them, and probably would not give them if he could do so. All I want to do is to put these questions into the air so that it can be realised by the Government, or by anybody who reads them, that these questions are in the air and that they will have to be answered sooner or later. First, if the worse comes to the worst, negotiations break down and a state of armed hostilities comes into being—in other words, war—in Rhodesia: the Government, unless I misjudge the situation, see that there are only two alternatives, of which that is one and the other is negotiation; and if the first has failed, the second alternative conies into being, which is the use of force. That alternative, by implication, is presumably the one which the Government wish to succeed—to that extent I go along with my noble friend Lord Salisbury. What, then, will be the position of the Government if
618
that happens?—because this is the last possibility of bringing about what is desired in Rhodesia; namely, majority rule. What the majority will be, of course is another matter altogether.
Will the Government support the invading countries—the so-called front line countries neighbouring Rhodesia— or not? Will that be the outcome of the responsibility of Great Britain for the last of their Colonies, or will the Government sit hack and do nothing, maintaining a kind of non-committal neutrality? Is that going to be the situation in which we find ourselves—approving of what is going on and letting other people do the work for us? Is it conceivably possible that we should actually support this military operation against Rhodesia, and if so, by what means? Will it he by military means, by economic support or by the provision of intelligence informaton support? Is that what we are prepared to do against Rhodesia? Your Lordships will note that I am referring to "Rhodesia" and not to the Smith regime", because they will all catch it, the blacks as well as the whites.
I think that not only in Rhodesia, but in Southern Africa as a whole, we are walking on eggs and this kind of ovae pedestrianism requires great patience and wisdom of a kind which we as a nation have been able to provide in the past on occasion and which, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has so ably advocated this afternoon.
3.23 p.m.
Lord CARADON: My Lords, it may be well to start by seeking some areas in which we can agree. I would certainly say, having listened to this debate, that we can all agree on the immense importance of the subject, and I have no doubt that we would also agree, although we do not perhaps sufficiently understand it, on the urgency of the situation. Thirdly, I would not dispute with any Member of this noble House that we in the United Kingdom have a specific responsibility in southern Africa, as we have, for instance, in the Middle East, from which we cannot possibly escape.
Having said those things, I would go on to seek to impress, if I can, upon the House the extent of the immediate danger

619
with which we are faced. A number of speeches made this afternoon seem to indicate to me that people do not realise what is likely to happen. In other words, throughout Africa, with all the differences and disputes that exist, as we well know, there is one issue on which all are absolutely agreed. From Maputo to Lagos and from Cairo to Dar-es-Salaam, every Africans who came—and all the African are wedded to the cause of liberation of southern Africa for the African peoples. Among those who are committed to this cause is the great country of Nigeria, where I believe they feel most intensely of all. As your Lordships know, a month or so ago there was a World Conference in Maputo which was attended by 100 nations from the West, and from every category of nation in the world. Of the Africans who came—and all the African nations were represented—not one wished to be dissociated from the determination to work together for the aim in which they all believe.
The great storm of Africa, collecting now for the onslaught on the South, is not a development that we can disregard. Here we have, maybe, the biggest danger in the world. It is such a danger, because it will lead to bloodshed and devastation in southern Africa on a scale of which we have not dreamed But, a good deal more than that, I believe that it will have repercussions throughout the world, certainly in this country and the United States, when the whole question of racial feeling will be raised. There are many evidences, even in what has been said this afternoon, that when the struggle grows hottest there will be a very great cleavage, a fierce difference of opinion in this country, as people see one defence after another of the white minorities in southern Africa going down in bloodshed. Concern will be felt in this country and in the United States.
I do not like to prophesy how anyone will react to that terrible situation when it comes, but we know the reaction in the United States to the Vietnam war. We know how a country can be divided by an issue on which there is intense feeling. I do not believe that there can be any more intense feeling about anything than about a race war in Africa, which has already started, and if we do not take urgent action it will envelop the whole
620
continent and involve the whole world. Therefore, it is on that basis that we must be thinking about the problems which we now face. What chance do we have to escape?
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Is it to be understood that his belief is that the white population in South Africa would be completely overcome by the black population?
Lord CARADON: Yes, my Lords. If the race war develops in Southern Africa, as I anticipate it may, and if we fail to take now the action which is open to us, then I believe that the white people of Southern Africa will go down in blood and devastation. It is as well to look at that and to recognise it, because we wish to save all the people of South Africa, and we will not save them by the kind of speeches that we have heard this afternoon.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way again? He says that South Africa will go down. Does he mean that the whites will be eliminated, and the blacks will obtain complete domination?
Lord CARADON: My Lords, no one can say exactly what will happen. No one can foresee exactly what will occur. But what I suggest we can be sure about is that, if this race war takes place in Africa, there can be only one final result and in that the white minority Governments of Southern Africa will go down. What happens to the white people is another matter, which will need very careful estimation in the light of subsequent developments. But the horror of the prospect, and the amount of bloodshed and devastation which is now imminent, and which will certainly take place unless action is taken in time, is something which in this House, and this country, we should increasingly recognise.
Lord STONE: My Lords, may I ask what kind of action the noble Lord has in mind?
Lord CARADON: Yes, my Lords. I do not intend to speak for longer than should be the time allotted in a debate of this kind. But I am an administrator, and it would not be possible for me to make a statement of that seriousness without

621
making some suggestion on what can be done about it. But let us pause for a moment and look at the position of South Africa. I do not know whether it is generally known—I dare say my legal friend knows—that there is only one commitment which you make when you enter the United Nations. You solemnly undertake to carry out every mandatory decision of the Security Council. This undertaking is not often abused. But when, on a British resolution, unanimously carried, sanctions were imposed against Rhodesia—because many of us believed that it was best to deal with the situation without bloodshed and military intervention—which could have been immediately effective, they were immediately made ineffective by the decision of South Africa and, indeed, Portugal to destroy their commitment, fail to honour the oath which they took upon entering the United Nations and disregard the unanimous decision of the world.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, if the noble Lord intends to single out particular countries, does he also intend to single out a great many other Eastern European countries, including the Soviet Union?
Lord CARADON: No, my Lords, not in this respect. So far as I know, the Soviet Union have carried out the obligations of the mandatory call by the Security Council. The Soviet Union voted for the mandatory call. There have been evasions by many countries, but those countries which have openly and directly refused to carry out the solemn obligation which they undertook when they entered the United Nations are South Africa, Portugal and, in one respect, the United States, although this was subsequently rectified. Those are the facts.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I do not believe it is any use arguing with the noble Lord on the facts, but from information which I have I believe that he is not correct regarding the Soviet Union.
Lord CARADON: My Lords, I will merely restate the position as I know it to be: that the Soviet Union accepted the mandatory call and has throughout carried out its obligation. Certain evasions may have taken place, as they did even in this country where, as the noble Baroness knows, legal action was taken. Apart
622
from evasions, there were only two countries which deliberately and openly decided that they would not carry out their commitment, and this has led to the situation with which we are dealing today. We have no reason to be grateful to South Africa and Portugal for creating the danger of race war in South Africa. Had they carried out their commitment, the Rhodesian issue would have been disposed of years ago.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way once again. While so many members of the United Nations are persistently interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, have not the South African Government said repeatedly that their policy is not to interfere in the internal affairs of any other country?
Lord CARADON: My Lords, I am sure that the Charter of the United Nations is well known to the noble Lord. The Charter requires that where there is danger to international peace and security it is not only the right but the obligation of the international community to step in. I will send a copy of the United Nations' Charter to the noble Lord if he wishes to have it. There can be no doubt about this.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is having a rotten time and I apologise for adding to it. However, may I repeat a quotation that I gave in my speech from United Nations' Resolution 2262:
"The United Nations General Assembly affirmed its conviction that sanctions, in order to achieve their objective, will have to be comprehensive and mandatory and backed by force".
Lord CARADON: I do not, my Lords, dispute the wording; I have no doubt that that is the wording of the resolution of the General Assembly. I am saying that where there is a mandatory call by the Security Council—and in this case it was unanimous—then it is the obligation of South Africa to carry it out. However, South Africa deliberately decided not to do so and consequently created the situation in Southern Africa which threatens the whole world. We have no reason to be grateful to South Africa. I am speaking about an indisputable fact.

623
What has been our position during this decade in which South Africa has imperilled the future of Africa and the world? We in this country have continued to supply massive financial support to South Africa. We have been the leading country regarding the granting of financial assistance and investment in South Africa. The French have supplied arms and the British and the Americans have, when necessary, supplied vetoes. We have given our support to the existing regime.
Now what can be done? Is there time? Not much; indeed in some respects when I look at Rhodesia I think the time has gone. It is not for me to reminisce at this hour on a Friday, but it was my view 14 or 15 years ago in the United Nations that the Africans in Rhodesia should be brought into consultation. Consultation—no more than that. I was an Ambassador at the United Nations and I came home to argue with my Government. The deliberate decision was taken at that time that the Africans should not be brought into consultation. Mr. Nkomo was one of them. That was 14 years ago, and what a different situation we should have if it had been decided then to bring the Africans into consultation!
Now of course we are dealing with Africans who have been in exile and who have been in prison. I was in Maputo the other day where I met a young man and I was talking to him about his imprisonment in Rhodesia. He was 25 when he was imprisoned without charge and he was not released until he was 35. Ten years of his life gone in a Rhodesian prison without charge, and at the end of the conversation he said to me: "Mr. Mugabe was with me in prison for the 10 years, too". If we talk about the extremism of Mr. Mugabe, I think perhaps if noble Lords had been in prison for 10 years they might be rather extreme themselves. When I heard Mr Mugabe speaking in Maputo I realised that he is a man of the fiercest convictions, but the two things he was insistent upon were that he would never allow racism against the whites to be practised and that, while he would not deal with Mr. Ian Smith, he was ready to negotiate with the British Government. I heard him make those positive statements in the great Assembly there. I am
624
not defending him; I am only saying that he is a man who has been subjected to such injustice that it is not surprising he should take this strong view.
What can we do about these leaders now? It may be too late now. If we had brought them in 14 or 15 years ago, what a difference it would have made! Mr. Nkomo was with me in New York asking that they should be consulted and that plans should be drawn up for the long distance future, but the opportunity was thrown away. Now we have another opportunity. Rhodesia will be changed and we can judge (can we not?) from Namibia that things can be changed. We can insist, and when the five Western members of the Security Council went to the South African Government and insisted the whole thing changed. We have a right to insist, first that next year in Zimbabwe there should be independence with full participation of all the people of Zimbabwe; secondly that in Namibia they should clear the way for independence and elections under United Nations supervision to provide for an undivided and independent Namibia; thirdly that there must be urgently an initiative in South Africa to bring everyone into consultation—no more. It is not for us to provide exactly the system that shall be set down, but to invite them to come to talk. Participation—we threw it away in Rhodesia and look at the result. I wonder now whether we are going to throw it away again in South Africa.
Fourteen years ago I was appointed a member of the United Nations Commission under the chairmanship of one of the finest internationalists of our time, Alva Myrdal, of Sweden. We had two Africans and two Europeans on our Commission and we were asked to set out proposals for dealing with the future of South Africa itself and we wrote a unanimous report. We were not allowed to enter South Africa. Our report was rejected by South Africa, but the other day I looked back to see what we had recommended, 14 years ago. What a different state of affairs it would have been if there had been some shift, some change! All we were asking then was that the Africans of South Africa should be invited to come into a national convention where a new course could be set for the future, without imposing specific requirements of one kind or another. If it had

625
been done then, a different situation would exist now.
How would it be if it were done now? I shall not weary noble Lords with quotations, but I ask you to give me the privilege of reading what was unanimously recommended 14 years ago by our two African and two European members:
"The future of South Africa should be settled by the people of South Africa—all the people of South Africa—in free discussion. There can be no settlement and no peace while the great majority of the people are denied the fundamental freedom to participate in decisions on the future of their country. We are convinced that a continuation of the present position including a denial of just representation must lead to violent conflict and tragedy for all the people of South Africa. We wish, therefore, to emphasise the first and basic principle that all the people of South Africa should be brought into consultation and should thus be enabled to decide the future of their country at the national level.
"In order to give effect to this essential principle, we consider that all efforts should be directed to the establishment of a National Convention fully representative of the whole population. Such a representative National Convention would consider the views and proposals of all those participating and set a new course for the future".
We also set out all of our other recommendations.
My Lords, I beg you to let me read one other extract at the end of our report. I wish to do so because I do not approach the question of what should be done in any spriit of taking sides in the racial issues of Southern Africa—certainly not; we wish to save them all while there is still time. We said:
"The struggle in South Africa is not a struggle between two races for domination; it is a struggle between the protagonists of racial domination and the advocates of racial equality.
"We believe that if a new course is set now it is still possible to envisage all South Africans enjoying political justice and freedom under a constitution guaranteeing human rights and providing for a democratic system of Government. Removal of the restrictions on employment and residence and movement will open up possibilities for far greater industrial and agricultural prosperity. The economy of South Africa can surge forward if the barrier of discrimination is removed. Reduction of expenditure on military and repressive measures will free large sums for development and welfare. And if equal opportunities for education are granted a great new reservoir of human capacity and skill will be created to contribute to fruitful and peaceful progress. When the burdens of oppression and discrimination and isolation are lifted all South Africans will benefit".
That is what we recommended 14 years ago and what we recommend today. It could be effective now.
626
Finally, I say with respect to my noble friend Lord Chalfont that I believe a great disservice can be done to all the people of South Africa if we minimise the danger, or if we refuse to face up to the radical action which is now required. It is not just a question of things getting steadily and quietly better. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, ever reads the middle page of The Times, and whether he did so yesterday. If he did not, I ask him to read the account of what has been done on the latest of the Bantustans in South Africa. What is being attempted, as you very well know—and it is not stopping; it is being stepped up—is to try to force 70 per cent. of the whole population of South Africa into Bantustans comprising no more than 13 per cent. of the total area of the country?
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has asked me a question I should like to say that I do read the middle page of The Times—in fact, I usually write it. Also, I read this particular article. I am not in favour of the Bantustans or of the policy of homelands or apartheid. I believe, as he does, that the situation is urgent and dangerous. I am in favour of taking urgent action. My action would be moderate action to promote peaceful change. Does the noble Lord have a different view?
Lord CARADON: Yes, indeed, my Lords, I have a different view. I believe in peaceful change, but I believe peaceful change will only be secured if there is urgent and radical action instead of the quiet diplomacy which the noble Lord had advocated today. I think there is an essential difference between us. We have often agreed on matters; we have often worked together. But on this I believe there is an essential difference. If we believe the situation is so dangerous to the whole of Africa and to the world, then I believe we can insist on certain things, as we did in the case of Namibia. It is not a question of seeking to denigrate; it is not a question of seeking to damage or destroy the whites; on the contrary, we claim that we wish to save them. In this valuable debate the noble Lord has indicated how much we agree, and that is admirable. Where we disagree is in this; I do not believe that he would go along

627
with me in the necessity for urgent radical action, and that is what I recommend.
3.46 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the House will indeed be grateful to my noble and right honourable friend Lord Chalfont, not only for raising this matter, which is of truly immense importance, but also for the combination of expertise and eloquence with which he introduced this valuable debate. He refers to the cooperation between this country and the United States in this as in other matters, and indeed President Carter spoke of the special relationship—his phrase—in very warm terms during the Prime Minister's visit to Washington with our Foreign Secretary in March, and warmly we in this country reciprocated. We have indeed developed over the years a habit of consulting each other on a wide range of subjects, with the aim, wherever possible, of agreeing our policy, and nowhere has this been more evident or more necessary than in the evolution of policy towards Southern Africa.
As my noble friend Lady Gaitskell said, we must surely welcome the interest of the United States of America in Southern Africa. It has long been clear to most of us that time is rapidly running out for a peaceful solution to the problems of Southern Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, stressed this urgency on the basis of an unrivalled experience in these matters and very great authority. I do not agree with him that the urgency as stressed by my noble friend Lord Chalfont was any the less, and I thought he made this absolutely clear in the interjection he properly made. We all agree that the situation is truly urgent, and I do not think anybody has indulged in hyperbole today in describing the real possibility of breakdown, bloodshed and chaos that faces us if we do not grasp what may possibly be the last opportunity of securing by peaceful negotiation a change in Southern Africa, which otherwise may be enforced by bloodshed.
The difficulty has been for many years to convince those in power in Rhodesia and South Africa of the need to make rapid and substantive progress towards genuine independence, or, as my noble friend
628
Lord Paget put it, self-government for Rhodesia and Namibia, and a just society in South Africa. With the full weight of the American Administration behind attempts to achieve this, there is, I believe, still a chance that the problems can be resolved without recourse to violence. But there is a long way to go. At least we are headed in the right direction. The purposefulness of a new American Administration, dedicated above all to the implementation of human rights, is in response to the dynamism of a new British Foreign Secretary who has worked day and night since he assumed office, together with our Prime Minister, to endeavour to secure a solution on a peaceful basis in this area before it is too late.
On Rhodesia we have, indeed, kept very closely in touch with successive United States Administrations—not only the present one. Dr. Kissinger's involvement with the problem of Rhodesia is well recorded and our debt to him primarily is that he, perhaps more than anyone else, extracted at last from Mr. Smith the first acknowledgment of the need to set an early date for majority rule. From the beginning the Carter Administration, in keeping with its deep-felt concern for human rights, has not merely continued the close process of co-operation but has actively involved itself in our efforts to find a negotiated solution to Rhodesia's constitutional problem. From the President down we have enjoyed the maximum support and encouragement in the difficult task that we have set ourselves, which is to bring independence to Rhodesia—that is, Zimbabwe—based on majority rule in 1978.
Even as I speak the Anglo-United States Consultative Group is in Africa where it is holding further discussions with all the parties to the present conflict. We welcome direct United States collaboration in these negotiations.
Having said that, let me add at once that both we and the Americans acknowledge that the United States has, of course, no standing in any formal constitutional negotiations. However, without the full weight of its moral, political and economic influence behind us, the prospects for a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia would indeed be slight. At this point perhaps I might address myself to what the noble

629
Marquess, Lord Salisbury, had to say. He raised the question of law and order in Rhodesia during the crucial transitional period. I can only agree with him that it is a matter of vital importance and will he a crucial element in the negotiated settlement. We are discussing that point now in Africa.
As to the nature of the forces to maintain law and order during the vital period of transition, that again is a matter for discussion. I shall only say at this point that the most effective means of maintaining law and order during that period will be the one on which there is general agreement by the parties concerned, Anything else will surely fail. Therefore, the key to this is not to insist that Mr. Smith, or somebody else, exclusively manages the transition and commands the forces behind it. That is not the key. The key is securing agreement among all the parties concerned as to the way in which law and order shall be maintained. That is what we are working on now.
He referred also in connection with that point to the question of peace-keeping forces. There are, I agree at once, great practical difficulties about any kind of peace-keeping force. I am, like my noble friend Lord Caradon, a great believer, wherever practical, in the introduction of neutral objective forces for the maintenance of order in a difficult area. But there are great difficulties in the way of this in Rhodesia. I freely agree that there can in any case be no question of troops going in from outside in a combat role. Any outside presence should be used only in support of a political agreement; that is, agreement once more between the parties directly concerned.
The third point that the noble Marquess and others raised was that arising from their interpretation of paragraph 14 of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting communique. I have a copy with me. It is quite remarkable what interpretations can be given to Holy Writ, let alone Governmental communiques. I have read it again during this debate. I have even consulted other people about it. It does not bear the interpretation given by the noble Marquess and others. There is no question of this country supporting armed conflict. We have said repeatedly—I have said so many times from this Box over the past few months,
630
and repeat it again—that we understand the reasons why, over a period, armed conflict has emerged out of this situation. It was not there eighteen months or two years ago. We understand the desperations that, unfortunately, have produced the spirit that only force can solve this question. But we do not agree with it, and certainly we do not condone it. I say once more that, while we are bound to understand, we continue to deplore, and indeed we shall never condone.
Moreover, the noble Marquess said that there were rumours about our supplying arms to promote this armed conflict. I can only give him a flat denial on that point. I do not know how often it is necessary to say these things from this Box. If the noble Marquess has any evidence to the contrary I shall be the first to study it and, if he proves his point, I shall be the first to apologise to him.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, may I intervene to ask the noble Lord whether it is a fact that we are committed under the text of the communique of the Commonwealth Conference, with our Commonwealth colleagues, to compel the South African Government to do certain things which at the moment they are not prepared to do? Presumably that means that we must take some action to compel them; even if not physical action we must take economic action. Therefore, I imagine that, so far as we can organise them, we are committed to take economic sanctions at the moment against South Africa.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have the communique here. If the noble Lord would point to the particular sections where the interpretation he gives is borne out, I should be interested to discuss it with him. The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting does not come to definitive and substantive decisions; it discusses and pronounces in a generalised way, although it takes action, as at the Kingston Conference, on the question of the North-South dialogue, ad hoc arising from certain discussions. They do not bind one another to any course of action. Indeed, they strive to clarify a general attitude. There is nothing binding on anybody in this document and if the noble Lord can show

631
otherwise and if his interpretation of the nature of the Commonwealth can be shown to be otherwise, I shall be most interested.
Lord GLADWYN: That is my reading of it, my Lords.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord is inserting his own interpretation as if it were the actual text. I have the text with me and it does not bear out what he says. I come to the question of Namibia, and here too we have been working in the closest unity with the Americans and with the three other Western members of the Security Council, France, Canada and West Germany. I suggest to the House that it is essential to bear in mind that however close our relations are with the Americans—and that is something excellent to have—they are also very close with countries of the Commonwealth and with members of the European Community. We are not operating on our own or even only in concert with the Americans; we are acting on a much broader base even than that.
In Namibia, in particular, the initiative to achieve a settlement is one which we can fairly say is on the point of meeting international requirements. Our common concern has been, first, to ensure that South Africa did not bring Namibia to some kind of independence through a process—the Turnhalle Constitutional Conference—that was not truly representative and, secondly, to achieve through diplomatic means a settlement that would accord with the Security Council Resolution 385, to which we and the Americans and our other friends are parties; we continue to work closely together to this end. Of course there remain difficulties. Of course there will be variations of emphasis, of pace, sometimes of view; but I can tell the House that whenever those variations of interpretation or opinion arise, we immediately sit down with our friends and allies and iron out the difficulties.
The nature of the problem in South Africa itself is, I agree, different from that of either Rhodesia or Namibia. In South Africa neither we nor the Americans consider that the South African Government have made anything like a sufficiently significant change in their internal policies.
632
I very much take the point of my noble friend Lord Caradon about the tragedy that the application of sanctions—which is, after all, the substitute for war—was (I can use no other word) sabotaged, in particular by two countries. If they had not been, I agree with him that we might have achieved a solution of this problem years ago.
I think we now have another change. We hope that the South African Government will begin to appreciate the consequences of failing to meet the needs of the circumstances and the times. I do not dissent from my noble friend Lord Chalfont when he says there has been evidence—some would say too little and too late, but nevertheless there has been evidence—of a change of course internally in South Africa. One is interested to see suggestions within that country for new political alignments crossing the racial line, as well as the Party line. It is not for us unduly to interfere with Party politics in another country. One is rather relieved that there should be Party politics in other countries, as well as in ours. It is a sign of health.
Certain developments may give us cautious encouragement in South Africa. I go along with him, therefore, in saying that certainly the utmost encouragement should be given to those forces in South Africa to maintain and increase the momentum of change But we must mean this—and this is where I join with my noble friend Lord Caradon; it really must have cogency behind it. My noble friend Lord Chalfont quite rightly denounced those who are forever lecturing other people about what they should do. I read his article of 27th June with considerable agreement and total enjoyment. I agree with him on this. Every extreme evokes an equal and positive reaction; that is perfectly true.
But we must mean what we say. There must be strength behind the encouragement and the persuasion, because if change does not take place soon, the likelihood of chaos and bloodshed would be too horrible to contemplate, with incalculable damage to the communities of the region—white, black and coloured, European, African and Asian—with damage to Western interests, including those that he described so clearly, and to the worldwide search for political detente and racial harmony.

633
The outbreak of racial war in Africa itself, as my noble friend Lord Caradon has reminded us, would be a catastrophe of the first magnitude. But it might not stop there, as he also reminded us. It could not be contained even in a continent. The magnitude of the risks that the world is running in Southern Africa cannot be minimised. So it is in the interests not only of this country, of the United States, of the European Community, of the Commonwealth, but of everybody, including the European, the white, communities of Southern Africa, that we grasp what opportunity there is to solve by negotiation, to concede to reason what otherwise may have to be surrendered to violence.
As my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has said in another place, we try to take our stand on human rights in every corner of the globe, to apply the same standards and judgments to Communist countries as we do to Chile, Uganda, or South Africa. It is on that basis that we condemn the racial policies of the South African Government. It is part of this and other countries' denunciation of the infringement of basic human rights anywhere. We say that in South Africa these practices are not only morally unjust; they are unworkable in practice, and they are catastrophic in potential.
My Lords, no one can deny that a threat to Southern Africa exists. It has been described as a Communist threat, though some of us would describe it as a new imperialist threat—a substitution for the imperium of the West by one possibly from the East; but it is a threat. The threat is to the inhabitants of the region at least as much as to Western interests, and very many leaders of Black African opinion and Government understand this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, put this very well in the debate on Wednesday. There is a new maturity, a new understanding, among many leaders of Black Africa about the realities facing their countries and their Continent. We must go along with this. If we want to prevent Africa becoming "red", we must remember that is is black.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, put it very well when she said that the threat to Africa and to Western interests springs more from the intransigent policies
634
of racial discrimination as pursued by minority white Governments in the region than from external forces, because it is these policies and the sense of desperation that, over the years, they create that provide the fertile ground of discontent and hatred on which extremism thrives. There could be no Soviet in South Africa without a Soweto. The source of the feeling in Africa, and the determination, as we see it, to engage in armed conflict in order to attain certain liberties, lies in Africa itself, and not outside. It may be that from outside certain forces will take advantage, and gladly take advantage, of the situation created for them by selfish interests in Africa.
The approach of the American Administration has been criticised by some, for pushing South Africa too hard, for driving them back into the laager; but it is vitally important, as I said, to convince the South African Government that they have taken the wrong road—a road which can lead only to disaster. We in the West shall not be led astray by arguments about the strategic importance of South Africa or the threat of Communism. The threat to our strategic and economic interests in South Africa springs from the policies of the South African Government itself. That is the key to it. The root cause of the threat to our interests is apartheid. We cannot expect that South Africa will change overnight, but we have a moral and practical duty to all the inhabitants of South Africa, and to our own people, to press for change so that a new society can be created by all South Africans working together in the cause of peace, justice and equality—and we must mean this. Our role as a country is to co-operate with like-minded countries and organisations to achieve this change peacefully.
My Lords, we are not alone. We have a special responsibility as the paramount Power; but we are not alone in the task that we face. This country has a way of linking itself with powerful allies, which is the way we have survived and have been enabled to make the magnificent contribution that we have made in the past and will continue to make. We are linked very closely with North America, with the United States; we are members of the European Community where political co-operation, in particular, is progressing very fast and most encouragingly. We are

635
also members of the Commonwealth on the basis of coming together to discuss and not to dictate to each other what to do. These are three very powerful links which I hope will enable the United Kingdom to take the lead to make a decisive contribution to the solution of the problems of Southern Africa.

  CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: LOAN GUARANTEE
  CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: LOAN GUARANTEE