Sitting of 27 July 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA BILL [Lords.]
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third Time and passed, with amendments.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
  Ordered.
  That in the case of British Railways Bill Standing Order No. 207 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Lords amendments agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Community Land Act
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he remains satisfied with the operation of the Community Land Act.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): The scheme has made a satisfactory beginning. I look forward to its steady growth in bringing forward land where it is most needed.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend accept that if we are to regenerate the older conurbations it is essential that industry, particularly small industry,
    604
    should be encouraged to move into such areas? Will my hon. Friend therefore ensure that the procedures of the Act are simplified to enable local authorities to dispose of land to industry more quickly than they can now?
    Mr. Barnett: I am not aware of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred. I accept completely what he has said about the need to regenerate the inner areas, and my Department is looking at the provisions of the Act to see how relevant they are to the problem.
    Mr. MacKay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, due to the Community Land Act, there is a desperate shortage of housing land for builders to purchase, and that, as a result, there will be increases in the price of houses that will cause suffering to the young first-time house buyers that he is trying to help and protect?
    Mr. Barnett: I am aware of no such situation.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome the use that has already been made of the Act, but will the Minister consider giving special permission for development areas such as Tyneside to make fuller use of it for industrial and well as housing development?
    Mr. Barnett: Right from the start, we have been anxious not to use the Act as an instrument of regional policy. On the other hand, we are anxious to see the Act used within the regions, as far as it can be, for the benefit of better planning and in the service of better social objectives.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the Minister aware that in the spring of this year the Community Land Act nearly deprived my constituency of a desperately-needed industrial development with 80 jobs attached to it? Private industry is reluctant to build factories on leasehold land—even with a long lease—because it is not only more difficult but vastly more expensive. Will the Government there for consider amending the Act in that respect?
    Mr. Barnett: In the case to which the hon. Lady has referred, the Act did not deprive her constituents of jobs. We try to operate the Act in an intelligent and

    605
    sensitive manner, and that was precisely what we did on that occasion.
    Mr. Rossi: May I assure the Minister that this is a growing problem, because it is Government policy to insist that local authorities dispose of industrial land only on 99-year leases? It is impossible for many industrialists to obtain finance for new factories on that basis. Will the Government look at this again?
    With reference to an answer that the Minister gave just now, may I assure him that house builders are becoming desperate at the prospect of a land famine, which will lead to a housing shortage in many areas unless the Government take firm action to alter some features of the Act and to reduce the development land tax, which is far too high?
    Mr. Barnett: That tax is a matter for the Chancellor. I am not aware of the position that the hon. Gentleman has described. No doubt he is aware that the Act makes it possible for local authorities to make land available for house building for owner-occupation. On the hon. Member's first point, I am not aware of such a growing problem, and, as I have already said to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), we try to operate the Act in an intelligent fashion. If a good case is made out, we are prepared to consider allowing longer leases, for example, when there are funding problems of the sort that the hon. Gentleman described.

    Direct Labour
    Mr. Graham Pageasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for introducing new rules to deal with the tendering and accounts of local authority direct labour departments.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I shall introduce new rules on accounting, charging and tendering when we have the opportunity for comprehensive legislation on local authority direct labour organisations.
    Mr. Page: This does not need legislation. The right hon. Gentleman could bring these rules in without comprehensive legislation. Is it not the case that the disastrous loss of ratepayers' money by
    606
    many direct labour organisations is due in part to the fact that there is no cost control in their accountancy systems or assessment of progress, and that they know how much they have lost only when it is too late to regain it?
    Mr. Freeson: There are far too many generalisations and mini-truths mixed up in that supplementary question. In the first place, the matter does require comprehensive legislation. That has been clearly established in the course of debates in the House in recent months. Secondly, I do not accept the generalised remarks that the right hon. Gentleman made about direct labour organisations. There are direct labour organisations which are inefficient and there are private firms which are inefficient. There are, equally, DLOs which have sometimes added burdens to the ratepayers and many private firms which have likewise imposed burdens on them. It is about time that we stopped this ideological conflict.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that where direct labour organisations are well run, such as in the cities of Sheffield and Manchester, they make a valuable contribution to the local authority building programme and in helping the ratepayers, often providing a service where the private sector has fallen down badly, such as in the employment of disabled people and a proportion of apprentices?
    Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend is right. There are many instances of excellent practices by DLOs which have saved the ratepayers many millions of pounds over the years.
    Mr. Tebbit: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard of the events in South Tyneside District Council where, apart from amassing an enormous loss, the DLO has had to declare over half of its work force redundant? Is he further aware that some councillors there are calling for a proper inquiry into what has been going on? Will he direct his attention to that?
    Mr. Freeson: If the local council and the district auditor, who handles such matters, wish to proceed, they will, no doubt, do so. They require no instructions from me in this connection. They have all the authority they need to handle such questions.
    Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is mainly in Tory-controlled councils that the direct labour departments are apparently, according to Opposition Members, a failure, because of the sabotaging methods used by Tory councillors? Is he further aware that the morale of the work force is being lowered as a result of practices by Tory-controlled councils? Will he take action to stop it?
    Mr. Freeson: I am aware that there are arguments at local level—they are not confined to one side of the political spectrum, if one takes a period of years—that are not directed to the most efficient use of direct works organisations. I am aware also that there are local councils of all political persuasions which have used direct works organisations very effectively. I only wish that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches would act a little more rationally and in a little less doctrinaire fashion in this matter.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some local authorities which ought to be putting their house in order in this matter and setting a good example even to private industry? Is it possible for him to issue a circular setting out model clauses incorporating accounting procedures that local authorities should adopt? If not, he should legislate.
    Mr. Freeson: I have that in mind, and I have stated as much clearly in the House. I take this opportunity to remind the House that it was the Government's wish to introduce legislation to deal with this question but that Opposition Members opposed us on the matter, as they have done on previous occasions.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be better for some Opposition Members to find out what they are talking about in relation to Tyneside authorities before making sweeping allegations?
    Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend confirms that much is said in heat and ignorance and that it is about time the subject was studied more quietly and rationally by Opposition Members.
    Several Hon. Membersrose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we go on, may I make an appeal for shorter
    608
    questions and answers? Five Questions are being answered together on the next Question, all from one party. I shall call other Members afterwards.

    Urban Programme
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that voluntary works organisations receive a substantial proportion of the funds available under the recently announced urban aid programme.
    Mr. David Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will advise local authorities to circulate details of each phase of the urban aid programme not only to established voluntary organisations but to neighbourhood groups, community organisations and self-help bodies as well.
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that 50 per cent. of each phase of the urban aid programme goes to voluntary organisations, neighbourhood groups, community organisations and self-help bodies.
    Mr Peter Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that half the grant aid available under the urban aid programme is earmarked for voluntary organisations, neighbourhood groups, community organisations and self-help bodies.
    Mr. MacKayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will advise local authorities to circulate details of each phase of the urban aid programme not only to established voluntary organisations but to self-help bodies, community groups and neighbourhood councils as well.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): I am sure that local authorities will want to keep in close touch with voluntary organisations, which can make a most valuable contribution to solving urban problems. The proportion of funds allocated to them will depend very much on local circumstances and on the local authorities' view of the best way of tackling their problems. I would not wish to limit the flexibility of

    609
    the urban programme, or the discretion of the local authorities, by laying down centrally fixed proportions to be allocated to a particular type of body.
    Mr. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is necessary to involve people living in the inner city areas in any work that is being done, and that there is unfortunately often some antipathy between voluntary organisations and local authorities, which is why I asked that there should be some direction of the funds being made available?
    Mr. Shore: I think that we would all agree that it is very important to involve the people in our cities—certainly in our cities with the worst problems—in the programmes of revitalisation which all of them wish to undertake. I believe that most local authorities have a whole network of connections with voluntary bodies in their areas. They are aware of the contribution that voluntary bodies can make, and I believe that that contribution will be a growing one in the period ahead.
    Mr. Steen: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that local authorities do not merely take all the money made available under the urban aid programme as a means of getting extra rate support through the back door? Does he agree that the best way to get people involved is to say that all those who have made applications under the urban aid programme should be involved in the distribution process of determining which schemes should go forward to the Home Office, rather than let local authorities determine the matter on their own?
    Mr. Shore: The Act puts the responsibility on the local authorities to make application. They are closer to the ground in their own areas than we can hope to be centrally. I believe it right that they should have the responsibility of acting as a sieve for various proposals put forward. I do not believe that local authorities have shown themselves insensitive to the rôle that voluntary bodies can play. Indeed, voluntary bodies have received a high proportion of the money made available in recent years.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why certain applications were not successful? Is not some
    610
    form of positive discrimination needed to make sure that a higher proportion of these community initiatives is satisfied and funded by an increased urban aid programme?
    Mr. Shore: We certainly have to look at the programme in the future, but in the recent past the proportion going to voluntary bodies has increased. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are always far more applications for urban aid than it is possible for the Government to meet.
    Mr. MacKay: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that voluntary organisations, local residents and local bodies normally know best how their local environment can be improved? If he does, will he take a stage further his original answer and ensure that the Department monitors carefully each local authority's contacts with local voluntary organisations?
    Mr. Shore: I believe that local people know best, and I include in them the elected local councillors who represent their areas. That point really must be understood. The hon. Gentleman asked about monitoring. I am particularly taking up with the new partnership authorities under the inner city programme the whole question of how they can bring into the picture in perhaps a more regular way the local bodies in their areas in order to help them play their part in the programme.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at present it is the local authorities that are under the most pressure, as they have great difficulty in finding the 25 per cent. contribution? As a result, neighbourhood, community and self-help groups suffer most, yet they have a valuable contribution to make. The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the difficulty created by the rejection of applications of this sort. When he says that he will look again at urban aid, will he consider the 25 per cent. requirement? To demand that contribution of a local authority may operate as a considerable stumbling block when it cannot meet the demand. It may be possible to amend that requirement.
    Mr. Shore: I am not aware that the urban grant arrangement—namely, the 75 per cent. that central Government pay

    611
    —has caused difficulties. Local authorities have come forward in almost all cases with substantial programmes which they are willing to finance with their 25 per cent. We have not always been able to match all that they want with the 75 per cent. central Government contribution. In the inner city programmes we are widening the urban aid concept so that we are concerned not exclusively with social problems but with environmental problems and the need to stimulate industry and employment in those areas.

    Waste Disposal
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made by the county councils in their survey of suitable sites for waste disposal.
    The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): Section 2 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 is not yet in operation, but of the 46 county waste disposal authorities in England I understand that 15 have completed or nearly completed their surveys, 22 have begun working on them and nine have not yet started.
    Mr. Knox: In view of public concern about the disposal of waste, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that fast enough progress is being made? If not, what does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Howell: The information that I have just given the House shows that much progress has been made on a voluntary basis by local authorities that are anxious to proceed. As for the implementation of Section 2, which I want to introduce as fast as I can, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am in touch with the local authority associations on that very point. As soon as they think that it is appropriate for us to implement Section 2, I shall be happy to do so on behalf of the Government.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of his Department carrying out a national survey to locate those areas able to receive waste material and those areas that need to get rid of it? In that way, would it not be possible to remove much of the dereliction at a relatively low national cost, bearing in mind the
    612
    large pockets of unemployment and spare railway capacity in derelict areas?
    Mr. Howell: I understand the philosophy behind my hon. Friend's question and I entitrely agree with it. I believe that the Control of Pollution Act will bring about some result, but by a rather different method, namely, by making it the responsibility of the local authorities exporting waste to co-ordinate arrangements in conjunction with the receiving areas. By these processes I think that we shall achieve what my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the waste disposal authorities and water authorities have an adequate basis of information upon which to determine the most suitable sites for waste disposal? In the absence of a hydro-geological survey and criteria being issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, is there not a risk that much wasted work will take place?
    Mr. Howell: I do not think that that is quite true, but what is true is that the reason for our not being able to implement Section 2 initially was mainly the scarce resources of skilled manpower capable of carrying out these services. That is what was holding us up initially. I have given figures that show that local authorities are getting over the problem of the lack of skilled manpower. That is what is shown by the surveys that are now being undertaken. I have every confidence that we can very soon meet the objectives of the Act.

    Hurst Spit, Hampshire
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call in for his decision proposals for any new development taking place on Hurst Spit.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: No, Sir. Any application for planning permission for such proposals would be for the local planning authority to consider in the first place, but I understand that there are at present no outstanding applications in relation to this site.
    Mr. Adley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the prominent part of the Spit has been advertised for sale—namely, the part adjacent to the castle, including the coastguard cottages? Is he aware that

    613
    the advertisement includes the phrase "of interest to builders"? Does he appreciate that this is totally unacceptable to local opinion, which is scandalised that any development on this unique piece of land can even be considered? As the Department owns the castle, does the hon. Gentleman not consider it important that the total environment should be preserved? If he cannot call in the application, will he at least encourage the Nature Conservancy Council, the National Trust or the county council to do what it can to acquire the land when the sale takes place?
    Mr. Barnett: Obviously I cannot accept responsibility for advertisements that appear for the sale of land. I repeat what I said in my original answer, that no planning application has yet appeared. I am satisfied that normal planning powers are sufficient, but in the first instance any application must be considered by the local authority, which is aware that this is an area of outstanding natural beauty and a site of special scientific interest.

    Council House Rents
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the cost of subsidies for council house rents during the current financial year and during the year ending 5th April 1979.
    Mr. Freeson: I estimate that in 1977–78 central Government and rate fund contributions to housing revenue accounts in England will total about £1,220 million, plus about £320 million for rent rebates. The corresponding figures for 1978-79 are £1,230 million and £370 million.
    Mr. Gow: Do not these escalating figures contrast with the Government's new commitment to bring about a substantial and continuing reduction in the share of resources required for the public sector? What proposals has the right hon. Gentleman to bring about a more realistic and more fair policy of allocating housing subsidies?
    Mr. Freeson: In the first instance I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the Green Paper that was published recently, which sets out proposals for new subsidy arrangements and policy changes. That will be followed by a great deal of consultation.
    614
    The hon. Gentleman is wrong to speak about escalation. The figures arc now running fairly stably. If anything, there is a small reduction because of the announcement I made about a month ago in the House to switch £30 million from the subsidy provision—that is the original subsidy provision for this year in the public expenditure White Paper—to investment in rehabilitation work by local authorities.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the myth that has been propagated for many years that council tenants benefit at the expense of private owner-occupiers should now be laid to rest? Is it not a fact that major concessions are made to private householders and that it is the council tenants who suffer?
    Mr. Freeson: Speaking in global terms, the assistance being provided to local authority tenants and, to some extent, to private tenants by way of supplementary benefit and rent allowances is in line with the global provision by way of tax relief to home owners. In those global terms they are equally treated, although one can argue about the detailed application within each sector and the way in which the money is provided by way of general assistance.
    Mr. Rossi: Why are the figures that the right hon. Gentleman gave the House about £300 million less than the figures given in the 1972 public expenditure survey that was carried out by the Government? What is the average amount by which council rents would have to be raised to meet the policy set out by the Chief Secretary to the Treasurey last November, namely, that the proportion of costs met by rebated rents should be increased from 43 per cent. to 50 per cent.? By what figure will total subsidies be reduced when that policy is implemented?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman has asked three questions that are partly erroneously phrased. His reference to the Chief Secretary's statement of last November was inaccurate. The figures to which reference was made were forecast figures at that time. Trends in interest rates and other factors are volatile. In fact, interest rates have come down. A 1 per cent. change in the interest rate can make a difference of about £140

    615
    million on the bill. We need only to have changes up and down sharply during the year to get significant changes in the total figures. That is the general answer to the first part of the question.
    It is not possible to establish what the position will be in terms of total subsidy spending in the public sector two or three years from now, because we do not know what the interest rates will be and we do not know what the rate of change may be in other factors, such as house building, house purchase, rehabilitation, and the like.

    Land Acquisition
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land has been acquired by local authorities to date under the Community Land Act.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: It is too early to add to the provisional figures given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) on 12th May.
    Mr. MacGregor: As the Minister, from an earlier answer, seems unaware of the evidence of a forthcoming land shortage for housing, will he look at the recent House-Builders Federation report "Land for Housing", which clearly shows that a land famine is taking place in some parts of the country? Now that his right hon. Friend has adopted a welcome and more practical approach to extending home ownership in his Green Paper, will he complete the process by putting the Community Land Act on ice and making representations about reducing development land tax to ensure that land is forthcoming?
    Mr. Barnett: Under the Community Land Act 1,500 acres have been acquired from willing sellers in the first year, which was a short year because it began as late as August. There does not appear to be any difficulty in the current year in obtaining land for building purposes. Obviously my right hon. Friend and I will examine the situation in the light of what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: So far from freezing the Community Land Act, will my hon. Friend unfreeze it to enable local authorities that are eager to make fuller use of it to do precisely that?
    Mr. Barnett: Yes. We want to encourage local authorities to buy land, particularly for industrial and housing purposes, so long as the likelihood is that it will be taken up within a reasonable time. We are afraid that land that has been purchased will lie vacant and unused for some years. We hope to operate the Act in the light of demands for land.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Minister now give the House the figure that he did not give in his first answer—namely, that while local authorities bought 1,571 acres of land last year, they resold only 29 acres? Does he agree that builders looking for land from that source will be disappointed?
    Mr. Barnett: When we consider that the purchases of land were from August onwards, the fact that only 29 acres for house building purposes have so far been disposed of should not be surprising. The hon. Gentleman, with his professional background, should not find it at all surprising.

    Water Industry (White Paper)
    Mr. Newtonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his White Paper on the water industry, Command Paper No. 6876.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The Government's main decisions on the review of the water industry, and the reasons for them, were set out in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) on 13th July.
    Mr. Newton: Is the Minister aware that there will be a warm welcome on both sides of the House, I suspect, for the reprieve of the private water companies, including the Essex Water Company, which does a fine job for its consumers, including myself? Would it not be more sensible if he now lifted the threat of nationalisation, which is not wanted either by the employees of these companies or by their consumers? Will he now give them the opportunity to get on confidently with their job without this threat hanging over them?
    Mr. Howell: Our view is that it is totally inconsistent to have a divided water industry. Experience in recent years has

    617
    shown that our great national water resource ought to be contained within one industry. We have said, I think with unbecoming frankness, that at the moment we have not got a majority in this Parliament to carry our view into fruition.
    I have had considerable complaints and representations from some employees of private water companies about the fact that we are not taking them into public ownership at this time. They see their place as being within a national water industry, not in one small unit of it. There are two views amongst employees of private water companies.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is strong feeling in the country that the continuance of private water companies is an anomaly and that we need a stronger national water organisation, as proposed in the White Paper? Will my right hon. Friend also comment on proposals for a national navigation authority? Will it be for canals only, or will it extend to changing the status of the existing small navigation authorities which are to be found in different parts of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Howell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The whole purport of our proposal is to show that we cannot possibly, in logic, have 10 separate nationalised industries operating within one area. There must be a strong central strategy, planning and resource facility, which we propose for the National Water Authority.
    It is intended to bring the canal system within the national structure and to charge the NWA with the obligation of creating an inland navigation authority, which will obviously concern itself with all inland water navigation.
    Sir W. Elliott: Does the Minister agree that the term "private water companies" is incorrect? Is it not more correct to describe them as statutory water undertakings? Will he accept from me, having some knowledge of water companies, in which I declare an interest, that the staffs of the water companies have overwhelmingly decided that they would prefer to stay out of a nationalised concern?
    Mr. Howell: To deal with the last point first, that is not so. There is a divided view. The unions, whether
    618
    manual or non-manual, are entirely at one in saying that they would like their members to be within the publicly-owned sector.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: They are unrepresentative.
    Mr. Howell: No, they are not unrepresentative. As a matter of fact, branches of NALGO from very large authorities, such as the Bristol Waterworks Company, have written to me emphatically along lines totally contradicting the view that has been put forward.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) that "private water company" is a misnomer, if only for the reason that private water authorities can operate only with a public facility—the natural water supply of this country.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a little time ago he gave his blessing to the improvement of the South Yorkshire canal waterway so that the boats could travel between Hull and Rotherham? Therefore, will he now say that the improvement of this waterway will start in the near future?
    Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is certainly right in saying that I gave my blessing to the philosophy and principle of the South Yorkshire waterway. Unfortunately, no private enterprise or public authority has yet guaranteed us sufficient traffic, if we spend the capital on it, to justify taking that decision.
    Mr. Speed: Is the Minister aware that in terms of efficiency and consumer relations the private water companies compare very well with the regional water authorities? Is he further aware that only a small minority of employees and the Labour Party are in favour of nationalisation, and that no one else in the country is?
    Mr. Howell: The answer on efficiency is "Yes and No". Some are better and more efficient than others.
    I have already given the answer to the second part of the question. Representatives of many of the employees concerned have written to me in terms that contradict the view that has just been put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman put his point of order after Question Time?
    Mr. McNamara: I should like to put it now, Mr. Speaker.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is within his rights, but he is not being fair to the rest of the House.
    Mr. McNamara: In view of my right hon. Friend's unsatisfactory answer to a supplementary question, I wish to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Housing (East London)
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will pay an official visit to East London to consider policy on rehabilitation of existing homes.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend and I are in close touch with East London local authorities on all housing matters including rehabilitation.
    Mr. Neubert: Has the Minister yet asked Yorkshire Television for the papers relating to dealings between the Greater London Council and Novo and Second Genesis? What proposals does he have to prevent taxpayers' and ratepayers' money being made over to unregistered housing associations?
    Mr. Freeson: In the first place, it was not a matter of taxpayers' money being made over. Secondly, it is a matter for the GLC. Thirdly, it is not relevant to any official visit that my right hon. Friend or I might make or talks that we might have with East London housing authorities.

    Local Authority Tenants
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about his proposal for a charter for local authority tenants.
    Mr. Freeson: I expect to receive representations in response to the consultation paper, amplifying the proposals con-
    620
    tained in the Green Paper, which I shall be issuing shortly.
    Mr. Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities with responsibility for housing are neglecting essential repairs and maintenance of council house property? Does not he think that this is outrageous, particularly in view of the fact that public expenditure cuts are being used as an excuse? Will he take steps to meet this situation by introducing a tenants' charter as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Freeson: I deplore any attempt by local authorities to cut down on the standard of maintenance and repairs. There can be no justification for it in terms of public expenditure constraints, because the controls that we have been imposing in recent times have related to capital expenditure and not to revenue programmes, to which my hon. Friend refers. On the question of the tenants' charter, it is certainly the case that those local authorities that are encouraging tenants' management schemes and tenant participation in various aspects of management are able to maintain higher standards and encourage higher standards. This will be an important aspect of the tenants' charter that we shall be seeking to implement. There is no reason at all why a number of the proposals discussed in the Green Paper cannot and should not be implemented now by local authorities. I have been spending a great deal of time in the last three years as Minister encouraging local authorities and housing associations to do just that.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the Minister agree that the first essential of a council tenants' charter—in the view of council tenants, not politicians—is the chance for tenants to buy their own houses or flats?
    Mr. Freeson: No, that is not the first point put to me as a local Member of Parliament, as an ex-member of local government, or as a Minister. If one were to give a choice—this is difficult because it varies from one area to another—far more emphasis is placed on the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) than on the point made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg).
    Mr. Corbett: Will the charter apply to tenants of commissions for new towns and

    621
    development corporations? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether, in the charter, encouragement can be given to local authorities to make it easier for tenants of public property to transfer or exchange?
    Mr. Freeson: On the first point, it will be our general intention to apply the ideas set out in the proposed tenants' charter to the tenants of all public sector property. A number of aspects of the tenants' charter will be equally applicable to tenants of private landlords, to whom we shall come in due time. The point that my hon. Friend is making will be taken on board as we proceed with the transfer of new town estates to local authority ownership in the coming years.
    Mr. Eyre: Does the Minister remember that when a council tenants' Bill, introduced by Conservatives, was voted down by the Government, the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for housing then gave an assurance that the Government would introduce a Bill on similar lines? Will the Minister undertake that such a Bill will be included in the next Session of Parliament?
    Mr. Freeson: I can no more give that undertaking than, if the House had voted in favour of his Bill, the hon. Gentleman could have given an undertaking that a place would be found for that Bill in the queue of Private Members' Bills.

    Pollution (Royal Commission's Report)
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had subsequent to the Government's reply to the Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
    Mr. Shore: We have received a favourable response on the White Paper from the Royal Commission. As regards implementation, the detailed arrangements for the Nuclear Waste Management Advisory Committee are in hand, and a review of the research programme has begun.
    Mr. Forman: In the right hon. Gentleman's conversations in the light of the Government's White Paper, has the Secretary of State been prompted to reconsider his rather negative attitude to the proposal for a nuclear waste disposal
    622
    corporation as recommended in the Flowers Report? What steps have been taken to establish the high-level independent body to look at the interaction between energy policy and environmental policy, and when will we get a debate in Parliament on this very important issue?
    Mr. Shore: I recognise and welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in this most important matter. I would like to be more forthcoming but I cannot say when we are having a debate. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to press for a debate. He will have every support that I can give him. I have not rejected the idea of a nuclear waste disposal corporation. I have said that I would seek the advice of the waste disposal advisory committee on the question whether such a corporation would be a useful further development of our disposal policy. I shall put that question to that body when we have formed it. As for the high-level body to advise the Secretary of State for Energy and myself, I hope that we shall be able to make progress on that after my right hon. Friend announces the completion of the formation of the Energy Commission.
    Mr. Nelson: Will the right hon. Gentleman please bear in mind that many of us would welcome a statutorily formed nuclear waste advisory committee and would welcome that body being given some executive functions? What steps have been taken to form it?
    Mr. Shore: We are obviously consulting widely, but I hope before long to be able to announce the composition of the advisory committee as well as its terms of reference. As for its having executive powers, the hon. Member will recognise from my statement that I am not as yet persuaded that it is right. The advisory committee will give us valuable advice on how we should exercise our responsibilities in this field, including the field of research.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disposal of nuclear waste is one of the three key factors in the whole nuclear energy programme? Does he agree that there is no case for proceeding with the nuclear power programme until this problem is solved?
    Mr. Shore: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the satisfactory disposal of nuclear waste is the key to the future large-scale development of nuclear power. That is precisely why, in response to the Royal Commission, we have taken a number of new initiatives and set up a number of new organisations to help solve this most difficult of problems.

    Water Authorities (Staff)
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is currently the total number of full-time and part-time staff employed by the regional water authorities in England and Wales; and what is the percentage change since April 1974.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I understand from the National Water Council that the latest available figure for full-time and part-time equivalent staff employed by the regional water authorities in England and Wales is 60,473 at 31st March 1976. There is no directly comparable figure for April 1974.
    Mr. Durant: Does the Minister agree that his new Water Charges Equalisation Bill will do nothing to streamline or reduce staff because it will pay those authorities which now have to pay over to the receiving authorities to take on more staff so that they avoid paying over large sums to the receiving authorities?
    Mr. Howell: I agree that the Bill will do nothing on staffing, simply because it is not designed to do so. It is designed to bring a sense of equality and fairness to Wales, East Anglia and northern areas which pay a disproportionately high charge for their domestic water supplies.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) and his Conservative colleagues that the Conservative Party was completely responsible for setting up the regional water authorities? Many of us sat up night after night in the House opposing that measure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Parkinson's law has operated here, as I suspect it has, it is entirely the responsibility of the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is quite right. I was on the Opposition Front Bench at the time and led our opposition
    624
    to this increase in bureaucracy. I must point out that whereas every ratepayer had one local authority doing these jobs, as a result of the Bill introduced by the Conservatives ratepayers now find district councils, county councils, water authorities and health authorities involved. That is four bureaucracies for the price of one that we face as a result.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: Is there any monitoring of performance between the various regional authorities? Does the Minister agree that it is a generally-held view that the provisions of the Water Charges Equalisation Bill are diametrically opposed to the management techniques which we desperately wish to see in the water industry?
    Mr. Howell: I am not sure that that is right. No doubt the complicated reasons that the hon. Gentleman has put forward explain why he abstained from voting on my proposal. I must correct what I said a moment ago when I said that we now have four bureaucracies for the price of one. In fact we have four bureaucracies for more than four times the price of one.

    Fairgrounds
    Mr. John Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that existing planning legislation is adequate to deal with the noise and nuisance created by the establishment of temporary fairgrounds in residential areas.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: Noise and nuisance, whether at temporary fairgrounds or elsewhere, are subject to control by other legislation rather than by planning law.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the Minister aware that a funfair recently descended upon a field in West Wickham in my constituency? In the event, the disturbance to local residents was rather less than had originally been anticipated. However, does this not indicate the need for much stricter planning control over intrusions of this kind into predominantly residential areas?
    Mr. Barnett: Although I spent my earliest years in West Wickham, I am not aware of the fair that has settled in a residential area. I maintain, however, that it would be inappropriate to extend planning law to deal with the matter. Instead, local authorities should serve an order under the Control of Pollution Act

    625
    1974 to deal with noise and should use the Public Health Acts 1961 and 1936 to deal with the litter and health hazards. I believe that those powers are adequate.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Does the Minister realise that the public need protection against the local authorities? In my constituency a fair has descended on us. It has been impossible to hold church services because of the noise from generators, and there is serious concern about the complete lack of toilet facilities.
    Mr. Barnett: Clearly, residents who feel that they are affected in this way should first make representations to their local authorities to use the powers that I have described. Failing that, they have the right to go to local magistrates if they cannot agree with the local authority about existence of a statutory nuisance.

    Inner Cities (Local Authority Partnerships)
    Mr. Joseph Deanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made in concluding partnerships with local authorities with inner city problems other than those named in the announcement of 6th April.
    Mr. Shore: Over 20 local authorities have approached me about partnership arrangements. My colleagues and I are considering their submissions and have seen representatives of many of the areas concerned. I hope to reach decisions in the next few weeks. As I have explained, the scope for further partnerships will be strictly limited.
    Mr. Dean: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and the speed with which he has processed this matter, bearing in mind that the original statement was made only in April. May I urge him to treat this as a matter of utmost urgency, so that cities such as Leeds, if they are lucky in their applications, can get on with the work as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Shore: I am conscious of the need for speed. We have received slightly more applications than I had expected, and this has meant a little delay. However, I intend to complete the processes of selection within the next few weeks.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that these will be genuine partnerships and that the authorities will not be subject to dictation from central Government on matters that are of purely local concern?
    Mr. Shore: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We do not intend to dictate. We intend to have genuine partnerships. Unless there is a real willingness to enter a partnership, the right psychological and planning support that is necessary to make the scheme a success will not be forthcoming.
    Mr. Hardy: I welcome the progress that is being made in dealing with the grave problems of the inner city areas. However, will my right hon. Friend take care to ensure that similar problems that exist on a smaller scale in smaller towns of the older industrial areas of England are not ignored, to the grave disadvantage of the people who do not live in the cities?
    Mr. Shore: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I do not intend to ignore the many small urban authorities which have these problems but which are not within the special category of partnership authorities. We shall do our best to assist them, too.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the recent debate he stated that his inner city partners would have to reallocate their resources? What exactly does he mean by reallocation? Will he say as clearly as possible what local authority services he expects will be reduced as a result of the reallocation of inner city programmes?
    Mr. Shore: That is obviously a detailed matter for the local authorities themselves. We are saying to the local authorities, however, that, apart from the urban aid programme grants that we are giving, the Government are prepared to look at their main programmes of expenditure and to seek to give greater priority to those areas with the greatest needs and problems. We would expect local authorities to look at their total expenditure and at the possibility of giving extra assistance to those parts of their areas where the needs are greatest.

    Residential Development (Planning Appeals)
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what general policy guidelines are given to planning appeal inspectors in connection with the need to give adequate regard to the effect that the granting of planning permission for residential development may have on local schools; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: The only guidance given to inspectors on this matter draws their attention to the guidelines annexed to Circular 122/73, "Land Availability for Housing". The guidelines advised local authorities that when a decision on an application for planning permission for residential development turned on the availability of infrastructure, including schools, authorities should, in preference to a refusal on the ground that infrastructure was lacking, consider how and when the infrastructure might be provided.
    Mr. Madel: Is the Minister aware that in counties such as Bedfordshire, where there has been continuous expensive London overspill for 20 years, the facilities for the population that was there before the overspill began have not kept pace? Since we are told that overspill is to end, a great catching-up operation is needed in those counties where most of the resources have gone on dealing with overspill. Will he bear this in mind in thinking about the rate support grant order for November, since the counties surrounding London have had this expensive overspill operation to contend with? Is he aware that, if planning inspectors are careless about the effect upon schools of allowing residential development, it could mean that the counties risk not satisfying the Department of Education and Science on the provision of adequate schooling?
    Mr. Barnett: The principal grounds upon which a planning inspector needs to give a decision concern future land use. It may be right for the inspector in Bedfordshire or anywhere else to allow development to proceed and to expect improved or enlarged facilities, such as schools, to be provided for new residents. I well understand the sort of problems that arise in areas such as that of the hon. Gentleman, but inspectors must be left to consider the facts of individual
    628
    cases against the background of policy contained in development plans and circulars and in the light of all material considerations.
    Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider providing guidelines for planning appeal inspectors so that they may have regard to the efforts and endeavours of local authorities that are trying to attract industry to their areas to alleviate growing unemployment? Is he aware that these efforts are being frustrated by some planning inspectors who are returning incredible decisions and who are allowing warehouses to be built on sites that should be reserved for industry? Is he aware that this blights the prospects for job creation schemes and is contrary to the advice given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment? Will my hon. Friend look at this problem, which is particularly serious in West London?
    Mr. Barnett: I recognise the importance of this point. My hon. Friend may not be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently issued a circular—I believe it is Circular 71/77—which draws attention precisely to this point. Since it is a departmental circular, inspectors will consider it in making their decisions.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to meet representatives of the construction industry and allied professions, following their meeting with the Prime Minister and himself on 16th June at which it was agreed that further discussions should take place with himself; and what specific action has ensued since that meeting.
    Mr. Shore: I met representatives of the construction industry on 22nd July. Further measures to assist the industry were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15th July, and we shall continue to do all we can to help the industry.
    Mr. Latham: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the findings of the builders' federation this week that 74 per cent. of construction firms are working at three-quarters capacity or less,

    629
    that the position is likely to continue for the rest of this year, and that the level of construction unemployment is quite outrageous?
    Mr. Shore: I accept that the levels of unemployment are intolerably high. As for the other matters in the survey, I should obviously want to look at it in detail. However, the problems of the industry are very great. In the course of this year we have done our best to mitigate those problems. We have increased construction expenditure by about £230 million since the beginning of the year. I believe that while difficulties in this area are very grave there is some better prospect for next year.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Are not the restorations to which my right hon. Friend has just referred very small in comparison with the cuts? Does he agree that they go nowhere near restoring the situation? Will he therefore support the TUC, the Labour Party and one or two representatives of the construction industry and reverse the cuts, in view of the 1.6 million unemployed and the colossal tragedy of housing shortages?
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend knows that all on the Government side of the House are in favour of restoring public expenditure levels as they affect the construction industry as soon as the financial and economic situation allows.
    Mr. Tebbit: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the level of unemployment is intolerable, may we take it that he means that if it does not rapidly go down he will leave his office to show that he cannot tolerate it? Alternatively, will he tolerate it and stay in office?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) used the word "outrageous" and I agreed that the situation was intolerable. Unlike the Opposition, who are in favour of increasing public expenditure cuts, we are doing our utmost to help the construction industry in every way we can.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that none of these forward-looking reviews and in-depth studies will solve the problem? The Secretary of State cannot, like some of his colleagues on the Front Bench, blame the weather
    630
    and the Continentals. Does he agree that there is a simple equation? There are 800 million bricks, 250,000 construction workers on the dole, and thousands of homeless needing roofs. Any economist should be able to solve that equation.
    Mr. Shore: I am always happy to have my own resolve fortified by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). What he leaves out of the equation, as he puts it, is the whole problem of public expenditure, with which we also have to deal.
    Mr. Skinner: The IMF. The Common Market.
    Mr. Costain: I do not wish to interrupt the private conversation between the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he could help overcome unemployment in the building industry if he were not so complacent about the supply of land? Does he agree that that would be the quickest way of helping unemployment and that it would not require any extra expenditure by the Government?
    Mr. Shore: We have answered that question. We have examined the evidence and we are not aware that this is a serious problem at present. However, we shall continue to monitor the situation. Of course, we shall take what action we can should that apprehension show any signs of turning into reality.

    HONOURABLE MEMBERS (SUPPLY OF PAPERS)
    SpeakerYesterday the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) raised the question of the provision of non-parliamentary papers from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I have asked the Leader of the House and the Minister for the Civil Service to look into this as a matter of urgency. I shall communicate with the hon. Member in due course.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that some of us are interested in this matter and intend to put in application forms for that document? May we have a further statement in the House before Friday asking the Leader of the House and the

    631
    Minister for the Civil Service to report to you in time for you to convey that information to the House?
    Mr. Speaker: I shall see whether it is possible. I do not want to build the hon. Member's hopes too high.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (SECURITY)
Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House of decisions which have been taken following the consideration of a report about security in the Palace of Westminster made to me and to the Chairman of Committees in another place by the informal Joint Committee of both Houses held under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison).
The House will recall that Sir James Starritt, formerly Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, made a comprehensive report on security here in 1975, and a number of proposals he then made for improving physical security have since been carried into effect. He also recommended some major changes in the organisation of security arrangements.
In particular, he recommended the establishment of a combined security force for the whole Palace of Westminster under a single command, and the integration of the existing custodian force, at present employed by the Department of the Environment, into the Metropolitan Police organisation.
It was with this aspect of security that the Joint Committee has been concerned. Following its report and consideration by Ministers of the consequent financial arrangements, it is now proposed to go ahead with the implementation of these recommendations.
The aim is to set up a combined security force for the whole Palace of Westminster to raise the operational standards of the officers concerned, particularly by giving to the police responsibility for the recruitment and training of custodians and to improve co-ordination between the security staff within the Palace and the Metropolitan Police generally.
The necessary steps are accordingly now being taken by the Departments con-
632
cerned, in consultation with the police authorities and the staff directly affected, with a view to the new structure being operational by 1st October.
It has been agreed that expenditure on security within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster should in future be wholly borne on the Votes of the two Houses. This will involve the transfer of public expenditure at present being borne by the Department of the Environment and the Metropolitan Police. The additional public expenditure involved in these organisational changes will amount to about £100,000 a year.
I believe that these changes in our security arrangements will be to the advantage of Parliament and the personal safety of Members and staff of both Houses, and I am grateful to the Members of both Houses who served on this Joint Committee, and particularly to its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Wakefield.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you explain why in this instance it becomes your responsibility to read out a statement on such an important matter affecting many people working in and around Westminster? It seems to me that in these days of so-called open government it would have been better for a Minister, probably the Leader of the House, to present such a report.
Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst some members of the security forces and of the police about the shake-up and its starting on 1st October? Is there any way in which this matter could be investigated? Could it be put off so that representatives of the unions and other workers could make their opinions known more forcibly?
Mr. Hal Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the increased protection be extended to Old Palace Yard where there have been serious thefts over the last year from my hon. Friends, their secretaries and myself?
Mr. Molloy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support the submission made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Would you be prepared to take into consideration that at least the staff associations which have members in the police

633
force and the entire Whitley system should be consulted before anything is decided?
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. To what extent have the unions been consulted, particularly the existing security staff, who have done an excellent job? To what extent have hon. Members had an opportunity to express their opinion, particularly hon. Members who are members of a union? I find that almost invariably we in this House now appear to be treated ourselves and those who work in the House in a far worse fashion than people are treated in most factories and workshops and in industry generally. It is about time that we gave to our own staff in the House the same consideration as that which is given to people outside in other organisations.
Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree that the unions representing those who work in the Palace of Westminster should be adequately consulted. Will you inform the House as to whom this new joint body is to be responsible and answerable? Is it to be answerable to the House, through you, and to the other place, through the Chairman of Committees, or is it to he answerable elsewhere? In a matter of this nature, it is important that the control of what goes on in this building should rest with those who work here.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: As a former member of the Services Committee, may I say that I fully support the statement you have made. Mr. Speaker? It is right that you, as Mr. Speaker, should make the statement. I hope very much that there will be no question of anyone other than you being answerable for security matters. It would be utterly foolish if we were to start having ill-informed debates on security matters affecting the House.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to all the hon. Members who have raised this point. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has underlined the fact that for as long as we can recall Mr. Speaker has been answerable to the House on this question. That is the way in which we have worked. Security is not a subject that is generally debated.
634
I assure hon. Members that I am informed that the Departments have been having detailed discussions with the unions concerned and with all the staff. In fact, the discussions had been going on for over a year before we reached this position about which I have spoken to the House.
The joint body will be answerable to me, and through me, therefore, to the House.

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR VAUXHALL (EARLY-DAY MOTION)
Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point is on an entirely different matter. I apologise in advance if I in any way embarrass you. However, I am bewildered, because on the Order Paper today there is a motion that expresses the view of a number of right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition who say that they have no confidence in the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss).
Hon. Members: Shame.
Mr. William Hamilton: It is squalid rubbish.
Mr. Mellish: I am assuming that this motion arises from the fact that the Father of the House had put down an amendment to the important motions that were debated yesterday. Frankly, I would not support that amendment but, having said that, I would be the first to support my right hon. Friend's democratic right to table any amendment that he wished to table. In your view, Mr. Speaker, the amendment was in order, and you allowed a vote and some hon. Members supported it. I am not asking for any particular ruling. I am not sure whether you have any rights about what motions are put down. However, it is a sad day when an hon. Member exercises his democratic rights in that fashion and then such a motion appears on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: I allowed latitude on the point of order.
Perhaps I may tell the House—I might as well get this on the record now—that I have told some of the authorities in the House that if ever the occasion arises

635
when a reprimand has to be administered by the Speaker on behalf of the House, I never intend to put that black hat on my head.

MR. HUGH STEWART
Mr. Douglas-Mann: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the case of Mr. Hugh Stewart, who is serving a sentence of nine years' imprisonment for a robbery which I have very good reason to believe that he did not commit."
I shall also refer to the refusal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refer his case to the Court of Appeal under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeals Act.
This is a case of a man who has protested his innocence throughout. There were no verbal admissions and there is no objective evidence against him. He was convicted solely on identification evidence, which was extremely weak, confused and contradictory, and which would certainly not be admissible under the rules in the Devlin Committee recommendations and the rule in the case of Turnbull and others.
The case was heard before the Devlin Committee on identification evidence. In the light of that Committee's report and the ruling of the Court of Appeal in the case of Turnbull and others last summer, it is my view that if the case were referred to the Court of Appeal by my right hon. Friend, it is virtually certain that Mr. Stewart's conviction would be quashed.
But there are additional and fairly dramatic reasons for believing in Mr. Stewart's innocence. I have been investigating this case over a long period. I have been able to obtain a statement from one of his co-defendants at the trial, who had pleaded not guilty but who had been convicted and who now admits his guilt but wholly exonerates Mr. Stewart. However, much more important is the fact that I have also been able to interview another man. 1 shall not name him. He has convictions, but this robbery is not one of them. He has given to me a detailed account of the planning and
636
execution of this robbery and he has named to me the man who had taken the part for which Mr. Stewart was convicted. He agreed to my passing this information to the Home Secretary, and I have done so. Understandably, the man concerned imposed, as a condition of giving me this statement, other conditions of secrecy, which of course I intend to respect.
I have been a practising lawyer for over 20 years in a mixed criminal and litigation practice. I have a great deal of experience in interviewing witnesses. Although I have sometimes been misled, I am absolutely certain that in this case, that man's statement, in which he exonerates Hugh Stewart, was the truth.
I fully accept that that evidence could not be admissible in the Court of Appeal. I have not suggested to my right hon. Friend that it should be admissible, but I am suggesting that it is a ground upon which he could refer the case to the Court of Appeal, because the evidence on which Mr. Stewart was originally convicted was so weak and so in conflict with the rules laid down in Turnbull and others that the conviction could be quashed.
My right hon. Friend has said that he is not proposing to apply the rules in Turnbull and others retrospectively, but it seems to me to conflict with the principles of natural justice that a man who was convicted on evidence which would not now be admissible should be left in prison because the Home Secretary is not prepared to apply retrospectively rules which we now accept, even though we have strong new grounds for believing in this man's innocence.
Old injustices are no less injustices for the fact that they took place some years ago.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) gave me notice this morning that he intended to raise this matter, and he sent me details of the case that he believes should be given precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I have listened carefully to the hon. Member. He wishes to raise
"the case of Mr. Hugh Stewart, who is serving a sentence of nine years' imprisonment for a robbery which the hon. Member has very good

637
reason to believe that Mr. Stewart did not commit"
As the House knows, I have to take into account all the relevant factors. I am not called upon to give the reasons for my decision to the House. I am afraid that I cannot grant the hon. Member's application.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the draft Counter-Inflation (Continuation of Enactments) Order 1977 at One o'clock or three hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and that Mr. Speaker shall then put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motions relating to the draft Limits on Remuneration Order 1977 and the draft Price Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order 1977 as soon as they have been entered upon.—[Mr. Bates.]

RENT ACTS (AMENDMENT)
3.49 p.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Rent Acts.
The Bill would amend the Rent Acts in so far as the county court now alone has the power to question the nature of a disputed tenancy of a residential property. This problem came to my mind as a result of a surgery that I was holding in my constituency. A young couple came to see me about the possibility of obtaining a council house. As is customary on these occasions, I explained that the allocation of council tenancies was a matter for the Hull District Council and not a matter in which I could directly intervene. However, I took down the particulars.
When I noted the address at which the couple were then living—12 Morpeth Street—I became interested. I asked what rent they were paying and was told that it was £12.50p plus rates. I was astounded. The house is in the centre of my constituency in an area which is going through the usual inner city problems. I understand from the Environmental Health Officer in Hull that as late as May there were still a number of items of disrepair outstanding for which an informal notice has been issued.
The reason why my constituents were prepared to pay such an extremely high rent was that they were desperate for housing. They informed me that they were advised by the landlord that if the wife applied for a mail order catalogue, the tenancy would then be a business tenancy because the wife would be operating a business from the property.
I thought that this was a load of nonsense and that it was a clear attempt to evade the provisions of the Rent Acts, which seek to protect tenants. My constituents did not know whether planning permission had ever been sought by the landlord to change the residential property to business premises. I therefore sent them to the rent officer. I wrote to

639
him and received a reply which reads as follows:
Hopper and Levy
12 Morpeth Street
The above address has been let before Mr. Hopper's time"
—Mr. Hopper is my constituent—
"by the Landlord on the basis, that if the wife takes up a weekly-payment catalogue-agency then these are business premises. The prospective tenant is induced to sign a lease to the effect that he is renting business premises. As such they are outside the purview of the Rent Officer Service.
This was explained to Mr. Hopper, on his visit here, on the 23rd March"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he ought to outline what Bill he is proposing to bring before the House and not use the procedure as an Adjournment debate to argue his constituent's case.
Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing my constituent's case.
I have been speaking for three minutes outlining the circumstances which have led me to seek a change in the Rent Act. Unless I explain the circumstances, the provision that I am seeking to have altered does not have a great deal of relevance. I am seeking to explain the circumstances of a constituent who finds that her position cannot be rectified by the normal methods of the Rent Acts but that it can be altered by the creation of a false business tenancy. I am seeking to amend the Rent Acts so that the rent officer can adjudicate—that was the point that I was making—and then have an appeal on the disputed tenancy arrangement to the county court instead of the rent officer not having jurisdiction.
It is important that the House should understand through a particular constituency case the circumstances in which this matter arises. I am sorry if you, Mr. Speaker, feel that I am initiating an Adjournment debate, because I understand that an Adjournment debate cannot deal with legislation. Indeed, I am referring not to a particular constituency case as such but merely to the principle involved in seeking to alter the legislation. I should like your guidance on the matter.
Mr. Speaker: I should like the hon. Gentleman to do us all a favour and tell
640
us what is in his Ten-Minute Rule Bill, because his time is running out.
Mr. McNamara: What I want to do is get a situation in which the rent officer has jurisdiction, which he does not have at present, with regard to a disputed tenancy where unscrupulous landlords are seeking to evade the provisions of the Rent Act.
In the case that I have cited, that of creating a false business tenancy, this is a problem which is at present outside the rent officer's jurisdiction. The only solution that a constituent has is to go to the Court.
The purpose of my Bill is to get away from the situation where a landlord can, for example, say that if a person brews home beer on the premises, it is a brewery, or that if he repairs his motor cycle, it is a garage and, therefore, a business tenancy. I want to get to a situation in which the Act is not bypassed by an unscrupulous landlord and in which the rent officer can decide what should be a fair rent, assuming that it is a residential property. If a party feels aggrieved, in this case the landlord, he should be able to go to the county court.
I understand that I started speaking at 3.49 p.m., which means that I still have four minutes to go in order to go through the various problems associated with this matter.
I have correspondence from the rent officer showing that this can be dealt with through proper zoning by a local authority. All of us know, as I am sure you do, Mr. Speaker, from the inner city part of your constituency, of the problems that affect run-down areas of cities as a result of trying to enforce planning measures. I wanted to quote a letter from the landlord in which he advised my tenant to apply for planning permission when, in fact, I understand from the situation that the three companies involved—Pethro Properties, Humberside Properties and J and G Properties—all decided a year ago, as a matter of policy, that all residential property should be changed to business tenancies or pseudo-business tenancies when planning permission had not been sought.
They were working in a situation in which they knew that tenants who were desperate for housing would not know their way round the law and would not go

641
to the county court but would, for a certain time, take this property at a high rent and then flit elsewhere. That is the sort of problem that worries the landlord. Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand why you sought to interrupt me in seeking to give the circumstances in order to explain the change in the law which is the purpose of my Bill.
Mr. Patrick Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman appears to be accusing a constituent of mine of irregular, if not illegal behaviour. Is that in order on a Ten-Minute Rule Bill?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the longest way round is the shortest way home.
Mr. McNamara: I am not accusing a person of doing anything at all illegal. I am saying that he is, in fact, abusing the spirit of the Act and carrying on in a way deliberately intended to evade the Act. That is what he is doing. I am seeking to make sure that a constituent who lives in salubrious Kirkella and not in the middle of Morpeth Street should be guided by the purposes of the Act as was originally intended.
I hope that the Minister for Housing and Construction will take this very much on board, because if tomorrow—if I get the motion through the House now—I do not have time to have a Second Reading, it is important that the matter should be taken on board by the Government.
Since I was stopped in the flow of my oratory I have been prevented from demonstrating the importance of this matter by correspondence that I have had from the landlord to whom I wrote to make sure that I knew exactly what his side of the case was. I intended to be fair. I like to believe that I am fair. But that has not been possible because of interruptions.
4 p.m.
Mr. John Wells Mr. John Wells(Maidstone)rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) wish to oppose the application of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara)?
Mr. Wells: I do, Mr. Speaker, but I shall be very brief.
It is very distasteful in the month of July and even in the latter part of the month of June to have offered to the House Ten-Minute Bills dealing with specific cases which seek to raise the hopes of innocent people such as the constituent of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). Had the hon. Gentleman been dealing with broad generalities throughout his speech, one could have said that the Government should take on board those broad generalities and that they might have incorporated the broad concept of them in a Queen's Speech later in the autumn.
The fact that the House will be rising the day after tomorrow means, as the hon. Gentleman confessed, that his Bill has no prospect of becoming law. Therefore, he can be seeking leave to introduce it only for one of two reasons. The first is his own personal publicity. I know that he would not dream of doing that. At this time of the year in the past, it has been done frequently by the Liberal Party. But I exonerate the hon. Gentleman from that.
The hon. Gentleman's second reason for introducing his Bill may be to raise the hopes of constituents and innocent people throughout the country. It is that of which I accuse him.
Mr. McNamararose—
Mr. Wells: No. I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He has had his say.
With the best will in the world, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise false hopes. Therefore, as his Bill has no prospect of becoming law, I believe that it should not be allowed to proceed.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees
at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 155.

DIVISION NO 222]

AYES

[4.01 p.m.

Allaun, Frank

Golding, John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Anderson, Donald

Gould, Bryan

Ovenden, John

Armstrong, Ernest

Gourlay, Harry

Padley, Walter

Ashley, Jack

Graham, Ted

Palmer, Arthur

Ashton, Joe

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Pardoe, John

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Parry, Robert

Atkinson, Norman

Grocott, Bruce

Pavitt, Laurie

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Penhaligon, David

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Hardy, Peter

Perry, Ernest

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Harper, Joseph

Phipps, Dr Colin

Bates, Alt

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Prescott, John

Beith, A. J.

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Hatton, Frank

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Richardson, Miss Jo

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Heffer, Eric S.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Hooley, Frank

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Horam, John

Robinson, Geoffrey

Bradley, Tom

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Huckfield, Les

Rooker, J. W.

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Roper, John

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rose, Paul B.

Buchanan, Richard

Hunter, Adam

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Butler Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Ryman, John

Campbell, Ian

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Sandelson, Neville

Canavan, Dennis

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Sedgemore, Brian

Cant, R. B.

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Carmichael, Neil

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Carter, Ray

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Judd, Frank

Skinner, Dennis

Cartwright, John

Kaufman, Gerald

Small, William

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Kelly, Richard

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Clemitson, Ivor

Kerr, Russell

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Snape, Peter

Cohen, Stanley

Kinnock, Neil

Spearing, Nigel

Coleman, Donald

Lamble, David

Spriggs, Leslie

Conlan, Bernard

Lamond, James

Stallard, A. W.

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Corbett, Robin

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Cowans, Harry

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Stoddart, David

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Strang, Gavin

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Litterick, Tom

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Crawshaw, Richard

Loyden, Eddie

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Cronin, John

Luard, Evan

Swain, Thomas

Cunningham, Dr J.(Whiteh)

McDonald, Dr Oonagn

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Davidson, Arthur

McElhone, Frank

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Thorne Stan (Preston South)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Thorne, Stan Hon Jeremy(N Devon)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Maclennan, Robert

Thorpe Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Deakins, Eric

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Tierney, Sydney

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

McNamara, Kevin

Tinn, James

Dempsey, James

Madden, Max

Torney, Tom

Dormand, J, D.

Magee, Bryan

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Mahon, Simon

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Dunnett, Jack

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Ward, Michael

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Marks, Kenneth

Watkins, David

Eadie, Alex

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Weitzman, David

Edge, Geoff

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wellbeloved, James

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

While, Frank R. (Bury)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

While, James (Pollok)

English, Michael

Mendelson, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Ennals, David

Mikardo, Ian

Whitlock, William

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Evans, John (Newton)

Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Faulds, Andrew

Molloy, William

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Moonman, Eric

Woodall, Alec

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Woof, Robert

Forrester, John

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Fraser, John

Newens, Stanley

Young, David (Bolton E)

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

Noble, Mike

Freud, Clement

Oakes, Gordon

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

O'Halloran, Michael

Mr. Martin Flannery and

Ginsburg, David

Orbach, Maurice

Mr. Terry Walker.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Onslow, Cranley

Aitken, Jonathan

Haselhurst, Alan

Osborn, John

Alison, Michael

Hawkins, Paul

Page, John (Harrow West)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Hayhoe, Barney

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Banks, Robert

Higgins, Terence L.

Page, Richard (Workington)

Benyon, W.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Parkinson, Cecil

Biggs-Davison, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Blaker, Peter

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hurd, Douglas

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

James, David

Prior, Rt Hon James

Braine, Sir Bernard

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

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Jessel, Toby

Raison, Timothy

Brooke, Peter

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Rathbone, Tim

Brotherton, Michael

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Kershaw, Anthony

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Bulmer, Esmond

Kilfedder, James

Ridsdale, Julian

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Kimball, Marcus

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Carlisle, Mark

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Knox, David

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Lamont, Norman

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Sainsbury, Tim

Cockcroft, John

Lawrence, Ivan

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Lawson, Nigel

Scott, Nicholas

Costain, A. P.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Crouch, David

Lloyd, Ian

Shepherd, Colin

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Sims, Roger

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

McCrindle, Robert

Skeet, T. H. H.

Drayson, Burnaby

Macfarlane, Neil

Speed, Keith

Durant, Tony

MacGregor, John

Spence, John

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Elliott, Sir William

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Fairgrieve, Russell

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Stainton, Keith

Farr, John

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stanley, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Marten, Neil

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mates, Michael

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mather, Carol

Stradling Thomas, J.

Forman, Nigel

Mawby, Ray

Tapsell, Peter

Fry, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Townsend, Cyril D.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Tuck, Raphael

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Mills, Peter

Viggers, Peter

Goodhew, Victor

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Wakeham, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Moate, Roger

Wall, Patrick

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Molyneaux, James

Walters, Dennis

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Weatherill. Bernard

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Gray, Hamish

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Wiggin, Jerry

Griffiths, Eldon

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Winterton, Nicholas

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Mudd, David

Younger, Hon George

Grist, Ian

Nelson, Anthony

Grylls, Michael

Neubert, Michael

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Newton, Tony

Mr. Norman Tebbit and

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Normanton, Tom

Mr. John Wells.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. John Prescott, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Robin Corbett, and Dr. Edmund Marshall.

RENT ACTS (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Kevin McNamara accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Rent Acts; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 182.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RESTORATION OF WORKS POWERS) BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
  Clause 1

    RESTORATION OF POWERS CONFERRED BY CERTAIN ORDERS
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 6, at end insert
    "which are specified in the Schedule to this Act and"
    Mr. Speaker: With this may we take Lords Amendment No. 7.
    4.10 p.m.
    The Minister fox Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Michael Morris: We very much welcome the Government's acceptance of the amendment. This is a short Bill, but even with only two clauses it is very comprehensive. I think that when my noble Friend Lord Sandys moved the amendment he did so in recognition of the criticisms of the Renton Committee. At long last somebody is acting on criticisms made by a Committee of this House. I am glad that the Government are acquiescing in this matter.
    Question put and agreed to.

  align="center">New Clause A

    PROVISIONS CONCERNING EXERCISE OF POWERS
    Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 21, at end insert new Clause A—
    "A. The parties to an agreement or intended agreement whereby any building or work (in this Act called a "relevant work") is to be constructed by a district council (in this Act called a "contracting council") under an agreement made by virtue of section 1 above shall comply with sections (Obligation to put work out to tender) (Form of Contract) and (Separate accounting) cf this Act."
    Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8.
    Mr. Freeson: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The new clauses proposed in Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 are substantially the same as those put forward by Opposition hon. Members during our Committee stage. We successfully resisted them then, and I see no greater merit in them now. No doubt their Lordships voted for the amendments in the hope that they would prove acceptable, but, as I shall show, they are not. I appreciate their Lordships' reasoning, as I did that of hon. Members in Committee. But it is still my opinion that the Bill is not the proper vehicle for the inclusion of the clauses.
    I hope that we have established during our discussions on the Bill that the Government are just as anxious as any right hon. or hon. Member to see that local authority direct labour organisations should follow procedures which enable their efficiency and true value to their ratepayers to be adequately and clearly compared with those of private contractors. That was the purpose of my setting up a working party not long after taking up my present post, and was the purpose of the original legislative proposals that I indicated we wished to introduce some time ago.
    Since it appears to be only Labour Governments who have taken any major initiatives to this end since the Second World War, some might think that we have demonstrated our concern more practically than have Conservative hon. Members. It would, therefore, be wrong to suppose that our opposition to the amendments springs from any reluctance to put local authority DLOs on as equal terms as possible with private contractors. I have said often—I am sure that some Conservative hon. Members must have noticed that—that it is, and has been all along, my intention to introduce to the House a fully comprehensive measure on DLO activities.
    Our opposition to the new clauses arises not from lack of sympathy with their intentions but from the inappropriateness of their insertion in this Bill and from their drafting weaknesses. I reiterate that this measure deals with powers which give rise to only a very small part of the total DLO work of a very small proportion of all local authorities. The additional provisions contained

    649
    in the amendments can apply only to that very tiny fraction of local authority DLO work. They will not apply at all to most local authorities, and will apply only to work done under the provisions of the Bill in the 25 local authorities to which it does apply.
    4.15 p.m.
    That would be so anomalous that I ask hon. Members to reject the amendments on that ground alone. The inclusion of ill-thought out and piecemeal provisions is not the way to provide a sound financial basis for the operation of DLO activities. I am sorry to have to say that the amendments are ill thought out. I realise that I may be told that they are essentially what I described in the debate on Second Reading as being in the Government's mind for eventual comprehensive legislation. Conservative hon. Members should realise that a brief exposition in general terms during a speech to the House is not—especially when wrenched from its full context and given a very different application—in an appropriate form for transposition into legislation.
    I should perhaps explain some of the shortcomings of the clauses. Some hon. Members will have heard something similar before. It is not a case of "What I say three times is true". There are real objections to use of the words and format chosen. We should not, as parliamentarians, put local authorities—or, it may be, the courts—into the position of having to try to make sense of legislation because we here have not done our job properly.
    Clause A merely introduces and requires compliance with Clauses B, D and E. It has no other substantive purpose. In our view such a clause should not be necessary. The clauses to which it refers should, if they were acceptable at all, be so drafted as to enable each to stand on its own.
    Clause B is defective in principle because it seeks to control the actions not of the 25 authorities named in the Bill but of their potential clients. While not a conclusive objection, this is indicative of the general laxity of approach in the amendments. More seriously, the clause is nonsensical. It puts the cart before the horse. Until a client authority has received tenders or attempted to negotiate
    650
    a price, it will not know whether it desires to have work done by a DLO or by a private contractor. At the time when the clause requires it to go to competitive tender, it will not know who will gain the contract. The indexation of the cost limits specified in paragraph (2) is so poorly expressed as to be meaningless.
    Even taking the intention of the clause and ignoring its technical faults, it is unreasonable. It makes no allowance for serial or continuation contracts. I know that there are some Conservative hon. Members who do not like that at all, but many people in this field prefer them as being conducive to greater efficiency. Such contracts are frequently negotiated with contractors throughout the industry for sums greatly exceeding £50,000. There is no equitable reason why the DLOs of the 25 authorities should not be treated the same. The House will recall that the restriction would apply only to work done under the Bill, so again, we have even more nonsense as between different kinds of contracts undertaken by local authorities.
    Clause C is defective because it enshrines a basic misconception which runs throughout the group of clauses. This is that an authority's direct labour organisation can suffer a loss when doing work for another. Such an authority, as I have pointed out many times, has no power to charge a client authority other than full actual costs. So no question of loss to the contracting DLO authority can arise. Nor, of course, can it make a profit. This applies equally to work done by a DLO for its own authority.
    The clause is closely linked with the system of accounting proposed in Clause E. But that clause does not provide a proper basis for the keeping of accounts. I shall explain the reasons for that in a moment. But Clause C also provides that the sanction which it embodies may be exercised on the basis of a DLO's performance on work not authorised by this Bill.
    Until there are satisfactory and comprehensive charging and accounting arrangements for all DLO work, the performance of a DLO cannot be properly judged. There can, therefore, be no proper and equitable basis for considering the form of a sanction in the case

    651
    of a DLO which does not perform effectively. If these clauses introduced into the Bill by amendments in another place were adequate and acceptable, Clause C would be misplaced. It should surely come after the Clause E. But this is just another instance of confusion by the sponsors of the amendments.
    As in the previous Clause C, Clause D cannot be accepted for the overriding reason that a DLO authority under the present law may charge a client authority only actual costs. The amendment does not alter that situation. So the use of contract forms providing for a contract-based charge would be inappropriate. Even if contract charging were possible for DLOs, the clause would still be too rigid to be acceptable. There can be perfectly valid and justified reasons for client and contractor to agree variations of standard forms of contract, or even a special one-off form to meet a particular situation. There is no reason why a DLO should be debarred from such arrangements, any more than private contractors are.
    Clause E also suffers from the misunderstanding about the possibility of a DLO making losses—or profits. It cannot. In our view, nothing in this clause, or any of the other amendments, is adequate to change that situation. Our proposed comprehensive legislation would have enabled firm prices to be charged. Until such a power is available a DLO must charge its costs.
    Consequently the duty which subsection (4) of this clause seeks to impose is redundant. On the other hand, if the power to charge firm prices were available, the requirement would be too stringent. A DLO's financial objective, which I still want to write into legislation, like that of private contractors, should relate to overall viability over a period. To require them never to make a loss on any job would impose upon DLOs a stricter r égime than. the private sector.
    Again, subsection (2) of the clause refers to proper charges for a list of items. But it gives no clear indication of the way in which they are to be assessed. And the requirements for inclusion of the specified account to which the clause relates, in the contracting authority's accounts nine months or more after final certificate for the work, is unrealistic.
    652
    How should expenditure be accounted for when it is incurred, or income from the work when it is received?
    I am sorry to have dwelt at such length on the technical shortcomings of these clauses, and the objections to applying new provisions to such a small segment of local authority work. I have been trying to convince right hon. and hon. Members opposite, as I tried to do in Committee and on Second Reading, that there are good and sufficient reasons for keeping the Bill as short and simple as possible. I hope that I have made it clear that Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would be of such limited application and doubtful force that they should be rejected.
    Mr. Michael Latham: The Minister has said several times that he has in mind a comprehensive Bill to deal with the problem. Will he confirm that that comprehensive Bill would have clauses in it which were not acceptable to the Liberal Party and therefore could not be introduced, that it would not pass in this Parliament, and that nothing will be done before the General Election?
    Mr. Freeson: The Opposition also were opposed, mistakenly, to our introducing such legislation. They have lost the opportunity of supporting a major move forward in the reform of DLOs, but that is their responsibility, not mine. However, even if all that the hon. Member has said were true in the form in which he said it—and it was not, because it was a generalization—it would not be possible to introduce the legislation which we had in mind.
    I have referred before to the work being done on DLO procedures by my departmental working party and by CIPFA. I hope to have reports covering new works by DLOs this autumn, and repair and maintenance works by early next year. I undertook during the Committee stage of this Bill to continue and extend my discussions and dialogue with all interested parties on the comprehensive legislation we intend. I repeat that assurance now.
    Indeed, I will go futher and say that when I have received and considered the reports which I have just mentioned, I shall publish a consultation document. In it I shall set out as fully as possible

    653
    the Government's views on what should be done to provide a modern statutory framework for the operation of local authority DLOs. At the same time, I shall consider what advice and guidance might usefully be given, perhaps by circular, to local authorities to encourage all of them to achieve the highest possible standards of efficiency in their DLOs under the present law.
    I look to the earliest possible publication of my consultation document and circular, to be backed up by subsequent legislation. On the latter point, I am entirely in the hands of right hon. and hon. Members. I share hon. Member's proper concern that DLOs should promptly put their accountancy procedures in order. I shall certainly waste no time in helping to bring that about. Indeed, some are already doing so, as I notice from reports coming through local town hall channels.
    Meanwhile, however, the inclusion of ill-thought-out and piecemeal provisions is not the way to provide a sound basis for the operation of DLO activities. What is needed is comprehensive legislation relating to the scope and activities of DLOs generally, enabling appropriate arrangements to be made as regards charging, accounting and tendering, which inevitably are inter-linked. This is what the Government still wish to provide, and in due time we shall place such comprehensive legislation before the House.
    Mr. Keith Speed: I thank the Minister for what he said latterly in his remarks. We welcome it. It was the Opposition which put forward the suggestion in Committee in order to be helpful. I am glad that the Minister has responded in a positive and helpful way in respect of the consultation document, which all hon. Members will wish to discuss and on which they will wish to make representations to the Minister and his Department. I am sure that the building industry, the building associations and the trade unions will wish to make their representations, to say nothing of the local authorities. At least something positive has emerged from the Bill, which we on this side of the House have never liked.
    I am extremely disappointed that the Minister cannot accept the amendments.
    654
    He has reminded us of various circulars and actions by former Labour Ministers in connection with DLOs, but, curiously, he always leaves out Circular 50/65 by the late Richard Crossman, which abolished the need for competitive tendering by DLOs. I am sure that the Minister would not wish the record to be incomplete as a result of that not being pointed out.
    The history of the amendments is of interest. There was a tied vote in Committee when they were discussed. Not only the Conservative Party, but the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), who represented the Welsh National Parliamentary Party, voted for amendments which sought to do what these amendments do. The Government won only on the casting vote of the Chairman.
    When one considers the debate in another place, the substantial majority and the way in which the debate went, with not only Conservative peers but independent and official Liberal peers and such characters as the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown voting for the amendments, one realises that there was a considerable weight of expertise and experience behind them. After my noble Friend Baroness Young had spoken to the amendments, the Minister said—and I do not blame him for saying it—that they were deficient and that they were not drafted properly. My noble Friend said that if the Government wished to take the amendments away and bring them back on Report Stage in the Lords in better order, the Opposition would be very happy. I say the same thing to the Minister today. The House returns 13 weeks today—on 26th October—so that gives the Minister 13 weeks in which to knock these amendments into some kind of order. As a draft Bill is sitting in Marsham Street, it should not be too difficult for him to knock the amendments into shape if the House agrees with the Lords today.
    4.30 p.m.
    My understanding is that the South Glamorgan Act and the Tyne and Wear Act include a CIPFA recommendation as part of the accountancy procedures for the DLOs of these authorities. Apparently that was not inappropriate at the time and has been working well.

    655
    Since we had the debates upstairs in Committee my attention has been drawn to just three of the local authorities concerned in this Bill. The Sunderland Borough Council Works Department has now put up £100,000 the value of work that does not need to be put out to competitive tender in the future. The present limit is £50,000. I am sure that the Minister is not happy about that, and certainly I am not.
    Secondly, the Newcastle-on-Tyne City Council has awarded its direct labour organisation a housing scheme worth £406,000, out of which £215,000 is a subsidy from the Minister's Department. The third case is that of South Tyneside, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) referred during Question Time. He was absolutely correct about it. I have a letter here from a member of that council telling me that 12 contracts for the modernisation of houses amounting to £3-7 million, two for new houses amounting to £460,000 and four contracts for road sewers amounting to £540,000 have gone out without competitive tenders. The council is now in a terrible muddle, is shedding staff and making considerable losses on the contracts. These are just three of the local authorities mentioned in the Bill. Something should be done to protect the ratepayers in those areas.
    What will the future legislation consist of? My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) asked a relevant question and the Minister's answer did not advance our knowledge very much. As I understand it, the Government sincerely believe that there should be a fairly considerable extension of direct labour and that there should be the accounting procedures that we are discussing now. The Government also believe that these two aspects should go together and they are not prepared to introduce legislation on one without the other.
    The position of my party—and of the Liberal Party as well, so I believe—is that we want proper accounting procedures as soon as possible but we, together with the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils, do not want any extension of direct labour.
    It is quite clear that there can be no prospect of legislation while the present
    656
    Government are in power and the present parliamentary situation exists. There is no prospect of having the comprehensive legislation to which the Minister referred before the next General Election. While I believe that the next election will come quickly, it is possible that it might not occur before November 1979. That would mean that there would be no legislation before 1980. Unless we can get something done in this Bill to a limited extent there is no prospect of legislation to deal with the problem for possibly three years or more.
    One would hope that at the next election there would be a clear majority for one party or another. If we were returned to power we would introduce legislation for accounting but certainly not for the extension of direct labour. It is extremely important that the House should agree with the Lords in these amendments today, even on a narrow basis, thus enabling these authorities to have some form of CIPFA recommendations introduced into their procedures. That would put them on all fours with South Glamorgan and Tyne and Wear.
    From the three examples that I mentioned earlier it is quite clear that there are local authorities among the 25 which need to have brought home to them the gravity of the situation and the fact that we believe in competition. The fact that one authority has raised the limit from £50,000 to £100,000 on the value of work that need not go out to tender demonstrates that it is acting against the spirit of what we all want to see. I am sure that the Liberals, who supported the amendments in another place, are not prepared to wait until 1980 to see legislation introduced to take action on these matters. I must advise the House to agree with the Lords' amendments.
    Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has resisted these amendments on two grounds—that they are inappropriate for this Bill and that they are weak in their drafting and technically deficient.
    As I understand it the Government's intention, if they remain in office long enough, is to bring in a comprehensive Bill on direct labour organisations. Indeed, the Minister confirmed this earlier this afternoon during Question Time. The intention of that Bill will be to extend

    657
    the powers of the DLOs of local authorities to enable them to carry out work outside their own areas. That is what this Bill does in confirming orders which give certain local authorities—25 of them—exactly that power. Therefore this Bill is in miniature the comprehensive Bill about which the Minister has spoken.
    I understand that the Minister agrees with the spirit of these amendments and that he would do something along these lines in his comprehensive Bill. The amendments contain the rules of condduct that one would hope any efficient local authority and its direct labour organisation would apply in carrying out direct labour work. Therefore the Minister's argument about the inappropriateness of the Bill falls to the ground. The comprehensive Bill that he hopes to introduce will include some provisions of this sort—certainly provisions on competitive tenders and accountancy.
    On the matter of drafting weaknesses. I have a feeling that the Minister is delighted to be able to make this point. Any Minister who is resisting amendments sees this as an easy way out, especially if he can have the backing of the parliamentary draftsmen who say that the amendments are deficient in some way. But the Minister has known of these amendments long enough, and if he agrees with the spirit of them it would be simple enough for him to get them put right by the parliamentary draftsmen.
    I would not think that the Minister would object to some provision about competitive tender. He has said that his Government have done a lot to make direct labour organisations efficient. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) pointed out, it was his predecessor, the late Mr. Richard Crossman, who removed the need for local authorities to be competitive. That provision was inserted by a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not also the case that as a result of the Crossman circular there were many scandals and another Minister, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, had to produce the manual of principles?
    Mr. Page: I was trying not to be too controversial. To a great extent we are in agreement. I understand that the
    658
    Minister agrees with what is in the Lords amendments and certainly with their spirit. I do not know about the details of the form of contract in Lords Amendment No. 5. Personally, I think that it could be left to regulations and to order-making powers. Any Bill on direct labour should include provisions for proper accountancy and those are set out in Amendment No. 6.
    If the amendments are weak in drafting and if there are technical deficiencies, the Government have plenty of time to put the matter right before the Bill becomes law. The Minister would have engendered a great deal of good will if he had been prepared to include some at least of these amendments in the Bill as a pilot scheme. Since this is a mini-Bill of the Bill he intends to bring in, he could have gained good will by letting the public see what he wants from direct labour organisations by inserting such provisions about competitive tendering and accounting. He could have done that without losing the policy he so treasures on direct labour organisations.
    We accept that the Bill has got to this stage, but we are asking for the Minister to use it only as a pilot Bill if he wishes to bring in a later Bill. We hope that he will include these amendments, which will be helpful to direct labour organisations that wish to work on a competitive basis.
    Mr. Norman Tebbit: I should remind the House that I am interested in this industry through the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, for whom I work. However, I do not think that that is particularly germane to what I am about to say.
    The Minister made much play of the defects in the amendments, and he is entitled to do so. It is refreshing for a Minister to be able to poke fun at somebody else's drafting as opposed to the more normal arrangement when the Opposition poke fun at the drafting of the parliamentary draftsmen. I think we are reasonably square on that account and that we sould not worry too much about the situation.
    The Minister no doubt read the report of proceedings in the other place. He will know that my noble Friend Baroness Young said on 19th July that she was prepared to withdraw the amendments if

    659
    the Government would bring them back correctly drafted in the spirit of what the Opposition there wanted and, indeed, what the Government and the Liberals wanted. I am not sure about the Liberals and I would not wish to speak for them. It is difficult to speak for the Liberals without getting into some difficulty in view of the split which appears to exist between the Liberals in the House of Lords and those who sit in this place.
    The arguments put in the other place were precisely the same as those put here on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading. Unfortunately, we were unable to persuade Liberal Members in this House that our arguments were correct. However, time is a great healer and after a suitable interval for consideration the Liberals have got together somewhere in the Central Lobby, where I understand that there is adequate room for them to do so and, indeed, on neutral ground.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Thank God there are only two days left.
    Mr. Tebbit: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman says that, if he and his party have got into this kind of muddle with their friends at the other end of the corridor.
    It appears either that the Liberals in this House have had second thoughts or that their friends at the other end of the corridor, perhaps with greater wisdom, have concluded that what was said in this House at an earlier stage was correct. I understand that in the other place the Liberals voted officially—indeed, they may have been whipped to do so—in support of these amendments. It would help the House enormously if we could know what the Liberals were going to do on this occasion. Their example could help others to make up their minds. There are other minority parties whose Members might be looking to the Liberals for a lead. It would be confusing for anyone who followed the lead of the Liberal peers in the belief that he was also following the Liberals in this place, only to find out that that was not the case.
    I hope that in this brief debate we shall not be left in any doubt about the attitude of the Liberals in this House. Everybody wants to know the situation before the vote is taken. We should like to know
    660
    whether the Liberals here have split with their colleagues in the other place or are split only among themselves.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Stan Crowther: I know that it is the intention of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to take the mickey out of the Liberals. Indeed, that is the only contribution he has made to the debate. I did not intend to take part in this discussion, but I wish to rebut the allegation that the Bill will allow 25 named local authorities to undertake work outside their own areas. That is not the case. It allows them to carry out work only in the area of a former borough, but not outside that area. There is no way in which they can undertake work outside that area. This is a fiction which has been advanced by the Opposition. It was put forward in Committee, and I thought that we had dealt with the situation there. The argument has been advanced again today and it needs to be rebutted.
    This is an extremely modest Bill. It allows the authorities concerned to undertake the work which they were carrying out before. It was unfortunate, owing to an administrative failure, that there was a gap for a few months in which authorities were unable to carry out the work in county council areas which they had been doing in the past. It must be in the public interest that county councils should be allowed flexibility to allow a district council to carry out certain work through its direct labour force. I do not understand why there has been so much opposition to this minor and modest Bill.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I am sure that the House will be bitterly disappointed if I do not give the Liberal position on the Bill. I do not retract one word of what I said on Second Reading. I am aware that my remarks have been sent by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers to many Members of the House. I, too, wish to see proper accounting procedures brought into all direct labour organisations as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Tebbit: But not yet.
    Mr. Ross: In addition to the CIPFA proposals, we have only to examine the accounting procedures in the Greater

    661
    London Council to see what can be done. The situation there is worth studying. This is a difficult area in which to legislate and the building industry, with which I have had conversations, accepts that that is the case.
    Like hon. Members who sat through the Committee stage, I have been seeking undertakings from the Minister on this matter, and he gave some pretty firm assurances today. The problem is that these amendments are incorrectly drafted, as was admitted by Baroness Young in the other place. I would remind the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that he had a great deal to do with local government reorganisation a few years ago and is partly responsible for this situation with the direct labour organisations.
    We are constantly reminded of the need to pass legislation that is clear in meaning and workable. Those of us who have been representatives on local authorities know that legislation is repeatedly passed by the House that is indistinct, unclear and often not even workable. That is probably the case with these amendments. They are laudable, and I had hoped to be able to advise my colleagues that they should support the amendments. I had hoped that they would prove acceptable to the Government. However, I have listened to the Minister's speech and I accept that the amendments are clearly defective.
    We have been given an assurance about the early publication of a consultation document which will be followed by a circular. If the Minister will not delay in bringing these matters before the House and will assure us that, if necessary, he is prepared to legislate to ensure that recalcitrant authorities must adhere to the circular, we should be satisfied. Hon. Members will recall that I had a Private Member's Bill, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill. We have had to legislate because some local authorities would not come into line with the circular issued in 1974.
    Mr. Speed: Does not the hon. Member agree that the 13 weeks that the Government have had should have been sufficient time to put into the clause something acceptable to all concerned?
    Mr. Ross: That is not really the case, because we are already late with the Bill.
    662
    It should have been in force in the spring, by the end of March, and the Opposition have already been extremely irresponsible over the Scottish direct labour Bill. I do not know what the side effects of that defeat will be, but I am not prepared to be responsible for putting out of work employees of the 12 principal authorities—I think it is 12—that are mainly concerned. I understand that Stoke-on-Thent is the largest authority involved so far as the extent of work is concerned. I am not prepared to be responsible for putting some people in risk of losing their jobs. Direct labour employees who are worried about our attitude to the Bill have come to see me about it.
    I must therefore support the Government this afternoon.
    Mr. Michael Morris: We have had a long debate on this subject. The Minister now appears to be saying that these 25 districts can have a blank cheque until such time as he can bring forward a Bill. The Liberal Party in the Commons appears to be willing to go along with that although the more thoughtful members of the Liberal Party concede that there must be some control.
    Even since our last debate on this subject the district auditor in Sunderland has had to call in the police—according to a report in the Journal, Newcastle—to investigate the direct labour use of van and crane hire. A disturbing aspect of this debate is that under the Tyne and Wear Act the six local authorities which are most active in this field have accepted provisions similar to those contained in these amendments. There is little difference between that Act and these amendments. Also, in the Department of Transport circular 24/77 the Government have said that for road works—which is a similar matter—proper records, accounts and documents should be kept. Therefore the Government's position today does not stand up. The Department of the Environment is asking for separate accounts in one case and, an Act concerning the most active local authorities in this matter provides that they must keep separate accounts and be competitive.
    I find the position of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) quite astounding. He has had experience in these matters. He has said that he

    663
    supports the provisions in the amendments in broad principle and yet, now that the time has come for him to cast his vote and give advice to his colleagues—and he wrote to the National Federation of Building Trades Employers last week saying that his party supported the amendments—he has said that, provided that there is a discussion document and that the Minister will at some time bring forward a Bill, he is prepared to go along with the Bill as it stands. The country should judge the Liberal Party on that. I ask the hon. Member for the
    Isle of Wight for some hard evidence to show where people are out of work. There are more than 250,000 people out of work in the building industry, and for every one put out of work by a direct labour organisation I am sure that there are many in private enterprise who could take up the job straightaway.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 200.

    Division No. 223]

    AYES

    4.56 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank

    Dormand, J. D.

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Anderson, Donald

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Judd, Frank

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Dunnett, Jack

    Kelley, Richard

    Ashley, Jack

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Kerr, Russell

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston M)

    Eadie, Alex

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Atkinson, Norman

    Edge, Geoff

    Kinnock, Neil

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Lamble, David

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Lamond, James

    Bates, Alf

    English, Michael

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Beith, A. J.

    Ennals, David

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

    Flannery, Martin

    Litterick, Tom

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Luard, Evan

    Boardman, H.

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Ford, Ben

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Forrester, John

    McCartney, Hugh

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

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

    McElhone, Frank

    Bradley, Tom

    Freeson, Reginald

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Freud, Clement

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Gilbert, Dr John

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

    Ginsburg, David

    McNamara, Kevin

    Buchan, Norman

    Golding, John

    Madden, Max

    Buchanan, Richard

    Gould, Bryan

    Magee, Bryan

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Graham, Ted

    Mahon, Simon

    Campbell, Ian

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Canavan, Dennis

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Marks, Kenneth

    Cant, R. B.

    Grocott, Bruce

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Carmichael, Nell

    Hardy, Peter

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Carter, Ray

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Cartwright, John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Mendelson, John

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Hatton, Frank

    Mikardo, Ian

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)

    Coleman, Donald

    Hooley, Frank

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Molloy, William

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Horam, John

    Moonman, Eric

    Corbett, Robin

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Cowans, Harry

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Huckfield, Les

    Moyle, Roland

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Newens, Stanley

    Cronin, John

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Noble, Mike]

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Ogden, Eric

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Hunter, Adam

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Ovenden, John

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Janner, Greville

    Padley, Walter

    Deakins, Eric

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Palmer, Arthur

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Pardoe, John

    Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Parker, John

    Dempsey, James

    John, Brynmor

    Parry, Robert

    Doig, Peter

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Pendry, Tom

    Small, William

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Penhaligon, David

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    Perry, Ernest

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Snape, Peter

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Prescott, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Ward, Michael

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Watkins, David

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Stallard A. W.

    Watkinson, John

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Weitzman, David

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Stoddart, David

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Stott, Roger

    White, James (Pollok)

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Swain, Thomas

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Roper, John

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Ryman, John

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Woodall, Alec

    Sandelson, Neville

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Woof, Robert

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tierney, Sydney

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Selby, Harry

    Tinn, James

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Torney, Tom

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Tuck, Raphael

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Urwin, T. W.

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Mr Joseph Ashton

    Skinner, Dennis

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Arnold, Tom

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    Marten, Neil

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mates, Michael

    Baker, Kenneth

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Mather, Carol

    Banks, Robert

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Maude, Angus

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Mawby, Ray

    Benyon, W.

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gray, Hamish

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Blaker, Peter

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Boscawen, Hon Robers

    Grist, Ian

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Grylls, Michael

    Mills, Peter

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Moate, Roger

    Brittan, Leon

    Hannam, John

    Molyneaux, James

    Brocklebank-Fowler, C

    Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Monro, Hector

    Brooke, Peter

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Brotherton, Michael

    Haselhurst, Alan

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Hastings, Stephen

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Hawkins, Paul

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Mudd, David

    Carlisle, Mark

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Neave, Airey

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Neubert, Michael

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Newton, Tony

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Hurd, Douglas

    Normanton, Tom

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Nott, John

    Clegg, Walter

    James, David

    Onslow, Cranley

    Cockcroft, John

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

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Cope, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Osborn, John

    Corrie, John

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Costain, A. P.

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Crouch, David

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Page, Richard (Workington)

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kilfedder, James

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Kimball, Marcus

    Pink, R. Bonner

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Dunlop, John

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Durant, Tony

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Knox, David

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Lamont, Norman

    Raison, Timothy

    Elliott, Sir William

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

    Lloyd, Ian

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Luce, Richard

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Forman, Nigel

    McCrindle, Robert

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Fry, Peter

    MacGregor, John

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

    MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Shepherd, Colin

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

    Shersby, Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Wall, Patrick

    Sims, Roger

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Walters, Dennis

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Tapsell, Peter

    Warren, Kenneth

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Wells, John

    Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Speed, Keith

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Spence, John

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Younger, Hon George

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Sproat, Iain

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Mr. Nigel Lawson and

    Stainton, Keith

    Vaughan, Dr Gerald

    Mr. Peter Morrison.

    Stanley, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 disagreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 7 agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 8 disagreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Guy Barnett, Mr. Reginald Freeson, Mr. Michael Maoris and Mr. Keith Speed; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Freeson.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
    Clause 9

      ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PETROLEUM
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 7, line 14, after "power" insert
      "subject to the approval of the Secretary of State"
      5.11 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 5.
      Mr. Eadie: The effect of Amendment No. 1 is very similar to the amendment tabled by Opposition hon. Members and debated at length in Committee before being rejected on a Division. In moving
      668
      that amendment they made much of the fact that Section 2(4) of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 provides for the British National Oil Corporation to secure the Secretary of State's consent before going into the refining and downstream petrochemical business.
      For reasons that I sought to explain at the time, an analogy between BNOC and the National Coal Board in this respect does not hold good. There are very good reasons why the Secretary of State's consent should be required in the BNOC's case and why it is not needed in the case of the NCB.
      First, the BNOC's relationship with the Government is necessarily closer. I need only mention the national oil account and the vast revenues that will accrue to BNOC. Secondly, whereas the NCB has duties prescribed in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, the BNOC has no specific duties. Instead, it has been given general powers.
      The NCB's duties are defined in Section 1 of the 1946 Act, and include working and getting the coal in Great Britain and securing the efficient development of the coal mining industry. None of the new powers to be conferred on the NCB by the Bill can in any way distract the Board from its prime task of discharging those duties. The connection between Clause 9 and one of those duties—that of securing the efficient development of the coal mining industry—is explicitly and carefully defined in lines 20–25 of Clause 9(1).
      The fact that the NCB is circumscribed by the priority that it must accord to discharging its statutory duties distinguishes it quite clearly from the BNOC, which has no duties but general powers. Given also the close relationship of the BNOC with the Government and the vast revenues that will accrue to it, a requirement that it secures the Secretary of

      669
      State's consent before embarking on refining and downstream activities makes very good sense. However, because of the differences that I have described, that does not mean that it is equally sensible to provide for consent in Clause 9.
      When we debated this matter in Committee I referred to other factors that rendered the amendment unnecessary. First, Section 3(2) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 states that
      "In framing programmes of reorganisation or development involving substantial outlay on capital account, the Board shall act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister."
      This is given effect each year by the provision by the NCB to the Secretary of State of its forecasts of capital expenditure and its view of the development of the industry over the next five years. This covers not only the Board's mining operations but its non-mining activities. It would certainly include the Board's plans for exercising the powers in Clause 9.
      Secondly, if at some future stage the financing of activities under Clause 9 were to involve loans by the Government to the Board, or by the Board to one of its subsidiaries, the Government would have complete financial control. Furthermore, if it were a question of financial guarantees and not loans, the Government would also exercise control over the giving of guarantees by the Board or one of its subsidiaries. The relevant provisions are set out in page 13 of the Bill.
      Thirdly, as a last resort there remains on the statute book the Coal Industry Act 1971, under Sections 6 and 7 of which the Secretary of State has power to call for a report by the Board on its non-colliery activities and to direct the Board to discontinue or restrict any of its activities, or to dispose of any assets provided that the activities or assets are not necessary to the discharge of its duties.
      5.15 p.m.
      The amendment puts a statutory obligation on the NCB to secure the approval of the Secretary of State before undertaking any activity under Clause 9. The Government take the view that this is unnecessary in the light of existing arrangements. To sum up, nothing that the NCB could do under Clause 9 could derogate from or take precedence over its statutory duties. Under Section 3(2)
      670
      of the nationalisation Act the Secretary of State already exercises a broad control over the NCB's plans for capital investment. He has financial control over any loans by the Government or by the Board and over the giving of financial guarantees. In the last resort, if he does not like something that the Board is doing in the non-mining sector, he can resort to the rather Draconian powers in the 1971 Act.
      In the Government's view the amendment would add an unnecessary piece of bureaucratic procedure to arrangements that are already perfectly adequate.
      Mr. Peter Rost: The Minister has now said three times that the amendment is unnecessary. If it is so unnecessary, why does he go to so much trouble to resist it?
      Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman has heard me on this tack before. I could retort by asking the hon. Gentleman why he is on his feet saying the same things that he said in Committee, when we had a long debate on these issues.
      The points that I made in dealing with Amendment No. 1 about the adequacy of the existing control by the Government over the NCB's activities apply equally to Amendment No. 2. In my view it is even less appropriate to make activities under Clause 10 subject to the approval of the Secretary of State as they are never likely to be more than a marginal extension of the Board's main operations. The amendment would require proposed projects, however small, to be referred to the Secretary of State. That is quite unnecessary and is a bureaucratic luxury that we can well do without.
      Amendment No. 3 is linked to No. 2 and sets out what the Secretary of State would have to do before he could give approval in the case of a project to work and get minerals by open-cast methods otherwise than in association with working and getting coal. He would have to consult the Secretary of State for the Environment. He would have to have regard to the capacity of the mineral industry to meet demand and then he would have to decide whether what was proposed was commercially reasonable and in the national interest.
      The Government's opposition to the amendment is based not so much on

      671
      reservations about the drafting as on the unnecessary nature of the provision. The amendment is prompted, I know, by the apprehensions expressed by representatives of the bulk minerals industry. As I said on Report, I met the representatives myself and arranged for them to discuss their fears with the NCB. As a result of the meetings and of further discussions, a number of assurances were given to the industry. In dealing with the amendment I am afraid that it is necessary to test the patience of the House by going over them.
      I said on Report that the NCB had confirmed that it had no present plans to expand into the aggregates industry. I also said that the powers in Clause 10 would not be used in this way to any significant extent. However, the Board did not wish to be precluded from using the powers if the circumstances were right.
      I gave the further assurance that the Board had agreed that if during the five years from the enactment of the Bill it planned, using the powers under Clause 10, to embark on a project for extraction of bulk minerals by open cast operations, otherwise than in association with the working and getting of coal, it would notify the Sand and Gravel Association and the British Quarrying and Slag Federation. There could then be discussion about any points that still concerned them.
      My noble Friend Lord Strabolgi reinforced that in Committee in another place when he said—this is extremely relevant to the amendment—that the normal planning processes would allow for the existence of spare capacity in the aggregates industry to be taken into account. The NCB, of course, will have to go through the normal planning process before it can work minerals under Clause 10.
      In the light of these assurances I suggest that if Opposition Members support the amendment they will be allowing rather unjustified apprehensions to sway their judgment.
      The Government and the Board have said that they fully appreciate the difficulties under which the aggregates industry is at present labouring, following the reduction in demand. They have no wish to aggravate those difficulties. However, the assurances that have been given
      672
      should surely be sufficient to allay the concern of the industry. In the Government's considered view the amendment is quite unnecessary.
      I now turn to Amendment No. 4. I recognise that it is seeking to entrench in the Bill the assurance that I gave to the House on Report in Vol. 124, c. 1963 of Hansard. It also goes somewhat further in requiring the Secretary of State's approval under Amendment No. 2 to he subject to the consultation having taken place. I have already given reasons why I believe that that particular amendment should be deleted, but I should like to give additional reasons why the remaining substance of this amendment is unhelpful.
      The assurance that I gave on Report was given after consulting the Coal Board and can be taken entirely at its face value. Indeed, this House did just that when the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam)) withdrew an amendment in the light of the statement that I was able to make. I am therefore slightly disappointed to find this new amendment on the return of the Bill from another place. I think that it could rightly be seen as insulting to the sincerity of one of our major nationalised industries when a considered and categorical statement, made with its agreement, is not seen as sufficent guarantee of its conduct.
      It may be that the other place felt that Ministers change from time to time and that it was not enough to have a guarantee given by a Minister who may not in future be responsble for the industry concerned. If so, there are two points to be made. First, the undertaking is one that the National Coal Board accepted, and there can be no doubt that it will he honoured. Secondly, this very Bill includes an illustration of the Government honouring an undertaking given in Parliament not five but 10 years ago. I am referring to Clause 9 and my explanation earlier in our proceedings that, in deciding that an express new power in the shape of Clause 9 should be given to the Board if it were to engage in petrochemical activities, the Government had regard to an undertaking given to Parliament by the then Government in 1966, when the National Coal Board (Additional Powers) Bill was being considered.

      673
      I think that I have given adequate material to the House to illustrate that it should reject the amendments.
      Mr. Hamish Gray: I am afraid that the Under-Secretary of State has failed to convince my right hon. and hon. Friends of his reasons for not accepting these amendments. We believe that the amendments would considerably improve the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) said, if the amendments demand as much attention as the Minister has given to them, it will not make any difference if he accepts them.
      We should like the assurances given by the Under-Secretary and by the Minister in another place to be written into the Bill. This is a perfectly reasonable request. The hon. Gentleman said that Ministers and Governments can change. Indeed, the Chairman of the National Coal Board can chance. Therefore, is it not a much greater protection to have the assurances that have been given written into the Bill? I think that their Lordships did a good job in sending this matter back for further consideration.
      Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, referring to Clauses 9 and 10, merely seek further ministerial approval. They would translate the assurances that have been given into legislation.
      Both clauses represent significant extensions of powers compared with those originally granted under the 1946 Act Both lead the NCB into new non-coal areas of activity and both have aroused considerable concern in the relevant industries. The mineral extraction industry has expressed great reservations. The Minister acknowledged that by meeting representatives of the industry. It is now in the best interests both of the NCB and of the other industries that may be concerned that these amendments should be accepted. It is desirable that there should be tighter ministerial control, and that is what we are seeking to achieve.
      Amendment No. 3 seeks to write into the Bill the assurances that have been given by Ministers. This amendment is the essence of reasonable thought. It has been restricted to cover only opencast extraction of coal, not deep mining.
      674
      Furthermore, it applies only where the extraction does not take place along with working and getting coal. It also allows the Minister to be the judge of the demand on the industry, but in order to allay the fears of other industries it requires the Minister to consult the Secretary of State for the Environment and makes the Minister, not the Board, the judge of what is commercially reasonable and in the national interest.
      During debates in Committee in another place the Minister gave a number of assurances. I shall quote what he said, because it is important in the context of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi said:
      "Moreover, assurances have already been given that the Board has no present plans to expand its operations in the field of bulk mineral extraction; that it is extremely unlikely that the powers would be used to a significant extent in this field".
      That is a good assurance, but it leaves a certain amount of flexibility that worries my hon. Friends to some extent. We believe that someone other than the Board should be the arbiter in such a case. It is surely in the national interest that, where the Board proposes to make such a decision, it should not be left entirely to the Board. We suggest that the judge in such a case should be the Secretary of State. Whether he is the most appropriate person I should not care to argue about, but the Minister might have come forward with a reasonable alternative.
      Later, the Minister in the other place said:
      "This does not rule out individual cases where it may be in the national interest or commercially attractive to engage in such projects. But, under the procedure for notification to the industry during the next five years, the Board will, before deciding whether to go ahead, take into account any representations that the industry may wish to make."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18th July 1977; Vol. 386, cc. 121–2.]
      Of course, the Under-Secretary here and the Minister in the other place gave the assurance that the Sand and Gravel Association and the British Quarrying and Slag Federation would be consulted on such matters. If the hon. Gentleman is genuine in his intention to accommodate those outside the coal industry because of their anxiety, surely it is not too much to ask that those assurances be written into the Bill.

      675
      Amendment No. 4 simply seeks to include the assurances in the legislation. It also has a link back to Amendment No. 2. If that amendment were to be accepted, during tie five years to which this amendment refers the Board and the Minister would be proceeding independently of each other, partly because the repercussions of the Board's intended operations on the industry should be considered by the Minister before giving his approval. If the Board has already allayed the fears of the industry, the approval of the Secretary of State should be forthcoming without too much difficulty.
      We have a busy programme before the House today. Many Bills are coming back from the Lords. Therefore, I do not wish to take too much time in supporting the amendments. We have been round this track on a number of occasions. At this late stage we are merely trying to persuade the Government that the amendments are worthy of inclusion in the Bill. We hope that, even now, our arguments will persuade the Minister to accept the amendments, or at least some of them. I suggest that Amendment No. 3 in particular is worthy of further consideration.
      I know that the Under-Secretary has studied these amendments, because he gave a long list of reasons why he could not accept them. I suggest that on this occasion his briefing is at fault. It may be that his civil servants are too hidebound and are not prepared to be flexible enough. If the hon. Gentleman listens to the comments that will no doubt be made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), I am sure that he, like all of us, will be convinced that the amendments have considerable merit. I must disagree with the reasons given by the Minister for not accepting the amendments.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: On occasions like this of course I declare my interest in the stone and bulk mineral industry, an interest that has been declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
      I was rather surprised at some of the intonations of the Under-Secretary when he opened the debate, particularly because he prayed in aid the fact that the charter Act of 1946 states that any pro-
      676
      gramme of the NCB would be discussed with the Secretary of State. He also prayed in aid of Clause 3. If the Under-Secretary had gone a bit further and referred to other sections of the charter Act he would have found that Clause 10 of the Bill is not necessary to the NCB at all. He could thus have saved us great inconvenience.
      If the Under-Secretary will look at the charter Act and refer to Section 1(2)(e) and Section 1(3) he will find that the Board's functions include
      "any activities which can advantageously be carried on by the Board with a view to making the best use of any of the assets vested in them by this Act".
      In similar terminology, the 1946 Act states that the Board may do what is "requisite, advantageous or convenient". In order that the House may understand the magnitude of this I shall refer to a Written Answer that the Under-Secretary gave to me recently about the operations of the CEGB in looking for uranium in Saskatchewan in Canada. The answer stated that this was done under the available powers of the Electricity Act 1957, which gives the CEGB power to
      "carry on certain activities which appear to the Board to be requisite, advantageous or convenient … or with a view to making the best use of any assets vested in them."
      If that is the case the 1946 Act would be requisite and we need not have bothered to go on to Clause 10. The significance of the point that I am raising is that, as the Minister has now moved from the general to the particular and is seeking specific powers in Clause 10, those powers must be adequately delineated and safeguards must be introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) was perfectly right in saying that the safeguards that are essential are that reserve powers must be with the Secretary of State to intervene and say whether these powers or the exercise of them are necessary.
      I listened with great care to the Under-Secretary. He referred to the five-year surveys of the NCB that are submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. They were mentioned by Lord Strabolgi in another place. But during the Committee Stage we considered the Coal Industry Act 1971. The Under-Secretary spoke about this Act in the most scurrilous terms as being a left-over from the

      677
      Conservative Government. I referred to Section 6 of the Coal Industry Act, 1971, dealing with the power of the Secretary of State to call for a report on the Board's diversified activities, and Section 7, under which directions can be given to the Board to restrict its activities or dispose of any of its assets, and so forth.
      The Minister has already given me a Written Answer to Questions on this matter, when I asked whether any of these powers have been used. The reply was that his right hon. Friend had made no direction under this section and at present had no plans to do so. Why, then, does the Minister pray in aid that the Secretary of State has all these powers up his sleeve—he had the audacity to mention that again this evening—yet he told me in a Written Answer that he had no intention of using those powers. If ever there were a piece of parliamentary humbug, that is it. I must leave that matter precisely where it stands. If the Minister will only refer back to Hansard and to the observations that he made he would learn how extraordinary it is that one could be in such a situation.
      I turn now to Clause 10. Having looked at the words of the Government spokes. man in the other place on 25th July 1977, in Column 753, I find that Lord Strabolgi said that
      "it was implicit in the assurance already given that while demand for aggregates remained well within the capacity of the industry, the Board would not use powers under Clause 10 to any significant extent in working surface aggregate minerals".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25th July 1977; Vol. 386, c. 753.]
      Is the Minister prepared to repeat that assurance in this House today?
      Mr. Rost: It is not in the Minister's brief.
      Mr. Skeet: If it is not in the Minister's brief I am sure that he could make a reference on a piece of paper and answer me in due course and repeat that assurance. The point that I have in mind here is this that if that assurance in the other place is relied upon, if one consults the Department of Environment forecast figures for aggregates one finds that in 1973 the mid-point in the range was 279 million tons. The forecast for 1985 is 237 million tons, which is very much below the 1973 peak. If we take the period 1976–1981 the average output
      678
      figure is estimated at 217 million tons and the output for 1982 to 1985 was estimated at 231 million tons. Therefore it looks as if the peak figure for 1973 will not be reached until after 1985. Are we to say that, following the undertaking given in the other place by the Government spokesman, no use of these powers will be made until after 1985? If I am right in my assessment the request for these powers in the Bill is premature, because 1985 is eight or nine years away. There are a number of Bills which come before the House from time to time dealing with the coal industry, and this matter could wait for a later Bill.
      I also ask the Under-Secretary to give an undertaking to the House that the NCB will not engage in any other form of open cast operations until the production of aggregates has exceeded 330 million tons per annum, as shown in the publication of the Government's statistical services for the Department of the Environment, and that in accordance with one of the amendments that has been tabled he takes into account the capacity of the industry to deliver the products necessary for the construction industry and road construction. I am concerned with the recent report published by the Government, the transport policy White Paper, Cmnd. 6836, which indicates that the amount of money to be spent on major roads will be severely cut and therefore all the forecasts for the years ahead may be reduced considerably. Obviously, therefore, if the Minister does not intend to accept any of the Lords' amendments he must be prepared to give the necessary assurance that we are asking for.
      On Amendment No. 3, if it was given as an undertaking, why is the Under-Secretary not prepared to write it into the Bill'? He could concede this amendment and concede Amendment No. 2 as well. I should have thought that the Minister would be concerned with the problems that the NCB has in looking after its primary function of having to extract coal. It already has enough problems on its plate, such as productivity problems. Productivity has been stabilised for approximately seven years, at roughly between 44 cwt and 45 cwt output per man shift. The NCB's prime consideration is the extraction of coal from the ground.

      679
      It is also necessary for there to be consultation on the problems that will arise in trying to absorb the additional powers under Clause 9 in dealing with petroleum and chemicals, and in operating abroad under the terms of Clause 11.
      The powers that the Minister seeks under Clause 10 will not enhance the opportunities for marketing coal or coal products. The Minister has said that there is no intention to use these powers and he has not decided how they would operate.
      It is essential for the Secretary of State to act as an arbitrator, as one who can stand well above the National Coal Board and tell it that a particular project is not viable or is unfair to the bulk mineral industry involved. Many small men are dependent for their livelihoods on the operations of their quarries and undertakings. For the National Coal Board these are entirely peripheral activities.
      The Minister referred to the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 as though it was an encumbrance to the NCB. I should have thought that it was not. If the Minister thumbs through the pages of that Act he will see that the ancillary rights are obtained on application to the Chancery Division of the High Court. Under Section 3 the NCB would have to prove only that the granting of the ancillary rights was
      "expedient in the national interest."
      We have seen how Ministers have construed" the national interest" in the past. The Minister's arguments against the Lords amendments are insubstantial and as light as gossamer. The Minister should have the courage to say that he is prepared to accept the Lords amendments or at least some of them.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I, too, have listened to what the Minister read so studiously from his brief, and my reaction accords precisely with that of my hon. Friends the Members for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and Bedford (Mr. Skeet). I intervene in the debate at this very late stage of the proceedings because of the considerable interest in my constituency in the powers sought under the clause. Coal mining is an industry in my constituency, but so is gypsum mining. British Plasterboard, through its gypsum mines, is a major employer in my constituency.
      680
      In addition, numerous sand and gravel workings are to be found along the valley of the Trent, and many of my constituents are involved with them. The fears of that industry have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. However, there is considerable concern among those engaged in the extraction of gypsum that the NCB will be given very wide powers to engage in the extraction of almost any mineral it might discover in the course of its exploration for coal.
      From reading what the Minister has said in past debates, I have followed what the Government and the Coal Board have been trying to say about these wide powers. It has been argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that the new powers are not necessary as the Board already has adequate powers in other statutes and it is therefore interesting to speculate on why it is felt necessary to make them so explicit. The Minister and the NCB have appeared to be trying to reassure everyone that they have no intention of using the extremely wide powers that they are seeking. It is most puzzling then that they seek them. The House should hesitate before agreeing to such wide powers as are provided for in the Bill.
      The minimum safeguard that those in other industries are entitled to is provided for in Lords Amendment No. 2. It is that in exercising these sweeping powers the Board should be required to seek the approval of the Secretary of State of the day.
      The Government have given an explicit assurance on open cast extraction of sand and gravel, although that is of little relevance to gypsum, which is usually extracted by deep mining. The further Lords amendments simply seek to write into the Bill the assurances that the Minister has already given, but the Minister is desperately trying to persuade us not to write them into the Bill. I can understand that people may feel a little indignant if their word alone is not acceptable, but it can do no actual damage to those who give these assurances if provisions in the same terms are written into the Bill to bind their successors in office. I cannot see that that would prevent the NCB doing anything it wants to do within the terms of the present assurances. I find the Minister's

      681
      opposition to these amendments, which are harmless and inconsequential if he means what he says, puzzling, and I hope therefore that the House will reject the Minister's case.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Eadie: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the debate. One of the major criticisms by the Opposition is that I spent too much time going into too much detail about why the House should resist the Lords amendments. It is strange that one should be criticised for devoting too much attention to argument advanced in the debate.
      I have also been chided for not agreeing to write into the Bill the provisions sought by the other place. If hon. Members had listened to what I said about the amendments they would have heard me set out the reasons for not doing that. I was asked for genuine assurances, and that was what I gave. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that he had read the earlier debate. I suggest that he re-reads it, because that will give him cause to reflect on what he said this afternoon.
      I see no menace in the Bill. It was I who twice invited the Sand and Gravel Association to meet the NCB. It was conceded during the Report stage that I did everything possible to give assurances. I gave the assurances, the assurances arc genuine, and the concern that has been expressed is I believe unwarranted.
      The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) made a significant remark. He said that we had been round this track before. I say to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), having listened to his speech, that we have been round that same track before. These were the same speeches that we heard in Committee. I suggest therefore at that there are constructive and solid reasons for disagreeing with the Lords amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 2 disagreed to.

    Clause 10

      ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL OR PETROLEUM
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 8, line 17, at end insert—
      "(IA) Where the Board intend to exercise their powers under this section to work and get minerals by means of open-cast operations otherwise than in association with working and getting coal, the Secretary of State shall not give his approval under subsection (1) above unless he is satisfied, after consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment and having regard to the overall demand on the capacity of the mineral industry, that the exercise of such powers by the Board would be commercially reasonable and in the national interest."
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Eadie.]
      The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 218.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 dis. agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Eadie, Mr. Gray, Mr. Hannam and Dr. J. Dickson Mabon Three to be the quorum.—[Mr Eadie.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to to be communicated to the Lords.

      CRIMINAL LAW BILL [Lords]
      Lords amendments to Commons amendments, consequential amendments made by the Lords, Lords amendments in lieu of certain Comnions amendments and Lords Reason for disagreeing to certain Commons amendments, considered.
    Clause 6

      VIOLENCE FOR SECURING ENTRY
      The Lords agree to the amendment made by the Commons in page 6, line 37 and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill:
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 6, line 36, leave out second "or".
      6.3 p.m.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I beg to move.

      687
      That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 9.
      Mr. John: These amendments are consequential on amendments made on Report, when we moved to reduce the penalties for the offences in Clauses 6 and 8. All that we are doing here is to leave out the word "or", which would have led to more severe penalties under those two clauses.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 7

      ADVERSE OCCUPATION OF RESIDENTIAL PREMISES
      The Lords disagree to the Commons amendments in page 7, line 8, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 7, line 8, leave out from first "of" to end of line 8 and insert:
      "(a) a displaced residential occupier of the premises; or
      (b) an individual who is a protected intending occupier of the premises by virtue of subsection (1A) or subsection (1C) below.
      (1A) For the purposes of this section an individual is a protected intending occupier of any premises at any time if at that time—

      (a)he has in those premises a freehold interest or a leasehold interest with not less than 21 years still to run and he acquired that interest as a purchaser for money or money's work; and

      (b)he requires the premises for his own occupation as a residence; and

      (c)he is excluded from occupation of the premises by a person who entered them, or any access to them, as a trespasser; and

      (d)he or a person acting on his behalf holds a written statement—

      (i) which specifies his interest in the premises; and

      (ii) which states that he requires the premises for occupation as a residence for himself; and

      (iii) with respect to which the require. ments in subsection (1B) below are fulfilled.

      (1B) The requirements referred to in subsection (1A)(d)(iii) above are—

      (a) that the statement is signed by the person whose interest is specified in it in the presence of a justice of the peace or commissioner for oaths; and

      688

      (b) that the justice of the peace or commissioner for oaths has subscribed his name as a witness to the signature;

      and a person is guilty of an offence if he makes a statement for the purposes of subsection (IA)(d) above which he knows to be false in a material particular or if he recklessly makes such a statement which is false in a material particular.
      (1C) For the purposes of this section an individual is also a protected intending occupier of any premises at any time if at that time—

      (a) he has been authorised to occupy the premises as a residence by an authority to which this subsection applies; and

      (b) he is excluded from occupation of the premises by a person who entered the premises, or any access to them, as a trespasser; and

      (c) there has been issued to him by or on behalf of the authority referred to in paragraph (a) above a certificate stating that the authority is one to which this subsection applies, being of a description specified in the certificate, and that he has been authorised by the authority to occupy the premises concerned as a residence.

      (1D) Subsection (1C) above applies to the following authorities:—

      (a) any body mentioned in section 14 of the Rent Act 1977 (landlord's interest belonging to local authority etc.);

      (b) the Housing Corporation; and

      (c) a housing association, within the meaning of section 189(1) of the Housing Act 1957, which is for the time being either registered in the register of housing associations established under section 13 of the Housing Act 1974 or specified in an order made by the Secretary of State under paragraph 23 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975."

      Mr. John: I beg to move, That this House do not insist upon its amendments to Clause 7 and agree with the Lords in their amendments proposed in lieu.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 and amendments thereto, and Lords Amendment No. 8.
      Mr. John: Hon. Members who were present during the debate will recollect that there was a discussion based on Amendment No. 37 in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) about the scope and nature of the clause. After some discussion, an agreement was arrived at whereby a narrower and less open to abuse clause should be substituted in place of the new clause then being moved. These are amendments which incorporate that agreement. Perhaps I may give very briefly the details of them.

      689
      The position of the displaced residential occupier is undisturbed. But, in addition to that, the benefits of Clause 7 are extended to a protected intending occupier—that is, a person allocated a tenancy by a local authority or a housing association, and a person who has bought the freehold or a long lease on premises which he requires for occupation by himself as a resident. In each case there are supplementary provisions to prevent abuse, to ensure that the trespasser clearly understands his liability to be convicted of a criminal offence, and to give a police constable a firm basis on which to exercise his powers.
      In the case of a local authority tenant, there will have to be a certificate signed by the local authority to confirm that a tenancy has already been allocated. In the case of a person who has bought a house or flat, he will have to make a properly witnessed statement to declare his interest in the premises and that he requires them for his own occupation. The other amendments are consequential upon those amendments.
      I commend these proposals to the House.
      Miss Jo Richardson: I beg to move, as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 2, subsection (1A), after paragraph (b) insert:
      (bb) he intends to take up residence of the premises within six weeks; and'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments to Lords Amendment No. 2:
      In subsection (lA)(d), at end of subparagraph (ii), insert:
      (iii) which states the date by which he will have taken up residence of the premises, being a date less than six weeks after the day that the statement is signed; and'.
      In subsection (1B), after 'subsection (1A)(d)(iii)', insert and subsection (1E)
      (c) below.'
      In subsection (1B), after second 'above', insert ' or subsection (1E) below.'
      In subsection (1C), after paragraph (a), insert:
      '(aa) he intends to take up residence of the premises within six weeks; and'.
      After subsection (ID), insert:
      690
      '(1E) For the purposes of subsection (1) above no person shall be guilty of the offence of failing to leave premises on being required to do so by or on behalf of a displaced residential occupier unless the person making the request holds a written statement—

      (a) which specifies his interest in the premises; and

      (b) which states that he was resident on the premises until he was excluded from occupation by a person who entered them, or any access to them, as a trespasser; and>

      (c) with respect to which the requirements of subsection (IB) are fulfilled.'.

      We may also take the following amendments to Lords Amendment No. 7:
      In subsection (2AA), after first 'of', insert
      'a displaced residential occupier of the premises or'.
      In subsection (2AA), paragraph (a), after 'above', insert ' or subsection (1E) above'.
      Miss Richardson: Lords Amendment No. 2 is in my opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of most Labour Members, certainly an improvement on the amendment which was carried on Report, which expanded the scope of Clause 7 so widely that it would have given rise to abuse by unscrupulous landlords. In practice, therefore, if that had been left in the Bill, it would have made it impossible for those in possession to challenge the good faith of those claiming to be entitled to possession. I am glad that Lords Amendment No. 2 has gone through the House of Lords and that we are now considering it.
      What I have tried to do is merely to seek to tighten up the Lords amendment a little, and I should like to explain why. My amendments fall into two groups. The intention of the first group is to make matters clear to protected intending occupiers, hereinafter referred to as "PIO". We seem to be producing more and more sets of initials. When I saw the initials "PIO", I could not think what they meant. I was inclined to mix them up with something in the Middle East.
      However, having got protected intending occupiers, the intention of the first group of my amendments is to make clear that the criminal law can be invoked only when actual occupation has been stopped. In other words, if a person buys a house and finds that there are squatters therein, under the present Lords Amendment No.

      691
      2 he needs only to say that he intends to occupy at some future date. At least, that is how I read the Lords amendment. If there is a more specific intention than that, I should very much like to hear what it is from the Minister. If the present clause had contained, for example, the word "immediate" or some qualifying phrase such as that, I should have been happier. That is why I am seeking to insert a time limit of six weeks.
      If the Minister would spell out what the intention really is, I might withdraw my amendment, depending upon what he says, but I believe that my amendment would make the whole clause clearer. I have tried to pace it out. It stretches from the original half a page on Clause 7 to about two and a half pages on Clause 7. It is growing, but my amendment would make it clearer.
      The hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) talked on Report about the sense of outrage that people felt about being prevented from taking up residence. It is a sense of outrage that everyone understands. I think that my amendment restricts the clause to that, and I hope that the House will support it.
      With regard to the second group of amendments, I ought to explain that there appears to have been a misprint. It can only be a printer's error because I have checked the script which I put in. My second amendment in subsection (1B) should say: "after 'above' insert". That makes it clearer and that is, in fact, the manuscript which I put in to the Table Office.
      The intention of the amendments is to extend the obligation to get a statement from the displaced residential occupier—the DRO—in the same way as will be the case with regard to a protected intending occupier. That will help the policeman on the beat who has to make the decision—and it is a difficult one—when he is called in to arrest a trespasser. He ought to be able to require proof that the displaced residential occupier is really a displaced residential occupier.
      I shall give an example in order to make my argument more graphic. Let us suppose that a person buys a house or a flat, goes along with a removal van, takes in the packing cases and, because it is late in the afternoon or early in the
      692
      evening, does not want to do any more work. He sleeps on the premises overnight. In the morning he goes out to buy a pint of milk, but when he returns he finds that the flat has been taken over by squatters. Does that make him a protected intending occupier or a displaced residential occupier?
      What I am seeking to do is to give real proof of the fact that someone who has slept overnight is a displaced residential occupier. That will make it easier all round for the alleged trespasser, the displaced residential occupier and the police to sort the matter out.
      The Minister of State said something very much like that on Report. He said:
      "It would be valuable for any person who was seeking to act on behalf of a displaced residential occupier to furnish himself with the clearest evidence that he was doing so".—[Official Report, 13th July 1977; Vol. 935, c. 709.]
      What I am seeking to do is to make sure that the displaced residential occupier shall be obliged to provide some written evidence that he is, in fact, a displaced residential occupier. That is the purpose of the amendments. They are designed to clarify the situation for all concerned, and I hope that they will find support in the House.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may perhaps be convenient to point out that the House is now considering Lords Amendment No. 2 and the amendments thereto, Lords Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 and the amendments thereto, and Lords Amendment No. 8.
      A further item which should be noticed is that there is a misprint in the second amendment by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) in subsection (1B) of Lords Amendment No. 2. It should read: "after ' above', insert 'or subsection'" and so on.
      Sir Michael Havers: I express our gratitude to the Minister for responding in accordance with the discussions that we had and, indeed, for slightly extending what we had agreed by going as far as housing associations. The safeguards here are sufficient. While I understand the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), I do not think that any time limit such as six weeks would be effective because a major reconstruction might

      693
      have to be done to the house—especially in the case of something like dry rot—and six weeks would not be enough time.
      It seems to me that the safeguards are quite sufficient, and we are grateful that the Government have implemented their undertaking.
      Mr. George Cunningham: There are very many hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, who believe that the criminal law ought not to be involved at all in dealing with squatters. That is not my view. In any case, that is not what we are now doing in the Bill. The criminal law is to be involved to some extent, and up to some line, in dealing with the squatting situation.
      The question which arises is whether we have defined wisely the line at which the operation of the criminal law stops. I must apologise that during earlier deliberations on Report I did not intervene. I was distracted by other matters. I was very pleased that the amendment moved by the Opposition was accepted on Report, and I am only sorry that it was accepted subject to an understanding that it would be amended by the Lords roughly along the lines on which it is now before the House.
      6.15 p.m.
      There are many parts of the country where the kind of difficulty which I want briefly to describe does not happen very much. But it certainly happens an awful lot in my part of the world. Very frequently these days, in a borough like Islington, the borough council, the GLC, the Ministry of Defence or a housing association buys old properties and does them up. The rehabilitation is very extensive and expensive and the time taken is prolonged.
      One does not offer a place to a tenant before the work is done. If one did, no tenant would normally say "Yes" in those circumstances. While the work is being done over some months, and at a cost of many thousands of pounds per unit dwelling, no tenant is allocated to the accommodation.
      A common occurrence is that when this prolonged and expensive work of rehabilitation is just about completed, in come the squatters. They have watched the work going on, and they pop in.
      694
      Often they are not the kind of squatters who see an empty home, and because they are really homeless they move in to put a roof over their heads. They are often what I would describe as middle-class squatters.
      As a result, in my constituency the GLC has to pay patrols outside the places that it is doing up in order to ensure that once they are done up they will be available to people on the waiting list and will not be immediately occupied by squatters. I have had the same situation with regard to Ministry of Defence buildings in my constituency where, as soon as the work is done, in come the squatters. There is another area where private residents in accommodation which was being renovated have felt obliged to put out vigilante patrols so that squatters would not move into those units of accommodation into which they were due to be moved when the work was completed. But since no tenant had been allocated for any particular accommodation, they would not qualify under the terms of the amendment as protected intending occupiers.
      My feeling is that the language adopted by this House on Report is roughly correct with regard to this point. A local authority or its housing manager ought to constitute an intending occupier or a residential occupier in respect of this accommodation. We ought so to define "residential occupier" as to include a local authority within the definition in respect of this accommodation.
      If it were possible so to draft that definition that it applied only in cases where the accommodation could soon be occupied and was intended so to be occupied, I would certainly go along with that, because that would exclude the case of broken-down property which was not likely to have any work done on it and certainly would not be occupied for an extensive period.
      If it were not possible to define that line between accommodation about to be occupied and other accommodation, I would have preferred to give to any local authority this special legally protected status in respect of this accommodation. We have now found an illogical line. It means that, if a property comprising three units of accommodation has had £50,000 spent on it to do it up, which it often the case in my constituency, but

      695
      tenancies have not yet been allocated, the criminal law will not be involved when squatters move into it, but that as soon as tenancies have been allocated the criminal law comes into operation.
      There is no logical defence for drawing the line precisely in that place. In an area where this kind of situation persists, I believe that the changes to the law which have now been made will be useless and that the changes which we have dropped between what we did on report and the Lords' consideration of the Bill are the ones that we need and the ones which we shall miss having in the years to come.
      Mr. John: Let me first deal with the amendments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). I think that I can show her that they are unnecessary. As regards her proposed six weeks' time limit, she is being more generous than the Bill, because, in order to qualify, a protected intending occupier must be excluded from the premises at that time and he must intend to use them as occupation for his own residence at that time. In fact, that is tighter rather than looser.
      My hon. Friend's second point concerns the displaced residential occupier. There are three brief reasons which I adduce against the requirement of a statement. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the person who is a displaced residential occupier will be perfectly clear. There will be furniture arid effects in the house which will identify the person and which the displaced residential occupier can identify to the squatter to make him aware of his rights. Generally, he will be known in the locality as a person who has occupied the house. It should be easy for the police to identify that person and to act upon his instructions.
      The second reason is that the requirement to sign a statement personally will exclude one category which the Committee had in mind, arid that was the person who was in hospital at the time. It might be very difficult for a person in hospital at the time to sign such a personal certificate.
      The third reason which I suggest to my hon. Friend, although not with any great force, is that her second group of amendments are technically defective. However, I hope she will accept that the
      696
      anxieties which she expressed are met in the Lords amendment as it is.
      Mr. Graham Page: The Minister of State said that, under the amendment as it is drafted, it would be necessary for the PIO to show that he required residence in the premises immediately. This is subsection (I A)(b),
      "he requires the premises for his own occupation as a residence".
      Does the hon. Gentleman read into that that he requires them immediately—at that moment?
      Mr. John: It is coupled with exclusion from that residence, which also connotes the desire to occupy that property at that time.
      I come, then, to the matters raised by by hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I quite understand what he means. He has always taken the strong view that the local authority should be as entitled as a person to have the powers of the criminal law.
      I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend, and it is distinguishable in the fact that the position which arises when a tenancy has been granted to an individual and when a person has purchased a house is much more immediate and much more fraught with difficulty than when a local authority has a squat on its hands before it allocates the tenancy.
      I do not think that my hon. Friend can read this in isolation from the improvements to the civil procedure which we have also made, the effect of which will be in some calculations to halve the time under the accelerated procedure which is necessary to recover possession. I believe that the combination of the civil procedure for the person who is not either displaced or an intended residential occupier and the improved civil procedure for local authorities which have to manage property will give a very worthwhile and very speedy remedy against squatters.
      Mr. George Cunningham: Can my hon. Friend tell me the answer to the following problem? Let us say that a local authority has a lot of the kind of accommodation that I have described which is expensively done up but tenancies for which are not yet allocated, and it then has a squatting problem on its

      697
      hands. Would it be possible for the local authority to use subsection (1C) by giving the certificate to its housing manager in respect of all that accommodation? Would not that bring the law into operation?
      Mr. John: No, I do not think that it would. The local authority would have to grant a tenancy, which would be a bona fide tenancy. The situation which my hon. Friend describes would be a much wider one dealing with a block of property. In my view, we have achieved the right balance in the Lords amendment. The civil procedure will be helpful to local authorities in dealing with these matters.
      Mr. Graham Page: I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's answer to my intervention. In the case of someone who is entitled to occupation at once and who requires to put in decorators before he enters into residence, surely he is covered as the clause is now worded. He is entitled to immediate occupation, not necessarily for immediate residence but for eventual residence. To say that he has to show and to prove to the policeman who supports him that he requires to live in those premises immediately is not what the clause says—that he requires occupation immediately and for eventual residence.
      Mr. John: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the end of the second line of subsection (1A), he will see the words "if at that time." Then it follows from there.
      Miss Richardson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for spelling out how the Lords amendment will work in practice. What he has said will be useful when it is read in addition to the amendment. I shall go away from the House for the Summer Recess with the words "defective drafting" ringing in my ears. However, I have no explanation of how defective is "defective" and what it really means.
      Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 agreed to.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause A

      BOMB HOAXES
      The Lords disagree to the first Commons amendment in page 29, line 42, but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 29. line 42, at end insert New Clause A:
      "A.—(1) A person who—

      (a) places any article in any place whatever; or

      (b) dispatches any article by post, rail or any other means whatever of sending things from one place to another,

      with the intention (in either case) of inducing in some other person a belief that it is likely to explode or ignite and thereby cause personal injury or damage to property is guilty of an offence.
      In this subsection "article" includes substance.
      (2) A person who communicates any information which he knows or believes to be false to another person with the intention of inducing in him or any other person a false belief that a bomb or other thing liable to explode or ignite is present in any place or location whatever is guilty of an offence.
      (3) For a person to be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above it is not necessary for him to have any particular person in mind as the person in whom he intends to induce the belief mentioned in that subsection.
      (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

      (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding £1,000, or both;

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."

  REPEAL OF SECTION 3 OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1961
  The Lords disagree to the Commons amendment in page 34, line 7, for the following Reason—
  Lords Amendment No. 15, Because it is inadvisable to fetter the discretion of the Court when dealing with offenders aged between 17 and 21 years.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 21.
  Mr. John: I beg to move, That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.
  This matter concerns the question of the repeal of Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961. It does not and did not appear in the Bill, yet this is the fifth time the matter has been debated during its passage. It has acquired a familiarity, not to say notoriety, amongst all those who have been concerned with the Bill. Nevertheless, I think it right that I should explain briefly what Section 3 is concerned with.
  Section 3 was enacted to prohibit the court from passing a sentence of imprisonment of between six months and three years for those in the age band 17 to 21 or, if previously borstal training has been ordered, between six months and 18 months, and makes borstal training the appropriate medium-term sentence in such cases.
  What worries me about the debate in the other place is that it seemed to

  703
  be assumed by those who took part that the only alternatives proposed were a sentence of less than six months or more than three years. But it is quite clear from the leading case upon the subject, the Lowe case, in which the previous Lord Chief Justice, the present Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Stephenson took part, that the appropriate penalty in such cases was not a longer term of imprisonment than three years but borstal training.
  The other place has now repeated its repeal of Section 3. I ask the House to disagree with that decision, first, on practical grounds, and, secondly, on grounds of principle. First, it has throughout been the concern of all of us in the House to try where proper to reduce the prison population. The effect of the repeal of Section 3 is a matter on which no precise evidence can be given at this stage, but I believe that it would have an effect on the length of time and the number of sentences. I am prepared to say that we cannot correctly predict the absolute effect. If we could, it would certainly be much easier to plan prison buildings than it is now. I think that it was accepted in Committee by the hon. and learned Members for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) that the effect of the repeal would be to increase the prison population. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, if he looks back at his contribution, will see that he said in terms not only that the prison population would be increased but that the use of Borstal as a sentence would be decreased.
  The House ought to weigh the effect when it tries to legislate, because we cannot legislate blind to the consequences of what we are doing. First, there is the fact that young prisoner centres are overflowing. The majority of young prisoners are now serving their sentences not in young prisoner centres but in local adult prisons. We know from our experience and our prison debates over the past few months that the local prisons are areas of maximum pressure within the prison system. Already the percentage of prisoners who receive immediate prison sentences has almost doubled to 25 per cent. in the last decade.
  By repealing Section 3 we should add to the numbers who go to local prisons to
  704
  be locked away for most of the day without sufficient work, education or recreation. The House should ponder the effect not only on the prisoners' lives but on the chances of their committing further offences through being committed to that sort of régime.
  Even if the House were to agree to what the Lords have done, there are no resources to carry it out. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has to issue a consent order under the Bill to bring this proposal into effect, would not be able to do so for some considerable time for public expenditure reasons. I could easily tell the House "Let us accept it", knowing that the commencement order would not be laid for a considerable time, but I believe that it is wrong for anybody to tell the House "Do what you like, and we shall try somehow to shelter you from the practical consequences". The House must legislate in the belief that its wishes will be carried out, that they cost money, and that that money is not only findable but can be found within the time scale.
  Mr. Neville Sandelson: Does not my hon. Friend equally recognise that, whatever the administrative difficulties may be, there is a vital principle at stake? That should perhaps concern the House more than any other consideration.
  Mr. John: If my hon. Friend had been here at the beginning of my contribution he would know that I was dealing not only with the practicalities, which is as far as I was allowed to go before his intervention, but with the principle of the matter. If my hon. Friend will wait for the passage in which I deal with the principle, I think that he will be satisfied with what I have to say.
  There are severe practical problems. If there is to be an addition to the already overcrowded prisons I should be wrong not to advise the House of the bad effect it would have on the staff in young prisoner prisons and local prisons through having an additional burden placed upon them. It would weaken morale greatly, and there is great anxiety in the prison service about the result of this debate.
  Mr. John Lee Mr. John Lee(Birmingham, Handsworth) rose—
  Mr. John: May I be allowed to develop my point?
  I wish to deal with the effect that this proposal would have on the borstal staff, who do a great deal of very good work. I regret that implicit in the argument is a devaluation—perhaps an unconscious devaluation—of the borstal system. I ask hon. Members, not only to consider the Angell case and the other cases relating to the width of régime in the borstal system, but to be clear about the effect on borstal staff of a devaluation of the kind which I have mentioned.
  Mr. Lee: Plainly we are all concerned about the deleterious effect of overcrowded prisons upon young prisoners. However, assuming that the practical objection which my hon. Friend makes is valid, is there not a strong argument, on the criteria he has put forward, for abolishing prison sentences of six months or less for young offenders? Surely that would get away from the situation which almost everybody agrees has many objections.
  Mr. John: The difficulty of making an argument which is in two parts is that people jump in on the first part when one intends to deal with the matter in the second part. I shall deal with the question of sentencing and policy towards young prisoners in the second part of my argument.
  The 1961 Act moved away from imprisonment which had the containment philosophy in it towards a greater training element with a greater possibility of constructive development and therefore diminution of the chance of re-offence. Many hon. and learned Members and the judiciary have expressed dissatisfaction with Section 3. No one denies that Section 3 is not wholly satisfactory. Certainly it is not the last word in the matter—it was never intended to be—but the question which must be considered is whether by repealing Section 3 we should move back to the penal policy of the 1950s, which is what that would mean, or move forward to the future.
  The blueprint for the future is the Younger Report, which recommended abolition of the three separate sentences of prison, borstal and detention and their replacement with a generic sentence of custody and control in which the court would set a determinate sentence.
  706
  Custody and control orders would avoid the false dichotomy between training and punishment. This is the way forward. and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) appeared, in his recent speech to the NACRO conference, to accept the wisdom of the custody and control order.
  However, there is implicit even in the custody and control order a resource problem, but I repeat our determination to work out a scheme which implements the Younger recommendation without substantial new resource implications. It cannot be a complete adoption of the Younger proposals, but I believe that it will be a worthwhile step forward. We shall bring the scheme to the House well within the time which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would have had to delay the commencement order so that right hon. and hon. Members may debate it. In the meantime, they can discuss certain choices, because choices are implicit in this new form of order, and as a result they can replace Section 3 with a more constructive and forward looking policy, which is the right policy for prisoners in the age group in question.
  6.45 p.m.
  Also at stake is the future of the Bill. The Bill has much of value in it. It reforms the law of conspiracy; it modernises the forcible entry statutes; it secures a vital redistribution of work from overloaded courts; and it secures the necessary increase in penalties to deal with many matters which need to be dealt with. It enshrines the work of two committees which would be brought to nought if the Bill were not passed, because I am bound to tell hon. Members that there would be no prospect of early reintroduction. It would be ironic if the Bill were to be defeated, supposing that the House follows my advice, on a provision which was not in the original Bill, which on any view of the central issue of the Bill is peripheral to the Bill and which was not considered by either of the committees whose work is enshrined in the Bill.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am very bad at understanding the procedure, but is not the position that, as the Lords have passed the amendment, should this House choose to pass it the Bill would go forward with the amendment and it would not be killed? If the House chooses to reject the

  707
  amendment, the only way in which it can be killed is by the Lords insisting on it.
  Mr. John: We are at the end of a long and tiring Session, but I did not think that I was making myself as unclear as that. I was addressing myself to the other place as well as to hon. Members, but it is right that I should put on record the consequences of the rejection by the other place of our decision.
  Sir Michael Havers: Why not simply agree with the other place?
  Mr. John: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a very good way of compromising. He must be excellent in the robing room on civil cases. His idea of a compromise is unconditional surrender on all occasions.
  If the House were to accept my advice and to insist on the retention of Section 3, those who have to consider the matter at a later stage will weigh up the benefits of the Bill and the constructive way in which, I think, I have responded to their anxieties. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will bring forward the principle of the custody and control order and will discuss it within the time scale with the House. To look forward to the future with Younger is better than to look back to the 1961 legislation. That is why I think the House should disagree with the Lords.
  Sir Michael Havers: When one reads the various Home Office explanations given on the many occasions that amendments to repeal Section 3 have been before either this House or the other place, one is struck by the variety of arguments put forward. It is almost as if Mr. Micawber had said that he was waiting for something to turn down rather than for something to turn up, because every time the request is made a different reason for refusing it is given. I wish to make several points which need emphasising.
  The judges speak with a single voice on this matter. The cases that we have been able to demonstrate where the consequences of Section 3 lead to ridiculous results are exceptions. It is not right to say that the prisons will be crowded with young men sentenced to terms of imprisonment of between six months and three years if Section 3 is repealed.
  708
  It is really the exceptions—the cases where there is no other proper alternative—which have led to some of the troubles that we have had already this summer. It is quite impossible to judge how many there would be. In a number of cases the Court of Appeal has upheld a judge who has said that he would like to impose a two-year sentence because six months was totally inadequate. He has been bound to give the prisoner three years because of the provisions of Section 3. In many cases a judge has awarded two-year sentences and has been told by the clerk of the court that he can give only three years or six months. The sentence has been changed to three years because the judge has felt that the seriousness of the crime made six months quite inadequate.
  These are cases in which prisoners are serving longer terms because of the operation of Section 3. This is filling up the prisons with young offenders who should he released after 18 months or two years. However, their crimes are so serious that a six-month sentence is ridiculous. It is really these exceptions that have led to longer rather than shorter sentences, and therefore my hon. Friends and I will support these amendments.
  Mr. Sandelson: The case against Section 3 is immense. This section is indefensible in principle, and in practice it is opposed by the judiciary at all levels. The overwhelming majority of Members at the Bar of all political sympathies and attachments who witness—unlike many hon. Members—these things in their professional experience in the courts are opposed to it. They see the deplorable consequencies that flow from the absurdities and anomalies in the operation of the section.
  This is not a political issue. Loyal as I am or believe myself to be to my party and my colleagues, I am not prepared to vote today in support of such a restrictive measure which, under the guise of a social benefit in practice will result in serious individual injustice. It will give rise to a sense of grievance on the part of one defendant as opposed to another of equal guilt.
  Our duty must be to show our concern here and now, and to take account, in our immediate concern of the issue, of the fact that the prospects for legislation in

  709
  the future are very uncertain. I very much hope that the Government—I welcome the assurance that my hon. Friend gave just now—will introduce a measure along the lines of the Younger proposals.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome legislation embodying an entirely new approach to sentencing policy. But that lies in the future. My concern is for the present and the dilemma which one or more judges will face tomorrow morning in sentencing young men in this age group who have been convicted of, or have pleaded guilty to serious criminal offences.
  The present restriction is illogical and harmful to individuals who, through no fault of their own, will fall victim to it. It is also damaging to the proper administration of justice and the law. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has so ably steered the Bill through Committee, are both well aware of my views on this matter and, therefore, my vote tonight will be no surprise to them.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) I must congratulate the Minister of State because he has thought up a totally new set of reasons for opposing this amendment on this occasion. However, although his reasons are new they are no better than his previous ones. In fact they are worse. His reason about devaluing the borstal system and the effect on prison staff morale is one that I have never heard mentioned before in the confines of the Home Office in relation to the arguments against Section 3. The other reason the Minister of State gave was the effect on prison resources, but I must point out that the Government of which he is a member put a stop to the prison building programme that they inherited from us. Now they come forward and say that the shortage of resources makes it impossible to implement these amendments.
  The Minister of State was right to remind me that in 1972–73 I was under pressure from both sides of the House when I resisted a Private Member's Bill to give effect to the matters contained in the amendment. At that time I also resisted an all-party attack on the Crimi-
  710
  nal Justice Act 1973. But my reasons for doing so then were twofold.
  First, the Younger Committee was about to report; and secondly, I gave an undertaking in Committee that in future judges who thought that it proper to give a different sentence could indicate the length of time that they would prefer and the Home Office would bear it in mind. The Younger Committee reported and now, three years later, no action has been taken. Also, the Lord Chancellor's Department has put out a circular totally contradicting the principle that judges should indicate the length of the sentence that they want to impose. Therefore, the two bases on which I opposed these provisions in 1972–73 no longer exist.
  I admitted in Committee that these amendments could increase the prison population. However, I think I pointed out that, if one looked at prisons as against borstal, in practice it might mean that some of those who go to borstal at present might go to prison instead. Therefore, in the narrow term this could increase the prison population, but it would not affect the 42,000 global population of prisons because this includes those in borstals and detention centres.
  I believe, as do numerous judges who must have approached the Minister of State, that there are cases in which, as a result of this provision, people will get higher sentences than they otherwise would have done. While I concede that this will mean some change of resources in the Home Office, I still believe that three years after the Younger Committee has reported the argument against putting right something that has been bitterly opposed since 1961 has disappeared completely. I hope that the House will put this right tonight.
  The Minister of State is worried about losing his Bill, but I think that his fears are groundless. If the amendment is carried the Bill will go through with the amendment in it. Therefore he need have no fear of losing it.
  7 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: the discussion seems to have emphasised two points. The first is the feeling that we are postponing a desirable reform, and the second is the danger of accepting undertakings from the Home Office. We

  711
  face a choice, whether to accept the undertaking given by the Minister or to press on with the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) and to support the Lords amendment.
  I believe that Section 3 of the 1961 Act was passed for reasons entirely of principle. Yet we have been asked to continue that provision as a matter of expediency. The Minister says that the administrative difficulties are so great and the prison population so large that the result of such a repeal will increase the prison population. Young men who now go to borstal might go to prison, and it is said that it is desirable that in their interests they should continue to go to borstal. The argument is put basically on the grounds of the pressure on the prison population.
  I believe that it is better for the House to support the Lords amendment for the reason that there has to be a commencement order before the provision can come into effect. It is better for the House to decide this matter on the question of principle—namely, whether it is desirable to maintain this provision. Nobody tries to defend it.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk(Ormskirk) rose—
  Mr. Hooson: I do not wish to give way.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon Mr. Alexander W. Lyon(York) rose—
  Mr. Hooson: I cannot give way because I cannot decide to which hon. Member to give the Floor. However, since the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is in my chambers, I suppose I ought to give way to him.
  Mr. Lyon: That is the only benefit I have ever acquired from it.
  The clause was introduced to stop young men who would otherwise have gone to borstal going to prison. Nobody is arguing the point put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle)—narnely that the alternative lies between prison and freedom. It lies between prison and borstal. It is thought right that young people under the age of 21 should go to borstal rather than prison. That still leaves open the principle, and every reforming organisa-
  712
  tion is in favour of that pinciple being continued. The only people the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has been listening to is the judges. He should listen to NACRO and take heed of what it says.
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for York gets these things wrong so often, and he has done so again on this occasion. Judges are required not to send anybody to prison unless that is the only appropriate sentence. In the judicial process it might be thought "Is this an appropriate case for borstal?" The court will have to decide whether the sentence should be one of three months or six years, and that is what judges are required to do.
  Having listened to the arguments think that it is better for the House to support the Lords and for the Home Secretary to use the powers he has. I appreciate the fact that this country has not spent enough on its prison service. Any additional pressure on the Government to repair this omission and to make more prisons than borstals available should be encouraged, but it is difficult for this House to rely entirely on an undertaking such as that which was given by the Minister.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery Mr. Hooson), who speaks on behalf of the Liberals, surely missed the point. The real issue of principle is whether we should treat young offenders differently from the way in which we treat adult offenders. Many people may disagree with that view, but, if we agree that we should treat young offenders differently, it behoves us to agree with the Government on this issue.
  I regard the Lords amendment as a retrograde step, because it would mean that we would punish rather than train those involved. It would mean that we should contain people rather than rehabilitate them. This is the issue of principle, which we have not discussed.
  The initiative and pressure for the deletion of Section 3 of the 1961 Act has come from the judiciary. The pressure comes from the Law Lords and from nobody else. One can understand that the judiciary wants its sentencing policy unfettered, and presumably wants to be able to impose longer sentences. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] Yes. One of the

  713
  major complaints is that the judiciary does not have sufficient discretion. The result of this amendment would be that large numbers of young offenders would go to our already overcrowded prisons.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that when the Minister argued about the practical effects, that did not involve a matter of principle. But that is the issue of principle involved. Our prisons are grossly overcrowded, and many thousands of prisoners live two, three and sometimes four to a cell and are locked up for 23 hours out of the 24. They have little recreation, or association with other people, and they have little or no educational facilities available to them. I submit that if we allow this Lords amendment to go through, more young offenders will be subjected to that kind of treatment.
  This argument relates to whether we feel it appropriate for young offenders to clog up even further our local prisons, or whether we should seek to pursue a policy of training, reform and rehabilitation. Nobody would argue that that is the way the matter works in practice, but it certainly works out a little more perfectly now than if we were to accept the amendment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) said that everybody knew the way he would vote. I have observed him twice in Standing Committee galloping enthusiastically to the brink and then hobbling dejectedly back from it. I am not sure how he will vote later. This is not just a matter of whether my hon. Friend accepts the word of his fellow lawyers on the Bench on this issue, because it must be remembered that there are outside the House other people who are as well informed and as sincere as are my hon. Friend and his colleagues who take a different view.
  It is a pointless exercise to go through a public relations exercise for the sake of bowing to the virility of Lord Hailsham and his fellow travellers in the House of Lords, and we shall demean ourselves if we join in that charade. The Minister has said clearly, openly and fairly that, even if we accept the Lords amendment, he has no intention in practice of implementing it, and will implement the Younger Committee's Report, which was
  714
  favoured by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). We have to accept not the Minister's undertaking in this respect but his threat. I believe that there is no case to answer, and that we should accept the Minister's advice.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The House is anxious to move on, and I shall not repeat the arguments I put in Standing Committee. I stand by what I said then. I refer to the threat to this Bill following the Government's decision to stand by their decision in Standing Committee. If Judge Alan King-Hamilton were sitting listening to our deliberations he would have to retire for two hours to cool down. This is an even bigger gang-bang with the judges and the Lords against us, led by Lord Hailsham.
  Lord Hailsham did not even trouble to intervene in the debate in the Lords, but he has hung a threat over the House that it will not be able to obtain a most important Bill, reforming many aspects of the criminal law, because he takes a different view from the Government on this one item, which was not included in either of the two reports on which the Bill is based. It is insufferable that, during the passage of the two criminal law measures passed by the House over the last year or so, we should have faced a threat from Lord Hailsham that if he does not get his way he will kill the Bill. Lord Hailsham did that to the Bail Act. The result of his amendment to it has been that the Act has had no effect on judges in the way that they exercise their new powers in relation to bail. If we were now to succomb to this blackmail by Lord Hailsham it would be insufferable.
  The arguments on Section 3 are as strong now as they ever were. Those aged under 21 should not go to prison. Most people who are concerned about what happens to offenders after sentence are agreed upon that principle.
  The judges are unanimously against it because they dislike their discretion being fettered in any way. They are strongly urging that there should be a reform precisely because they want to send people to prison rather than to borstal. The suggestion that that would not increase the prison population is absurd. Of course the judges want to send people to prison, because they feel that the only

  715
  way to deal with young men aged between 17 and 21 who have committed serious offences is to send them to prison. The Younger Committee Report, advocating generic sentencing. was wholeheartedly against that.
  It would be absurd to repeal Section 3 now with the intention of bringing in the Younger proposals in a year or so's time. The result of that would be completely different from what is envisaged by this repeal. Quite apart from the logical arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) about the overlap, it would be absurd for us to repeal Section 3.
  I feel most strongly about the threat by the Lords. There must be an end to such continual threats.
  Mr. John: I hope that the advantages of the Bill, upon which my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and I have expounded, will be thoroughly considered. This is a worthwhile Bill, and it goes much wider than what the Lords wish to do by way of Section 3.
  I should like to respond to the debate briefly and to refer first to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). I quote his exact words in Committee:
  "I think one must accept that the likelihood of the abolition of Section 3 is that more people will be sentenced to terms of imprisonment".—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee E, 16th June 1977; c. 422.]
  I do not think that we in the House are right to ignore the very proper feelings of prison staff who, because of the size of the prison population, are unable to do the job that they want and who are in a state of low morale. That is a strange argument, but that is not to say that it is a bad argument. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, who belongs to a party that calls for even more cuts in public expenditure, is almost the last person who should refer to that particular issue.
  716
  I also want to refer to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). He must have listened to only half of the argument that I adduced. I do not blame him for that. Perhaps more than five minutes of my oratory wearies anybody, most of all the hon. and learned Gentleman. I split my contents into two arguments about practicality and principle. We should not be moving backwards in our policy, but towards the recommendations of Younger and a policy that should last us into the 1980s. That is the right course and that is why my undertaking offers a better assurance of an enlightened policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) has said that he is concerned with the here and now. Here and now there are no resources, and no one should be under any illusions about that. If the House tonight rejects my advice, that will not make the task of judges any easier at all tomorrow.
  My final point is in response to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), who has said that we are talking about exceptional cases. That is no guarantee. We must assume that when the judiciary asks for its discretion not to be fettered it intends to use that discretion in such a way as to sentence more offenders to terms of imprisonment.
  7.15 p.m.
  Faced as we are with the problem of resources, it is better to keep borstal as the right repository for offenders aged between 17 and 20 for medium-term sentences, because there they will receive training as well as containment. Through training we assure ourselves against re-offence rather more than by putting offenders into local prisons, three to a cell and locked up for many hours a day. I hope that the House will accept my advice and reject the amendments.
  Question put, That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed:—
  The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 196.

  Division No. 224]

  AYES

  [5.49 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Buchan, Norman

  Davidson, Arthur

  Ashley, Jack

  Buchanan, Richard

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Campbell, Ian

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Deakins, Eric

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Cant, R. B.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dempsey, James

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Carter, Ray

  Doig, Peter

  Bates, Alf

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dormand, J. D.

  Bean, R. E.

  Cartwright, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Dunnett, Jack

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Cohen, Stanley

  Eadie, Alex

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Edge, Geoff

  Boardman, H.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Corbett, Robin

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Cowans, Harry

  English, Michael

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Ennals, David

  Bradley, Tom

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cronin, John

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Luard, Evan

  Roper, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Rose, Paul

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Ryman, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mabon Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Sandelson, Neville

  Ford, Ben

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Forrester, John

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Selby, Harry

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  McElhone, Frank

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

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

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Freeson, Reginald

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ginsburg, David

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Small, William

  Golding, John

  Madden, Max

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Gould, Bryan

  Magee, Bryan

  Snape, Peter

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mahon, Simon

  Spearing, Nigel

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Hardy, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stoddart, David

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Stott, Roger

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  Hatton, Frank

  Mendelson, John

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Mikardo, Ian

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Swain, Thomas

  Heffer. Eric S.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Hooley, Frank

  Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Horam, John

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Molloy, William

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Huckfield, Les

  Moonman, Eric

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tinn, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Moyle, Roland

  Torney, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hunter, Adam

  Newens, Stanley

  Urwin, T. W.

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Noble, Mike

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Ogden, Eric

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Ward, Michael

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ovenden, John

  Watkins, David

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Padley, Walter

  Watkinson, John

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Weitzman, David

  John, Brynmor

  Parker, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Parry, Robert

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  White, James (Pollok)

  Judd, Frank

  Pendry, Tom

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Perry, Ernest

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Kerr, Russell

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Prescott, John

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Lamble, David

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lamond, James

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Woodall, Alec

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Woof, Robert

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Lee, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Mr. Thomas Cox and

  Litterick, Tom

  Rooker, J. W.

  Mr. Ted Graham.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Arnold, Tom

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Kenneth

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Banks, Robert

  Clegg, Walter

  Fox, Marcus

  Beith, A. J.

  Cockcroft, John

  Freud, Clement

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Cope, John

  Fry, Peter

  Benyon, W.

  Corrie, John

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Blaker, Peter

  Crouch, David

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Goodhew, Victor

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Britten, Leon

  Dunlop, John

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C

  Durant, Tony

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Brooke, Peter

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gray, Hamish

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Elliott, Sir William

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Grylls, Michael

  Buck, Antony

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  684

  685

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop Robin

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Hannam, John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Scott, Nicholas

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Hastings, Stephen

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Silvester, Fred

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sims, Roger

  Hawkins, Paul

  Moate, Roger

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Molyneaux, James

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Monro, Hector

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Speed, Keith

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Spence, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Mudd, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Neave, Airey

  Stainton, Keith

  James, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Stanley, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Newton, Tony

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Normanton, Tom

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Nott, John

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Tapsell, Peter

  Kilfedder, James

  Osborn, John

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Tebbit, Norman

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Pardoe, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Knox, David

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Penhaligon, David

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Pink, R. Bonner

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Lawson, Nigel

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerald

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Viggers, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Lloyd, Ian

  Raison, Timothy

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Luce, Richard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Wall, Patrick

  McCrindle, Robert

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Walters, Dennis

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Warren, Kenneth

  MacGregor, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Weatherill, Bernard

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Ridsdale. Julian

  Wells, John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Marten, Neil

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Younger, Hon George

  Mates, Michael

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Mather, Carol

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Maude, Angus

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Mr. Peter Morrison and

  Mawby, Ray

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Mr. Michael Roberts.

  Division No. 225]

  AYES

  [7.16 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Forrester, John

  Noble, Mike

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Ogden, Eric

  Armstrong,, Ernest

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Ashley, Jack

  Freeson, Reginald

  Orbach, Maurice

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Ovenden, John

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ginsburg, David

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Golding, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Parker, John

  Bates, Alf

  Graham, Ted

  Parry, Robert

  Bean, R. E.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Grocott, Bruce

  Pendry, Tom

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hardy, Peter

  Perry, Ernest

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Prescott, John

  Boardman, H.

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Horam, John

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Huckfield, Les

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hunter, Adam

  Rooker, J. W.

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Roper, John

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Ryman, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Janner, Greville

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Selby, Harry

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Carter, Ray

  John, Brynmor

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Cartwright, John

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Judd, Frank

  Small, William

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Coleman, Donald

  Lamborn, Harry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Conlan, Bernard

  Lamond, James

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Corbett, Robin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Cowans, Harry

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Stott, Roger

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Strang, Gavin

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Litterick, Tom

  Swain, Thomas

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Cronin, John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Tierney, Sydney

  Davidson, Arthur

  McElhone, Frank

  Tinn, James

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Torney, Tom

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Urwin, T. W.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Deakins, Eric

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Dempsey, James

  Madden, Max

  Ward, Michael

  Doig, Peter

  Magee, Bryan

  Watkins, David

  Dormand, J. D.

  Mahon, Simon

  Watkinson, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Weitzman, David

  Dunnett, Jack

  Marks, Kenneth

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Eadie, Alex

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Edge, Geoff

  Meacher, Michael

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mendelson, John

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  English, Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ennals, David

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Woodall, Alec

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)

  Woof, Robert

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Molloy, William

  Flannery, Martin

  Moonman, Eric

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Moyle, Roland

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Mr. David Stoddart.

  Ford, Ben

  Nawens, Stanley

  718

  719

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Hannam, John

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Baker, Kenneth

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Penhaligon, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Benyon, W.

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Blaker, Peter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Raison, Timothy

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hicks, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Brittan, Leon

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Brooke, Peter

  Hurd, Douglas

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  James, David

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

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

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Jessel, Toby

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Kilfedder, James

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Sandelson, Neville

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Clegg, Walter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Cockcroft, John

  Knox, David

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Cope, John

  Lamont, Norman

  Shepherd, Colin

  Corrie, John

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Costain, A. P.

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Silvester, Fred

  Crouch, David

  Lawson, Nigel

  Sims, Roger

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Luce, Richard

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  McCrindle, Robert

  Speed, Keith

  Dykes, Hugh

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Spence, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacGregor, John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Elliott, Sir William

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Sproat, Iain

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stanley, John

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Marten, Neil

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Mates, Michael

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Maude, Angus

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Mawby, Ray

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Forman, Nigel

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fox, Marcus

  Mills, Peter

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Freud, Clement

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Fry, Peter

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Moate, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Molyneaux, James

  Vaughan, Dr Gerald

  Gilmour, Sir John (East File)

  Monro, Hector

  Viggers, Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Goodhart, Philip

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Wall, Patrick

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walters, Dennis

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mudd, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Neubert, Michael

  Wells, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Newton, Tony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gray, Hamish

  Nott, John

  Younger, Hon George

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Grist, Ian

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES;

  Grylls, Michael

  Osborn, john

  Mr. Spencer le Marchant and

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Page, john (Harrow West)

  Mr. Jim Lester.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Schedule 2
    OFFENCES TRIABLE EITHER WAY BY INSTEAD OF ONLY ON INDICTMENT
    Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 47, line 15, leave out "sending letters threatening to murder" and insert "threats to kill".
  Schedule 3
    OFFENCES TRIABLE EITHER WAY BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 16(1) OR (2)
    Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 49, line 20, leave out "sending letters threatening to murder" and insert "threatens to kill".
  Schedule 9

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 75, line 40, at end insert—
    "OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 (c, 100)
    For section 16 (sending letters threatening to murder) substitute—
    "Threats to kill
    16. A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years."."
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. John: I beg to move, That this House do not insist upon its first amendment on page 29, line 42 and agree with the Lords in their amendments proposed in lieu.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) moved on Report an amendment dealing with threats to kill. In drafting a new provision we have had an opportunity to incorporate several improvements in the drafting which were suggested by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. The provision is without prejudice to the final thoughts of the Committee when it produces its report on offences against the person.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 agreed to.

  New Clause

    AMENDMENTS OF OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS ACT 1959 WITH RESPECT TO CINEMATOGRAPH EXHIBITIONS
    The Lords have agreed to the third amendment made by the Commons in—
    Page 29, line 42, at end insert new clause:
    ".—(1) In the proviso to section 1(3) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (which excludes from the scope of that Act anything done in the course of a cinematograph exhibition taking place otherwise than in a private house to which the public are not admitted and anything done in the course of television or sound broadcasting) the words from "a cine
    700
    matograph exhibition" to "in the course of" shall he omitted.
    (2) In section 2 of that Act (prohibition of publication of obscene matter) at the end of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(3A) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in any case where the relevant publication or the only other publication which followed or could reasonably have been expected to follow from the relevant publication took place or (as the case may be) was to take place in the course of a cinematograph exhibition: and in this subsection "the relevant publication" means—

    (a) in the case of any proceedings under this section for publishing an obscene article, the publication in respect of which the defendant would be charged if the proceedings were brought; and

    (b) in the case of any proceedings under this section for having an obscene article for publication for gain, the publication which, if the proceedings were brought, the defendant would be alleged to have had in contemplation.".

    (3) In section 2 of that Act after subsection
    (4) there shall be inserted the following sub-section—
    "(4A) Without prejudice to subsection
    (4) above, a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence at common law—

    (a) in respect of a cinematograph exhibition or anything said or done in the course of a cinematograph exhibition, where it is of the essence of the common law offence that the exhibition or, as the case may be, what was said or done was obscene, indecent, offensive, disgusting or injurious to morality; or

    (b)in respect of an agreement to give a cinematograph exhibition or to cause anything to be said or done in the course of such an exhibition where the common law offence consists of conspiring to corrupt public morals or to do any act contrary to public morals or decency.".

    (4) At the end of section 2 of that Act there shall be added the following subsection—
    "(7) In this section "cinematograph exhibition" means an exhibition of moving pictures produced on a screen by means which include the projection of light.".
    (5) In section 3 of that Act (which among other things makes provision for the forfeiture of obscene articles kept for publication for gain) at the beginning of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (3A) of this section" and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(3A) Without prejudice to the duty of a court to make an order for the forfeiture of an article where section 1(4) of the Obscene Publications Act 1964 applies (orders made on conviction), in a case where by virtue of subsection (3A) of section 2 of this Act

    701
    proceedings under the said section 2 for having an article for publication for gain could not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, no order for the forfeiture of the article shall be made under this section unless the warrant under which the article was seized was issued on an information laid by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.".
    (6) In section 4 of that Act (defence of public good) at the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (I A) of this section" and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply where the article in question is a moving picture film or soundtrack, but—

    (a) a person shall not be convicted of an offence against section 2 of this Act in relation to any such film or soundtrack, and

    (b) an order for forfeiture of any such film or soundtrack shall not be made under section 3 of this Act,

    if it is proved that publication of the film or soundtrack is justified as being for the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of drama, opera, ballet or any other art, or of literature or learning.".
    (7) At the end of section 4 of that Act there shall be added the following subsection—
    "(3) In this section "moving picture soundtrack" means any sound record designed for playing with a moving picture film, whether incorporated with the film or not."."
    With the following amendment No. 14: after "where" in subsection (3A), insert
    "the article in question is a moving picture film of a width of not less than sixteen millimetres and"
    Mr. John: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    When we discussed this matter on Report the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) raised an anxiety relating to the giving of the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the work load which might be imposed upon him in consequence of the clauses then proposed. The amendment will have the effect of avoiding the Director's having to be involved in giving consent every time 8 mm films, as opposed to films of 16 mm and above, are involved. The police can then seize on their own initiative and own warrant 8 mm films.
    This will not avoid the benefit which I believe we conferred upon the film industry by bringing the showing of films
    702
    within the Obscene Publications Acts. At the same time, I believe that it avoids a great deal of the work load which we might have imposed upon the Director had we continued with the unqualified width of film.
    Sir Michael Havers: I cannot resist at least saying that it is nice to be found to be right once. I was rather shot down when I raised this point on Report. The Minister told me that he totally disagreed with me. The only other thing that I am waiting for is an invitation to hospitality from the Director's staff for all the work I have saved them.
    Question put and agreed to.

New Clause

  RIGHT TO HAVE SOMEONE INFORMED WHEN ARRESTED
  The Lords agree to the amendment made by the Commons in—
  After Clause 47
  Page 37, line 12, at end insert new clause:
  "Where any person has been arrested, other than under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976, and is being held in custody in a police station or other premises, he shall be entitled to have intimation of his arrest and of the place where he is being held sent to a person of his choosing."
  with the following amendments:
  No. 16, leave out
  "other than under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976".
  No. 17, leave out
  "a person of his choosing"
  and insert
  one person reasonably named by him, without delay or, where some delay is necessary in the interest of the investigation or prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders, with no more delay than is so necessary."
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in Lords Amendment No. 16.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords Amendment No. 17 and the proposed amendment to it standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), in line 1, leave out from first 'delay' to end.
  Mr. Rees: The clause which is the subject of these amendments was moved on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and was added to the Bill against Government advice. I indicated then that while, in the Government's view, this was a matter which should be left to the Royal Commission on pre-trial procedures, I nevertheless recognised the strength of feeling in all parts of the House and wished to respond to it.
  These amendments were moved by my noble Friend the Minister of State in another place. I believe that they preserve the spirit of the clause moved by my hon. Friend while removing the risk that it will add to the difficulties which the police already face in dealing with crime and in bringing offenders to justice.
  7.30 p.m.
  The amendments make four changes in the original clause. First, they remove the exception referring to persons arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, so that the clause applies to such persons as well as to those arrested under other powers. I hope that this will be welcome, although I fully understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was doing in the first instance. Secondly, it is proposed that the intimation should be sent "without delay". This is in response to the point made on Report and acknowledged by my hon. Friend—namely, that no requirement
  722
  as to the urgency of the intimation was included in his original clause.
  Thirdly, the intimation is to be sent to "one person reasonably named" by the arrested person. I shall briefly explain the concept which lies behind that phrase. The object is to avoid the embarrassing possibility of the police apparently being required by law to notify, for example, someone outside the categories that one would expect. In the way the clause is now worded, they would have to telephone anyone who was named. Surely that would be wrong. The person named might be a football player or a pop star. That would bring the provision into disrepute with the police and, I think, more generally.
  I considered whether it would be possible to list the categories of person who might reasonably be named. I do not think that that can be done without drawing up a very long list. I think that right hon. and hon. Members will realise the sort of people who are concerned—for example, lawyers, community workers, Members of Parliament, neighbours or members of the family. Further guidance will be given in the circular to the police that the Home Office proposes to issue when the provision comes into force. When the circular is sent out I shall ensure that it is published in Hansard. That will meet a point that my hon. Friend felt very strongly about even before my time at the Home Office.
  Mr. Carlisl: Presumably "reasonably named" covers a solicitor. Apparently we do not have to have the name of the person.
  Mr. Rees: No; a solicitor. That is a matter that I shall consider before the circular is issued. There is a wide range of persons whom it would be appropriate for people to have the right to contact. I shall put those categories into the circular.
  Fourth, the amendments have the effect of enabling the police to delay sending the intimation if that is necessary in the interest of the investigation, prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders for so long as those considerations apply, but no longer. I fully understand that this is the most important of the changes effected by the amendments. It is necessary because an absolute and unqualified right of the

  723
  kind proposed in my hon. Friend's original clause would impose a serious handicap on the police in dealing with crime.
  In the vast majority of cases, there will be no reason for keeping a person in police custody incommunicado. However, in legislating we must cater not only for the general run of cases but for exceptional cases. The Association of Chief Police Officers felt very strongly about this issue. It contacted me and said that if the clause remained as it is worded it would mean that the fight of its members against crime would be made extremely difficult. I received representations from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who is from Scotland, where a different system is operated. The Commissioner feels that, if the clause remains as it stands, the job of his officers to combat crime in a number of important cases will be made extremely difficult.
  I have a list of cases before me. I do not want to weary the House by reciting the complete list but I shall take one or two examples. Perhaps the House will take my word that there are other examples. The police could be dealing with a kidnapping case. They may have arrested one of the offenders without recovering the victim or being aware of his or her whereabouts. In such a case, premature information would be a mistake. We must balance civil liberties on the one hand with the need to deal with cases of that sort. Other examples are Customs cases and drug carrying. I feel sure that I am right, as it was right in another place, to table the amendment. There must be some delay in a number of cases, but I propose to make arrangements for monitoring the new provision.
  First, I must ask Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary—
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I appreciate that the monitoring proposals to which my right hon. Friend has referred will be of some help, but is he aware that it is the practice of the police in many circumstances to refuse access to solicitors in trivial or minor cases? It is their practice to refuse to allow solicitors to interview those who have been held in a police station on the ground that to do so would delay or impede inquiries. The clause that we now have provides no real protection, because
  724
  in every case where the police wish to have any reason to refuse they can always say that the provisions in the clause are applicable. Would it not have been possible and practicable for my right hon. Friend to have made provision for the police, in circumstances where they wish to refuse these rights, to make application to a magistrate? In the majority of cases of serious crime there will have been a warrant, but in other cases where there has been summary arrest the police could make an application to a magistrate.
  Mr. Rees: In answer to my hon. Friend, I make one point that perhaps I should have made before developing my argument. In the declaratory clause it is still the case that the Judges Rules apply. The administrative direction still applies. It is in seeking to carry out the wishes of the House that this provision comes in addition to the Judges Rules.
  Mr. Christopher Price: My right hon. Friend will be aware that he has drawn in different language the amendment which was passed in another place, and apparently in somewhat wider language than the Judges Rules, which talk about hindrances to the process of investigation or the administration of justice, whereas the clause contains three categories—namely, the investigation of crime, the prevention of crime and the apprehension of offenders. Is there any significance in the new wording?
  Mr. Rees: I must tell my hon. Friend that because of the tightness of the Session I had to consider these matters in only two days. I had in mind that the Royal Commission was set up to look into the deeper significances and deeper problems. I considered the point about a magistrate and after much discussion, which continued for a long time, I felt that I could not take that course in the short term. It is not something that I can do in the Home Office without consulting magistrates and others. It is not a matter of having an idea in an office and putting it into practice. There may be something in what my hon. Friend has suggested, and I am sure that his suggestion will be considered by the Royal Commission. But I have to work in the short term.
  As for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden

  725
  (Mr. Douglas-Mann), there is no great significance in what is being done except in one sense. It is true that the Judges Rules are still with us. It was put to me in the House that people did not care about the Judges Rules. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made that point. What we are seeking to do outside the Judges Rules is to put something in statute law that in this instance is declaratory—namely, to allow someone to contact someone outside the police station or wherever he is held. Therefore, we thought of the wording in a different context from the Judges Rules, which are capable of being taken into account in the trial.
  First, I have asked the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to ensure that in their examinations of complaints registers Her Majesty's inspectors pay special attention to any complaints about the police operation of the clause. However, there must be more monitoring than that. That is why I am discussing with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and other chief officers how we can do something on top of that. I have in mind that, in cases where there is a delay, notification will have to be made to me and that this information should be collated.
  I shall hope to find a way of informing the House so that in the short run it should be possible to say that there have been X number of cases recently. Of course, that will depend on the nature of the cases and whether they have gone to court. We would monitor the situation. I think that that would meet the point made by one of my hon. Friends.
  On Report, two points were put to me. I was told that there was no problem in the Birmingham area. Other examples were also put to me of people not being allowed to get in touch with their relatives or solicitors. even when the cases were unimportant. The amendment includes the words
  "in the interest of the … prevention of crime".
  This applies to important cases. We shall find out in the short run the number of cases involved to enable us to get it right. If it is blatantly wrong, I shall have to do something about it. If it needs investigation over a longer term,
  726
  the Royal Commission is the appropriate body to consider it.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have the greatest confidence in the Home Secretary, but, with respect, he will not be Home Secretary for all time.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Why not?
  Mr. Lewis: Because age creeps up on all of us—even on this great Home Secretary. On Report my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) referred to a chap who had two or three inquiries. What happened? The Home Secretary said "I am not publishing the report." We cannot do anything about that. What will happen when we have another Home Secretary? This does not apply to my right hon. Friend. He will say "I am not going to give the information." I do not have as much confidence in all Home Secretaries as I have in my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Rees: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's confidence in me. I need not go into the details of the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). That inquiry was set up to give information to the Director of Public Prosecutions. People gave evidence and they were clearly told that, under the normal procedures, it would not be published. That is a different example.
  What I am saying is that, despite the Judges Rules—some of my hon. Friends did not take account of the Judges Rules, but that is another matter—the House wanted something done in this respect. I have tried to accede to that request. I had to protect the unusual situation. The matter will be monitored to ensure that this reservation is kept to the unusual situation. I suggest that an arrangement which allows a criminal in certain circumstances to contact somebody outside may be to the detriment of the public generally, and we should be wrong to allow it to happen. I have tried to balance civil rights with unusual cases. What I want to find out from the monitoring is whether it can be confined to the unusual cases. I shall find a way of reporting to the House, and the circular which I propose to issue will be published in Hansard so that all hon. Members may see it.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I realise that we want to move on. I do not propose to detain the House too long on this amendment.
  I have tabled amendments to Lords Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. Therefore, I take it that it is proper for me to move them at this stage, unless I am directed otherwise.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should inform the lion. Member that his amendment to Lords Amendment No. 16 has not been selected. The appropriate time to move the amendment to Lords Amendment No. l7 is when we have disposed of Lords Amendment No. 16. We are taking them together, but the Question on his amendment will not be put till we have disposed of Lords Amendment No. 16.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Price: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I think that we should discuss this matter a little further. I tabled my amendments because I felt that when the House on Report passed the amendment against the Government's advice—that is unusual; it happens infrequently—it did so in the full knowledge that it was trying to create for someone who had been arrested an unqualified right to inform someone of his choice.
  My objection to the Lords Amendment No. 17 is that it puts us back to square one regarding the behaviour of the police. The amendment would put back the words
  "where some delay is necessary in the interest of the investigation or prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders, with no more delay than is so necessary."
  That gives a carte blanche to the police that they already possess in the Judges' Rules to decide on the spot to deny the right of information to a relative.
  I appreciate the strenuous efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to meet what he admitted was a genuine cross-party feeling in the House, but I think that this amendment in a sense misses the point. On Report we suggested that there should be an unqualified right for a person to let somebody know that he had been arrested and where he was. The police say that they do not want anything to be done that
  728
  would make their job of preventing crime more difficult than it is. I think that the words
  "one person reasonably named by him"
  go a long way to meet the point made by the police. If someone nominates a known criminal, I consider that under this clause the police would have every right to say "No, we shall not tell him."
  Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend mean that the police would be able to do that by invoking the word "reasonably" rather than the qualification? If so, I disagree.
  Mr. Price: We can discuss the meaning of the word "reasonably" throughout the rest of the debate. I think that the word "reasonably" gives the police a degree of latitude as to who should be told. For example, the Home Secretary said that it would be unreasonable to tell a pop star. On Report, the Archbishop of Canterbury was mentioned as being an unreasonable person to be nominated. I believe that the police would also have the right to say "No, that is an unreasonable person to be told" if they knew that the person to be told to be someone who would immediately and directly impede any inquiries that they were pursuing.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have revealed the discussions I have had, and I believe that in terms of the practicalities we should proceed in the way that I have indicated. What does one say to a policeman in a case that may not be under the prevention of terrorism legislation, where the link with the arrested person's wife might mean that weapons or drugs in a house could be removed? Is my hon. Friend saying that in that case the police could reasonably say "No, we shall not tell the family"?
  Mr. Price: Surrounded as I am by a host of lawyers it is difficult for me to give an absolute definition of the legal meaning of the words, but I would have thought that if my amendment had been selected, to restore the clause to the state in which it left this House, the point that my right hon. Friend has just made about bombs would not apply.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: What about drugs?
  Mr. Price: If the police felt that the person to be told was in a position immediately to hinder investigations I

  729
  would have thought so. I do not wish to pursue that point.
  I come now to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the circular and the monitoring procedure. What particularly concerns me in this sort of procedure is that, in certain police stations in the Metropolitan area, to be allowed to inform somebody that one has been arrested is the exception rather than the rule. Few people would deny that. I very much hope that if my right hon. Friend is framing a circular based on this clause to send to the police, as he says he is, he will include in that circular some advice particularly about juvenile and young people. In the recent arrests in Lewisham a number of allegations were made—we shall see whether they are proved or not—that young people whose average age was 16 and who in many cases were under 16 were held for 48 hours without their parents discovering where they were. That sort of case was mentioned time and again at Report stage. We feel that it is our duty in this House to provide some absolute safeguards in such cases, even though the police might feel that by providing these safeguards we were in some way hindering the administration of justice.
  My right hon. Friend also referred to monitoring. I am glad that he is not simply going to restrict the monitoring to the monitoring of complaints procedures, because that would be inadequate. In regard to the notification procedures that my right hon. Friend is about to set up, I noted the form of words that my right hon. Friend used. He said that discussions were going on. There was no absolute pledge that this would take place.
  I hope that in the notification procedures some information can be given to the House not only about total numbers but the ages of the people arrested, so that we can at least have some statistics about young people and juveniles in this area. I hope that those statistics will be presented to the House not just as raw statistics but in a form that will mean something not only to hon. Members but to the Royal Commission. The difficulty that we all have in discussions about this problem is that there are no statistics. My hon. Friends talk about Birmingham
  730
  and about Scotland, but we cannot say that we think that this or that is the case when no one has any real hard statistics about police practice in this area.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I think that my hon. Friend and I know that statistics are already available at the moment but that the Establishment often uses the hoary old saying that to provide the statistics would take too much time and effort or would involve disproportionate costs and, therefore, the information cannot be revealed. We all know that the information is there, but the Establishment does not want to reveal it because it would damage the Establishment.
  Mr. Price: I agree that that is the case in a wide area, but in this case I believe that there are no statistics. Nobody knows, and some people do not want anyone to know. It is our job in the House to insist on this.
  My final point is about Scotland. The point was made throughout Report that if this system works in Scotland, where the criminal population is no greater or no less than in England and Wales—although perhaps it is a little greater—why cannot we have this unqualified right in England to inform someone? I know that in Scotland the person informed is a solicitor, not a person "reasonably" chosen. Why cannot it be an unqualified right? I am not saying that the law works perfectly in Scotland. I would not be surprised if there were cases in which the police do not allow other people to be informed, but at least the provision is written into the law, and there is some sanction if the police ignore it. If my amendment is passed, I am not saying that the police would always take notice of it or that they would not decide to ignore it from time to time.
  However, it is peculiarly the job of the House of Commons to write this sort of absolute safeguard into the law because we alone, as Members of Parliament—rather than the civil servants who draft these Bills and have to take a whole range of considerations into account—can write these safeguards into the law. That is why I am inclined to press this amendment, but before making any decision I would like to hear a little more

  731
  about the detailed nature of the monitoring procedure.
  Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you to clarify the selection of amendments. I understood you to say that the reference in the selection list to the amendment—in my copy of the selection list it is in the singular—is to "amendment thereto" and the only amendment is to Lords Amendment No. 17. Is that correct?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment that has been selected is the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to Lords Amendment No. 17.
  Mr. Cunningham: Can I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is a rather curious thing to do, because the effect of my hon. Friend's two amendments together is to restore the language to what was passed by this House. If one selects the second amendment but not the first, what one does is to knock out the qualification but retain the applicability of my original clause to cases under terrorism as well as cases not under terrorism. If that is the selection that has been made it is a pretty daft one.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am utterly and completely puzzled by the selection of amendments. My two amendments were an effort to allow the House to take a decision roughly on the lines of the decision which was taken on Report. The selection of amendments, however, appears calculated to prevent the House from doing that. I do not understand why that selection has taken place. I am in a difficult position about whether to press my amendment, because one amendment without the other does not provide the sort of combination that anyone here wants.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Government are moving to agree. The hon. Gentleman is moving to disagree.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I consulted the Public Bill Office I was instructed that although I wanted to put everything in one amendment, for House of Commons purposes I must follow the form now set out involving two
  732
  amendments. Nevertheless, the intention was quite clear.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that the first amendment is not necessary and that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) will be able to achieve its result simply by voting against the Government proposal to disagree with it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is absolutely correct.
  Mr. Cunningham: I apologise then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for starting that hare.
  I wish to pay tribute to the manner in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have responded in the last fortnight or so to what was done on Report. I have had a number of altercations with Ministers in my brief time in this House, and I have made a number of efforts to get them to do what they did not want to do. The manner in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have responded both to what happened on Report and to representations that I made afterwards is a model of how Ministers ought to react to that type of situation.
  I am particularly grateful to the Government for having accepted both suggestions, namely, that a circular should be issued—for what that is worth, which is not a great deal, but it is worth something—and, far more important, that a monitoring process should take place throughout England and Wales. That is very important, because it means that the police will get the message that there is a new regime. However much the wording of this provision looks like and is like the wording of the Judges' Rules, something different has happened. They will have to answer now in a way in which they did not have to before for the use of the qualification.
  I have two points to put to my right hon. Friend. The first follows upon a point put by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). He asked whether it would be sufficient to ask for an unnamed solicitor or, presumably, a firm of solicitors, without a personal name, to be informed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that his understanding was that that would count as a "person reasonably named". Am I right in thinking that the words used would

  733
  also cover notification of an organisation such as the National Council for Civil Liberties, so that if someone asked for the NCCL to be informed that would be covered by the words "person reasonably named"? I am grateful to see my right hon. Friend nod his head in agreement with that.
  My right hon. Friend has assured us that the circular he proposes to issue will not only be popped in to the Library in the normal way but will be printed in Hansard. Will he go further? The circular which he would issue on this subject would not have a statutory basis. It would not be subject to affirmative or negative resolution in the House. Given the history of this case, I suggest that it would be possible for him to have informal consultation with those hon. Members who have taken an interest in the matter—in so far as he is able to identify them, and I do not think that he will have great difficulty there—before the circular is actually issued. There is nothing more galling than to find that a circular has been sent out and then to succeed in persuading the Minister that something is wrong with it. Although he would have agreed to change it before the circular had gone out, that would be infinitely more difficult to do afterwards. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to such consultation once he has the text of the circular clear in his mind.
  Mr. Graham Page: I hope that in that circular the Home Secretary will not include encouragement to the person in custody reasonably to name his Member of Parliament. The Home Secretary mentioned that point during his speech, and I fear that he will encourage the practice.
  Mr. Cunningham: I join in that exhortation. I have no wish to be reasonably so named by a large number of people in my constituency.
  I am glad to notice that the text of my original clause has survived to a considerable extent notwithstanding the scorn that was poured upon it from the Front Bench and from a number of other quarters. In particular I notice that the word "intimation", which I was assured would not be comprehensible to an English lawyer, turns out to be comprehensible
  734
  not only to a lawyer but also to every policeman. The word I used on that occasion to describe my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's remarks—a word which did not find its way into Hansard—has turned out to be justified.
  The drafting of the amendment leaves something to be desired in respect of the phrase "reasonably named". That phrase stuck in my throat when I read it because I could not quite see what the point of it was. The intention, I gather, is to avoid use of such names as Walt Disney and Santa Claus. But I wonder whether that meaning will be obvious to people who are using the circular. That is one point that I hope the Secretary of State will clear up in the circular.
  The amended text would, I believe, be adequate for all purposes if the police operated it genuinely and honestly. The trouble is that we are all fearful that they will not, and that, seeing language which is so similar to that which is used in the Judges' Rules—
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I hope that on reflection the hon. Member will not say that we are all fearful, because some of us do not think that the police are always wrong. Perhaps in that respect the hon. Member will refer to "most" hon. Members.
  Mr. Cunningham: I know no one who believes that the police are always wrong. I do not think there is any such person. Do not let us exaggerate the differences which exist between hon. Members, especially on this issue, which is very much a joint effort from all parts of the House.
  The monitoring process will be important in ensuring that whatever abuse of the qualification has taken place hitherto, the same abuse will not take place in the future, however much the language of the qualification is similar to the language used in the Judges' Rules.
  My right hon. Friend, speaking tonight, and my noble Friend the Minister of State in the Lords, gave examples of situations in which it was thought right for the qualification to be invoked. There was no reference to the time during which notification might be withheld. It is important to cover that aspect in the circular. It is one thing to say that we shall not send out a message in 24 hours

  735
  and, in a very unusual case, 48 hours, but it would be entirely different for a message to be held back for a matter of days on the pretence—and perhaps it would he true—that sending out the message would seriously impede investigation.
  There is one good point to be noted about the language of the qualification. It is the word "justiciable". The qualification does not state that the message does not need to be sent out if the police consider that there will be an impediment but that the message does not need to be sent out if there is an impediment.
  For the purposes of the Royal Commission it is important for us to clear our minds, as we were starting to do on Report, about the conceptual difference between the Judges' Rules and provisions such as this. The Home Office circular covering the Judges' Rules states:
  "As is made clear by the Judges, the Rules are concerned with the admissibility in evidence against a person of answers, oral or written, given by that person to questions asked by police officers and of statements made by that person."
  That is the rôle of the Judges' Rules. It has nothing to do with the behaviour which we may wish to make a statutory obligation. The two things are parallel. They duplicate. There is nothing wrong with their duplicating. We should take into statute those things which we want to make an obligation and leave the Judges' Rules to deal with the extent to which any breaches of the actions stated in the Rules can be taken into account when deciding whether evidence is admissible.
  On the monitoring process, given the clause passed on Report, it was clear that the majority was found only because the House was prepared to accept that changes of this nature would be made in the Lords. Personally, I find that the text, as it has emerged from the Lords, is acceptable. I propose to accept the Lords' text and to vote against the amendments to it.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I intend to be brief. Fulsome tributes do not flow often from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I hope that it means that he will be translated to the Home Office in due course, both for his own sake
  736
  and for that of the Home Office, because it would do them both a power of good. I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes the attitude he does to the amendment moved in the Lords. This is no further advance on the Judges' Rules, because the words that we are moving to omit give the police the same kind of cover for refusing access either to a solicitor or anyone else, that are contained in the Judges' Rules. They will have the same effect.
  I do not believe that monitoring will add anything to the position in the Judges' Rules. I do not believe that once the police officer says—expletive deleted—"You are not going to get your husband, your solicitor or anyone else informed about your presence here", the officer will make out a Home Office form in duplicate and sign that he has broken the rules of this provision. It is nonsense to believe that in the world in which the police live within their stations that they will keep a record of the number of times people are refused access to a relative or solicitor.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), knowing the inside of my local police station. Does that mean that he does not take seriously the forthright words of my right hon. Friend when he says that in future the whole attitude will change and that the police will till in these forms so that we shall know how many are denied access?
  Mr. Lyon: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) must recollect that in addition to the Judges' Rules there is the Home Office circular which underlines the need for a solicitor to be called when an accused asks for him. He must remember that that provision was introduced by a Home Office that presumably was interested in civil liberties. A fat lot of good that has done. Even if the provison is contained in legislation it will not change the situation.
  Each time the police want to refuse access they will say that to inform a solicitor will impede the investigation of the crime. If they do have to record it, they will do so in those terms. It is impossible for the Home Office or anyone else to monitor that.

  737
  I am sure that my rght hon. Friend is acting in good faith but he has conceded the case because of pressure from the police. It is nonsense to tell a criminal that it would undermine the course of justice to tell his wife, solicitor or anyone else that he is detained in a police station.
  The lie was given by Lord Mansfield who said that to most of us it seemed intolerable that one could be taken to a police station and not be able to ring a solicitor. Of course, to the middle class that would be intolerable, but to a criminal it might not appear so, because he is not given the chance to inform anyone else. That situation will not be altered by this proposal.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). Nevertheless, I am not completely happy to leave the matter without qualification. There are circumstances in which it may be desirable for the police to hold up notification. But we need to have some mechanism.
  Faced with the choice of this clause or accepting the amendment I prefer to accept the amendment in the confidence that the Government will introduce some legislation on the lines outlined by the Home Secretary that will provide a mechanism that will indicate those cases where an exception is required. I would rather do that than leave the matter where it stands and not have legislation for years until the Royal Commission has reported. I hope that my hon. Friends will press the amendment and that my colleagues will support them.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is a problem for the prosecuting process. I believe that the Royal Commission examining the many aspects is the right way to proceed.
  As a result of the feeling in the House we have made a move. I do not accept that in the majority of cases criminals are not allowed to get in touch with anybody. I hope that if my hon. Friend has evidence to that effect he will give it to me. I do not find that that is so. It is not true that in most cases people are not allowed to get in touch with someone.
  I hope this matter will not be pressed. We have made a start. I shall have the
  738
  circular printed in Hansard. I am discussing the matter with the police. It is my responsibility to consult. In most cases I discuss with hon. Members in many parts of the House in order to obtain their views. In that sense consultation will take place.
  With regard to the circular, there is a problem about juveniles. I have taken the point about organisations as well. On the monitoring, I do not want to set up a vast statistical body. What I want to do is to get the information that will be relevant to the Royal Commission and to the way in which it is proceeding. Discussions are taking place. We had to rush this. I do not complain about that. I am discussing this matter with various interests, because that is the way to proceed. That is why I have not made up my mind. However, I believe that we have the right solution at this stage. I hope that on all sides of the House the Government will be supported.
  Mr. Christopher Price: With the leave of the House—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I could, in one sentence, clarify what appeared to be a muddle but was not?
  Mr. Nigel Lawson: Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the difficulty of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). However, he can address the House only by leave. Perhaps I can help him by saying that he has a course of action that he may need to take, which I think he understands, and which I think the House understands in this particular matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 17, in line 3, leave out "a person of his choosing" and insert
  "one person reasonably named by him, without delay or, where some delay is necessary in the interest of the investigation or prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders, with no more delay than is so necessary."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]
  Amendment proposed to the lards amendment, leave out from first "delay" to end.—[Mr. Chistopher Price.]
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 68 Noes 242.

  Division No. 226]

  AYES

  [8.22 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Parry, Robert

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Pendry, Tom

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Janner, Greville

  Prescott, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Carmichael, Nell

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Lamond, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Corbett Robin

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Litterick, Tom

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Edge, Geoff

  McDonald, Dr Oonaqh

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  English, Michael

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Madden, Max

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Flannery, Martin

  Mendelson, John

  Torney, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Weitzman, David

  Forrester, John

  Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Moate, Roger

  Fry, Peter

  Molloy, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Newens, Stanley

  Mr. Ian Mikardo and

  Hayman, Mrs Helena

  Orbach, Maurice

  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann.

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  Davidson, Arthur

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Denzil (Llaneili)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hooley, Frank

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Deakins, Eric

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Horam, John

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dempsey, James

  Huckfield, Les

  Banks, Robert

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Doig, Peter

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Bates, Alf

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Bean, R. E.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hunter, Adam

  Beith, A. J.

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Bell, Ronald

  Durant, Tony

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Eadie, Alex

  John, Brynmor

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Boardman, H.

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Ennals, David

  Judd, Frank

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Bottomley, RI Hon Arthur

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Kimball, Marcus

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lamborn, Harry

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lamont, Norman

  Bradley, Tom

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Brittan, Leon

  Ford, Ben

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Brooke, Peter

  Fox, Marcus

  Lawson, Nigel

  Brotherton, Michael

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

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Buchanan, Richard

  Freud, Clement

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fry, Peter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Campbell, Ian

  Ginsburg, David

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Carter, Ray

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McCartney, Hugh

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  McElhone, Frank

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Golding, John

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Clegg, Walter

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Graham, Ted

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Conlan, Bernard

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cowans, Harry

  Gray, Hamish

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Grist, Ian

  Magee, Bryan

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mahon, Simon

  Cronin, John

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marks, Kenneth

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hardy, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Raison, Timothy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Mawby, Ray

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Meacher, Michael

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Tinn, James

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mills, Peter

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Urwin, T. W.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Roper, John

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Moonman, Eric

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Ryman, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Ward, Michael

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Warren, Kenneth

  Moyle, Roland

  Selby, Harry

  Watkins, David

  Mudd, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Watkinson, John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Neubert, Michael

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Noble, Mike

  Sims. Roger

  While, Frank R. (Bury)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  White, James (Pollok)

  Ogden, Eric

  Small, William

  Wiggin, Jerry

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Onslow, Cranley

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Speed, Keith

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Osborn, John

  Spence, John

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Ovenden, John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Stallard, A. W.

  Woodall, Alec

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Woof, Robert

  Palmer, Arthur

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Futham)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Stoddart, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Penhaligon, David

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Strang, Gavin

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 6

  INCREASE OF FINES FOR CERTAIN SUMMARY OFFENCES
  The Lords agree to the amendment made by the Commons in—
  Page 61, line 14, at end insert—
  "HIGHWAYS ACT 1959 (C. 25)
  Offences under section 119(3) (failure to make good surface of a public path after ploughing).
  with the following amendments—
  Lords amendment: No. 18, after "section 119(4)(b)", in column 2, insert
  (as amended by Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967)"
  Lords amendment: No. 19, leave out "119(3)" in column 1 and insert "119 (4)(b)".
  Mr. John: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the sail amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 22.
  Mr. John: You will be relieved, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that the amendments
  Section 119(4)(b) £50 £200"
  are no great matters of principle but merely incorporate drafting and consequential amendments upon the increase in fine under Section 119(4)(b) of the Highways Act 1959 which was accepted by the House on Report.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 agreed to.

Schedule 10

  REPEALS
  The Lords disagree to the Commons amendment in page 92,lin 55, column 3, for the following Reason—
  Lords Amended No. 21: Because it is inadvisable to fetter the discretion of the Court when dealing with offenders aged between 17 and 21 years.
  Mr. John: I beg to move, That this House doth insist on its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 21 disagreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 22 agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Alf Bates, Sir Michael Havers, Mr. Ian Percival, Mr. Merlyn Rees and Mr. Brynmor John: Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. John.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

CONTROL OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT BILL
Lords amendment considered.
Clause 1

  CONTINUANCE IN FORCE OF PROVISION RELATING TO CONTROL OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
  Lords amendment: In page 1, line 12, leave out "seventeen" and insert "fifteen".
  8.35 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The motion is designed to restore to five years the period for which office control powers will be extended. The Lords amendment reduced the period to three years.
  The original period of control was seven years. When the Conservative Government decided to renew it in 1972, they opted for a further period of five years. It seems sensible to follow that precedent in 1977.
  Five years is a suitable interval for monitoring the operation of the control and reviewing its effects. A shorter period would create uncertainty in the property world and among local authorities in the areas subject to control. It would also involve promoting further legislation to renew control after an unreasonably short period of time if the control were still then required.
  The need for the control will be kept continuously under review and under Section 86(1) of the 1971 Act as amended in 1972 the control powers may be brought to an end by Order in Council at any time before the end of the specified period. There is every justification, therefore, in insisting that the period should be five years.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The whole system of office development permits has few friends, and it is necessary to remind the House of one or two facts in suggesting that we ought not to disagree with the Lords.
  Both parties in the Greater London Council have called for the abolition of ODPs—in October 1976 under Labour

  745
  control, and in June 1977 under Conservative control, and on each occasion there was party unanimity. That is the first matter which should be made clear.
  It is also right to point out that in 1976 the Government published the Office Location Review, which was prepared by an inter-departmental team of officials. The review noted that the principal reason for introducing office control in 1964 had been the view that, without it, employment in London would continue to increase rapidly, putting unmanageable pressures on transport and housing. It recognised that this no longer applied, with population and employment falling in London and with a steady fall in commuting into Central London over a number of years.
  The review also acknowledged that the new structure plan system, reinforced by local government reorganisation, provided a better instrument than existed before for local authorities to achieve the objective of an appropriate distribution of office employment within the South-East Region. To that extent, it reduced the need to maintain ODP control for the purpose. The objective, which had been given more weight since 1974, was the encouragement of transfers of jobs to the assisted areas. The major constraint on this was the total supply of mobile jobs. Within this constraint, the review considered other factors which influenced firms and tended to militate against the objective.
  Relocation involves costs; benefits are longer term. Common concerns are the willingness of key staff to accept the unheaval of moving—and one needs only to cite, for example, the attitude of civil servants following the Hardman Report on that—links with customers or supporting professional organisations, and good communications with Central London. Moves to the more distant assisted areas involve greater costs, for example, in staff travelling time if a considerable amount of contact needs to be maintained with Central London. Once outside Central London, savings from rent, rates and staff costs do not increase progressively with distance. The review therefore considered it likely that the main gain in office jobs for these areas would continue to come from indigenous
  746
  growth and that any increase in moves to them would be likely to consist largely of clerical jobs. That is a powerful argument for accepting the amendment.
  I have quoted the unanimous view of the Greater London Council. In addition, as recently as 22nd June this year the London Boroughs Association maintained its view about ODPs and specifically pressed again for London to be exempted from any ODP control.
  The House should have a brief history of what has happened in this game of squash, as I might describe it, because the ball has been hit to and fro. In Committee an amendment reducing the period was carried with the aid of a Liberal Member, who does not seem to be with us tonight. All his right hon. and hon. Friends are also absent. On Report the Government deleted the amendment, with the aid of the Liberal Party, whose spokesman then said that he did not think that his hon. Friend in Committee had understood what the problem was. With the greatest respect—if one needs to show any respect to the Liberal Party—Liberal Members understand nothing about big cities or the problems of ODPs, because none of them has the faintest relevance to city life. Perhaps, therefore, it is as well that they do not bother to attend this debate.
  Their Lordships considered a different amendment, but still one with the effect of reducing the period during which control should last, and—surprise!—the Liberal Party there was split. Even its Front Bench was split. One of the noble Lords who voted for the amendment was a Liberal Front Bench spokesman. I do not think that the Lib-Lab pact worked effectively on that occasion. It is not certain that the Liberals really understood what the whole thing was about anyway.
  The fact is that both Houses have taken different views. We wonder what is coming next in this Pearl White or Dick Barton saga. Alas, it looks unlikely that we shall discover what the Liberals intend to do on this occasion.
  What is so sacred about 1982, the date when the Government want the power to expire? That is long after the time that this discredited Government can cling to office without facing the voters. Therefore, why are they so desperate to

  747
  prolong the period after they have disappeared from the scene? Perhaps a civil servant has told them—I do not apologise for repeating this suggestion, because it is a feeling that most hon. Members have—"Minister, there is a slot in the parliamentary timetable." That is because of the incompetence of the Leader of the House, who has lost his major business on devolution.
  So incompetently has he managed the business that on virtually the last day of the Session nine different Bills and orders are put down for debate. Did a civil servant say "Take that slot, because if you don't it will be very difficult to obtain parliamentary time on another occasion"? That is obviously the advice that the Secretary of State has taken. He has done it in a charming way, but none the less he has taken it, and we are faced with having to waste our time prolonging the operation of the Bill way past 1980.
  I hope that, on reflection, the House will accept the view of the other place that 1980 is the latest date to which control should continue under the present legislation. A Government can introduce a new Bill at any time. I still find it impossible to accept the need for continuing the control for a further five years. Certainly, the view about uncertainty in the property world and among local authorites is not shared by anyone working in those two areas with whom I have spoken. No one with whom I have discussed the matter has suggested that he would be in the least disturbed if the powers continued for two or three years instead of five. Therefore, unless the Minister can adduce evidence to the effect that it is causing great uncertainty the House must discount that as his assumption based, not on fact, but on theory.
  8.45 p.m.
  I hope that the House will agree that there is no reason for accepting the Government's view that we should throw out the Lords amendment. It would be nice if occasionally the Government felt able to bow to the wishes of another place—a view that was shared in the Standing Committee on which the Government had a majority. The fact that the Liberal Member voted with us when a Government Member was absent was not our fault. The Government should
  748
  occasionally be big enough to say "We accept the verdict". I hope that even now they will be prepared to do so on this occasion, although, looking at the Minister, I have grave doubts about it. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say, particularly about his assertion that uncertanty will be caused.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: The lion. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) began by saying that ODP control had few friends. He said that both parties and the Greater London Council are opposed to ODP control, which I know. He said that many members of the London Boroughs Association are opposed to it. However, a number of hon. Members, including at least one Opposition Member who spoke on Second Reading, and several of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the regions, welcome the continuation of the control and the Government's determination to ensure that it is effective. What we propose, and what was proposed in the original Bill which was in line with the proposal of the previous Government, is that it should continue for five years, because unless it does I do not see how it can be effective.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead trailed his political coat before us on this issue, and I do not propse to respond to what he said in that connection, but in view of what he said about an official in my Department, I make it clear that both the Secretary of State and myself accept full responsibility for wanting to replace in the Bill the period which we thought necessary. We thought it necessary because we believe that development control cannot be effective unless it is for a period of five years, bearing in mind the time that it takes to plan and build an office.
  The great danger, which I have explained before, is that if control is renewed for two or three years the possibility is that an office developer will say, at a time when it is difficult enough to get office development going, "Given the state of the economy, if I wait a couple of years somebody will abolish it". The reinstatement of the period of five years is an earnest of the Government's intention to operate ODP control effectively in an endeavour to achieve a fair balance of office jobs in various parts of the country.

  749
  The hon. Member for Hampstead said that he did not understand how uncertainty would be caused among property developers and the local authorities. I do not know which local authorities he has been speaking to. If he were to speak to some authorities in the regions, he might get a different story. I have
  explained why uncertainty could undoubtedly arise among property interests as a consequence of our not renewing the control for a reasonable time.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 235. Noes 179.

  Division No. 227]

  AYES

  [8.48 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Anderson, Donald

  Evans, John (Newton)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Faulds, Andrew

  Madden, Max

  Ashton, Joe

  Flannery, Martin

  Magee, Bryan

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mahon, Simon

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Ford, Ben

  Marks, Kenneth

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Forrester, John

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Bates, Alf

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Bean, R. E.

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

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Beith, A. J.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Meacher, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Freud, Clement

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mendelson, John

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ginsburg, David

  Mikardo, Ian

  Boardman, H.

  Golding, John

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Graham, Ted

  Millen, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Molloy, William

  Bradley, Tom

  Hardy, Peter

  Moonman, Eric

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Harper, Joseph

  Moyle, Roland

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Newens, Stanley

  Buchan Norman

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Noble, Mike

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Oakes, Gordon

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hatton, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Campbell, Ian

  Hooley, Frank

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ovenden, John

  Carmichael, Nell

  Horam, John

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Carter, Ray

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Huckfield, Les

  Parker, John

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Penhaligon, David

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Coleman, Donald

  Hunter, Adam

  Prescott, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jackson, Colln (Brighouse)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cowans, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Crawshaw, Richard

  John, Brynmor

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Cronin, John

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Judd, Frank

  Roper, John

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lamond, James

  Ryman, John

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Deakins, Eric

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Selby, Harry

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Dempsey, James

  Litterick, Tom

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Doig, Peter

  Luard, Evan

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Small, William

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McCartney, Hugh

  Snape, Peter

  Eadie, Alex

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Spearing, Nigel

  Edge, Geoff

  McElhone, Frank

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Stoddart, David

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Stott, Roger

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Strang, Gavin

  Ward, Michael

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Watkins, David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Watkinson, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Weitzman, David

  Woof, Robert

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Torney, Tom

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Tuck, Raphael

  White, James (Pollok)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Urwin, T. W.

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Mr. James Tinn.

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Hannam, John

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Arnold, Tom

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Awdry, Daniel

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Baker, Kenneth

  Hawkins, Paul

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Banks, Robert

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Bell, Ronald

  Hicks, Robert

  Raison, Timothy

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Rathbone, Tim

  Benyon, W.

  Hordern, Peter

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Blaker, Peter

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hurd, Douglas

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Jessel, Toby

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Brittan, Leon

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Brooke, Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Buck, Antony

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Knox, David

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Carlisle, Mark

  Lamont, Norman

  Scott, Nicholas

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shepherd, Colin

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shersby, Michael

  Clegg, Walter

  Luce, Richard

  Silvester, Fred

  Cockcroft, John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sims, Roger

  Cope, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Costain, A. P.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Crouch, David

  MacGregor, John

  Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Speed, Keith

  Drayson, Burnaby

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Spence, John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Durant, Tony

  Marten, Neil

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mates, Michael

  Sproat, lain

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maude, Angus

  Stanley, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Mawby, Ray

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Emery, Peter

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Mills, Peter

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Moate, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Forman, Nigel

  Monro, Hector

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerald

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Viggers, Peter

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Wakeham, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wall, Patrick

  Goodhart, Philip

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Walters, Dennis

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mudd, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Neave, Airey

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Neubert, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Newton, Tony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gray, Hamish

  Onslow, Cranley

  Younger, Hon George

  Grist, Ian

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Grylls, Michael

  Osborn, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Mr. Carol Mather and

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Jim Lester.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to the Bill: Mr. Guy Barnett, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Rossi, Mr. Freeson, and
  752
  Mr. Tinn; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

COUNTER-INFLATION (CONTINUATION OF ENACTMENTS)
9.2 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I beg to move,
That the draft Counter-Inflation (Continuation of Enactments) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following two motions:
That the draft Limits on Remuneration Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.
That the draft Price Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.
Mr. Booth: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It will be necessary to continue the provisions in relation to employers in the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975 to the extent needed to support and enforce the TUC guidance for the 12-month rule. The Limits on Remuneration Order has been laid for that purpose. The order is framed on the same basis on the order that the House approved last year. The original pay limits for the purposes of Section 1(1) of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act were set out in "The Attack on Inflation", Cmnd. 6151, which provided for what was known as the £6 policy.
Under the powers in Section 1(2) of the Act, the Limits of Remuneration Order 1976 added to those limits a reference to the limits set out in "The Attack on Inflation: the Second Year", known as the £2.50 to £4 policy. This order thus refers to the pay limits set out in the new White Paper "The Attack on Inflation after 31st July 1977".
It is specifically stated in the annexe to the White Paper that the statement of the TUC General Council of 22nd June about the 12-month rule constitutes the pay limits for the purposes of Section 1 of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975. The only additions mentioned in the TUC statement are self-financing productivity agreements and the improvements in occupational pension schemes.
754
I should point out that the order also underwrites the TUC guidance for negotiators who seek to defer due settlements under the current policy until after 31st July, and any settlement so deferred would, on the basis of the current guidelines, have to be within the pay limits. The effect of setting pay limits is the same as in the last two years. It will protect the employers from a claim for breach of contract if they can keep within the pay limits only by breaching contractual obligations. Secondly, if the Secretary of State certifies that the pay limits have been breached, sanctions will be applied.
But, unlike the last two years, the order affects particular negotiators for different periods. It affects them only for 12 months after the date of their settlement under current agreements. Therefore, for negotiators who concluded a settlement under the guidelines on 1st October 1976, this order limits their freedom to negotiate only up to 1st October this year.
The Government attach the greatest importance to the guidance of the TUC which constitutes the pay limits for the purposes of the order, since its observance will go far towards enabling an orderly return to collective bargaining to take place over the next year.
Mr. Timothy Raison: May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify a point about which I am not clear? As I understand it, the annex applies only to Section 1 of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975. Section 4 of the Act says that
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that any action taken or likely to be taken by a local authority in Great Britain may result or has resulted in the payment, for any period during which section 1 of this Act is in force, of any remuneration in excess of the limits mentioned in that section he may, after giving the authority an opportunity of making representations.…"
dock the rate support grant, in effect. Is it the case that the new White Paper affects only those things referred to in Section 1—namely, the business of letting off employers from the duty of fulfillling their contracts—or does it also affect local government? In other words, does it have a general purpose for all things that the Government want, or is it solely to do with employers' liability?
Mr. Booth: It is not the case that it would affect solely employers' liability. It has the same effect as in the previous two years. The only essential difference is that the time period of calculation is changed. I shall try to help the House by explaining the somewhat technical interaction between Sections 1 and 2 of the Act.
Mr. Raison: But the footnote to the annex in the White Paper states:
"This statement alone constitutes the pay limits in this White Paper for the purposes of Section 1 of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975."
The purposes of Section 1 are defined by the rubric as being "Remuneration under existing agreements." But Section 1 is really all about the question of employers' liability and has nothing to do with whether a local authority should get rate support grant. What is the meaning, therefore, of the phrase "for the purposes"? Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the new White Paper will not have general application and will be limited to what on the face of it appear to be the purposes of Section 1 and nothing else?
Mr. Booth: The other orders were introduced in the same form relating to section 1. The practice of the Government under the combined effect of orders such as those we are considering was to take into account arty breaches of the pay policy in deciding matters such as discretionary grants and rate support grant. The Government, where they had discretion, used this as the guideline by which they operated a sanction for the enforcement of the pay policy. Under Section 4 of the Act the Secretary of State may
"reduce and … without any sums payable to the authority by way of rate support grant under Section 6 of the Local Government Act 1974".
That is
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that any action taken or likely to be taken by a local authority in Great Britain may result or has resulted in the payment, for any period during which Section I of this Act is in force".
That power derives from Section 4 of the 1975 Act. The powers are laid for the Government to do that, but what we are doing is to continue a practice that has applied over the past two years as covered by the pay policy.
756
It is proposed to prolong powers to control dividends under Section 10 of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 This arises from the Government's White Paper "The Attack on Inflation" after 31st July 1977.
Mr. Raison: I understand that what the Secretary of State has just said is that the new White Paper, and in particular this new and rather odious annex, does not apply only to Section 1 in its operation but to Section 4 as well. The sentence that appears under the annex states:
"This statement alone constitutes the pay limits in this White Paper for the purposes of Section I of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975."
If that had occurred in the explanatory note that goes alongside the order I think I should be right in saying that it did not have any legal force. I believe that an explanatory note does not have any legal force However, as I read it the statement that appears underneath the annex has legal force. Except for one line there is nothing that I can see to detract from that statement having legal force. It may or may not be the case that this is a faulty statement. I suspect that it is an imperfect statement. I suspect that it is rather a vague statement and one that should be amended, but here we come up against one of the crucial difficulties. Under the appalling procedure adopted by the Government we cannot amend. We must proceed on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the sentence that comes after the annex has legal force? Does he have any reason to doubt that it is perfectly correct and viable as it stands?
Mr. Booth: Without trespassing beyond the rules of order, I do not think that I can reply to all those questions. It is not the case that the Government introduced the practice of not being able to amend affirmative orders. The hon. Gentleman is utterly mistaken if he thinks that that is so. As for the note that appears at the bottom of Annex A of the White Paper, it has no legal effect in itself. It is the passing of the order tonight that will give that annex the effect of constituting the pay limits. The purpose of the note is to make it clear that it is only the annex that constitutes pay limits for the purpose of the order, not the preceding pages of the White Paper.

757
Having constituted limits for the purpose of a continuation of that part of the Remuneration. Charges and Grants Act. The effect for those pay settlements covered by the limits is precisely the same as in preceding years. The sanctions attached to it are in no way looser or greater than they have been in the preceding two years. It was the case with the two preceding White Papers that the advice for the purpose of determining whether there had been a breach of pay policy was contained within only a limited part. In no case was the whole of the White Paper the basis on which I or my predecessor tested whether there had been a breach of the pay limits.
Mr. Raison: Section 1(1) of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975 refers to
"limits imposed by the policy set out in the document laid before Parliament by command of Her Majesty in July 1975 (Cmnd. 6151)".
It does not say that the policy set out in this document is confined exclusively to the annex. I do not think that the word "annex" appears in this document. It refers to the policy set out in the White Paper. I understand the effect of the order to be that there is a new White Paper, which has a new policy. But there is nothing in the new order implementing it. It refers only to the annex as opposed to the whole of the new White Paper that came out the other day.
On the face of it, this is talking about the whole of the new White Paper. The Secretary of State said that that is as may be, but underneath the annex another sentence mysteriously appears, which is by way of being an explanatory memorandum. I have never seen an explanatory memorandum or note, or whatever it is called, appear in the order before. I cannot see how the Secretary of State can say that bits of the White Paper are part of the law of the land and other bits are not. It does not seem to be defined in any proper way.
Mr. Booth: The hon. Gentleman is demonstrating that he has not read many orders. It is the general practice for Ministers laying orders to append explanatory memoranda.
Mr. Raison: With respect, I am aware of that. I have read quite enough orders.
758
I have here the order that we are debating now. This order has an explanatory note on the back. That is the normal practice. I am talking about an annex to the White Paper. Underneath the statement by the TUC on the last page of the White Paper is a line and then the sentence that I have already read twice. As far as I can make out, the Secretary of State is saying that this is an explanatory note, but there is nothing to show that it is an explanatory note. It appears as part of the White Paper. There is no statement saying that it is an explanatory not. I cannot understand why there is no statement saying that.
Mr. Booth: For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I shall try to explain it again. Both he and I are agreed on the proposition that the explanatory note attached to the order in itself has no legal effect. The legal effect that flows from the passing of the order is to provide pay limits by which the extension of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act can be operated. Therefore, it is essential to be able to identify which parts of the White Paper constitute the pay limits for the purpose of the order. In this case it is of greater consequence than in previous years. There is a distinction to be drawn between the practice in this year and that in previous years. The advice relates only to pay settlements that come within the 12 months after phase 2. The other matters referred to in the White Paper relate to post-phase 2 settlements, which are not covered by the legal effect of the order.
Mr. Raison: The right hon. Gentleman is being extremely patient and is obviously trying to meet my point. Surely, if we are defining which parts of the White Paper will be part of the law of the land and which parts will not, the proper pace to do that is in the order that brings them into effect. The Limits on Remuneration Order 1977 does not, as far as I can see, say that some parts will apply and other parts will not. It does not specifically give a legal basis to this sentence here and no legal basis to the rest. The order is, to say the least, imperfect.
Mr. Booth: The order refers to all the pay limits in the White Paper. There is a reference in the order to pay limits at large. I have sought to make clear the part for which there is legal sanction for

759
a continuation of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act power, and that is contained in the text of Annex A. It is put there to make clear the way in which the order operates and gives legal sanction for the continuation of the pay policy with the limits defined in Annex A. By the same process, it makes clear that the statutory powers do not continue in respect of other parts of the White Paper. The text of Annex A makes perfectly clear that the TUC statement alone consitutes the pay limits for the period after 31st July.
Mr. Giles Shaw: I think that the way in which the Secretary of State has sought to answer questions on this point is understandable, because he says that this is all part and parcel of the same proposition, but the fact remains that the fourth paragraph of the order that we are debating tonight states:
"And whereas Her Majesty has caused to be laid before Parliament a document (Cmnd. 6882) which sets out limits on remuneration for the period beginning on 1st August 1977"
and so on.
The Secretary of State's comments to my hon. Friend suggest that the limits for remuneration do not in any way apply, because the only power of Cmnd. 6882 which applies to the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act is the reference to the TUC statement, which does not contain any guidance whatever in relation to pay but only in relation to the 12-month application. Is there not a basic conflict, as my hon. Friend has suggested, between the White Paper, which refers to total pay, and the annex, which refers only to the 12-month rule?
Mr. Booth: There is no conflict, because neither document can operate in isolation. The White Paper pay limits cannot have any effect in relation to the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act without the order. Similarly, the order itself cannot be react by anyone in such a way as to find out what the limits are. The limits can be found only by reference to the White Paper. The order makes this completely clear. It is not possible by reading the White Paper alone to deduce or find the way or the mechanism by which it is given legal effect under the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act. That can be done only by the order before the House.
Mr. Giles Shaw: I understand what the Secretary of State is saying, but the fact remains that only a portion of Cmnd. 6882 is relevant to the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act. That portion is clearly listed in Annex A, but we have here an instrument that says that Cmnd. 6882 sets out the limits on remuneration for the period, whereas it would be more correct to say that it sets out in Annex A the part under which Section 1 of the 1975 Act will heretofore apply. It does not suggest in that particular phrase that only the 12-month rule applies but states that only remuneration advice contained in Cmnd. 6882 applies.
Mr. Booth: No. If the hon. Gentleman reads the whole order carefully he will sec on the front page of the order that it is made very clear that the order does not refer to all remuneration for the year from 1st August 1977 to 1st August 1978. The first page makes clear that it applies only to remuneration determined under phase 2 for the period in which they run. It refers to a date up to 31st July or 12 months after the previous settlement, whichever is the earlier. Therefore, that reading is the ordinary, simple, common sense intelligent reading of the English of the order.
One cannot deduce that it applies to all remunerations in the period from 1st August 1977 to 1st August 1978. It is set out quite clearly that it applies only to different periods for different remunerations. Therefore, I think that one cannot but deduce that one has to read the order in conjunction with the White Paper to see what are the limits for those periods covered. As I have made clear in describing the purpose of the order, those periods are the periods of 12 months from the conclusion of the phase 2 settlements.
Mr. Ron Thomas: I am concerned about paragraph 4, which refers to Cmnd. 6882 setting out limits on remuneration. Leaving aside the increase, the other part of Cmnd. 6882 which sets out limits is on page 3, which contains repeated references to 10 per cent. I want an assurance that the order will not be interpreted in such a way as to set out limits on remuneration which in general terms will be 10 per cent. I do not want to give employers the

761
excuse to say that they cannot exceed the 10 per cent. limit because a Statutory Instrument to that effect has been passed. Paragraph 4 refers to setting limits on remuneration, and it says also that those limits are contained in Cmnd. 6882. What are the limits in Cmnd. 6882 which apply to that paragraph?
Mr. Booth: I must refer my hon. Friend to the part of the order to which I referred the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw). That is the fourth paragraph, which reads
"And whereas Her Majesty has caused to be laid before Parliament a document (Cmnd. 6882) which sets out limits on remuneration for the period beginning on 1st August 1977 and ending with 31st July 1978 or twelve months after the date of the last pay settlement under Cmnd. 6507, whichever is the earlier."
Therefore, the part to which those limits apply in the order can apply only for 12 months from the date of the phase 2 settlement. They cannot apply to the whole of the order and, therefore, they must be the part covered by Annex A. It would be nonsense to say that as a result of the order the 10 per cent. applies to phase 2 settlements. The order makes it clear that the phase 2 pay limits are amended only in so far as that is set out in Annex A to the order.
There is no possibility under the order in this form—I took great care to ensure that this would be the case—that it can apply to any other settlement. In other words, the statutory effect of the order cannot apply to a post-phase 2 settlement. It can only qualify a phase 2 settlement. The extent to which it can do that beyond the existing limits of phase 2 are the references in Annex A to self-financing productivity agreements and to pension settlements which, unless the order is passed tonight, will be cut off at the contracting-out point. If the order is passed, that limit will be removed and pension settlements can be made above the contracting-out limit.
The effect of the fourth paragraph is to make it quite clear that the continuation of the powers under the Remuneration. Charges and Grants Act is possible only in respect of those periods for those particular settlements and that the only way in which limits can be varied is according to what is set out in Annex A.
762
I omitted to answer the hon. Member for Pudsey on the relationship between Section 4 and Section 1 of the 1975 Act. The relationship is to be found in the reading of Section 4 which refers to the limits on Section 1. Therefore, this order adds new limits to Section 1 and in so doing has that effect on Section 4 by the reference in Section 4 to Section 1.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am a little puzzled as to what "remuneration" really means. For example, does the 10 per cent. limit apply to top civil servants who have an office in Whitehall and who are supplied with a car to take them to Charing Cross Station or Victoria Station, even though the bus stops outside their office? That car is worth hundreds of pounds a year. I do not want to get at the civil servants. Ministers are in the same boat. They have houses, flats, furniture, heat and light and so on. Is that not remuneration? If I tell my constituents that Ministers get thousands of pounds a year in kind, how can I then tell them that they must ask for nothing extra in their remuneration? Would my constituents be allowed to ask that their house or car be supplied tax free?
Mr. Booth: My recollection is that the ministerial office what I occupied did not involve an increase in salary under phase 1 or 2. No right were granted to any Ministers to have their houses paid for.
I turn to the 10 per cent. earnings increase, to which the White Paper refers. It is not within the terms of the order. I would therefore be out of order were I to discuss it. I can discuss only the pay limits affected by the order. They are the pay limits for the period of phase 2.
The main purpose of the draft order on dividend control is to prolong powers to control dividends under Section 10 of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. It arises out of the Government's White Paper "The Attack on Inflation after 31st July 1977" which was approved by the House in what I might term the confidence debate last week.
The reference to dividends is in paragraph 15. The draft order prolongs the controls until 31st July 1978, after which all legislative authority ceases. There are

763
no changes in the form of controls compared with those in phase 2. The statutory limit remains at 10 per cent. with a range of provisions for dividend increases above the limit in certain circumstances, notably for the raising of new capital for investment.
The order also prolongs Section 8. This gives power to the Government to modify statutes relating to prices. It was used to ensure that the price control could override any previous statutory provisions in relation to prices, but it has not been needed for some years. It is unlikely to be needed for the forthcoming year. The only reason for continuing this is because it is necessary to maintain the validity of orders made under that section.
The philosophy behind the Prices Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order is that there are certain sectors which, for one reason or another, are not susceptible to control under the powers provided in the Price Commission Act This is not a new concept. Successive Price Code orders have also made provisions for exceptions where particular prices or charges could not be meaningfully controlled under the Price Code.
The exceptions order and the Price Code share another idea in common—namely, that the number of exceptions should be kept to the bare minimum. We promised that exceptions would be minimal, and they are. To do otherwise would detract from the effectiveness of the controls. The exceptions order covers only a fraction of economic activity, and there are no major changes. There are only two exceptions—car parking charges levied by public authorities and local authority trading services which are not excluded from examination.
Mr. Michael Neubert: The right hon. Gentleman should not play down the significance of exceptions, because under paragraph 7 of the Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community the sale of coal and steel is excluded. Does that not have a significant effect upon our economy?
Mr. Booth: I was not playing down the exceptions. I shall seek to describe briefly the reasons for the exceptions, including the particular one to which the hon. Member referred.
764
Article 2(1) provides that prices and charges specified in Parts I, II and III of the schedule to the order are to be outside the scope of investigations into price levels under subsection 5(1)(a) of the Act. These same prices and charges will not be subject to any requirement to prenotify increases to the Price Commission. As a result, they will automatically be outside the scope of investigations into price increases under Section 4. The effect, therefore, of the exceptions made by Article 2(1) is to take prices and charges listed in the schedule out of all forms of investigation.
The coverage of the order is much the same as for exemptions from the Price Code. It falls into three broad categories.
First, there are those areas which are subject to international obligations, such as those to which the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) referred—coal and steel—or are just simply outside United Kingdom jurisdiction; for example, the price of exports, and the price of imports on first sale into the United Kingdom.
Secondly, there are the areas in which prices and charges already letermined by a way as to make it impossible to control them—for example, goods sold by auction and prices determined by, or in relation to, commodity markets.
The third type of exception relates to prices and charges already determined by bodies other than the Price Commission—for example, bus fares determined by the traffic commissioners and domestic air fares determined by the Civil Aviation Authority.
It makes no sense in that sort of case to double bank controls when there are already other bodies with responsibility for supervising and controlling prices or charges.
We do not propose to carry over all the exceptions from investigation into exceptions from examination. There are two reasons for this. There are sectors in which, although prices or charges at the level of the individual firm cannot be controlled, the whole sector could be subject to meaningful control through an examination. The second reason is that there will be times when there is a strong case for sectoral examinations of a purely fact-finding nature, of the sort that the

765
Price Commission has carried out under the powers contained in the Counter-Inflation Act 1973.
It is also likely to be the case that particular examinations will range over a wider field of investigations into individual firms. In such cases, the Commission will need fairly general terms of reference if it is to carry out a successful examination. If we cast too wide the net of complete exclusion from examination, we run the risk of inadvertently preventing the Commission from looking at prices and charges about which it needs information if it is to make a comprehensive report on other prices which are actually the subject of examination.
We therefore propose two types of exception from the provisions of the Bill dealing with examination. A very small number of sectors will be exempt, under Article 2(2) of the draft Order, from Section 10 of the Act and therefore totally outside the scope of examinations. These are set out in Part I of the schedule. Hon. Members will see that the exceptions consist basically of the areas in which prices or charges are already determined by other bodies.
The second category of exceptions is set out in Part II of the schedule. These are the sectors which will be liable only to fact-finding examinations. The exceptions in Part III of the order are exempt from investigation but remain fully susceptible to the examination system.
Knowing that there are time limits on this debate, I have tried to describe briefly the purpose and mechanisms of the orders. My hon. Friends the Minister of State, Treasury and the Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection are with me on the Front Bench to listen to hon. Members' comments, which we shall take into account in the administration of the orders if they are passed by the House, and to ensure that the three Departments concerned with the orders can contribute in the reply to the debate.
I commend the orders to the House.
9.39 p.m.
Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: There were times during the exchanges which have just taken place when I thought that perhaps I might be winding
766
up the debate instead of speaking during its opening stages. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the Secretary of State for "Unemployment" It is perhaps unfair to give him that particular title. It should be more appropriately given to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, because that is where the trouble will lie one year after the Price Commission Act has been enacted.
I am, however, glad that the right hon. Gentleman directed most of his remarks to one of the orders that we are debating which is known as the so-called "pay sanction" order. He has demonstrated in a way that no one could have demonstrated better that the pay sanction itself is so translucent and ephemeral that it should have been written in invisible ink on cellophane paper.
Nowhere is it better illustrated than in the relationship between the order and the White Paper "Attack on Inflation after 31st July 1977" that phase 3 is dead and buried. Whichever school of thought one belongs to with regard to pay policy, two facts are inescapable. The first is that the Government have said categorically that phase 3 of wage restraint was crucial to their survival and to economic success. The second fact is that there is no phase 3 and that this order and the White Paper are merely window-dressing.
The White Paper itself, to which the order closely relates, is merely a sheep in wolf's clothing. The situation that has arisen is one that I predicted as long as nine months ago when I warned that prices were still rising so fast that the outcome of any wage negotiations this summer would be in jeopardy. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition predicted it from the first moment that the Government produced their "Attack on Inflation" White Paper and embarked on their pay policy. She warned of the difficulty of re-entry, particularly if it occurred at a time when inflation had not been brought under control. That is exactly what has happened, and that is why we have this white sheep of a White Paper and this order tonight.
It was inevitable from the beginning that differentials would have to be restored at this stage, but the continuing high rate of inflation has added to the pressures

767
that would have been there in the first place. Of course, there is nothing in the White Paper or in the order—as the Secretary of State has confirmed, because it is impossible—to set the single-figure limit for pay settlements on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have laid SD much emphasis.
The Secretary of State confirmed in a reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) that there is nothing whatever in the White Paper which imposes a single-figure pay settlement requirement. Now we have the Government producing an order which is supposed to impose a sanction against a breach of the Pay Code which is so diaphanously clad that it is almost indecent.
Nowhere are any pay limits defined or agreed—I stress the word "agreed"—outside the short-term 12-month rule, and even that will have very little effect after 1st August this year.
Mr. Ron Thomas: On many occasions in the House the hon. Lady has made it clear that she is absolutely opposed to any kind of control on prices. She is now saying that she wants to see control over wage increases. Is that still the case?
Mrs. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman should have listened more carefully to what I have said. I said that at this moment of time it was an inescapable fact of life that we would not get the type of pay agreement which the Government set out to get because it was absolutely impossible in the circumstances that prevail today. I have said, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, that at this stage in the proceedings there has to be a restoration of differentials, but inevitably, because of the levels of inflation, they will be higher than they would have been otherwise and this will have an effect on every pay sector.
What I am now saying is that this White Paper and this order do not constitute a pay policy at all. They are merely a whitewashing act to disguise the fact that the Government have not got a phase 3 of pay policy.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said in a letter on 25th July,
768
'In the first place, the TUC advice attached as an Annex to the White Paper"—
to which my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) have referred—
"only says that negotiators should have settlements not sooner than 12 months from their Stage 2 settlement and that they should not postpone their Stage 2 settlement till after 31st July in the hope of getting more than. … What it does not say is that settlements in the coming year should last for 12 months."
In other words, it says "You can have two, three or four settlements—as many as you like—during the next 12 months" and that is what the Government are representing to the House as being a pay policy.
If we look at the order itself, we see that it refers to limits set out in the White Paper. We look at paragraph 11 of the White Paper to see what the Government intend. The most that we get is that they seek to ensure that the national target is met. Is that a pay policy—seeking to ensure?
Then we turn to the back page of the White Paper and to the sentence to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury referred. We see that that in turn refers to a statement by the General Council of the TUC. There we see not a word about agreement with the Government. All that it says is that the General Council attaches the utmost importance to the continued observance by negotiators of the guidelines laid down—
The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): Does the hon. Lady advocate a statutory numerical pay policy? If not, what is her policy?
Mrs. Oppenheim: It appears that the Minister of State has not been listening either. I am saying that the Government have not got a pay policy at all. What they are presenting as a pay policy is not a pay policy.
If we compare the White Paper which we are discussing in relation to this order with previous White Papers, we see that last year there was a definite agreement between the TUC and the Government and that it was referred to. If we look at the White Paper of the year before, we see that there were to be limits specifically described by the Government in the White Paper itself.

769
The Government are saying that they have a pay policy. There is no pay policy in this order, and there is no pay policy in the White Paper. What we have in the White Paper is a veritable morass of ambiguity and weasel words attempting to cloak the reality that there is no pay policy.
I am pleased that the Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection will be replying to this debate. He will have the responsibility in his Department for the imposition of the pay sanctions, such as they are, through prices. Of course, he was formerly in the Department of Employment before his very well deserved promotion. He knows all about pay policies because he had special responsibility back in 1974, during the proceedings on the 1974 Prices Bill, for the abolition of the then Pay Code.
In Committee the Minister of State waxed eloquent on the subject. In one speech he said:
"a statutory policy has proved with experience to be unworkable.… It does not work. Day after day, Ministers in my Department are faced by delegations with problems about the statutory incomes policy. Not just one or two but sometimes as many as five delegations in five minutes."
The Department must have been very busy over the past two years. He went on to say, with remarkable prescience:
"One can so often create a situation in which ordinary reasonable people, because of the unworkability of the policy and frustrations it causes, suddenly become Samsons bringing the temple around them down in ruins."
That was a marvellously prescient statement. But that was not all. His prophetic insight went further than that. He went on:
"the longer the statutory policy remains in force, the more difficult it is to rehabilitate free collective bargaining, and the more difficult it is to redress the anomalies and grievances and the inequalities which would have grown up during the period of the statutory policy."—[Official Report. Standing Committee D, 21st May 1974; c. 465–7.]
I am delighted that the Minister of State will bring his expertise to tell the House exactly how pay policies do not work. After he has told us that, no doubt he will say how his Department will operate a pay sanction through a prices policy.
Mr. J. W. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you please confirm to those of us on the Back Benches that we shall have an opportunity to indulge in the same long-ranging debate on pay policy and counter-inflation policy as that which we are hearing from the Opposition Front Bench at present?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is very difficult to anticipate what line a debate can take, but the Chair will certainly give fair play within the terms of the matters under discussion.
Mrs. Oppenheim: As it happens, I had intended to turn now to the aspect of the order that disturbs us on this side of the House more than anything else. We warned on each occasion that a pay sanction was imposed that it was unfair and wrong to place the onus for keeping within the pay limits on employers and to punish them for something over which, in all good faith, they might have no control. It is like putting two boxers in a ring with one having his hands tied behind his back.
It is true that both sides of industry have a responsibility in this matter. But this sanction makes it a very one-sided affair. It is potentially all the more serious since this provision overrides the already inaccurate safeguards in the Price Commission Act itself. Very often smaller companies which are near safeguard levels will have to pay more merely to keep up with the perks and pension advantages offered by bigger companies. We warn very emphatically of the serious effect that this sanction can have if it is applied against companies with very low levels of profitability. We are in any case utterly opposed to this principle.
We should also like to hear more from the Secretary of State, and from the Minister of State when he winds up, about how the rules are to be applied to public sector employers as opposed to private sector employers, because public sector employers are not held to any percentage limits under this order. They are held only to a short-term time factor. What sanction will apply to public sector bodies if they merely go further and further into deficit to finance pay claims in breach of the albeit very flimsy provisions in the order? Or will it be a

771
question of the Government bailing them out year after year by writing off their loans, without coming in any way under the cash limit provisions which will he operating in the next year and a half?
I honestly do not suppose that this order is to be taken seriously by anyone. In laying it the Government are merely going through the motions of acting out the charade that phase 3 have now become. It is for us to denounce this subterfuge for what it is.
As for the other orders, the Price Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order 1977 is unexceptional and self-explanatory. I think that the Secretary of State explained it very well. The order providing for dividend control will be dealt with fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson), who will wind up for the Opposition.
I know that the Labour Party would like to see all equity investment in the hands of institutions, but unless we can encourage small investors to go into equities there will be very little of the fundamental expansion that we need if we are to return to fuller employment. When we talk about individual investors we are not talking about big individual investors, because dividends make no difference to them. They pay a great deal of tax on them. We are talking about the small individual investor and the pension funds. Dividend control makes a great deal of difference to them.
It is true that this dividend control will last only for another year, but it was intended to be a quid pro quo for a year of pay policy, and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has already made clear that there is no formal pay policy in the sense meant by the right hon. Gentleman when he made that proviso. Therefore, it is inconsistent not only to continue profit margin control but to continue dividend control. However, it is an inconsistency which I do not expect Labour hon. Members to appreciate.
It is perhaps appropriate that we should have a clutch of orders in practically the last debate on Government business this Session, orders which are so characteristic of what has preceded them from the Government throughout
772
the Session. They represent subterfuge, injustice, inequity and distortion. They will do nobody any good, and they have a potential to do a great deal of harm. As such, they constitute a very fitting epitaph for the Government's business at the end of this Session.
9.55 p.m.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Whenever the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) speaks in the House, she says that she is completely opposed to any control on prices, but by implication she makes it clear that she would like to see control on wages. I find it nauseating that Opposition Members should continue to shed crocodile tears about the number of people unemployed when it is essentially the Tory laissez-faire policies that the Government have been pursuing that has created the unemployment. If the Government take much more advice from the Opposition, the unemployment figure may go well above 2 million.
One myth which the figure of 1.6 million unemployed has exploded, I hope once and for all, is that one man's wage increase means another man going on the dole queue, or rubbish of that sort, which occasionally we hear from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Working people have accepted cuts in their standard of living and have seen stagflation biting deeper into it.
Although I have been advised by my hon. Friends that I am chasing something that is not there, I would point out that the fourth paragraph of the Limits on Remuneration Order refers to setting out limits. If we are concerned only with the 12-months limit, we need have regard only to Cmnd. 6507.
Mr. Booth: Had I referred only to Cmnd. 6507 and not to Cmnd. 6882 it would not have been possible, within the provisions of phase 2, to extend claims for pension improvements beyond a certain time or to negotiate within phase 2 a self-financing productivity agreement. It was necessary to make the reference to the other White Paper so that the adjustments could take place within phase 2 settlements.
Mr. Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend. I take it from what he said that I can advise shop stewards and trade union

773
negotiators in my constituency that nothing in the order in respect of phase 3—if I may use that term—negotiations will enable an employer to say that he cannot give an increase of more than 10 per cent. I want to be able to advise negotiators in my area of Bristol and in the West Country that they can legitimately make and pursue wage claims of more than 10 per cent. without the Government calling in aid Section 4 of the Remuneration. Charges and Grants Act or any other legislation. I should like the Minister who replies to the debate to make that clear.
I am not happy with the 12-month rule. It hits at workers in local authorities and those who come within joint industrial councils and wages councils who negotiate pay claims once a year. They tend to be lower-paid workers, because these pay policies—
Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At 10 o'clock you will be obliged to put the motion on the Order Paper for the suspension of the rule. I wonder whether you can tell us about the situation on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, because the suspension motion as drafted includes not only the Bills specifically mentioned therein but any other messages from the House of Lords. The message that matters is that which contains the amendments from the Lords on the Housing(Homeless Persons) Bill Are these amendments available? If not, when will they be available? Also, am I right in saying that there are about 60 amendments to the Bill for the House to consider?
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: I shall put the business motion and then I shall reply to the hon. Member's point of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the National Health Service Bill [Lords], the Consideration of a Lords Amendment to the Post Office Bill, any proceedings on Motions relating to Committees to draw up Reasons, and the consideration of any Lords messages which may be received may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour, the Motion relating to Sound Broadcasting (Joint Committee) may be proceeded with though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Tinn.]
Mr. Speaker: In reply to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) I believe that the amendments have been received from another place and it will be open for the House to deal with them under the Standing Orders if the House so decides.
Mr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When will the amendments be available to hon. Members? The House of Lords finished debating them at 6 o'clock. I understand that there are about 60 amendments, and the House has just decided that we can determine these amendments, though opposed, after 10 o'clock even though hon. Members have not had the opportunity to see them.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the amendments have been received. They have gone to the Public Bill Office, where the staff are working to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members will have copies available when we come to this matter.
Mr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the final stage in the consideration and processing of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill and it is absolutely in character with the manner in which the whole Bill has proceeded. It is undoubtedly the worst-processed Bill in history and the worst constructed, and the country will see that it is a disaster.
Mr. Speaker: The amendments will be available shortly. The staff of the House, who have had to work under exceptionally difficult circumstances this week, are working at it now.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course we all pay

775
tribute to you and your staff for the excellent work you always do. What we object to is a non-elected body holding us up and preventing us from carrying out our parliamentary duties. The other place—the non-elected body—is holding up parliamentary democracy. If it wishes to carry on with this anachronism it should do so when it does not hold up the work of the democratically-elected body in this place.
Mr. Speaker: I think that these points can be raised—the hon. Member has been here for more than 32 years, as I have—when the amendments are presented. That might be an opportunity for a brief intervention.
Mr. Michael Shersby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise the House whether it is reasonable that hon. Members at this late hour should be expected to study so many amendments from another place? Shall we have sufficient opportunity to consider these amendments carefully and express a point of view? I believe that this is a grave situation which faces every hon. Member present.
Mr. Speaker: These are questions that should be raised when the House is presented with the amendments. We are holding up the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas).

COUNTER-INFLATION (CONTINUATION OFENACTMENTS)
Question again proposed.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to make two brief points. I am not happy with the 12-month rule because it will penalise mainly the low paid workers. Other workers can take advantage of job evaluation schemes, payment-by-results schemes, measured day-work schemes and all the rest of it, which enable certain groups of workers to push up their earnings, and rightly so, day to day and week to week. The view that there is to be only one increase and that they will have to wait 12 months for any increase will hit the lower paid.
I have no faith in the White Paper figure of 10 per cent. in meeting the kind of inflation levels that we must expect in the next 12 months. Workers have to think about net pay increases because in the vast majority of cases 34 per cent. of it will go in tax.
I have no faith in the other order dealing with the limitation of dividends. There is ample evidence that any form of limitation of dividends is likely to be defeated by scrip issues in order to get round the controls over dividends. Companies are now making massive profits, and by manipulating the system they are salting away money for the future. That will add further to the profits of company shareholders and will assist the wealthy people of this country.
10.7 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I wish to refer to the Limits on Remuneration Order 1977. I wish to remind the Secretary of State that he spent four years as a very distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. He will recollect that the first thing he looked for in a Statutory Instrument was the power of the Minister to make such an order.
We find in the sixth paragraph of the order the following passage:
"Now, therefore, the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 1(2) of the 1975 Act and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, hereby makes the following Order".
The 1975 Act to which reference is made is the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975. Therefore, we turn to Section 1(2) of that Act to see what power the Secretary of State has to make this order. That provision reads:
if Her Majesty at any time causes a document to be laid before Parliament which sets out limits in addition to or in substitution for those so imposed".
If we refer back to subsection (1), which relates to the first White Paper, we see that he has power to make the order. It implies that that will happen if there is a document setting out limits and, secondly, that that should be in addition to or in substitution for the previous limits.
We are assured that the White Paper, Cmnd 6882, sets out limits within the meaning of the parent Act, the Act of 1975. We refer to that document to find out what those limits are. The White Paper sets out the statement of the General Council of the TUC, which was as follows:
"The General Council attach the utmost importance to the continued observance by negotiators of the guidelines of the £2.50/5%/ £4 policy adopted by Congress".
This means that it is a continuation. All that the new White Paper does is to continue the policy set out in the previous White Paper, Cmnd 6507.
Is it an addition to or a substitution for last year's limits? I doubt it. It calls on those negotiators to keep to last year's limits. It goes on to say that it shall include a requirement of a 12-month interval between settlements. Are
778
we to take it that that limitation in time—12 months—is a limitation of pay within the meaning of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act?
In the first White Paper the figures and percentages were set out. They were written down so that those who had to obey the limits could find out what they were. The same applied to the second White Paper. It is, of course, of vital importance that anyone who will be bound by the order should know the limits by which he will be bound. Employers will not have to pay any salaries or wages above the limits, no matter what they may agree with their employees. If local authorities go above the limits, they will be refused certain assistance from the central Government. Employers who pay above the limits will not be able to increase their prices to include that pay. It is therefore, of vital importance to employers, manufacturers and local authorities to know exactly what the limits will be.
If the limits are those set out in the annex, they have not changed in comparison with the previous year and the Secretary of State has no power to make the order. If they are changed—and it has been suggested that they are changed by some phrases in the order—those phrases are so vague that it will be quite impossible for those who will be bound by the limits to know what the limits will be.
On that basis, the Government would be wise to take the order back and produce another draft, and, perhaps, another White Paper setting out exactly what they intend the pay policy and the limits to be. Otherwise, things will be extremely difficult and there will be an invitation to litigation. It was only a few days ago that an order had to be withdrawn because of the failure of a Secretary of State to observe the parent statute under which he was making the draft order. The same should be done in this case. The Secretary of State should consider withdrawing the draft order and bringing one in which is clearly within the powers given to him by the 1975 Act.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: A few moments ago the number

779
of years that I have been in the House was mentioned by the Chair, and my mind ran back over the years during which I have listened to such speeches from members of Governments of both political parties. Each year they have come forward with an answer and solved the problem—until the next year, when it was discovered that they had not.
I wondered tonight during the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) whether the hon. Lady and I had been in some other place over the years, because I had a feeling that I have seen or heard her as a supporter of what my constituents used to call "the Heathen Government". That Government had policies such as the hon. Lady advocated. That Government did the same things as this Government, and that Government also failed. There was rampant inflation and trouble with the trade unions. I was therefore amazed to hear the hon. Lady come forward with such arguments, because she did not do so when the Government were in power.
I have been against such policies all the way through, because they do not and will not work. There are so many ways round such policies. They can be found through arrangement with or connivance by hon. Members. The lawyers were here earlier tonight, but they have all gone home now to work on their briefs. They will draw their fees and take whatever fees they like. They earn hundreds of pounds. There is no question of a 10 per cent. limit for them. We can pick up a newspaper any day and read of this case or that, with thousands of pounds being spent upon lawyers. I am referring to lawyers on both sides of the House and not to those of one party or another. Of course, they are all in favour of the limit—be it 10, 15 or 20 per cent.—until it hits them.
Each week the Sunday Express has contributions from three Members of this House. All of them are in favour of attacking the lower-paid worker having control over his own wages. They get more for one article in the Sunday Express proclaiming the need for a wages policy than the miner gets for a week's work. My tight hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) is not present. He had an article in the
780
News of the World clamouring for wage control. I gamble that he got £300 for it.
When I interjected in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about Ministers getting round the pay policy, he admitted that Ministers get houses, flats and the rest—at least, many of them do. Let us pick one out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gets such privileges. All Ministers get the use of cars.
What of the civil servants who invent these policies that Governments bring in? In the Whitehall offices are top civil servants getting £15,000 to £20,000 a year. They are all in favour of this policy. Buses outside their office doors go to Victoria or Charing Cross, but they do not use them. They are provided with cars and chauffeurs because they dare not get on a bus. That is another way they can get round the pay policy.
What about our friends on the TUC General Council? I ask a lot of Questions and encounter a lot of ways of dodging answers. How many members of the TUC General Council have sinecures and part-time jobs on Government boards? What are they getting by way of wages for doing so? About 150 jobs are shared among them. But they will not give details. That is another way of getting round the incomes policy, of which many of the members of the General Council are in favour.
There is a lovely radio programme called "Any Questions" on Friday nights. Members of Parliament usually take part. They get more for taking part than a miner gets for his full week's work.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Five pounds.
Mr. Lewis: The hon. Lady is probably quoting the cost of the dinner.
There has been complaint today about another place holding up legislation. I have tried to get figures about Members of another place. They will not give them. The Treasury does not want to disclose what is happening. Almost all the Members of another place who proclaim their support for the prices and—mainly—wages policy get £16·50 a day tax-free, which in most cases is worth £200 to £300 a day to them on a gross, taxable basis. The hon. Member for

781
Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) smiles. Let him look at the answer that the Treasury has given me. I know that the Treasury is mostly wrong, but on this occasion it is right.
Many of those in another place are on £15,000 or £20,000 a year. If we pay a person with that sort of income a tax-free allowance of £16.50 a day, that is worth £200 or £300 a week. That applies to those in another place whatever party they represent. We find that Lord X is the part-time chairman of this board, that board or the other board, but it is impossible to find out what he is receiving. Mostly they arc not paid wages or salaries. That is why I asked for a definition of remuneration.
My lion. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a great supporter of the miners. I advise my hon. Friend not to tell the miners to ask for £135 a week but to tell them to ask for £16.50 a day tax-free. Let them ask to have their cars supplied tax-free. Let them ask to have their houses supplied tax-free. Let them ask to have their furniture tax-free and the upkeep of their homes looked after. That would be much better.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wondered whether my hon. Friend would return to the civil servants. I know that it has been difficult lately to try to establish how many top civil servants are on £135 a week, which is the claim that the miners have made.
Mr. Lewis: Oh, no, my hon. Friend cannot ask for that information.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Lewis: Let me deal first with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. As the miners are always under attack, I shall reply to him first. I shall return to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman).
There are hundreds of civil servants getting more than £135 a week. They are career people and we know about them, but we are not allowed to know how many Members of another place, who are non elected but are there for life, have thousands of pounds tax-free in addition to their £16·50 a day tax-free. Many of them have not one job but three or four jobs, being engaged in them for only a few hours a week.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to the value after tax of Mr. Gormley's new job—namely, a directorship in Canada in a company which mainly supports oil and is in direct competition with his own commodity of coal?
Mr. Lewis: In effect, I have mentioned Mr. Gormley as he is a member of the TUC General Council. I have said that I am against this sort of thing on principle irrespective of who is involved. Mr. Tom Jackson is another example. The announcement has been made today that Post Office profits are running at over £1 million a day. I am not talking about the profit when adjusted. Either it has its budgeting wrong or it has been overcharging. Probably it has its budget wrong and has been overcharging. However, Tom Jackson has three or four jobs. He is very much in favour of a wages policy.
It is not only Tom Jackson or Joe Gormley. It is not only the Labour peers and the Tory peers. We must also include the Liberal peers. It is the Government who are at fault. Perhaps we are at fault because we allow it to happen. We take no action. We do not say or do anything about it.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: Having complained on many occasions about not being sent abroad on visits, the hon. Gentleman will remember that he visited the Far East at the time of the Indonesian confrontation. He will remember that he visited Borneo as a member of the party in which I was involved. When we arrived, he was anxious because he was asked to ride in a minibus instead of a staff car. I remember very well the hon. Gentleman complaining to the commander-in-chief, the air marshal, that he was expected to ride in a minibus when there were staff cars around. It was not until the Commander-in-Chief of the Far East Forces pointed out to him that we were at war with Indonesia and that the staff cars were for staff officers that he finally accepted a ride in a minibus.
Mr. Lewis: I absolutely and completely deny every word of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall now tell the truth. This was some 20 years ago. The fact was that I was told that I could not travel in the Rover, I think it was, but

783
had to go in the Humber. I asked "Why?" The reason was that I was being escorted by a colonel, and a colonel never travelled in a car other than a Humber. The Rover was for the captain. I then said that I would rather travel in a minibus. In any case—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I decided to allow the hon. Gentleman to clear his name. Will he now come back to counter-inflation?
Mr. Lewis: I was about to deal with the so-called control of prices, which is part of this matter. [Interruption.] I am told that it is not. We shall wait and see.
The question of dividend control was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and by the hon. Member for Gloucester. I believe I am right in saying that the British Sugar Corporation is partly owned by the Government. The corporation has recently declared a 100 per cent. scrip issue—a 100 per cent. increase in dividends. That has become a regular habit. Many public companies are now following the Government's excellent example of getting round dividend control by making scrip issues and, with Treasury permission, giving a 100 per cent. increase in dividends.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said that this had nothing to do with prices.
Mr. John Fraser Mr. John Fraser rose—
Mr. Lewis: Of course it has something to do with prices. If a worker finds that the costs of goods are increasing day by day, why should he have to put up with a 10 per cent. increase? Of course this has something to do with prices. It has everything to do with prices.
Yesterday I read that all the big banks had doubled or trebled their profits. What did I find this morning in the Press? The big banks are now to put up their charges. Having on one day declared increased profits, on the very next day—they did not even wait until the end of the week—they announce that they are to put up their charges. What has happened? The Government still sit there and do nothing.
I asked a Question about beer prices. I should point out that beer prices have
784
gone up every three months. The official representative of the brewers objected to being told that it was being done to circumvent the Government's so-called investigation. He said "No, we are not doing it for that reason. We always put up our prices every three months."
I asked the Minister a question about that matter and got the answer that he could do nothing about it. Apparently he does not have the power. Why the hell does he not take power? Why does he sit there and do nothing? The Government soon come here and take power to deal with workers' wages. I am very much against all this. We are worsening the standard of living of the lower paid. The poor are getting poorer. We should get back to the stage of allowing the trade unions to carry out their normal job of negotiating the hours, wages and working conditions of their members. If the Government are to do that, for God's sake let them stop the profiteering that is going on almost every day of the week.
Finally, I turn to directors' fees. My hon. Friend the Minister of State must have a very thick file in his office on this matter. The company reports show that each year directors' fees are doubling and trebling.
Mr. Booth: We are investigating them.
Mr. Lewis: Of course the Government are investigating them, but still they go up. My hon. Friend could investigate the workers' wages on that basis. They would not mind the investigation as long as their wages doubled and trebled. Let the Government get back to the job they were elected to do. Let them look after the interests of the ordinary people, and then we might win some of the by-elections.
10.31 p.m.
Mr. Timothy Raison: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not examine every line, comma and semi-colon of the order in the way that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) clearly has done.
I wish to comment on the Limits on Remuneration Order. In the exchanges which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and I had with the Minister earlier, two facts were clearly established. The first is that it is appallingly unsatisfactory to bring delegated

785
legislation before the House in the way chosen by the Government this year, last year and the year before last. The idea of having a White Paper which is then in some way embodied in a statute or an order is totally and utterly unsatisfactory.
The second point to emerge, and which the House should understand, is that although we talk about this as being a non-statutory incomes policy it is in fact statutory. It is embodied in the statute we are discussing, and in one respect it is a fairly Draconian power. The fact that Section 4 of the 1975 Act, as the Secretary of State told us, is now being updated by the order means that if a local authority should agree to pay a second increase within the 12 months covered by the rule it would be liable to have its rate support grant docked. In other words, if it conceded a pay claim of that kind it would lose its money from the central Government. I do not know from what source it would replace it. Presumably the local authority would turn to the ratepayers. It would find itself in grave trouble. That seems a powerful, although limited, sanction.
I wish to refer to the last page of the White Paper which contains Annex A. Once again, a TUC statement is being incorporated into the law of the land in a statute on which the whole of the incomes policy rests. It is appalling that the law is defined by the throw-away sentence
"This statement alone constitutes the pay limits in this White Paper for the purposes of Section 1 of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975."
That is, of course, the statutory embodiment of the social contract. That is the device by which we have been ruled since March 1974. People sometimes think that the social contract came into being in 1975 when the Government's statutory incomes policy came into being. But it came into being from the moment the Labour Government came to power, and it was part of the deal when we had that test period of misgovernment which ran from March 1974 for a year or more when everything was allowed to rip.
There is some doubt about whether the social contract still exists. The House may remember that in answer to questions the Prime Minister told the House explicitly on 7th July this year that he
786
did not think that it was intact. By 14th July the Prime Minister decided that it was intact after all, and he gave a parliamentary answer to that effect. I do not know why there was a change of heart, but I have a feeling that the reason was that someone reminded the Prime Minister of the letter of intent to the IMF in which the Government promised to operate the social contract. Perhaps he was worried about saying that the social contract no longer existed, because that would have been a breach of the agreement with the IMF. In The Times of 25th July, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) tells us:
"the social contract is still alive and well".
I find this order profoundly offensive. I do not object to the notion of the 12-month rule. If we are to have rules, that is probably a sensible one to have. Indeed, whether one has a statutory incomes policy or not a reasonable time between settlements is desirable.
I object to the way in which the TUC is allowed to issue a unilateral statement which is then translated into the law of the land. I object that we have had no chance to amend it. We have been given the statement on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The TUC sat down and issued a statement and the Government embodied it into the law. That is a disgraceful way for legislation to be operated.
We have not been allowed to debate this in draft form. It has been rammed down our throats. Normally, if there is a major piece of legislation in the form of an order we have a chance to debate it in draft. Tonight, however, the Secretary of State is asking us to pass the order. It is not a debate on the draft. That means that the Government cannot go away and make changes in response to hon. Members. There is no possibility of that. We have been presented with the TUC's statement. Even if the Government wanted to change their minds, they could do nothing because the statement comes from the TUC.
I do not blame the TUC. It is entitled to lay down its terms. There is nothing discreditable about that. But it is entirely discreditable that we should fall into this practice year after year and be unable to have a meaningful debate. This shows that the Government are bound hand and foot to an outside body.

787
There is a long tradition in our politics that the Government do not conduct deals with the outside world and then confront the House with a fait accompli. There was a famous speech by Mr. Aneurin Bevan, the hero of some hon. Members, which he made when speaking about a strikes incitement order. He said:
"I have protested, on more than one occasion, about the Government going behind the back of Parliament, and reaching understandings with outside bodies, and then presenting Parliament with a fait accompli."—[Official Report, 28th April, 1944; Vol. 399, c. 1061.]
I believe that he was right in that principle. He was right to say that the Government should not come to the House and tell it that it must accept an agreement which had been fixed outside. It is insulting to the House that year after year we should be presented with this fait accompli.
I find the order offensive. If the Government by some mischance remain in power and try to continue in this way, they will do grave damage to Parliament.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: It is quite normal form that some Opposition Members should attack the technical conduct of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, now that he is a Minister, while singing praises about his glorious and wonderful past as such a competent Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. Opposition Members are always ready to praise members of the present Government for their past. Equally, it is not surprising that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) should now seek to glorify that great Socialist leader Aneurin Bevan. Remembering the way in which Conservatives used to treat him when he was alive, I believe that they ought to employ a certain amount of modesty when they make such references merely to suit their purposes.
The Secretary of State is representing the policy of the Government that is under discussion. Everyone knows in his heart of hearts that my right hon. Friend is as competent in running his Department as he has been in any other function that he has fulfilled in Parliament and in this country. That ought to be put on record before we proceed to any further discussion.
Hon. Members who laugh at the present conduct of my right hon. Friend
788
would be hard put to it to do half as well if they ever had responsibility of any kind comparable with the responsibility carried by my right hon. Friend. I notice some hon. Members who normally speak from the Opposition Front Bench hiding in the nooks and crannies and sniggering at my remarks. I express a particular statement of no confidence in their ability to do better than my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend's personal conduct is not what is at issue tonight. He is an excellent Secretary of State for Employment who cares about the principles of his job. Those who are shouting all the time for further cuts in public expenditure and who want a policy that would lead in no time to a far higher level of unemployment have no right to have the face to talk about the Secretary of State in the terms which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) used when she opened the debate for the Opposition. It is the kind of folly and flippancy to which we are accustomed whenever she conducts a debate for the Opposition.
At all times the hon. Lady has a very difficult task whenever she is on her feet speaking. The task is to hide carefully from the electorate her party's policies and her personal policy, which is against the consumer. In order to do that, the hon. Lady carefully burns the midnight oil preparing a lot of twaddle and nonsense so that the electorate should not know and see the kind of anti-consumer policy that she always represents. [Interruption.] I know that the Opposition will not like hearing a few of these home truths, but they will have to listen to them all the same. It makes no difference where Opposition Members sit. I shall reach their ears just the same.
The hon. Lady did not answer the question. She tried to escape in a quotation from her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who no more answered the essential question when it was put to her. The quotation will not help the hon. Lady. If the Opposition criticise the emptiness of the order—as they put it—they have to answer the question of whether they want a statutory incomes policy. Let us have an answer to that question. [Hon. Members: "Ask the Liberals."] Hon. Members must keep their shirts on. I am talking about the

789
Opposition. We are dealing with the spokesman of the official Opposition, and I am asking a precise question which ought to be answered by her. Is the Conservative Party in favour of a statutory incomes policy? If there is no answer to that question, Conservative Members have no right to make any criticism about vagueness or lack of detail in the order.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Mendelson: In my time—after we have dealt with some of the nonsense put forward by the hon. Lady.
Let us come to the hon. Lady's second point. She bitterly criticised the Government for not having a policy on wage limits for a third phase. She said that there is no phase 3. Has she just made a great discovery? Was not an announcement made by the Chancellor in his original statement? Is it not quite clear that there has been a decision by the trade union movement that the General Council of the TUC is not prepared to commit itself to a precise figure on wage limitation? Has not that been agreed between the parties which agreed phases 1 and 2? That self-evident truth should not have been presented by the hon. Lady as a great discovery. The hon. Lady has presented it because she wants to hide the present poverty of policy of the Conservative Party. It has no policy of any kind.
This is a suitable moment to rest my voice and to give way to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley).
Mr. Robert Adley: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman was eulogising his right hon. Friend as an outstanding Secretary of State for Employment. He used the phrase "his heart is in the right place". Does the hon. Gentleman prefer a Secretary of State whose heart is in the right place and who presides over 1½ million unemployed or a Secretary of State whose heart is slightly out of the right place but who presides over 500,000 unemployed?
Mr. Mendelson: I did not use that phrase, but I endorse it. I was addressing myself to the intellectual qualities of
790
my right hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman wants to add that my right hon. Friend also has his heart in the right place, I fully endorse that. There is nothing between us on that.
I now turn to more serious matters. Having dealt with the propagandist nonsense that we always get from the hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester in order to hide the poverty of her position, I turn to what really ought to be the subject of discussion—that is, the background to our present economic position against which this debate takes place.
I said earlier, and I repeat, that my right hon. Friend obviously represents the Cabinet's policy and not his personal policy. It is Government policy to which I wish to address myself. The monetarist nonsense—this is the real truth of our economic position—which has spread from the Opposition Benches into the offices of the Chancellor and the belief that a policy of the circulation of currency is the most decisive factor in determining the level of inflation are dealt with by one of the cardinal points of the Government's present economic strategy. Those things are unproved and untrue.
Secondly, while no one would deny that the level of wages plays a certain part in determining the level of prices and, therefore, the level of inflation, it is complete nonsense—which the last two years have proved—to think that this is the decisive factor. The Opposition have claimed that for years, and they have always been proved wrong.
The trouble with the Treasury at present is that there are too many pre-Keynesians and post-Keynesians—and not enough Keynesians—who do not understand the capitalist economic system. I recommend that there should be an early recruitment of a few more Keynesians into the offices of the Chancellor.
The position is—this will cause a sensation among the Tories—as was rightly pointed out by the Liberal Party spokesman during the economic debate in a profoundly interesting speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it was. Only the blind fury of hon. Members on the Tory Benches makes them incapable of recognising a good performance by politicians whom they do not like. They

791
are completely lacking in any ability to listen objectively to a contribution to debate.
In that debate, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) pointed out quite correctly that we had now had this policy under monetarist influence for two years and that the result had not been to prove that wages were the decisive factor in the level of inflation. In fact, one of the main reasons for the present malaise in the trade union movement, as the Secretary of State knows, is that rank-and-file workers, when asked by their trade union leaders to discuss a possible phase 3, say "Nothing doing. We have had wage restraint for two years. Have we seen the result that you promised us?"
Mr. Adley: No.
Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman shouts "No". He shouts the simple truth that everyone else knows. But what the Opposition do not admit is that, to the extent that their advice has been followed and wages have been kept back, our economy has gone down and down and the level of unemployment has increased.
Mr. Adley: It was ignored.
Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman shouts because he feels uncomfortable when he hears the truth. Like a little child, he shouts when it hurts. It will hurt a little more.
The real reason for the present level of unemployment has been seen and realised by quite a number of economists who work either in the City of London or at Common Market headquarters. Recently, it has been expressed publicly by a Common Market commission of economists; it was published in an EEC Commission report 12 days ago. It says categorically that what has been at fault in the British economy during the past 14 or 18 months is that deflation has been carried too far, that wage and salary levels have been too low and that not enough money has been distributed in wages and salaries, with the result that not enough has been bought, that there has not been enough purchasing power about, and that that is why the level of unemployment has increased. [Interruption.]
The lesson for the Government is that the only way in which the level of un-
792
employment can be reduced is by increasing wages and salaries and thereby allowing people to have more purchasing power—[Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who are more silent than the others understand the position much better than some of the cheap propagandists who keep interrupting me.
I turn to the provisions in the White Paper and the order, and I point to the kind of tactics which should follow their implementation in the present situation that I have described—and it is the true situation, although the truth is not to the liking of the Opposition. The tactics should lead in the direction of seeing to it that good sense prevails in the negotiations—not tying ourselves to artificial, paper limits but seeing that, in the traditional manner, there is good sense in the negotiations.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury declared himself to be outraged that the TUC's opinion and the statement of the General Council should be referred to in State papers. He questioned whether it was tolerable that a Government should make arrangements with bodies outside. He presented this as if it were a new discovery.
Over the past 35 years, all Governments have entered into arrangements and agreements with business associations, cartels, employers' organisations and so on and have presented policies to Select Committees here. Have not we, across the Floor, served together on various Standing Committees dealing with legislation, when hon. Members on both sides have asked why the Government agree so much with bodies outside and then present the result of their negotiations in legislative form?
It is outrageous nonsense to present the situation as though this Government had for the first time made arrangements with outside bodies. It is complete nonsense.
Mr. Raison: When have any previous Government included in their legislation a statement dictated by an outside body, a statement that the House has had no chance to amend or discuss?
Mr. Mendelson: What the hon. Gentleman criticises is that there are deals, as he would put it, or arrangements made with bodies outside the House. I have clearly

793
demonstrated that that practice has been going on for many years. It is monstrous nonsense to charge this Government with having done it for the first time. This is only a particularly open way of referring to the most important partner in arrangements on wages and salaries. I would much rather the Government did it openly in including the statement in a declaration of policy than did it secretly, then turning up in a Committee room and telling hon. Members "You must accept it."
I return to the question of the tactics which should follow in the application of the order and the interpretation and application of the White Paper. There should be a return to the traditional manner of wage bargaining. Whether Conservative hon. Members like it or not, the trade union movement and working people will determine that there is such a return. It is not up to the Opposition to decide it. In the seat where the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), normally sits, it should be much more easily realised than anywhere else that that is a simple truth.
The Government are rightly anxious that there should be an understanding that in the system of traditional wage bargaining there are bound to be problems, because not all sections are equally powerful, and the General Council has made a correct appeal to those who are powerful in industrial life to think of those in the lower income groups, the less well-organised sections, and many people in between. That applies not only to wage earners but to many salaried people in many positions.
The decisive guideline for my right hon. Friend—and I conclude on this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is the easiest joke in the world. If the Opposition are very provocative, I shall have to continue for some time.
I do not believe that the technical reply that we shall have from my hon. Friend the Minister of State on prices and dividends and the answer to the propagandist questions of the hon. Member for Gloucester are the crux of the debate. The crux is in the Cabinet. The Government should without delay announce the cancellation of the IMF loan and the
794
beginning of a policy of creating public works and new employment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gloucester can laugh as much as she likes. She knows nothing about these matters. I am not speaking to please my right hon. Friends but am putting forward a policy. Let the Opposition not be so flippant. Let them study the situation carefully.
There are growing voices advocating that policy. The financial correspondent of The Guardian pointed out only a few days ago that, in view of the favourable balance of payments, the strength of sterling, which has strengthened further in the past two days, and the reserves being higher than they have been for 40 years, it is possible now to cancel the IMF loan and to start a new policy of reviving the economy and keeping sterling strong at the same time.
Unless the Government pursue that policy without delay, none of the technical points in the orders will make a ha'p'orth of difference. The Government must make a change in the cardinal economic strategy, completely in opposition to the foolish advice they receive from the Conservatives, who have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. The Opposition are economic Bourbons, who laugh and snigger but are as ignorant as they were at the time when Jarrow was destroyed. The Government must ignore their advice and break out from the monetarist policy and start a new policy of economic expansion.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. Giles Shaw: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) but will return to the order. I want to make some observations about its relationship with the Price Commission Act. No doubt the Minister will be able to give us some guidance.
First, however, I must endorse the way my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) dissected the paucity of the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation after 31st July 1977", Command 6882. It is extraordinary and different, despite the way the Secretary of State sought to reconcile it with previous policies. It is fundamentally different in the fact that its contents in no way have the same force as the previous document. It is something

795
quite separate. However, much the Chancellor may set out guidelines as to how he would like the economic management to be run, the only matter relating to the order is that contained in Annex A.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was right to say that it was peculiar and deeply regrettable, as we see it, that that is the nexus of economic policy. It is not a social contract but a mere figleaf of what the social contract was. It is this tiny part of the White Paper which is important. When we come to the autumn, it will be interesting to see what colour the figleaf turns. When Arthur Scargill in the shape of Jack Frost causes the leaf to fall, I wonder what will happen. Nothing will be revealed except the pawnbroker's sign.
The White Paper and the consultative document on prices embody a period of consultation which expires on 18th July or thereabouts. Obviously, it was drafted when pay policy was in a different phase. In paragraph 21 it contains guidance on sanctions. The Chancellor's statement on 22nd July announcing the demise of phase 3 came after the consultations finished. What now is the state of consultation on the preceding document? Has the Chancellor to consult on how far in the new situation there will be involvement in pay for those operating pricing policy? What is the Minister's view of what happens in that period on the basis of that document?
We come to the Price Commission Act itself. The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, whom we are pleased to see here, knows well the anxieties which have been expressed that there was insufficient guidance for those operating the prices policy. In Standing Committee on the Price Commission Bill, he referred to this aspect when he said:
"By that, I am implying that the sort of margin control that we envisaged for 1st August onwards would be impossible were there not another wage round. It would be a burden on industry which it could not reasonably be expected to bear.
The hon. Gentleman understands why I say that it is dangerous to speculate on these matters, and he will understand the danger of what I have just said. The danger is mitigated by the fact that I hope and believe that we shall have another wage round. By that, I mean a wage round which can be defined sufficiently precisely to be matched against margin control. But the two things must go
796
hand in hand. A free-for-all in one, if that is not too crude a phrase, would require a relaxation in the other."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 24th May 1977; col. 564.]
In other words, it would require relaxation of wages or margin control.
What, therefore, is the position now? How will the Price Commission operate? A free-for-all in wages would require a relaxation of margin controls. How will that operate? In the light of the Chancellor's statement and the document, how will investigation into prices and the interpretation of pay awards operate? No guidance is published. How can those who no longer have an allowable cost regime and no longer have guidance on prices or about how pay settlements should be made protect themselves from investigation into pricing? May we have a categoric assurance that only when there are two wage settlements in 12 months can an investigation into the prices policy from a wages standpoint be conducted? That is the only provision which the order makes, and it is the only way in which it relates to the Price Commission Act.
I am sure that it would benefit not only the House but those who have the difficult task of reconciling Government policies and of making commercial decisions if we could be told what will happen now that the Price Commission Act, with its power of investigation, is on the statute book. The pay policy is so transparent as to be impossible to interpret. If the Minister would apply his mind to that matter, we should be grateful
11.5 p.m.
Mr. J. W. Rooker: I understand that this debate still has two and a half hours to run. Although I do not want to take up all that time, I wish to make a few remarks on one of the orders. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has once again shown that the debate on economic policy is taking place not between the two sides of the House, but between the Back Bench Members on the Government side and the Government Front Bench.
The orders are extremely important, particularly the order concerned with the limits on remuneration. In some ways it is a fraudulent document. I was

797
informed that the only reason why we needed to pass Section 17 of the Price Commission Act—in other words, to re-legislate the relevant section of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act—was to allow the Government the power to pass legislation to protect employers from breaches of contract on pay. Therefore, employees who had contracts which provided that their pay must increase by a certain amount each year, which could be over and above any pay limits, would be able to take their employers to court if they did not observe the limits in their contracts. We passed the Act for that reason. The order is a necessary trigger mechanism to operate Section 4 of the Act.
The legislation does not apply to the overwhelming majority of workers in manufacturing industry, because they do not have contracts of employment which provide for regular increases in wages. I was informed that it applies only to such people as doctors and consultants and people in the upper reaches of the Civil Service whose yearly increments would take them over and above any of the pay limits of the two preceding years.
We have heard in the debate that there are no pay limits. Therefore, why do we need the order? The only need for it would be if an employer or the Government—because the Government could be the employer—tried to hide behind Section 4 of the Act in order not to pay wages which were contractually due. The legislation does not apply to workers in the building industry or the motor industry or in any other part of manufacturing industry. It applies to doctors, highly-paid civil servants and perhaps members of the Armed Forces—people whose contractual obligations require the payment of substantial pay increases which could be well over 10 per cent.
I should like to know how the Government see this aspect of the order working on Section 4. I have not gleaned any information on this matter from any hon. Member. What will happen in October, November or at any time up to next July if there is a pay claim by a group of workers who have a contractual right to a substantial increase?
It is only Section 4 of the 1975 Act that will protect employers. The order
798
refers to page 2 of Section 1 of the 1975 Act, but that is necessary to trigger off Section 4. If an employer is to tell his employees that they cannot have a pay increase which they are owed legally according to their contracts of employment, we shall need to pass the order.
I want some examples of the employees so covered, otherwise there is no sense in the order. What will happen, for example, to the doctors and to the consultants and the higher reaches of the medical profession? In this area contractual obligations are involved in incremental pay increases. Another case is that of the teachers, not the ordinary teachers in the classroom but the headmasters on £10,000 or £11,000 a year, and the chief education officers on £13,000 a year, whose incremental increase is far more substantial than the 10 per cent. limit.
It is these people at whom the order is directed. They are the only people who have a contractual right to very large increases. The employer—in most of these cases the Government—will want to tell those employees that they cannot take them to court and they cannot have their increases. The Government are hiding behind Section 4, and they can do it only if we pass the order tonight.
I want to have that on the record. 1 want to be able to go to the thousands of workers in my constituency who are not in these groups but who are in engineering and manufacturing industry and who have no contractual rights to any pay increase whatever. They have to get their increases by negotiation. I want to be able to tell them that the order will not affect them and that their employers cannot hide behind Section 4 triggered off by the order via Section 1. I want to tell them that their employers—whether they be British Leyland or GKN, both of whom have paid substantial increases to their directors over and above the pay policy—cannot hide behind Government policy now.
I am afraid that a red herring will be drawn across wage negotiations by the passing of the order. We are actually making legislation, albeit delegated legislation, and I want it confirmed on the record that it applies only to a highly selected bunch of people, as I was told by a Cabinet Minister a few weeks ago.

799
I want to be told in the winding-up speech that this is the only reason why the order is before the House. I want an assurance that the order will in no way extend to millions of workers who have no right to regulate ratchet pay increases.
If we do not have this on the record, it will make a mockery of the whole system and give the lie to what the Chancellor claims he wishes to create—a quasi-statutory pay policy of 10 per cent. That fox has been well and truly shot. The only fox that is still on the rampage is Section 4 of the 1975 Act, which gives wide immunity to employers.
I hope that in his reply the Minister of State will address his remarks to this aspect of the matter. He has plenty of time in which to do so because no other hon. Member rose to his feet when I sought to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, and we have until 1.30 a.m. to deal with the orders.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Cecil Parkinson: The debate centres on three highly technical and complicated orders. I have formed the distinct impression that Labour Members have only a passing acquaintance with the orders and have not sought to deal with the points raised in them.
I should like to deal with the order dealing with prices. It is a fairly narrow, technical order, and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) was critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) for choosing to refer to the previous assertions of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. We all know that the hon. Member for Penistone does not support the Government's policy he has been open about it and has offered his own well-argued approach to economic problems. But we also know that in speech after speech the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has told the country and Parliament that the Government's policy was an entirely coordinated one on prices, wages and dividends and that if any aspect, especially the wages aspect, of that policy were to fail it would be impossible to defend the policy as a whole. That was the point to which attention was drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.
800
Furthermore, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection told the House over and over again that there must be a phase 3 and that it must be tightly drawn, otherwise margin, price and dividend controls would not be defensible. But we do not have a phase 3. Therefore, my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester and for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) had every right to point to the fact that what was supposed to be a co-ordinated policy is now in bits and that the reputation of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection is in tatters.
I shall not bore the House with quotations, but time and again the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has argued the importance of a tight phase 3, and we do not have one. Therefore, the Government's policy of price, margin and dividend controls is no longer intellectually defensible in the present situation. I share that view. Government policy is falling apart at the seams, and it is most unfair to launch a personal attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who advanced a carefully prepared argument. The hon. Member for Penistone should instead concentrate his fire on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, who has been misleading the House and the country for several months.
The hon. Member for Penistone paid a sincere tribute to the Secretary of State for Employment—and certainly nobody on this side of the House would wish to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, who is widely respected in all parts of the House. But the hon. Member for Penis-tone then said that his right hon. Friend did not believe in the Government's policy. That explains why the Secretary of State for Employment was so unconvincing in introducing the three orders tonight. Many of us wondered why the right hon. Gentleman was so hesitant and could not answer the questions that were put to him. At any rate, the hon. Member for Penistone has now given us the clue—that his right hon. Friend does not believe in the orders.
The official Opposition find it offensive that Annex A to the White Paper should be the basis of the Government's incomes policy. One sentence in that annex states:
"This statement alone constitutes the pay limits in this White Paper for the purposes

801
of Section 1 of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975."
That statement is the only thing that the Government have that can be described as an incomes policy. One might expect that such a statement would have been made by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some other senior member of the Government. However, the statement is headed "TUC Statement of 22nd June". It is a statement by the General Council of the TUC. The only remuneration policy that the Government have is a statement by the TUC General Council.
It is not even the policy of the TUC as adopted by the TUC Congress. What will happen if the Congress rejects that policy? We in the House will be put in an absurd position by having approved as policy something that the TUC has thrown out. We shall have dignified, by way of passing an order, something that has no standing. This is simply a declaration of intent that the TUC General Council will try to get adopted as policy.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Penistone really thinks that it enhances the dignity of the House for us publicly to approve, as a linchpin of the Government's economic policy, a statement by a body which cannot commit its members until they have voted, especially when those members will not vote on the matter for several months. We do not think that Parliament comes out of that particular incident with any stock of dignity at all. Does the hon. Member for Penistone think that it does? How can he defend that? The Secretary of State has, by implication, admitted that the Government do not have a wages policy, yet a non-policy on wages is being used as a pretext for continuing a policy of margin control, prices control and dividend restraint. The absurdity of that position is that the absence of a policy is being used as an excuse for getting Parliament to approve two other aspects of the Government's policy—although the Secretary of State has said repeatedly that Parliament should be asked to approve not two orders out of three but three out of three.
By passing this order we shall dignify a non-policy. Something that is not a policy has been incorporated in something called a White Paper. It will be
802
approved by the House tonight without our really knowing what it is. Yesterday the hon. Member for Penistone gave us a great speech about the importance of maintaining the dignity of Parliament. Are we doing that tonight by approving something that does not exist and using that as an excuse for continuing to set forms of restraint?
I now turn to the order referring to dividend controls. Nobody, on either side of the House, has attempted to defend dividend controls on the basis of such controls making financial or economic sense. Not one hon. Member has attempted to do that. I have read one or two half-hearted attempts to suggest that if a company cannot pay dividends it might just retain profits and invest them, and that companies are being given an incentive to invest because if they need more money for investment they can put up dividends. However, nobody has attempted to justify the controls on such grounds tonight.
The present dividend controls are shot through with exemptions of various kinds. They include exemptions in the case of takeovers, for overseas companies and for companies with assets and activities that are mainly overseas. One can point to a whole range of slightly illogical exemptions. One of the unattractive features of dividend controls is that they give enormous discretion to bureaucrats to decide which company shall be allowed to keep profits and which shall not. There is an enormous and potentially unhealthy discretion for bureaucrats.
What is the argument that is used over and over again? It is not that dividend controls are fair or make economic sense. It is that they are part of the trade-off for wage restraint. No one put it better than the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). The objections to dividend restraints as argued by Labour Members are totally out of date; they are bigoted and do not make sense.
In 1963, 69 per cent, of all the shares quoted in this country were held by individuals. By 1973 that figure was down to 50 per cent., and in 1977 it is down to 34 per cent. Institutional shareholdings were 21 per cent. in 1963 and 35·6 per cent. in 1973, and they are 52 per cent. in 1977. Charities, which include trade unions, the churches and universities, hold 5 per cent. of the balance.

803
There is, therefore, a major shift towards institutional shareholding. Most of the institutions which hold the shares are pension funds. Pension funds now have nearly 11 million subscribers, while life assurance and insurance companies have no fewer than 14 million household subscribers.
It is, therefore, total nonsense to say that dividend income is going to the rich. The overwhelming proportion is going to institutions, and those institutions are holding the shares on behalf of 11 million pensioners and 14 million households. The dividends from those shareholdings go to millions of ordinary people indirectly through the institutions.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am genuinely asking the hon. Gentleman for information. He has quoted no figures for beneficial and family trusts. I have today had a company return in which a director discloses that his own shareholding is 1,750,000, while his family beneficial trust has 5 million shares. How many people are in that situation?
Mr. Parkinson: I understand that all the non-institutional holdings are treated as individual shareholdings. Most trust shares, for example, are held by trustees. I declare an interest. I am a trustee myself of one or two settlements from my time as a chartered accountant. Those shares are registered in my name as a trustee. They are part of a personal holding. The point is that the overwhelming proportion of dividends goes now to the pension funds and the institutions. [Interruption.] If Labour Members opposite do not wish to accept my statement, I will tell them that my remarks are based on the report of the Diamond Commission, which is freely and readily available.
The Diamond Commission points out that of individual shareholders, of whom there are 2·1 million, 50 per cent. in 1972–73 had a total statutory income from all sources of less than £2,000 a year—that is, with their pensions and their interest on savings—while 25 per cent. had a total statutory income of under £1,000. In other words, these people are amongst the poorest section of the community. Forty per cent. of all personal shareholders are widows and elderly single ladies.
804
The truth is that dividend restraint is achieving those ends. It is affecting the pensions of those who are retired. It is affecting the expectations of the millions who will retire and who will depend on pension funds for their future security. It bears most heavily on the shareholders with the lowest incomes. That is a fact. I should be happy to establish that, but Labour Members must take my assurance that it is stated by the Diamond Commission that that is the case. Dividend restraint bears most heavily, as it must, on those with the smallest incomes. They are those who get the most benefit because they get virtually all the dividend, very little of it going in tax. It is extremely unfair.
It is quite untrue to say that dividend restraint has not been effective. If hon. Members examine the figures, they will see that it has been extremely effective. Dividends have increased since 1963 by 12 per cent. at a time when earnings were increasing by over 91 per cent. What dividend restraint has succeeded in doing is inexplicably bizarre. At a time when we need investment and investors, it has succeeded in driving investors away from the equity markets. I can give Labour Members a good example. The National Union of Railwaymen prefers to buy Picassos and to go to the Mentmore sale and buy expensive antiques at a time when the Government are lecturing us about the need for new investment. The NUR and others prefer to invest in antiques, for example, because investment in equities is appalling. One of the principal reasons is dividend restraint.
One of the bizarre results of dividend restraint is that it is best to invest in companies which are trading overseas instead of investing in companies that are trading here. Surely that cannot in any way be sensible. Thirdly, it is driving pension funds away from investment in equities. I talked to the manager of a major fund today. He is the manager of a nationalised industry pension fund. He said that he would like to invest in equities but that if he did so it could only be at the expense of his members. He explained that the fund had been driven back into the property market, there now being no rent control in that sector.

805
That is the pension fund manager of a major nationalised industry. He is saying "We cannot afford to invest in equities. We cannot afford to invest the savings of the workers in equities. We must put them in property." That is at a time when the country needs investment.
By any standards, dividend restraint has produced the wrong results. It has done damage to very needy sections of the community. It is destroying the future pension prospects of millions of working people, the sort of people about whom Labour Members are fond of lecturing us. The people suffering most from dividend restraint are the very people that they talk about time after time.
Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the dividend control that he is blaspheming about was set up by the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 and that, as a member of the Tory Party that was in Government at the time, he voted for it?
Mr. Parkinson: I am giving the hon. Gentleman a chance of joining me in the Lobby and proving that from time to time one makes mistakes. If he had been in the Chamber at the beginning of my remarks, he would know that I said that dividend restraint, wage restraint and price restraint as a package might be defensible but that dividend restraint and price restraint in the absence of wage restraint are indefensible. I was explaining that dividend restraint was damaging the interests of some of the most needy and poor in this country.
Mr. John MacGregor: My hon. Friend has built up a most formidable case, but does he agree that the position is even worse in that dividend restraint prevents investments in equities, industry and companies and that the Government, by giving preferential tax treatment to Government savings, are encouraging people to put their savings—this applies especially to those who pay high rates of tax—into Government savings and not into equities because of the heavy tax that is imposed? At least, the ending of dividend restraint would remove some of that.
Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most bizarre features is that in the last two years the
806
Stock Exchange—much belaboured by Labour Members—has raised £16,000 million for the Government in the gilt market and only £2·7 million in equities, because the Government have been paying and offering rates of return that the equity market could not match. Yet at the same time Labour Members are calling for more and more investment.
I am determined to finish this speech, despite a number of interruptions. The prices order is technical. It is a simple list of exemptions and it is not worth voting on. The wages order is a non-order. One would not know what one was voting for or against. It is a non-piece of legislation. Therefore, there is no point in taking a strong view about that. I have tried to show that dividend control is unfair and damaging to the interests of millions of pensioners and people with low incomes and to British industry. For those reasons, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the order on dividend restraint when the time comes.
11.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): We now have the answer to a question that we have been putting to the Opposition for some time. We now know that they have no policy on incomes or on prices but that they have a well-developed policy on dividends.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) said that the purchase of shares adds to investment. The purchase of shares does not add to investment. It enables money from one source to be put into the hands of somebody else who is selling the shares.
The only real investment is subscribing for new capital issued on the market. There are criteria on dividend control that allow a company to increase its dividends to raise new capital for investment. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) complained about. Indeed, he complained that the British Sugar Corporation was permitted by the Treasury to increase its rate of dividend to raise money for new investment. The Labour Party is in favour of new investment because it is in favour of creating jobs. There is no conflict between dividend control as it is operated and the provision of proper investment.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I referred to the British Sugar Corporation because, as my hon. Friend knows, rationalisation is going on at the moment. The position vis-à-vis Tate and Lyle and the British Sugar Corporation is such that my hon. Friend's words do not apply to the British Sugar Corporation.
Mr. Fraser: I should have thought that my hon. Friend would be in favour of greater investment if it created jobs.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes.
Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South referred to the effect of dividend control on the incomes of those who invest in pension funds and rely on the dividends as part of their income. Any form of dividend control involves a degree of hardship, just as income control has involved a degree of hardship for workers who have settled within the pay limits over the past two years. It is for that reason that from the end of the year beginning on 1st August 1977 there will be no further dividend control. However, the hon. Gentleman exaggerated the position when he said that the Diamond Report suggested that the control bears unfavourably on the poorest in our community. The evidence does not bear that out.
Sir John Eden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fraser: No. The right hon. Gentleman has not been present for most of the debate.
Mr. Parkinson: Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 19 of the second Diamond Report:
"Under a system of progressive taxation, any general increase in dividend payments would accrue in greater measure, relative to total dividend receipts, to shareholders in the lower income ranges than to those in the higher."
Lord Diamond is saying exactly what I said—that dividend restraint affects the poorer more than it affects the rich.
Mr. Fraser: I said that it bears unfairly on the poorest.
Sir J. Eden: I may have misheard the Minister, and for that reason I should be grateful if he would make clear what he said. I thought I heard him say that there would be no further dividend
808
restraint after 1977. If he said that, will he repeat it so that we may all hear it?
Mr. Fraser: Perhaps I phrased the point badly. I thought I said that there would be no further dividend restraint at the end of the year beginning 1st August 1977; in other words, not after 1st August 1978. That was what I thought I said.
I turn now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about the operation of the 12-month rule. As for immunity against actions, if application is made to enforce a contractual settlement within 12 months of the phase 2 settlement the employer possesses immunity against meeting the claim. My hon. Friend said that those whom he represented did not make contractual claims and had no contractual rights for the future. He said that they negotiated. In that case the answer is that if they negotiate a claim which breaks the 12-month rule, other than a self-financing productivity deal, if they have a settlement within 12 months of the stage 2 settlement there is no defence against a contractual obligation under the 1975 Act because that obligation is only created by the Act. The employer is caught by the pay sanction which would operate through the margin controls.
Mr. Leon Brittan: If the Minister is saying that it is right that dividend limitation should exist until the summer of next year, why is it wrong that it should continue after that date?
Mr. Fraser: There is an interrelation between prices restraint, wages restraint and dividend restraint. The three hang together.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) asked me two questions. The first concerned the completion of negotiations on the Price Code. The answer to that is that the negotiations are complete and that the results of the negotiations will be published soon, possibly before the end of the week.
The hon. Member for Pudsey also asked me about the relationship between a breach of the 12-month rule and investigations under the Price Commission Act. There will be no investigations under the Act as a result of a breach of the 12-month rule. The pay sanction

809
will operate by way of deduction from the margin which will be allowed under the Price Code document. I hope that that distinction is clear.
Mr. Giles Shaw: Since the consultation period has finished there is now no opportunity for Parliament to discuss the matter until the order is laid in the autumn. What is the position for firms operating from 1st August which are not clear about how the Commission will operate? Is the Minister saying that there is no relationship between the 12-month period and the cause of investigation?
Mr. Fraser: Yes. If the Price Commission were to choose to investigate on that ground, it would be in breach of the long-debated criteria contained in Section 2 of the Price Commission Act. There is an interrelationship between the 12-month rule and the deduction of margins. If the Price Commission chose a breach of the 12-month rule as the basis for investigation, it would run foul of Section 2.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), rather like a man in search of the Holy Grail, is in search of obscurity. The pay limit is set out clearly. It is simple to understand. It involves maintaining for 12 months the rate of pay which was settled during phase 2. Employers would be in no difficulty about understanding what that limit was for a period of 12 months from the phase 2 settlement, because the records of that settlement would be within their knowledge. It is necessary to refer to the previous White Paper on pay only in order to set and define the starting point for the 12-month rule. The interpretation of this part of the White Paper is absolutely clear.
Mr. Graham Page: This is not in addition to or in substitution for the previous White Paper limit and, therefore, the Minister has no power to make the order.
Mr. Fraser: I shall not try to cross swords with the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). These matters have been before the Scrutiny Committee, and I must ask the House to accept that the vires are proper.
The Opposition object to our incorporating in a White Paper and subsequently in legislation a statement issued by the TUC and agreed by the Government.
810
We do not live in a perfect world. We have three choices. We have the choice of having a statutory incomes policy which was rejected by the Opposition. Our second choice is to have no policy at all for an orderly return to free collective bargaining. I gather from many remarks from the Opposition that that is what they want—no policy at all for an orderly return to free collective bargaining.
We also have the choice of proceeding on the realistic basis of consent and understanding with the representatives of millions of workers. To proceed on that basis of consent is the most realistic and most sensible way in which to go about these matters, and it is a way, incidentally, which has been agreed and adopted over the past two years. It is a way that has worked and has been without breach. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Yes, it has worked. There has not been a breach of the pay limits established with the TUC over the past two stages. But, as we and the TUC have always made clear, we wanted eventually an orderly return to free collective bargaining. That is what we propose to have during the forthcoming pay round.
These orders support and reinforce our counter-inflation policy. It is true that in the past the operation of this policy has been difficult, for both prices policy and incomes policy. But we shall have several things in our favour when this new policy starts its course on 1st August. We have better omens and better prospects of success than we have had for many years. In the past we have been hammered and buffeted by many forces which are beyond our control. We have no control over the price of oil charged by Saudi Arabia or other parts of the world. We were buffeted by that price increase, which was a surcharge on the British people, and the cost of it has now been absorbed.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) rose—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Fraser: We have been buffeted.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Fraser: We have been buffeted, too—
Mr. Nigel Lawson: Windy.
Mr. Fraser: —by forces beyond our control, such as a devaluation and a fall in the value of sterling, and by the drought last year. [Interruption.] Yes. They are two items that have affected gravely that most sensitive area of prices—food prices. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must let the Minister complete his statement, and I want to hear what he is saying.
Mr. Fraser: The consequences of those effects on food prices have now, however, largely disappeared, so we are entering a period of greater stability—a period of stability of sterling, of falling wholesale prices, of input prices one-quarter below output prices, and of falling interest rates which in the past have put a burden on both industry and private consumers. We contemplate the benefits of the last two years of pay policy.
Mr. Brittan: Rising unemployment.
Mr. Fraser: We now stand at a point where the prize of fighting inflation is within our grasp—
Mr. Brittan: One and a half million unemployed.
Mr. Fraser: —and in the last year of that fight we must not throw it away.
Nothing that I have heard tonight from the Opposition, including particularly the giggling and the lightheartedness with which some hon. Members approach these matters a few minutes before the debate is to end, leads me to believe that they want to see success. Why it that? They have invested pretty heavily in failure and they are now sick with the bitter taste of the success of the present Government. [Interruption.]
Mr. Brittan Mr. Brittan rose—
Mr. Fraser: They know that the signs are in our favour.
Mr. Brittan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Fraser: No. That is why they want to oppose not all but some of these orders tonight.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 165.

Division No. 228]

AYES

[11.55 p.m.

Allaun, Frank

Cowans, Hairy

Golding, John

Anderson, Donald

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Gould, Bryan

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Armstrong, Ernest

Crawshaw, Richard

Grant, John (Islington C)

Ashton, Joe

Cronin, John

Grocott, Bruce

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Hardy, Peter

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Davidson, Arthur

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bates, Alf

Davies, Derail (Llanelli)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Bean, R. E.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Heffer, Eric S.

Beith, A. J.

Deakins, Eric

Hooley, Frank

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hooson, Emlyn

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Dempsey, James

Horam, John

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Dormand, J. D.

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Huckfield, Les

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Dunnett, Jack

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Bradley, Tom

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Eadle, Alex

Hunter, Adam

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Buchan, Norman

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Evans, John (Newton)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Canavan, Dennis

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

John, Brynmor

Carmichael, Neil

Faulds, Andrew

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Carter, Ray

Flannery, Martin

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Judd, Frank

Clemitson, Ivor

Forrester, John

Kaufman, Gerald

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Kerr, Russell

Cohen, Stanley

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

Lamborn, Harry

Coleman, Donald

Freeson, Reginald

Lamond, James

Conlan, Bernard

Freud, Clement

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Leadbitter, Ted

Corbett, Robin

Ginsburg, David

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

O Halloran, Michael

Spriggs, Leslie

Luard, Evan

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Stallard, A. W.

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Ovenden, John

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Futham)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Stoddart, David

McCartney, Hugh

Palmer, Arthur

Stott, Roger

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Parry, Robert

Strang, Gavin

McElhone, Frank

Pavitt, Laurie

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Pendry, Tom

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Penhaligon, David

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Phipps, Dr Colin

Tinn, James

Maclennan, Robert

Prescott, John

Torney, Tom

McNamara, Kevin

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Urwin, T. W.

Madden, Max

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Magee, Bryan

Richardson, Miss Jo

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Mahon, Simon

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Robinson, Geoffrey

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Marks, Kenneth

Roderick, Caerwyn

Ward, Michael

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Rodgers. George (Chorley)

Watkins, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Rooker, J. W.

Watkinson, John

Meacher, Michael

Roper, John

Wellbeloved, James

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Rose, Paul B.

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Mendelson, John

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Willey. Rt Hon Frederick

Mikardo, Ian

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Ryman, John

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Sandelson, Neville

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Molloy, William

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Woodall, Alec

Moonman, Eric

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Woof, Robert

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Moyle, Roland

Skinner, Dennis

Newens, Stanley

Small, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Noble, Mike

Snape, Peter

Mr. Ted Graham and

Ogden, Eric

Spearing, Nigel

Mr, Joseph Harper

NOES

Adley, Robert

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Moate, Roger

Arnold, Tom

Goodhew, Victor

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Goodlad, Alastair

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Awdry, Daniel

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Morgan, Geraint

Baker, Kenneth

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Banks, Robert

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Bell, Ronald

Grylls, Michael

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Neave, Airey

Benyon, W.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Nelson, Anthony

Biggs-Davison, John

Hannam, John

Neubert, Michael

Blaker, Peter

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Newton, Tony

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Haselhurst, Alan

Normanton, Tom

Bottomley, Peter

Hastings, Stephen

Onslow, Cranley

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Hawkins, Paul

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hayhoe, Barney

Osborn, John

Brittan, Leon

Hicks, Robert

Page, John (Harrow West)

Brooke, Peter

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Brotherton, Michael

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Page, Richard (Workington)

Buck, Antony

Hurd, Douglas

Farkinson, Cecil

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

James, David

Pattie, Geoffrey

Carlisle, Mark

Jessel, Toby

Pink, R. Bonner

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Churchill, W. S.

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Kimball, Marcus

Raison, Timothy

Clark, William (Croydon S)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rathbone, Tim

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Knox, David

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Clegg, Walter

Lamont, Norman

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Cockcroft, John

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Cope, John

Lawson, Nigel

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Costain, A. P.

Le Marchant, Spencer

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Crouch, David

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Drayson, Burnaby

Luce, Richard

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

McCrindle, Robert

Sainsbury, Tim

Durant, Tony

Macfarlane, Neil

Scott, Nicholas

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

MacGregor, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Elliott, Sir William

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Emery, Peter

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Shersby, Michael

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Marten, Neil

Sims, Roger

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mates, Michael

Sinclair, Sir George

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mather, Carol

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mayhew, Patrick

Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Speed, Keith

Forman, Nigel

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Fox, Marcus

Mills, Peter

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Stanbrook, Ivor

814

815

Stanley, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Weather ill, Bernard

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Vaughan, Dr Gerald

Wells, John

Stradling Thomas, J.

Viggers, Peter

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Tapsell, Peter

Wakeham, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Tebbit, Norman

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Winterton, Nicholas

Temple-Morris, Peter

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Wall, Patrick

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

Townsend, Cyril D.

Warren, Kenneth

Mr. Peter Morrison

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Counter-Inflation (Continuation of Enactments) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.

REMUNERATION
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Limits on Remuneration Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 22nd July, approved.—[Mr. Booth.]
The House divided:Ayes 172, Noes 1.

Division No. 229]

AYES

[12.09 a.m.

Anderson, Donald

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Moyle, Roland

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Golding, John

Noble, Mike

Armstrong, Ernest

Gould, Bryan

Ogden, Eric

Ashton, Joe

Graham, Ted

O' Halloran, Michael

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Ovenden, John

Bates, Alf

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Bean, R. E.

Hardy, Peter

Palmer, Arthur

Beith, A. J.

Harper, Joseph

Parry, Robert

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Pavitt, Laurie

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Pendry, Tom

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Penhaligon, David

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Phipps, Dr Colin

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Hooley, Frank

Prescott, John

Bradley, Tom

Hooson, Emlyn

Rees, Rt Hon Mertyn (Leeds S)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Horam, John

Robinson, Geoffrey

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Huckfield, Les

Roderick, Caerwyn

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Rocker, J. W.

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Roper, John

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rose, Paul B.

Carmichael, Neil

Hunter, Adam

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Carter, Ray

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Clemitson, Ivor

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Sandelson, Neville

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Sedgemore, Brian

Cohen, Stanley

John, Brynmor

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Coleman, Donald

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Conlan, Bernard

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Small, William

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Judd, Frank

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Corbett, Robin

Kaufman, Gerald

Snape, Peter

Cowans, Harry

Lamborn, Harry

Spearing, Nigel

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Lamond, James

Spriggs, Leslie

Crawshaw, Richard

Leadbitter, Ted

Stallard, A. W.

Cronin, John

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Luard, Evan

Stoddart, David

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Stott, Roger

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Strang, Gavin

Davidson, Arthur

McCartney, Hugh

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)

McElhone, Frank

Urwin, T. W.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Deakins, Eric

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Dunnett, Jack

Magee, Bryan

Wellbeloved, James

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Mahon, Simon

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Eadie, Alex

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Marks, Kenneth

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Woodall, Alec

Evans, John (Newton)

Meacher, Michael

Woof, Robert

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Young, David (Bolton E)

Forrester, John

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

Moonman, Eric

Mr. James Tinn and

Freeson. Reginald

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Mr. Thomas Cox.

Freud, Clement

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

NOES

Leadbitter, Ted

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Dennis Skinner and

Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that it is customary for the Tellers to observe the courtesies of the House.

PRICES AND CHARGES
Resolved,
That the draft Price Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft Redundancy Payments (Variation of Rebates) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 25th July, be approved.—[Mr. Booth.]
12.23 a.m.
Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This draft order purports to be made by the Secretary of State in the exercise of powers conferred on him by Section 1(1) and Section (3) of the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977. But the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977 has not been printed, there is no copy in the Vote Office and there is no reference at the foot of the page. How can we deal with an order and see whether the Secretary of State has power to make it if the Act is not before us?
Mr. Speaker: The responsibility for this order is the Minister's. I cannot go into it any further.
12.24 a.m.
Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the important point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). Is it right to seek the approval of the House for an order when the legislation under which the order is being made is not available to hon. Members?
I shall recall briefly the dubious ancestry of the order. Twelve months ago
818
the Government got their figures wrong about the state of the Redundancy Payments Fund. They thought that it was running into an increasing deficit whereas when the true situation became known, it was, in fact, moving into an increasing surplus. Nevertheless, the Government attempted first to push through legislation based on the "phoney" calculation that the fund was going into surplus. That legislation was defeated on Second Reading—the first time in 90 years that a Government had been defeated on Second Reading.
The Government, unwilling to accept the clear verdict of the House, tried again to bring in a rather more devious piece of legislation. On that occasion they succeeded in getting a majority and in getting the measure passed into law, although it seems to have been beyond their abilities to get the text drafted and printed so that it would be available for hon. Members to study.
The latest act of this discreditable tale is this order, which will reduce from 50 to 41 per cent. the rebates available for firms which have to make redundancy payments.
This squalid measure gives the Government an enforced loan at the expense not of the strong but of the weak—namely, firms which have to make workers. redundant. How shameful it is that the Department of Employment, on the day after we have had record high unemployment figures announced, is to be forced to bring in this leech-like provision that will suck a little more out of industry, which already faces difficulties. Cutting the redundancy rebates in this way will destroy jobs and create no new ones. Ministers know this to be so, but they have not the courage to resist Treasury pressure and they do not appear to have the self-respect to come to the House to seek approval for such an unnecessary change in our redundancy arrangements. We shall vote against this squalid measure. It will do great harm and it should be rejected.
Mr. David Mitchell: I do not wish to detain the House, but this is a matter to which we should pay considerable attention since it is one of the engines by which unemployment is going up and we should not pass the order without examining it and calling for an explanation. I believe I am right in saying that this matter was not announced when the Business Statement was made last Thursday. We have not, therefore, had an opportunity to examine it properly.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may help the House and the hon. Gentleman by saying that the scope of this debate is confined to the question of whether it is appropriate to make the proposed reduction in rebate and that the principle of redundancy rebates is not at issue.
Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to pursue the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page.) Is it not an affront to the House to invite it to approve an order under an Act that is not available in the Vote Office? In accordance with a precedent followed by the Government earlier this Session, would it not be appropriate if we were to defer consideration of the order until we have available to us the Act which is the parent Act of the order we are discussing? Have not the Government acknowledged on a previous occasion, on the Coal Industry Bill, that it was not appropriate for us to discuss a matter of this kind until we had all the appropriate documents available to the House?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman answered his own point of order when he referred to the Government deciding something. I do not take any decision. Therefore, there can be no point of order.
James Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have a statement from the Government on whether they think it right to proceed on an order of this nature when the parent Act is not available to the House?
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the House that the Act is not available in the Vote
820
Office. This is the fifth time that this matter has been before the House, and on each occasion I have stressed the importance and urgency of getting the measure through. This is a matter for the House to decide.
Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In deference to your ruling, since I first raised the matter I have given time for Ministers to discover that I was right. There is no copy of the Act in the Vote Office. There is not even a chapter reference to it. I should have thought that a copy could have been produced by now. If the matter is so urgent, the Government ought to have provided us with a copy of the Act.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman heard the Minister's statement. It is not my responsibility. I follow the Order Paper.
Mr. David Crouch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not satisfied with the so-called answer that the Minister has given. No matter how late it is, if we are to be asked as a House to put up with absolute incompetence and with not having in front of us the papers upon which we must make decisions, on behalf of my constituents I must say that that is not good enough. It is not possible for us to vote on such an issue tonight. I feel extremely strongly about this sheer incompetence on the part of the Government. Parliament cannot go into recess with such a demonstration of incompetence. I protest most strongly.
Mr. Gow: Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker. It will be within your recollection that on an earlier occasion, last month, the Leader of the House agreed that, because certain papers that we should have had were not available, it would not be right for the House to consider the matter in question. Since the Leader of the House is not here tonight, would it not be appropriate for the Minister to ask the right hon. Gentleman to come? In the absence of the Leader of the House, we Back Benchers look to you, Mr Speaker, for protection.
Mr. Hayhoe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister has claimed urgency to excuse the incompetence of the Government in the matter,

821
could one remind him that the Government first announced the introduction of this legislation on 22nd July 1976? How, in the face of that, can the Government now claim urgency? That beggars description. Of course the Government should now withdraw the order, in view of these important points of order, and I call upon Ministers to do so. If they have not the authority, let a member of the Cabinet—the Secretary of State for Employment or the Leader of the House—come to the House and take the necessary action.
Mr. Speaker: I can add nothing to what I have already said.
Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said earlier that this was not a matter for you, but. with great respect, I question that. Can we not ask you to protect Back Benchers of the House when we are asked to debate a subject without the papers being in front of us? It could be that we shall wish to argue that the order is completely ultra vires, and we shall not be able to do that without having the papers before us. It seems to me that this is a matter for your concern in protecting Back Benchers from impositions by the Government.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to ask the Leader of the House, who is behind your Chair, to act not as a member of the Government but as the protector of Back Benchers on both sides of the House?
Mr. Crouch: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have already said that I am not happy with the statement by the Minister of State. I, too, must look to you to protect the interests of Back Benchers who are seeking to protect the interests of their constituents, who have sent us here to decide matters. How can we decide matters on which we have no papers? Parliament is held in contempt by some people because it is seen that we do not pay sufficient attention to the procedures of the place. I maintain to you that, if we allowed this matter to go to a vote tonight, that would not be the proper way to deal with it because we have not had the opportunity as a House of knowing the full facts since we have no papers before us. It is not possible
822
for us to make a decision by a vote without having the papers. It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say that the matter is urgent.
Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A matter of principle is involved here. [Interruption.] I can assure Labour Members that, while this may appear to them to be a comparatively small matter, when they are on this side of the House again and other things happen they will take a rather different view. A House of Commons matter is involved.
If the Government do not produce the papers, the House cannot come to a proper decision. In the circumstances, it would be quite reasonable for the Government to withdraw the order tonight. The Leader of the House is around the Chamber now although he is not in it. It would not be asking too much of any Leader of the House to say that he will withdraw the order. This is a comparatively small matter in itself, but it involves a matter of high principle for hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not think that we should let this go through, and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to let it go through in this form because there is this matter of principle. I appeal to the Government, from their own point of view as well as from ours, to treat this as a House of Commons matter and to withdraw the order now.
Mr. Harold Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the indignation of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and his hon. Friends, but surely the proper way to express it is in the Division Lobby.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is seldom that I raise a point of order with you, but I do so now as a Back Bencher because we look to you to protect our interests. The Minister has suggested that the best place to deal with this matter is in the Division Lobby. Will you, in the interests of Back Benchers, say to the House that we cannot go into the Division Lobby tonight on a very important matter—and it is important, whatever Labour Members below the Gangway may think—because we have not had the papers and the Act?

823
How can we make a decision when we have not got the facts? Surely, if you are to represent and stand up for the interests of this House and of Back Benchers, you should advise the Government that we cannot proceed at this time and that they should withdraw the order.
Mr. John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to consider our interests for another reason that may possibly have escaped your notice. We are aware that the relevant Act is not available at the moment and that the order refers to the original Act in several places—namely, in the preamble, which states that the Secretary of State is granted his power to introduce the order by virtue of Section 1 (1) and 1 (3) of the original Act. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker—in so doing I ask you to protect the interests of the House.—that it is not possible for us to ascertain whether the Secretary of State is exceeding the powers that the Act has granted him if the Act is not available for reference. It may be that the Secretary of State is doing no more and no less than the Act says he may do, but we must have the evidence before us so that we can question him properly if and when we proceed with the order. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter for you to concern yourself with on our behalf.
Mr. Tony Durant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to reflect that earlier in the Session hon. Members on both sides of the House refused to consider the EEC document for the approximation of taxation of commercial vehicles because there was doubt whether the correct document was before us. This is not a party political matter. It does not matter whether it is a redundancy payments order or a commercial vehicle taxation order. The point is that if the document is not before the House we cannot give the issue proper consideration. When the EEC document came before the House, hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber got together—it did not matter whether they supported our membership of the Common Market or whether they did not—and refused to consider it. I find it rather depressing that there is no Labour Member who appears to take the point. It has nothing to do with the merits or desirability of passing the order; it is
824
merely that the correct document is not before the House. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Government and ordinary Back Bench Members to consider the position fairly and squarely in that light.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not long since we discussed treating the House with contempt. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that there may be no greater contempt than to assume that the House is a rubber stamp that is prepared to accept that which it has not read. How can the House possibly consider and judge a document that it has not had an opportunity of reading? Not only has it not had the opportunity to see the document; it has not had the opportunity to consider it. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is contempt of the House, which we may need to consider further at a later stage, that we are being called upon by Ministers and the Leader of the House to take such a course. The Leader of the House, who is available, near the Chamber, does not choose to come in. What greater contempt can there be than to lurk outside the Chamber and not come in to face the House and explain one's reasons?
Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would appear that the Chair has been put in an intolerable position. No one can question the fact that the Chair has no concern in what the Government may or may not put on the Order Paper. It would be wrong of anyone to try to suggest that that is the responsibility of the Chair. We all know that it is not. However, it is of considerable importance that the House is frequently criticised when legislation gets on to the statute book which is inaccurate or has been imprecisely considered. It seems to be a matter for the Chair to try to ensure that the legislation that leaves the House is as accurate in its legal aspects as is humanly possibly.
The point that has been made time and again is that if hon. Members are unable to see whether the references that are made in the order are accurate according to the statute we are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said, being asked to act as a rubber stamp. I ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, whether it is fair to point out to

825
Ministers that it has always been the responsibility of the Department and the responsibility of the Minister in charge of whatever the business may be to ensure that the House has before it the papers that are necessary for the passage of the motion that is in front of it.
That may not be a point of order, but it has certainly been a matter of practice during the 19 years that I have been a Member of the House. It is the responsibility of the Minister. I recall the former Member for Belper, now Lord George-Brown, going on for two hours before Ministers accepted that it was their responsibility and that the House had the right to reject any piece of legislation or order unless the relevant information was provided.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would be willing to say that that is a precedent and that it is a responsibility that Ministers ought to discharge.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there is a copy of the Act in the Library. I understand that earlier this evening the Government were preparing copies of amendments to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, which we shall be debating later. Could not the Minister or some of his officials go to the Library and copy the relevant pages of the Act? We could then adjourn for an hour and come back with the details that we require.
Mr. Michael Mates: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am neither a lawyer nor a parliamentary draftsman. It is with a genuine plea from the heart that I ask for your help.
The order states:
"The Secretary of State in exercise of powers conferred on him by section 1(1) and 3 of the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977."
I have not seen that Act, but I have attempted personally to obtain it from the Vote Office and I have established that it is not available. But more important, and why it is vital, Mr. Speaker, that you should give us your help, is that Article 1 states:
"This Order may be cited as the Redundancy Payments (Variation of Rebates) Order 1977 and shall come into operation at the end
826
of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which it is made."
If the order is made tonight, it comes into operation within 14 days. Whether the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977 will be available tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, I know not and cannot discover. But surely it is a matter entirely for the Chair—not for the will, whims or desires of the Government to get their legislation through quickly—whether, if there is an error in the draft order, the House of Commons can do anything about it before the 14 days elapse.
It is pertinent to ask: what should we do if we discover that the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State are not reflected in the substance of the draft order or that the Secretary of State, no doubt accidentally and possibly with the best of intentions and good faith, has exceeded those powers? By that time Parliament will be in recess and we shall not be able to question the Minister or to complain that what he has done is improper—albeit accidentally—or, indeed, that this is a dictatorial piece of paper to enable the Minister to get done quickly what he wants to get done.
It is all very well to state that this is a matter for the Government, but I do not understand what the draft order involves. I do not understand what powers the Government are seeking to elucidate and hurry on into operation within the 14 days as a result of the order. Surely, if we do not know and have no means of knowing what is in the Act to which the order refers, it cannot be right for us to come to a decision upon it without the assistance of the substance upon which we are deciding.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are being put in an extremely difficult position. It is within the knowledge of the House that the Leader of the House was behind your Chair a few moments ago. I understand that he has also been observed moving up and down the "Aye" Lobby, no doubt restlessly awaiting the vote that the Minister of State wishes to press ahead with. That is not good enough. The Leader of the House can help us in this matter. Can you, Mr. Speaker, let it be known that you would welcome the appearance of the Leader of the House to help us in our present difficulties?
Mr. John Hannam: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is in grave danger of being treated with contempt in this matter. There was a precedent to this situation on 14th June. During discussion of the Report stage of the Coal Industry Bill a similar situation arose. Papers were not available to the House concerning the Committee stage. The Leader of the House, in response to the wishes of Back Benchers, came quickly to the Dispatch Box and announced that the proceedings would be withdrawn and re-presented when the necessary papers were available.
We have now suffered from a series of similar misadventures in the course of this Session. This reflects very harshly upon the Government for their inefficiency in not providing the necessary papers. It is wrong for the House to be asked to approve this legislation without the necessary papers being available. We should require the Leader of the House to appear before us to answer these charges.
Mr. David Crouch: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The concern of the House has been expressed at the way in which it is being asked to proceed tonight in the last days of the Session. The situation is intolerable. What sort of sitting is this becoming? Is is becoming a secret session in which we do not know what the Government intend us to vote upon? What has happened to democracy in this House? Are we being inflicted with autocracy? In itself this issue might not be of great magnitude, but under the order I am asked to consider certain matters that the Secretary of State says he has done under powers conferred on him by certain sections of the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977. I do not know what those powers are. How can I make a decision on this small matter? Maybe there should be a device whereby we could ask the Leader of the House to come to the Box. Is it not within your power, Mr. Speaker, to command the attendance of the Leader of the House? We are defenceless in the face of an autocracy which is trying to rule the country.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened with care to the points of order which hon. Members on the Government side would have
828
been making had they been on the Opposition side and did not have the papers. It is the right of hon. Members of the House to receive papers that are relevant to the items before the House. I have been here long enough to have witnessed occasions when this has happened before and when my predecessors have expressed the opinion that the House was entitled to the papers. But Mr. Speaker has to put the business on the Order Paper.
Undoubtedly serious note will, I hope, be taken of the fact that the House is denied the papers that it is entitled to receive. I can say only that I shall make a further statement tomorrow.
Mr. Prior: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you have said and as it is known that the Leader of the House is within a short distance of the Chamber, the Government should think about this matter again and withdraw the order. Why cannot the Leader of the House come down to the Chamber now? It is nothing short of disgraceful that he is not here. None of his hon. Friends has defended his not coming to the Chamber in view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker.
Where is that great parliamentarian? Is it that he knows perfectly well the view that he would take if he were here? He is not doing his job. He is not giving the support to the Chair that it should be receiving. He is failing in his duty to the House of Commons. I am prepared to continue speaking so that the Leader of the House might be fetched by the Whip.
A considerable principle is involved which you, Mr. Speaker, have now fully supported. I should have thought that this was a matter which could be settled without the Leader of the House—should he not arrive—by the Minster of State now saying that the Government will withdraw the order.
We have heard not one defence from the Government Back Benches. We have heard not a word in support of the Government continuing with the order tonight. Labour Members know that an important principle is at stake which they might wish to use in future. This is a House of Commons matter and it should be treated as such.
It is not good enough for the Government to behave in this manner. Could

829
we please have a statement from the Minister of State that he will withdraw the order, in view of what Mr. Speaker has said, in view of what we are saying and in view of the fact that there has been no support from his own Benches for the view taken by the Government? May we please now have that statement?
Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A moment ago, in the hearing of all of us, you gave a most considered ruling that the House was entitled to receive papers. I ask respectfully, Mr. Speaker, for a further ruling. If the House is entitled to receive papers—I emphasise the word "entitled"—who is the responsible authority to ensure that that entitlement is honoured and fulfilled? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that you were saying to the Government Front Bench, admittedly in the absence of the Leader of the House, that there was an obligation on the Government to provide the House with papers to which you have ruled that the House is entitled. In those circumstances, could you tell us who is the responsible authority for ensuring that the House receives that to which you have said it is entitled?
The second point on which I should like your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is this. No doubt, as is the consequence of your ruling, under the strict legal procedures the Government are entitled to disregard your ruling about our entitlement. However, is there not a special duty resting upon the House to ensure not only that the strict legalities are complied with but that the common rules of natural justice are complied with? Is it not a defiance of those common rules of natural justice that we should be denied a copy of the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977, from which Act alone the draft order is derived?
We are talking about a matter which in the fairly near future may very well affect right hon. and hon. Members who are at present on the Government side of the House. When discussing this matter, it is very relevant to reflect upon the rights of future Oppositions as well as the rights of the present Opposition.
The issue is wider than that. The issue is whether this House ought to debate an order the parent Act of which is not available to hon. Members and which could be of real consequence and effect for all our people. This is a matter of
830
very grave constitutional importance indeed. In the absence of the Leader of the House, the only person to whom we can look for protection is you, Mr. Speaker, and we know that we shall not look in vain.
Sir John Eden: In the light of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, on an occasion like this one has enormous sympathy for the Minister's position. Perhaps it might not be echoed in all quarters of the House at present, but I think I understand the position very well. In these circumstances, I hope that the Minister, recognising, as I am certain he does, the validity of the views which have been expressed by my colleagues and the force of the points that they have been making, would wish to intervene for a brief moment in order to make some observation.
I am quite certain that the Minister is unhappy about the position and that he would wish to retrieve it in some way. I am sure he recognises that, after the Government have put forward the case that they have, hon. Members are fully entitled to have the parent document to which to refer. I feel certain that the absence of that document is entirely due to an oversight and one that the Minister would not wish to have happened. But the fact is that it has happened, and in those circumstances he must take note of the fact, as do other hon. Members, that he himself has the opportunity to put this matter right.
I hope that the Minister will seek an early opportunity to comment on the situation which has arisen, in order to meet the wishes of the House to allay hon. Members' doubts and anxieties. In the light of what you have fairly stated, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister might seek an opportunity to make a brief statement in order to put this matter at rest.
Mr. Harold Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth; West (Sir J. Eden) for speaking in the way that he has done. It is, of course, obvious that I am in great difficulty. But I am in great difficulty not only in respect of the problem posed to the House but in respect of the very issue itself.
I readily confess that when the matter was first drawn to the attention of the

831
House I was unaware that the Act was not in the Vote Office. I understand that this is because of printing difficulties with which in recent months and years the House has not been unfamiliar. Of course, I was guided by the form of your original remarks, Mr. Speaker, when this difficulty was first brought to the attention of the House and also by the brief guidance that I was able to seek from the Clerk of the House.
I am a little hesitant to debate the substance of the order because we have not been able to discuss it as I and, I believe, the House would like. But I am bound to say, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) intimated, that this matter was brought before the House as part of the Chancellor's package in July of last year and its urgency was pressed then. In fairness, I should point out that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have opposed each stage of the measure before the House, and this was an inevitable part of the delay that ensued.
We have had debates in the House about the importance of keeping public expenditure under control. Now, with every month that passes, we lose £1.35 million of public expenditure saving that would otherwise take place. If we do not pass the order tonight, it means that we shall have to reintroduce it in the next Session of Parliament and several months of public expenditure saving will have been lost.
I have attached great weight, Mr. Speaker, to the words that you have expressed to the House and also to the very strong feelings that have been expressed by Conservative Members. Clearly the House is entitled to take the view that it will not give approval to that order, but I feel that the right way to do that is in the Division Lobby. As I said earlier, in pursuing and persisting with this course it was my understanding that we were acting in no way contrary to the rules and precedents of the House. This is a matter for the House itself to resolve, and the right place to resolve it is in the Division Lobby.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not intolerable that the House should proceed in ignorance of the facts and that you should be treated so discourteously,
832
as I feel you are being treated, by being kept in ignorance of what is going on in this Chamber? I have good reason to believe that consultations are taking place behind your Chair. I think I am right in saying that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), has been privy to those consultations and he might therefore be able to help the House and you with regard to what is going on.
It is within the knowledge of all of us here that it is highly probable that the Leader of the House is involved in those consultations. It seems to me to be totally intolerable that not only do we not have the papers but we are given no information at all as to what is actually happening or what is going to happen. How long must we go on about this business before we are told?
Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to make this point with the very greatest respect to the Chair and to the Officers of the House.
The situation which has occurred tonight is far from unprecedented. I can remember occasions in the middle of 1974 when there were rather similar occurrences. The House had passed Acts or instruments which had been completed and, therefore, the texts were available somewhere. The House had decided them. The texts had gone to be printed. But, because of printing difficulties, they had not come back and were not avail. able to right hon. and hon. Members. I was told in the Public Bill Office that it did not see itself being responsible for maintaining unprinted—typed—copies of those texts during the intervening time before printed copies were available. I say with the utmost respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that it ought to do so.
In my view, in the period when printed copies are not available, it is the responsibility not of the Government but of the institutions of the House to ensure that the texts which have been completed and passed by the House are available to right hon. and hon. Members, whether in printed form or in some other form. Right hon. and hon. Members have been directing their criticism at the Government, and I am not loth to do that myself on occasions. But I acquit the

833
Government of any responsibility for this. I believe that the institutions of the House are responsible for ensuring that documents appear.
Mr. Prior: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If, in fact, the responsibility is yours, we ask you to make a ruling very much along the lines that you intimated your feelings were a few minutes ago. If you maintain, as you have a perfect right to do, that it is not your responsibility, the matter comes back to the Government and their incompetence in putting an item on the Order Paper in the way they have done when the necessary papers are not available.
In either case, it seems to me that one or other will now have to make a decision to withdraw the order tonight and put it down for another day.
Mr. Speaker: I listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), and, of course, it may well be that in the future responsibility for seeing to these matters is transferred. But, as it is at present, I have allowed a long run of points of order on this matter, and, since there is nothing that I can do about it tonight, I now suggest that we go on with the business. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is nothing that I can do.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that we have reached a new departure. Although the whole House will have great sympathy with the Minister in his personal capacity, his short intervention recently must have dispelled a certain amount of that sympathy.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that it was because of printing disputes that the Act was not available. This doctrine seems to me to cause severe problems for the House in the future. I can imagine a situation where we may be debating a Finance Bill and, due to printing difficulties, copies of the Bill may not be available. Will the Government then invite us to pass tax laws, even though we do not know what they are proposed to be—to say nothing of our inability to amend them—because we have no papers before us?
834
The suggestion that Government supporters should be invited to go through the Division Lobby to approve this order although none of them knows what it does and none of them has seen the parent Act—and cannot see it even if he wishes to do so—smacks to me of the suggestion that the House should simply become a rubber stamp for what the Government may wish to do later when they come round to sorting out the difficulties in Her Majesty's Stationery Office. After all, whose responsibility is it that there are printing difficulties? It is well known to all hon. Members that in the Basement we have a blackleg printing press set up by the Government. Of all the people who would be suitable to operate it, surely those in the Department of Employment are the paramount example. The Minister could send the PPSs into the Basement and start manufacturing copies of the Act.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very patient in allowing the argument to proceed, but the hon. Gentleman is not advancing a point of order now. He is making a speech, a very interesting one, but not one that is a matter for me.
Mr. Ridley: May I come to my point of order, Mr. Speaker? It is that the failure to produce the Act makes it impossible for the House to proceed and that the only honourable thing for the Government to do is to withdraw the order now. I should hate to have to move to adjourn but if the Minister is not prepared to withdraw the order I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish to proceed with it or with any further business.
I know that Labour hon. Members want to take their buckets and spades tomorrow morning and get away to the seaside, and 12th August is not far away. But we on the Opposition Benches have been prepared to stay here to see the Government's business through, and we would have been prepared to see endless Bills with endless Lords amendments—there are 64 on the Housing Homeless Persons Bill. We are prepared to stay here tonight, tomorrow and tomorrow night—as long as is necessary. But the essential condition is that the matters put before us should be supported by the documents necessary for hon. Members to

835
understand what they are being asked to pass into law.
In the absence of that, my point of order is that the Government should withdraw the order and pack it up for tonight, because there is no more business to be done until they do.
I remember occasions when matters of this sort—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has many happy memories, but I must ask him now to keep to his point of order.
Mr. Ridley: I was just about to say, Mr. Speaker, that I remember when irregularities of this sort have happened before in the House, and on those occasions it has always proved to be the case that no further business could be done by the Government of the day, of whatever party, until the irregularities were put right or the business was withdrawn. Therefore, I call upon the Government to do the honourable thing. I am sure that my hon. Friends would be prepared to stay here on Friday, Saturday and Sunday—anything to get the Government's business through—though I do not know whether Liberal hon. Members would be prepared to stay through Friday, Saturday and Sunday or whether the Lib-Lab pact extends to giving up a weekend in the interests of Government business.
The House should not be asked to pass the order without the proper documentation for us to understand what it is all about.
Mr. Max Madden: Very few of the Conservative hon. Members working themselves up into a lather about the non-availability of papers are present with Labour hon. Members in the early hours of the morning when we deal with EEC business. If they were, they would know that it is not infrequent for crucial EEC papers to be unavailable, out of date or non-existent. But that has not been a cause for objection from many Conservative hon. Members when these matters have been discussed and the House has been called upon to approve those EEC papers. Therefore, we must see the spectacle on the Opposition Benches as another example of synthetic indignation and hypocrisy.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have
836
already told the House that it is not within your competence to deal with this matter since it is a matter for the Government to provide papers. You have said, in answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), that it is not at this stage a matter for the Officers of the House.
May I put to you that there is one power you possess which is unreservedly yours: to protect the House by suspending the sitting until papers are produced. I would ask you to exercise that power which is yours, unfettered. It would be acceptable in the interests of Parliament.
Mr. Clement Freud: May I move, Mr. Speaker, that this point of order, though unopposed, may be proceeded with until any hour?
Mr. Graham Page: Although that is a new aspect of a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I also have a new aspect of it. We have put our point of order forward on the basis that we have no papers before us and that the parent Act is not printed, but there is the further point that unless we see the parent Act we cannot tell whether it has come into operation and we cannot even tell whether it has had Royal Assent.
We may be being asked to make an order under a statute which does not exist or, at least, has not come into operation. We cannot tell unless we have the document in front of us.
Mr. Robert Adley: I normally sit quietly and do not jump to my feet unnecessarily, Mr. Speaker, but can you give a ruling since we frequently rely on precedent? Is this to be accepted in future as a precedent? If the Government have difficulty in the printing of documents, is it to be maintained that that makes no difference and the House should proceed with the business? Is this to be accepted as a precedent for the House?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that we are not making precedents tonight. I am clear that I have allowed a full discussion on these points of order. I have explained that I believe that the House is entitled to have the papers, and we have heard the Minister. I now call Mr. Hayhoe.
Mr. Hayhoe: Many times we on this side have called for the presence of the

837
Leader of the House. Is it not intolerable and unprecedented that he should be skulking around behind your Chair, Mr. Speaker, and is not prepared to show his face in the Chamber? He used to think of himself as a parliamentarian, but he has not got the guts to come here and to say, as Leader of the House, what is to be done.
It is monstrously disgraceful behaviour by the Leader of the House. Is it not right, Mr. Speaker, that you should suspend the session—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sitting."]—suspend the sitting to give him time to work up the courage to come here and face the House, and to do the proper thing by withdrawing the order? The Ministers in charge of the legislation do not appear to have the courage to withdraw it. Let the Leader of the House come here and do the decent thing.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: It is essential that something should be done to protect you, Mr. Speaker, from what is going on. Surely the Leader of the House is required to explain the position. It cannot be accepted that simply because, with the present Leader of the House, this sort of thing has happened before, it may continue. It has happened far too often in the past. The House cannot—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh like drains—and drains they are—but it is not very clever that the House must put up with a situation in which business is constantly brought before it when the requisite papers are not available to hon. Members. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will be able to use your influence to ensure that the Leader of the House tells us what he proposes to do about the situation in which he has placed us.
Mr. David Hunt: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. While we are waiting for the Leader of the House, may I bring a serious matter to your attention?
The House has been misled. I was one of those who went to the Vote Office for a copy of the Act. I was told that a copy was not available. When the matter was raised in the House, it was stated quite clearly from the Government Benches that all was well because there was a copy in
838
the Library. The points of order have been going on for some time, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you do not mind, but I slipped out of the Chamber a few moments ago and went to the Library to find the Act. I was there for some time, but after going through all the boxes and searching through every possible nook and cranny I came to the conclusion that a copy of the Act was not available in the Library. Perhaps a copy was available at some stage.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said that it is extremely important that we see the Act so that we may judge whether the Secretary of State is exceeding his powers and whether what he has done is ultra vires. For the Act to disappear from the House after that important point was made casts an aura of suspicion over and highlights a very serious situation. The House is entitled to an explanation from the Leader of the House.
Mr. Emery: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer you to page 576 of "Erskine May", which deals with the question of parliamentary control of delegated legislation? I am loth to speak again, particularly as you have appealed so reasonably to us to proceed, but we have been on points of order for about an hour and 15 minutes and it is remarkable that my hon. Friends have so evenly kept their tempers over this difficult matter.
It is stated at the bottom of page 576 of "Erskine May":
"The conditions of the making of statutory instruments and the degree of parliamentary control over them will depend in each case upon the particular statute which authorises them …".
If one refers back to page 573—I stress that this is the nineteenth edition—the chapter on delegated legislation begins by making it quite clear that over the last half century or more Parliament has passed an increasing volume of legislation expanding the activities of the Government into a great number of fields, often involving provisions of considerable complexity. It is for that reason that "Erskine May" rightly argues that before parliamentary control can be properly exercised the statute must be considered in its entirety, so that hon. Members can know whether the delegated legislation is accurate.

839
This point is carried on further at the top of page 577, where it says:
"Under one type of procedure the resultant instrument has no effect."
Maybe, as we have no Act, this is a case where the delegated legislation would have no effect. How can I possibly know, if the Act is not before the House? Therefore, I would suggest that the sitting should be suspended for 15 minutes. Within that time the Minister could take the Act to a photo-copying machine and we could have 20 copies of it brought to the House—[AN HON. MEMBER: "We want 634 copies."] I ask my hon. Friends not to be too greedy. Surely that would get us out of this parlous situation, which is immensely embarrassing to the Minister and does the House of Commons no credit.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman(Lancaster) rose—
Hon. Members: Give her a chance, George.
Mr. Speaker: I shall—in a minute. I have studied the situation. If hon. Members go on with points of order to the end of the debate, I still cannot add anything to what I have already said.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It will be within the recollection of the House that the Minister informed us earlier in the proceedings that there was a copy of the Act in the Library. That being the case, would he care to point out where this apparently fictitious Act is reposing, in view of the extensive search that was made by my hon. Friends with total lack of success?
Mr. Prior: As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) pointed out, this has been a good-humoured points-of-order debate, but it is not becoming so good humoured as we recognise that this is a device by the Government to allow the debate to go on for an hour and a half and for the guillotine to fall. That seems to be a further abuse of the situation into which the House is drifting tonight.
One of the ways of getting out of our troubles would be to have an adjournment of 15 minutes so that the Leader of the House could come here and report from the Dispatch Box on the Government's attitude towards this measure. It would be intolerable not only if we did
840
not have the necessary Act to enable us to discuss the order but if the order were to go through on the basis of points of order for an hour and a half without any proper consideration of the order itself.
I see that the Leader of the House has now joined us. A good deal of the lost hour and a half might have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman had come into the House and done his duty. His attitude tonight reflects no credit at all on the office he holds.
1.35 a.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I understand that there has been some difficulty over the order. Following representations made to me, I have made some inquiries about the way this situation can best be dealt with. Having made those inquiries, I feel that the best course the House can adopt is that we should adjourn this debate. That is how I propose that the House should deal with the matter.
I take the fullest responsibility for what has occurred. Part of the question I had to consider was the financial consequences that might follow if the order were not to be carried through the House. That matter must be taken into account. We must also take into account the timetable for the convenience of the House. Furthermore, we must also consider our relations with the other place and what has to be arranged with their Lordships, because the matter has to be dealt with in the other place as well as in this House.
I was not present to hear what was said in the House on this matter, but it has been reported to me. Naturally, when the House makes representations of this character it is my duty as Leader of the House to take account of what has been said and to see how best it can be resolved.
Therefore, I now ask the House to adjourn this debate, and I hope that before the end of the week the matter can be brought back to the House again in a proper form, with the Act printed as the House would wish. I hope that that can be the case, although I hope that the House would also take into account the fact that I have to examine the consequences that may follow.

841
I hope that the House will agree to adjourn this matter so that we may be able to look into it. I hope that we can bring the matter back afresh tomorrow or on Friday, and in such a manner that we can arrange it with the other place so that it can be carried through and so that there are no unfortunate repercussions on the financial affairs of the country.
We also wish to conform to the proper requirements upon which the House insists in such matters. I ask the House to allow the matter to be adjourned now. I shall seek to bring the matter back to the House and I hope that we shall be able to transact this business before we depart for the recess. However, there are many ramifactions that we must look at meanwhile.
I hope the House will accept that I did not speak earlier not because I did not wish to come before the House but because I wished to examine the consequences of the situation which had arisen.
Mr. Graham Page: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for what he has said. May I clear up one point? According to Standing Orders, orders of this kind are allowed an hour and a half of debate. It might be said that we have now used up most of that time. Will the Leader of the House somehow arrange for that full amount of time to be granted when he brings the order back?
Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to have been challenged on such a comparatively easy matter. I hope that the large numbers of hon. Members who have turned up tonight will be here for the full length of the debate on this matter on Friday—if that is when we shall bring it back to the House. I promise that I shall be here, and I shall be glad to welcome all those hon. Members who are now celebrating this great parliamentary
842
victory. I promise that we shall try to carry out this matter in accordance with the highest traditions of the House and in a manner that will best carry out the financial responsibilities of the House.
On that basis, I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The time that has had to be spent on this matter is well understood by hon. Members on this side. The debate has been conducted with good humour except for the last comment made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity of withdrawing his foul accusations against the Leader of the House.
Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for coming to the House and asking that the order should be withdrawn. I am certain that that was a right decision. I said a few moments ago that I did not think that the Leader of the House had acted in the best interests of his office. Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman, I feel inclined to withdraw that, but I must remind myself that the first consideration of the Leader of the House must be not the convenience of the Government's timetable but the principle that lies behind the fact that papers were not available to the House. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has said what he has, I am delighted, but he could have done it at least an hour and a quarter earlier.
Question, That the debate be now adjourned, put and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed this day.
Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I raised my point of order some considerable time ago, may I apologise to the House that the matter has kept it so long and may I sincerely thank you for the way you have ruled.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL [LORDS]
Order for Second Reading read.
1.44 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I move the Second Reading extremely briefly. This is a purely consolidation Bill. It consolidates certain provisions relating the National Health Service—namely, the National Health Service Acts 1946 to 1976, the Public Health Laboratory Act 1936—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister wait for a minute? I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber as quietly and quickly as possible if they are going? Mr. Davidson.
Mr. Davidson: I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, to grab an unusually large audience for a consolidation Bill, which is why I ploughed on.
The Bill consolidates many National Health Service Acts. I have mentioned the 1946 to 1976 Acts. It also consolidates the Public Health Laboratory Services Act 1960, the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964 and certain provisions of the Public Health Act 1936. It has been through the Joint Consolidation Committee. It reflects the existing law, and I think that I need say no more about it in commending it to the House.
1.46 a.m.
Mr. Daniel Awdry: The House will be glad to know that this matter is entirely uncontroversial. This is another major consolidation Bill by the Joint Consolidation Committee and it was produced as recently as last week. It looks a formidable document—there are 130 clauses and 16 schedules—but it is purely consolidation. It is the first consolidation of legislation affecting the National Health Service, which was established by the National Health Service Act 1946.
The consolidation draws its composition from the Acts known collectively as the National Health Service Acts 1946 to 1976. There was a major reorganisation of the National Health Service in
844
1973. It would be out of order to say whether we were wise in some of the changes made then, but the innovations of the 1973 Act have been brought fully into the Bill. I am sure that the Bill will be of benefit to all those concerned with the administration of the National Health Service in bringing the whole legal framework into one statute.
The House owes a considerable debt to Mr. Robson, the Senior Assistant Parliamentary Counsel, who advised and helped the Joint Committee and was responsible for the drafting of the Bill. He has done an excellent job.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second tune
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Snape.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee.
[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]
The Second Deputy Chairman: Would it be for the convenience of the House if I put the clauses en bloc?
Clauses 1 to 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman: Would it be convenient if I put Schedules 1 to 14 en bloc?
Schedules 1 to 14 agreed to.

Schedule 15

  CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Manuscript amendment made: in page 126, line 14, at end insert:
  'and for the words" subsection (3) of that section "substitute" paragraph 2 of that Schedule"'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
  Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 16 agreed to.
  Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

POST OFFICE BILL
Lords amendment considered.
Clause 1

  MEMBERSHIP OF THE POST OFFICE
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1. line 17, at end insert—
  "(4) This Act shall come into force at the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the day on which it is passed."
  1.52 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  First we should consider the practical effect of the amendment. The Government intend to appoint the members of the new board as soon as possible after the arrangements have been ratified by the unions and they have provided the Secretary of State with appropriate nominations. This amendment would simply delay the procedure. If the experiment is to run for the two-year period envisaged—and this is necessary if the new board is to have reasonable time to test the working of the experiment—the effect of the amendment will be simply to shorten the period for review. The allowance of reasonable time for review, of course, originated in an amendment made in this House when hon. Members were concerned to ensure that the experiment would be subject to full and thorough examination before its future was decided upon. This amendment would cut into the time allotted for the review and, if only for this reason, I would argue that it should be reconsidered by another place.
  Since the Bill left this House the Carter Report has been published, and hon. Members may like to look at what the Carter Report has to say about the experiment.
  The House is of course aware that the Post Office management and unions were considering an experiment in industrial democracy before the Carter Committee was even appointed by the Government. From an early stage it was clear that the prospects of management and unions reaching agreed proposals were excellent, and these were presented to the Government in February of this year. The
  846
  Government saw the degree of commitment which lay behind these proposals. We were convinced that it was a worthwhile experiment and we felt that we could not risk losing momentum by delaying its start. If we had waited for the Carter Report, there could of course have been no Bill this Session. We decided that the opportunity for this early experiment in industrial democracy in a major nationalised industry was not to be missed and that we should therefore proceed with the Bill.
  Now that the Carter Report is available, we are aware of its views on industrial democracy in the Post Office. The Committee takes the view that industrial democracy should not only be a matter of employee seats on the board but should consist of a democratic structure throughout the organisation, starting at the level of the head post office or telephone area. The Government fully accept that this experiment must not be restricted to the board-level arrangements. As I said at the first union-management-Government tripartite meeting last July,
  "Representation on the Board does not of itself create industrial democracy—it must be much wider and extend to all levels of enterprise".
  The joint study group within the Post Office has been discussing this for some time and its report, available in the Library of the House—and this is available—drew attention to the fact that, while priority was given to board-level proposals requiring legislation, consideration was also being given to the scope for extending industrial democracy at regional and local levels.
  Since it presented its report, the joint study group has devoted much more attention to the arrangements for industrial democracy below board level. I understand that agreement has now been reached on all but the final details of arrangements to operate at local level—that is, the work unit controlled overall by a head postmaster or general manager. Here joint area policy committees will be established to enable staff to participate in the formative stage of decision-making on policy and planning matters of local concern. This is, of course, exactly what the Carter Committee has recommended.
  Consideration of arrangements for industrial democracy at regional level is

  847
  also well advanced, and I understand that management and unions hope soon to finalise and agree the participation structure covering all levels of the Post Office.
  I am sure that the House will agree that the arrangements for the experiment coincide on many points with the sort of structure which the Carter Committee has in mind. I should add that the arrangements devised by the Post Office management and unions have a distinct and overwhelming advantage. They are what those most closely concerned believe is the appropriate structure for their industry. Because of this, they have the best possible chance of success. For these reasons, the Government are convinced that the experiment should go ahead as soon as possible.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huck-field), said in Committee that there should be an opportunity for
  "the fullest consideration by Parliament of what has been achieved".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21st June 1977; c. 30.]
  That is the Government's view, and we would not like to see the period for review shortened, as it would be by this unnecessary amendment.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes.
  When their Lordships carried their amendment, they made it clear that their purpose was to afford the House the chance to have a further discussion in case other developments gave us reason to have second thoughts. They had in mind the Carter Report, and I want to refer specifically to what it said about worker-directors.
  There is another matter about which I should like to ask the Minister. This matter has been brought to my attention since the previous debates. I refer to the position of some of the smaller unions in the Post Office, particularly the Society of Civil and Public Servants. It is not entirely happy with the scheme as it has so far been worked out. As the Minister knows, the Society is one of eight members of COPOU. Indeed, it is one of the six constituent members. It is not an associate member. Given that the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office Engineering Union are to have four out of the seven seats between them, that
  848
  leaves three seats for the other four unions. They are understandably fearful that there will be not Corporation-wide elections but elections within particular unions which have been allocated seats on the board.
  One could make a case for saying that the Society of Civil and Public Servants is an important union. It is represented in all four branches of the Corporation. It is particularly strong on the telecommunications side, but, that being capital-intensive, it is in a rather weak position in having the bulk of its membership there. The society is worried that, once the division of board representatives has been decided, it will never get a representative on the board. Will the Minister of State comment on that matter?
  Another matter which arose in the debates in the other place concerned the procedures for electing the members. The question posed was whether there would be secret ballots for the election of directors. I know that the question of secret ballots in trade unions is a controversial subject—we know the arguments on both sides—but when dealing with the election of representatives to the boards of publicly-owned companies I think that there is something to be said for secret ballots.
  When this point was raised in the House of Lords, Lord Winterbottom referred to "some" unions using their own established procedures that they already had for electing union officials. I do not know whether the word "some" was significant, but it was different from the word used by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that all unions would use their existing procedures for the election of officials. I wonder whether the Minister of State will clarify that point for us.
  2.0 a.m.
  When the Bill was introduced, we wished it well as an experiment. I see no reason not to wish it well again. There is only one point that concerns a matter of disagreement. We expressed some caution in that we doubted the wisdom of introducing the scheme before the Carter Committee had reported. The fact that the report is now presented means that the Government are in a bit of a muddle, especially bearing in mind what is in the report.

  849
  The report makes it clear that the committee was made aware of the Government's proposals only at a very late stage when the report was actually going to the printers. It makes clear that if the committee had been consulted it would have urged the Government to be more cautious. It emphasises that in its view it would be much better to develop participation at a local level than at a regional level and then afterwards to work upwards. The Minister said that this matter was under consideration before the Carter Committee was set up. In that case, why was the Carter Committee allowed to consider the question at all? There is a great danger now that it will be more difficult to separate the two businesses as recommended in the report.
  The report specifically says that the Post Office Corporation should start now making preparations for splitting the Corporation. It also proposes boards totally different in scope and kind from those which exist now and from those proposed in the legislation. The key point, however, is that the Carter Committee puts forward specific proposals even for the interim. The committee recognises that there has to be a long period of discussion, that legislation will be complicated and that it will take time to get through the House.
  For the interim, the report proposes that while consideration is taking place there should be an independent part-time chairman and two chairmen-designate for the two constituent parts, as it sees them, of the Corporation. I should like to hear from the Minister whether the Government are rejecting what the Carter Committee has recommended as interim proposals in advance of legislation. That is our only reservation about the legislation.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Since the House last discussed the Bill, the Carter Report has been published. Before publication and during earlier discussion of the Bill, we on these Benches sought assurances from the Government that the conduct of this valuable experiment for a couple of years would in no way inhibit official reaction to the Carter recommendations, which are very weighty and would certainly not delay
  850
  the preparation which the Government might have in mind. I should like to hear from the Minister that this assurance still holds now that the Government are fully aware of the Carter Report.
  I turn to the appointment of directors. Is there anything more that the Minister can say about the method of appointment of consumer directors? Those of us in the House who played some part in proposing that the board should be enlarged to admit people appointed for their experience of consumer affairs have been accused in some quarters simply of adding to the Government's range of patronage. That was no part of our purpose. We on this Bench have always hoped that the appointments would be the subject of public advertising so that the Government would have the widest possible range of consumer experts from which to choose.
  I hope for some assurance that these two appointments to the board are not simply to be used for well-known purposes of extending Government patronage.
  Mr. Richard Page: One of the advantages of speaking at this time is that many of the arguments have been made. I do not intend to canter over them again.
  One of my original concerns was that we were obviously starting at the top and working through to the bottom. It reminded me of someone building a house by starting at the roof and filling in the foundations later.
  I was reassured by the Secretary of State when he said:
  "It is right that we should pay tribute to all those in the Post Office, management and workers' representatives alike, who have taken part in formulating the proposals."
  He went on to say:
  "The proposals agreed between the Post Office and the unions have been submitted and have been accepted as being an experiment suitable to the particular circumstances of the Post Office."—[Official Report, 16th May 1977; Vol. 932, c. 108-111.]
  That gave the impression that all was sweetness and light. Since then, however, we have had the Carter Report. The amendment gives us the opportunity to consider that report. It gives us and the Post Office a little time so that adjustments might be made before the Bill passes from the word into the flesh. As

  851
  has been said, there is a degree of concern and friction about the selection and nomination of new members. The extra time that we have will allow management and unions to evolve their traditional stances.
  I hope that there will be a softening of the line which suggests that union nominees should not defend board decisions. I should like management and unions to work in harmony and produce a united report, rather than that the unions should remain silent on certain issues. I should prefer to see an evolution towards industrial democracy rather than the taking of a position which might not be 100 per cent. correct and then working backwards.
  I should be assured if the Minister could say that the proposals for industrial democracy are working through the line. The Post Office Review Committee makes the same point in chapter 7, paragraph 10, under the heading:
  "The development of true industrial democracy".
  I do not know what makes it think that that is the Holy Grail, but the report says that industrial democracy at the top level could mean even more autocracy at the work place rather than less. This will inhibit local initiative, and we do not want that. We want decision-making that goes not only down but up. Unions and management have a long tradition of decision-making at national level.
  Chapter 9(1) of the report expresses misgivings about the centralised style of management in the Post Office with its parallel tendency towards a concentration of union activity at the national level. If the Bill is simply slapped into operation, it could enhance that tendency. A little time, afforded possibly by the amendment, would ensure a true flow of ideas from the board to the shop floor and, more vitally, back up again.
  The Minister mentioned that steps are being taken on the regional boards. The Carter Report states that steps are to be taken to ensure that worker participation will be introduced here, on similar lines to that for the board, as a first step before the top board. I think that the regional boards should go in for this first.
  Lastly, I hope that when the new board is operating it will continue to appreciate
  852
  its monopoly position and the resultant dependence of telecommunications equipment manufacturers on the Post Office ordering procedure. As such, I hope that it will give extra help and a chance to change over on the installation of electronic switching gear, such as TX2 and TX4, by spending some of the very large profit from this investment. As we are aware, one makes a profit to make investment to plough back. I hope that the boards will make that decision when the time comes.
  I have strayed slightly from the straight and narrow, but I now come straight back again and conclude by saying that, amendment or not, I wish the experiment, possibly topsy-turvy as it is, every success. Who knows? Out of it might emerge a united single Post office union.
  Mr. Michael Marshall: We have had a number of useful contributions, but I cannot help but worry somewhat about the way in which the incidence of Carter and this experiment in industrial democracy have not meshed in perhaps as happily as we might have hoped. It is fair to say that the Minister himself bears special responsibility, because he has chaired the meetings and the consultations that have taken place between the UPW and the Post Office management. We recognise the hard work that has gone into all that, but because he himself has been involved in those consultations he must also recognise that it is singularly unfortunate that we now have Carter bringing forward what the hon. Member said was coincidence at many points. We shall therefore look to him to see how far these two elements can be reconciled. It is still unfortunate that some of them, perhaps, may be missed because of the timing getting a little out of kilter.
  The Minister implied in his speech that if we carried the amendment it would foreshorten the experiment by six months. Surely the answer to that, if the Minister feels strongly about it, is to bring forward an amendment to extend the experiment by six months. The time that we are allowed to try to bring together the two elements is important. I say that also because we have now had the announcement of the move of the Post Office into a profitable period, which we welcome.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: Does my hon. Friend agree that the use of the word "profitable" in connection with the Post Office might be somewhat misleading? Does he not accept that profit, to be really meaningful, is an adequate return on capital employed, and that in that context the Post Office is not very profitable?
  Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend has touched on a very important theme, to which we would all do well to address our minds. Time and again we hear bandied about talk of high levels of profit. Return on capital should be the yardstick. I am glad to note that the Minister of State agrees about that. In these difficult days, we are all aware that a really meaningful criterion of that kind ought to be used more frequently.
  However, the point I was making was that as the Post Office is moving into a profitable period, albeit not with as successful a return on capital as we might wish, we have a chance for reappraisal in various directions without some of the immediate short-term pressures on the composition of the board which would necessarily follow from a period of deficit operation. If one thinks for a moment about what Carter has had to say on the question of telecommunications and postal services, one can appreciate that the question of whether the board will now be suitable for the Post Office Corporation with the two services split up is very important. That is why the time lag suggested in the amendment would be very valuable.
  I hope that the Minister will give us some assurances about the way in which he sees the Government's reaction and the Post Office's reaction to Carter working through into this experiment. We wish the experiment well, but I regret that we have got it out of kilter here.
  2.15 a.m.
  That, regretfully, reflects how time and time again we seem somehow not to have sufficient accountability between the nationalised corporations and this House. Although the Minister was aware of what was going on in the consultations, many of us were not aware of this until we were on the verge of being presented with a fait accompli in trying to make the best approach.
  854
  In those circumstances, it is the Minister who will have to make the best approach and we shall continue to ask him searching questions in the work that lies ahead.
  Mr. Sainsbury: In recommending that we disagree with the Lords amendment, the Minister of State used the phrase that the arrangements were approved by those most closely concerned. I imagine that he had in mind the Post Office management and unions, subject to the reservations that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has already pointed out about the unions involved. I put it to the Minister that they are not those most closely concerned, or exclusively concerned, because any arrangement which does not very much involve the consumer, who has suffered a great deal, is very inadequate.
  Of course, the Liberals have referred to consumer directors, but these directors are a very small minority on the board. They can be out-voted on any issue upon which the management and the unions of this statutory monopoly choose to outvote the consumer interest.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to the two directors appointed specifically for their expertise in consumer affairs, all the other members of the board will, by definition, be consumers of Post Office services as well?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I would have thought that the use made of the Post Office services by the union and management directors would take up only a very small proportion of the salary and remuneration that they receive for holding that office.
  I put it to the Minister that whether this operation be divided into two, as I hope it shortly will be, or whether it remains as inefficiently as one as it is now. this operation has to be run as efficiently as possible. If it is not run as efficiently as possible, it is the consumer who will suffer. I should like to hear what the Minister thinks will ensure that in the proposals which he is commending to the House there is no ganging up by unions and management—protected by a statutory monopoly from the competition that ensues in the private sector—against the consumer interest.

  855
  Those of us who are familiar with the effects of competition—[Interruption.] Some Labour Members are prone to pronounce upon this issue from a sedentary position, much more often from a sedentary position than on their feet. I shall be happy to give way. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to intervene, or do they wish to interrupt as usual from a sedentary position and show their usual lack of knowledge about what competition really does for the benefit of the consumer? I take it that hon. Gentlemen are admitting their lack of knowledge on this subject.
  It is the consumer about whom we should be concerned. I put it to the Minister of State that the consumer is at present profoundly dissatisfied with the efficiency of the operation of the Post Office in his interests. In putting on to the Post Office Board nominee directors of the unions, what is it that will ensure the efficiency which in many cases will mean a lower utilisation of and need for manpower? I hope that this will be pursued as carefully and diligently as it should be.
  These consumer directors—whom I welcome, as does the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright)—are powerless against the votes of the others. What is it that will ensure that the operation is being run efficiently, and what further contribution to efficiency is likely to be made by installing on a board people who will have a built-in interest in obstructing any reduction in manpower designed to promote efficiency? That is what the consumer wants to know, and I shall be interested to know how the Minister thinks that this proposal will serve the consumer interest in the light of the interesting report that we have had so recently from the Carter Committee.
  Mr. Kaufman: l am sorry that we do not have the benefit of the presence here of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). He would have pointed out to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) that we have the Post Office Users National Council, which looks after the consumer interest of the Post Office, and that Lord Peddie, the Chairman of the POUNC, not only has written to me after consultations with me commending this experiment but, in the discussions in the House of Lords last Thursday, spoke in very strong terms in favour of the experi-
  856
  ment proceeding and against this amendment being inserted in the Bill. The hon. Member for Hampstead, since he is a member of the POUNC, would have explained to the hon. Member for Hove that Lord Peddie was speaking for the council.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) pointed out that not only will the five independents be users, as well as the two with specific user experience, for whose presence the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can accept a great deal of the responsibility, but the other members of the board will have that too.
  Mr. Sainsbury Mr. Sainsbury rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. If he had read the Second Reading debate, he would have known that this had been covered. It is a little late in the day, when the Bill has been through both Houses and when these matters have been discussed privately and publicly, to say nothing of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and his colleagues raising them in Committee, for the hon. Member for Hove suddenly to appear on a Lords amendment and take an interest in the experiment in a contentious way when his hon. Friends, though making points of substance, were able to preserve the good will towards this experiment that the House had shown.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I do not know why the Minister assumes that an hon. Member who has not spoken before on these matters is for some reason debarred from intervening when we have before us a Lords amendment on an entirely novel issue, having had the benefit of a very substantial analysis of the position from the Carter Committee. That puts the matter on an altogether different footing.
  Since the Minister is extolling the power of the Post Office Users National Council—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) has already made one speech. The Minister is expecting an intervention.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I make my intervention because, in reply to my arguments earlier, the Minister referred specifically

  857
  to the existence of the POUNC to deal with the interest of the consumer. Since he is so impressed by the power of that council, can he say what its executive power is and how much influence it has had on matters such as Sunday collections?
  Mr. Kaufman: I recall those ghastly days on the Rent Bill in 1974, and should have remembered never to give way to the mumbo-jumbo of the hon Member for Hove.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Answer my question.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colne Valley for his reference to the basis upon which the profits of the Post Office should be assessed. I am a great champion of the profitability of the Post Office. I am delighted about the profits announced today. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those profits, though admirable, and creditable as they are to the Post Office, must be very much higher if they are to reflect the necessary return on capital. I know that workers in the Post Office who have contributed to those profits will agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for setting those profits in perspective.
  Mr. Michael Marshall: I think that this is common ground between us, but does the Minister recognise that at the same time it behoves the Post Office to think again about some of the services that it provides? It has caused a good deal of ill will in jacking up the profit. We must see each side of the equation, even though we share the same objective.
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall not expand on that, but if the hon. Gentleman was obliquely referring to Sunday collections I must tell him that the profit on the postal services was, I think, 0·8 per cent. of turnover, and if one takes the £9 million cost of the Sunday service away from the £25 million there is not much left. The hon. Gentleman and I are clearly agreed in principle on this matter, so we need not go on debating it.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames spoke of the concern of the Society of Civil and Public Servants about its representation on the board. He sug-
  858
  gested that a solution to this admittedly difficult problem would have been Corporation-wide elections.
  Mr. Norman Lamont indicated dissent.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman dissents and accept that members of the two major unions would inevitably have swamped the elections for the seven seats. That is why the present arrangement is more acceptable. But the society has seen me about the matter and has also discussed it with Liberal Members. I think that the best answer I can give is to quote from a letter I sent in May to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who had raised the point with me.
  I said:
  "It is certainly my understanding that the Council of Post Office Unions, in accordance with their assurance to the Post Office that all Post Office staff will be involved in the experiment, will do all they can to arrive at a situation in which the Society and its members will be able to participate fully in the process of electing worker-directors. I have placed myself at the disposal of either side if they believe that I can assist in achieving this. I had this morning a meeting with representatives of the Society at which I offered my good offices on this matter. … I know that you accept that the experiment is based on agreement by the participants and must not be imposed by the Government. I could not force through a solution which they did not find satisfactory and could not compel the Society to participiate if they did not wish to do so, however acceptable arrangements for participation by their members might seem to you or me. Nevertheless, I am confident that a solution can be found and assure you I will do all I can to help achieve one."
  Therefore, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is very much in my mind. It must be one that the responsible unions resolve among themselves rather than by Government intervention, but I have made it clear that if I can assist I shall do so. I very much hope that a satisfactory solution will be found to what is admittedly a difficult problem. It is one of the problems that such an experiment will have to solve for other industries that may embark on similar ventures. The hon. Gentleman will accept that, even with these difficulties, we are fortunate in that we are dealing with a group of unions that are highly responsible and have highly democratic procedures.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked me about methods of election. The Post Office Engineering Union has already

  859
  made its selection, at its recent conference, through its delegate procedures. The selection was done by the normal method of voting by delegates from branches. The Union of Post Office Workers, the largest of the unions, with over 200,000 members, intends to make its selection by a postal ballot of all members after branches have been invited to nominate candidates. The smaller unions have not yet considered the matter in conference. They intend to hold special conferences in the autumn and have not yet decided how their nominees will be chosen.
  2.30 a.m.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley asked me for an assurance that the fact that the experiment will now proceed will not prejudice consideration of the Carter Report. I give that assurance. It will not, and I come, indeed, to the question of how we deal with Carter. It has been announced that the Government are asking for observations from the public and will also consult interested bodies up to the end of November. After that, we shall consider those representations and consultations and will then issue a White Paper some time next spring.
  Clearly, that will not prejudice proceeding with the experiment. I assure hon. Members that we have not taken up a position on Carter at this point. We have an open mind about the proposals and we want to consider them carefully. The experiment will not prejudice our consideration of the Carter proposals, because by the time any possible legislation comes, the experiment will be over.
  The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) asked if I thought that the experiment would be, not foreshortened, but extended in some way. I deliberately accepted a proposal that we should insert an amendment to limit it, so as to make sure that it did not go on beyond two years. To extend it would be to reverse what the Conservative and Liberal Parties asked for. I hope that the hon. Member will not press the point.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley raised again, as he did in Standing Committee, the appointment of consumers. I have looked carefully at the question of advertising to do this. Although I have no wish to dismiss it, and I said in Standing Committee that there would be
  860
  merit in it, I have come to the conclusion that advertising would not be the appropriate procedure. I shall explain why. I asked for a paper to be prepared on the possibilty of advertising. I got that far. The problem was looking at the result. In another matter in which we advertised there has been a response of 1,500 replies, and with an organisation like the Post Office, on which we are all experts, we might have got many thousands of replies. If we were to do that, considering the curriculum vitae and so on of applicants would have taken many months in order to do them justice. It would have risked postponing the experiment a great deal. I should, however, like to consider areas in which we can seek a much wider possibility of consideration so that it is not what some people might call "the same old gang" who are considered.
  That is not at all the way we wish to approach this. I have reluctantly decided that advertising is not appropriate, but I shall consider whether other proposals could be considered to draw more widely when appointing these people. We have a little time, so that MPs or any other interested person who would like to make proposals can do so in good faith, just as I did when considering that possibility, even though I came reluctantly to the conclusion that it was not possible.
  I would say to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Page) that I have always thought—and I thought at the start of consideration of these matters a year ago—that membership of a board of itself would not be industrial democracy. Just as in the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act we inserted a duty for a strong organic forum, we want it also in the Post Office.
  The reason why we are only discussing the board is that we need an Act for the board whereas we do not need an Act for the rest of it. That being so, I can assure the House that we shall go ahead on that basis. I hope that this will be approved and that the House will accept the principle.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to the Bill: Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Les Huckfield, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Jim Lester and

  861
  Mr. Frank R. White; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Kaufman.
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
Motion made,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Fifth Report, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.—[Mr. Snape.]
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. James Dempsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? I understand and sympathise with the reasons for objection being taken to the motion, but this substantial project for the Library will take some time to introduce and will involve a lot of planning and preparation. I am sure that most of us thought that the most suitable time to do it was during the recess. If hon. Members continue to object, that will not be possible. Is there any way, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. It is not apparent that the hon. Gentleman is raising a matter for me.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. I objected to this business yesterday and today. I understand that the Fifth Report—I do not object to it, but I object to its being taken "on the nod"—has been avail. able to the House for three or four weeks. It was put on the Order Paper last night, I understand, but, unfortunately, the business motion did not make it exempted business, although a large number of other items, some of them short, were exempted. The same has happened today.
I understand that representations were made through the usual channels—and unusual channels—that the business should be exempted, but it is not exempted. Is there anything in the rules of the House to exempt it so that it might be discussed for 10 or 15 minutes, which
862
I think is all that the House would need to spend on it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said is a matter for the Chair.

HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) BILL
Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
2.39 a.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords by one of their Clerks, as follows:
The Lords have agreed to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill with amendments to which they desire the consideration of this House.
As Mr. Speaker indicated earlier, copies of the amendments are available in the Vote Office.
Mr. Tim Sainsbury: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have informed the House that copies of the amendments are available in the Vote Office. There are 57 amendments, 11 pages of them. To indicate the scope of the changes they introduce to the Bill, I must point out that the first 30 lines on page 4, 31 lines on page 5, and 33 lines on page 6 are deleted. These amendments were available in the Vote Office only at 12.05 a.m.—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member will have an opportunity to debate this matter in a moment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords amendments be now considered.—[Mr. Snape.]
Mr. Michael Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you have the same photo-copy as I have, you will see that there are a large number of handwritten manuscript amendments alongside the typewritten ones. May we have an assurance that the hand-written amendments are approved ones and that if passed they will not be altered subsequently? Can we be assured that these rather

863
scruffy amendments are a true and accurate record of the proceedings in another place? I raise this matter because we have had precedents before, particularly in housing matters, where there have been errors which subsequently had to be put right.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Sainsbury: If I may continue my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was illustrating the scale of the amendments that have been introduced. In support of what my hon. Friend has just said, I refer to the third page of the amendments with a six-line manuscript amendment—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can assist the hon. Member. The matter which he appears to be raising is not a point of order, but it would be relevant to the matter now being debated.
Mr. George Cunningham: I think that my colleagues would probably appreciate it if I said my expected rude remarks about the situation now and then kept quiet for the rest of the debate.
It is no secret that from the beginning I have regarded this Bill as ill conceived and thoroughly badly prepared. I shall not repeat the strictures on the Department that I have expressed on other occasions. The difficulties we are encountering now at 2.45 a.m. in dealing with 57 Lords amendments in this messy form—some of them only decided in a Lords debate which ended at 6 p.m.—is a final but characteristic and appropriate conclusion to the sort of processing of this legislation that has characterised it throughout.
The Bill will get to the statute book tonight—probably without a Division—through a combination of support from many of my hon. Friends who believe that it is better than nothing, and from the Opposition, who believe that it is better than something. They believe that this rotten Bill, as it is and as it will be when we pass the 57 amendments, is better than the properly drafted, properly constructed and properly conceived Bill that we would have if we put this one where it belongs—in the river—and started afresh next year with the advant-
864
age of the consideration given to this measure this year.
I do not believe that the Bill will help homeless people. It will cause enormous difficulties to those who try to use it and apply to local authorities. It will cause even more enormous difficulties for local authorities in trying to comprehend their obligations under it.
Having said those few words, I hope that the House will learn the lesson that it is no way to prepare legislation to start with a half-thought-out idea, to treat the Standing Committee as a pre-legislation Committee, and then to go through a process which means that each stage is about two stages behind the stage it is properly at. We are now about ready for the Committee stage of the Bill, and yet here we are finalising Lords amendments at 2.45 in the morning. I must say that in my seven years in the House there is no doubt that this is the worst-drafted, worst-constructed worst-conceived and worst-prepared Bill I have ever seen.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Perhaps we can now get under way with the Bill. For the convenience of the House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must first deal with the Question.
Question, That the Lords amendments be now considered, put and agreed to.

Clause 1

  HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come to Lords Amendment No. 1—
  Mr. Sainsbury: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You ruled me out of order when I was trying to raise certain matters relating to the papers associated with this matter and you informed me that it would be more in order to do so on the next matter. You then did not allow anything to be raised on the next issue.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was trying to assist the hon. Gentleman. I was indicating that in my view it was not a point of order but was relevant to the debate which we were then having on the Question which has now been passed.
  Mr. Sainsbury: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the debate had not then started.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has not quite followed what has happened. The Minister moved that the amendments should be considered. We were debating whether we should consider them when I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman that the matter could be dealt with in debate at that time, but not on a point of order. We are now dealing with Lords Amendment No. 1.
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out "considers" and insert "consider".
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  I should like to say for the benefit of hon. Members that there is available a list of the groupings of the Lords amendments. There are 20 groupings.
  Lords Amendment No. 1 is a simple drafting amendment to correct the grammar, which will be welcomed even by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). It seeks to treat the term "housing authority" as a plural noun.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 10, leave out "on the part of" and insert "from".
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This is a drafting amendment to ensure consistency in the wording of the clause.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 28, leave out "or" and insert "such".
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also take Lords Amendments Nos. 4 to 8.
  Mr. Ross: This is a series of drafting amendments all relating to the subject of
  866
  priority need. I agree that it is helpful to deal with this group together.
  Lords Amendment No. 8 is designed to improve the Bill by dividing Clause 1 into two clauses. The first part of the clause will then deal with the definition of "homeless person" and those threatened with homelessness and the second part with the definition of "priority need". They are basically all drafting amendments. They fall into three groups.
  The clause as drafted is concerned with two distinct matters: the distinction between homeless persons and those threatened with homelessness, and the definition of those who are in priority need. It is felt that those matters would be better treated in two separate clauses. It is therefore appropriate that the new clause should contain the definition of "priority need" which is now in Clause 13. The reference in Clause 13 is altered accordingly.
  The second part of the group of amendments is concerned with the consultations that must take place before an order can be passed. Clause 1(7) requires the Secretary of State, before making an order to change the definition of priority need in any way, to consult such organisations as he thinks "appropriate". The amendment substitutes for that a provision that the order is to be made after "appropriate consultations". Amendment 13 is a definition of "appropriate consultations". As Clause 1(7) did not limit the consultations to be made to consultations with associations, the definition now explicity includes consultations with such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
  Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Member has referred to amendments to Clause 13, but such an amendment does not appear in the group of amendments which we are now discussing. Is he referring to a later amendment? Did he mean Clause 13?
  Mr. Ross: I meant Clause 13. We are rejigging the Bill, and it is appropriate that the new clause should also contain the definition of "priority need" at present contained in Clause 13.
  The Secretary of State will thus be obliged to hold consultations. Those consultations are to be with such local authority organisations or other persons as he may consider appropriate. The

  867
  amendments to line 2 in page 28 adjust the wording of the provision relating to emergencies to bring it into line with the wording used in the joint circular. I hope that that is helpful to the House.
  Mr. Michael Morris: I did not find that at all helpful. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has not considered the amendments. I should have thought that Lords Amendment No. 53 should have been taken with these amendments if the matter is to make any sense. If the hon. Member is suggesting that Lords Amendment No. 53 is entirely separate, he mystifies me even more. I hope he will respond, because he is responsible for this confusion concerning what are supposed to be straightforward drafting amendments.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Contrary to the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), I found that the explanation of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) was helpful because it proved abundantly clearly that which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has drawn to our attention—that we are totally unprepared to consider the Bill now. It showed to me and other hon. Members that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, the sponsor of the Bill, did not have a clue to what he was talking about on this group of amendments.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight referred to Clause 13, but, as has been pointed out, the amendments to Clause 13 are Lords Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. None of the amendments that we are now discussing is on Clause 13. These are amendments of considerable importance. Whether there should have been a pre-legislative committee on the Bill is another matter, but those of us who participated in the Committee proceedings are aware that differing views were expressed. However, we were all united in agreeing on the importance of these issues not only to those who might be homeless or threatened with homelessness but to the local authorities who would have the responsibility of exercising a statutory power under the terms of this measure.
  It is fair to say that the amendments arise out of a desire to make the Bill operable for the local authorities which
  868
  will have the statutory duty of operating it. I put it to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that it must be in the interests of the homeless, in the interests of persons who might be affected by the giving of priority to certain categories of homeless people, who are obviously primarily those already on the waiting list, and in the interests of all housing authorities that the Bill, if it gets on to the statute book, should be in a proper state and be thoroughly understood by us and, I hope, by the representatives of the local authority associations.
  If the hon. Gentleman is not able to answer the simplest of questions about the amendments, I do not see how we can be satisfied that the Bill is in that state. He referred to Clause 13. Again I ask, what in these Lords amendments deals with Clause 13? The first of the amendments is in page 2, line 28; the second is also in page 2, line 28; the third is in page 2, line 38.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it the responsibility of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) to select the amendments to be grouped together?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 13.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The grouping is merely an indication of what might be convenient. There is no question of anybody selecting them.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I think that I had got to the fourth amendment in this group. It is also to page 2. Then we come to page 3, line 3. Lords Amendment No. 8, which is of no little effect, divides Clause 1 into two classes. Substantially, Clause 1 of this important Bill—I do not think that there is any division among us about its importance—is being totally redrafted, yet all we get from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight is a reference to Clause 13. The whole thing is absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: Perhaps I can assist. Clause 13(2) originally referred to "priority need". It read:
  "Any reference in this Act to a person having a priority need is a reference to his having a priority need for accommodation within the meaning of any order for the time being in force under section 1(4) above."

  869
  That is now in Lords Amendment No. 7, and that is why Lords Amendment No. 55, which we shall come to later, deletes Clause 13(2). The reason why all of them cannot be taken at this stage is that Amendment No. 53 deals also with another definition in relation to priority need and must come later. What we are doing is taking into Clause 1 a reference to priority need which appears in Clause 13(2). That is why it is referred to in this group of amendments.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 2

  PRELIMINARY DUTIES OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES IN CASES OF SUSPECTED HOMELESSNESS, ETC.
  Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 3, line 20, leave out from "intentionally" to "and" in line 26.
  3.0 a.m.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 15 and 41.
  Mr. Ross: The amendment deletes all references to a homeless person being able
  "with advice and … assistance … to secure that accommodation becomes or does cease to be available for his occupation".
  Thus the much-criticised means test provision is deleted. I think that that will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 3, line 26, leave out from "occupation" to end of line 30, and insert—
  "(2A) If the authority think fit, they may also make inquiries as to whether the person who applied to them has a local connection with the area of another housing authority."
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 13, 18 to 21, 49 and 52.
  Mr. Tony Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it normal for the House to take amendments and new clauses together? Do we not normally take new clauses first and amendments subsequently?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are Lords amendments, and this is a suggestion as to how it is convenient to take them. If there is a more convenient way of doing it, we can do it that way.
  Mr. Ross: The amendments give full effect to the sentiments expressed at earlier stages concerning those who move between areas. I think that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) will welcome some of the amendments as they give effect to some of the points that he was making in Committee. I believe that the form now brought forward protects the interests of those who move for legitimate reasons and find themselves homeless, without opening the door to those who seek to work the system.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Has the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) been in consulation with the local authority associations? Is this vast change in a form that they would like as opposed to the change that was made after Second Reading and which now appears in the Bill?
  Mr. Ross: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, which I am certain will be echoed by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who has had considerable consultations with the Association of District Councils. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that we are dealing with the difficulties of Service personnel. I recall that in Committee the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made a speech on this very point. The amendment meets many calls. I think it is the first time that it has been written into a clause that Service personnel, who may be demobbed in a military town such as Aldershot and who have home connections elsewhere, will be able to look to original home connections in order to be housed if they happen to be homeless. It is a very important addition to the Bill.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps the hon Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross)

  871
  will indicate more precisely how this batch of amendments varies the provisions that existed when the Bill left this House. As he appreciates, they are an extensive group of amendments which introduce a large number of new words into the clause. Those of us who have not had the benefit of departmental briefing, however inadequate, do not know the extent and nature of the changes which have been introduced. Apart from the change that the hon. Gentleman has referred to in Amendment No. 52 dealing with service in the Armed Forces, I ask him to explain what he understands by the use of the phrase that I find in Amendment No. 52, and possibly elsewhere, in New Clause F, subsection (1) (d),
  "Because of any special circumstances."
  Perhaps he will indicate what he understands as being "special circumstances" in the context of the new clause.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: The question of "special circumstances" is meant to relate to work. It relates to someone moving into an area to take a job but whose normal place of residence might be elsewhere in the country. Such a person would have "special circumstances" to claim that he was homeless.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Surely employment is dealt with in New Clause F, subsection (1) (b)—"because he is employed". Presumably, if that is referred to in paragraph (b), the reference in paragraph (d) to "special circumstances" must deal with something else.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: It refers to moving to employment, not being already employed. One can think of other circumstances—for example, family associations. There may be other circumstances, which do not immediately come to mind. The original intention was to refer to someone who was coming to an area to take a job. That should be covered.
  These amendments meet the genuine fears of local authorities. They set out arrangements for settling which of two authorities should be responsible for dealing with a homeless person in priority need who applies for assistance to an authority which is of the opinion that that person has no local connection with the area.
  872
  The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) thinks that he is being very clever. In Committee we had many goes at this problem. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment to deal with what were described as the mobile homeless. We think that this formula adequately meets the situation. It does not bring in a cumbersome appeals procedure. It writes in a procedure whereby the Secretary of State can set out the conditions for local authorities. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for the way in which he has responded to criticisms that were made in Committee. We feared that the Bill as originally drawn would have the consequence of certain magnet authorities becoming responsible for an undue preponderance of the homelessness problem. In Committee we sought to try to deal with the matter in our own way and we then had a second attempt on Report.
  I point out to my lion. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) that we sought to deal with the matter in Clause 4, subsections (5) to (13) inclusive. That was the best attempt that we could make, as I acknowledged at the time, with the assistance of the Department and the parliamentary draftsman. It appeared on closer examination that not all the i's were dotted or all the t's crossed. There were certain loopholes that might have caused problems for both local authorities and homeless persons.
  This group of amendments seeks to delete subsections (5) to (13) and to rewrite them entirely. My hon. Friend will find that those are now set out in New Clause A. That new clause proceeds to set out the revised procedures for dealing with a homeless family that goes to a particular authority and says "We are homeless" but the authority discovers that the family recently came from another part of the country.
  The next amendment—"Meaning of local connection"—defines the circumstances in which the authority that is being asked to rehouse the family can establish whether the family has a closer connection with another authority.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The meaning of "local connection" is important. Will

  873
  my hon. Friend refer me to the amendment which provides a definition?
  Mr. Rossi: My hon. Friend will see in Lords Amendment No. 52 a definition of "local connection". Once that has been established, the authority against which the claim has been made, called the notifying authority, can inform another authority, called the notified authority, that there is probably a local connection. That being done, the rest of the amendment—it is not numbered, but it is the amendment to page 6, line 33—goes on to deal with the relationships between the notifying and notified authorities. It does so in reasonably clear language and provides for arrangements to be made by local authorities between themselves to govern the situation where there might be areas of doubt as to whether a family belongs more to one authority than to another. Where the authorities come to an agreement, generally the Secretary of State, after appropriate consultations, can lay an order setting out what the arrangements shall be. Such an order is subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.
  Perhaps the best possible attempt has now been made to try to deal with the principle that the House enunciated both in Committee and on Report.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member said that his amendments were not numbered. That will create difficulties. He will see on the third page of the amendments that the amendment in question is numbered as Lords Amendment No. 20. Perhaps the staple has been fastened through the number. He will see that the amendment is numbered.
  Mr. Rossi: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; the staple has been fixed through the number.
  Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has given the House a much clearer explanation of the meaning and consequence of these amendments than we were able to obtain from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). We are grateful for my hon. Friend's expertise in these matters. Will he answer the question that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was unable to answer? What does he understand by the phrase "special circumstances" in Lords Amendment No. 52?
  Mr. Stephen Ross: Perhaps I may intervene here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to explain that "special circumstances" is written in to allow local authorities the discretion of accepting people if they wish to do so.
  Mr. Rossi: I am glad that I have been able to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) in some part. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for dealing with the points raised on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) concerning the problem of Service men. There are areas where men leave Service camps and the question arises of which authority has responsibilty for rehousing. That has now been adequately dealt with.
  I wish to raise with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight a question about Lords Amendment No. 20, where subsection (1)(a)(i) reads:
  "nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him."
  The same phrase occurs in Lords Amendment No. 50. The problem is this. When we dealt with a similar concept in Clause 1, the Bill as originally drafted used that wording in dealing with the categories of people who had to be rehoused as homeless persons. In Clause 1, a "homeless person" is said to include a person with no accommodation and any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him. We decided to alter the wording in Clause 1 and to use a different phrase. We now refer to
  "… a member of his family or in circumstances in which the housing authority considers it reasonable for that person to reside with him".
  It occurs to me that we might be in some difficulty if we use two different phrases to describe the same category of person.
  3.15 a.m.
  Clearly, the intention of Lords Amendment No. 20 is to enable the authority to rehouse the applicant together with the category of person who has to be housed with the applicant within the definition of Clause 1, but we are using different wording.
  When the courts are required to construe Acts of Parliament, they assume that Parliament's intention was to convey a different meaning if different words

  875
  are used in two parts of an Act. Confusion could be caused at a later date if this matter had to be litigated. We have reintroduced—perhaps inadvertently through Lords amendments—words that we decided to change at an earlier stage. It is probably too late to amend the Lords amendments, but a difficulty could arise and it is not a happy situation.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. Member on a legal matter. The new amendment reads:
  "A housing authority are not subject to a duty under section 4(4A) above—
  (a) if they are of the opinion".
  Does not that cover the point?
  Mr. Rossi: I am not sure that it does It certainly leaves the local authority a wider discretion than it has in Clause 1 about member of a family, because that clause states:
  "in which the housing authority considers it reasonable for that person to reside with him".
  That involves a subjective judgment. I am not sure that the same argument applies to Lords Amendment No. 50, which states:
  "For the purposes of this Act accommodation is only available for a person's occupation if it is available for occupation both by him and by any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him."
  There is no question there of the opinion of the authority being called in, and the subjective test does not exist. Therefore, if my remarks were not entirely appropriate to Lords Amendment No. 20, they are fully appropriate to Lords Amendment No. 50.
  I must put down a marker to warn that we have perhaps run into a little difficulty with the wording, probably because of the rush with which these matters have been brought upon us.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 3

  DUTIES TO NOTIFY DECISIONS AND REASONS
  Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 3, line 38, leave out Clause 3.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This amendment paves the way for the new clause after Clause 5 dealing with duties of notification. We shall be discussing the substantive points at that stage as they turn on the acceptance of aments to Clauses 4 and 5. Therefore, I ask the House to accept the amendment without further discussion.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

  DUTIES OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES TO HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS
  Lords Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 5, line 5, leave out from "that" to "is" in line 7 and insert "he".
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This is a drafting amendment which is just to simplify the wording.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to Lords Amendment No. 17, with which we are to take Lords Amendment No. 51 with the three manuscript amendments thereto.
  Mr. Sainsbury: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you indicate where we can obtain a copy of the manuscript amendments?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If they are not available, I am prepared to suspend the sitting for a few minutes until hon. Members can obtain them. I took it that hon. Members had copies of the manuscript amendments.
  Mr. Rossi: I have a copy of the manuscript amendments which by courtesy has been handed to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this document was handed to me in the Chamber only a few moments ago. It could well be that other hon. Members are disadvantaged by not having been supplied with copies by those who have put down the manuscript amendments.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I obtained copies of the manuscript amendments for myself from the Vote Office before these proceedings began.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, went to the Vote Office at the beginning of these proceedings and I was certainly not handed any manuscript amendment. May we know whether any other manuscript amendments are to be cast upon us during these proceedings?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is only right that hon. Members should have all the documents that are necessary to dispose of the business. I assure the hon. Members who have raised these points of order that there are only these three manuscript amendments, which are to be taken with Lords Amendments Nos. 17 and 51. If they are satisfied, I can give them copies now and we can proceed. If they feel otherwise, I am prepared to suspend the sitting for 10 minutes until they get copies.
  Mr. Rossi: I must ask that we follow your last suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is only right that hon. Members should study these amendments. Censure has been passed on my hon. Friends for not having obtained copies of these amendments from the Vote Office. One could well ask when they were put in the Vote Office. They were certainly not there when the proceedings concerning this Bill began, because they were thought up and produced after we had started our discussions. Therefore, unless hon. Members are to be expected to walk in and out of the Chamber every 10 minutes to see whether new manuscript amendments have been tabled, it is an impossible situation. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that it would be in the interests of the House if the sitting were suspended for a short time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If we can settle this matter by suspending the sitting, that will facilitate the business.
  I suspend the sitting for 10 minutes.
  Sitting suspended at 3.23 a.m.
  3.33 a.m.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
  Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 5, line 11, leave out "appropriate" and insert
  "will give him a reasonable opportunity of himself securing accommodation for his occupation."
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 51 and the amendments thereto.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: I beg to move the manuscript amendments to Lords Amendment No. 51—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: When we get to Lords Amendment No. 51, the hon. Gentleman may move the manuscript amendments formally, if he wishes to press them.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: In that case, perhaps I may speak to the manuscript amendments.
  Lords Amendment No. 51 is one which the House will regret passing as it stands. The effect is to remove the duty upon the local authority to provide accommodation for a family who have become homeless intentionally, and "intentionally" is defined to mean someone who has deliberately done or failed to do something in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation.
  I do not know of any homeless family of whom it would not be possible to say, going back in history, that they had failed to do something which they should have done. I have people coming to my surgery almost every week who have foolishly withheld their rent because of their landlord's failure to carry out repairs. That is an intentional act. I have people who have failed to apply for social security in order to pay their rent. That is an intentional act. Then there is the man occupying tied accommodation who quarrels with his employer and consequently loses his employment and his accommodation. That would have been an intentional act.
  My amendments would add at the end of subsections (1) and (2) of New Clause

  879
  E, to be inserted by Lords Amendment No. 51, the words:
  "and does or fails to do so with the primary intention of securing accommodation under the provisions of this Act."
  That is the evil to which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has been directing his argument—the person who deliberately becomes homeless in order to be provided with accommodation under the measure. If we say that somebody is intentionally homeless because at some time in the period before becoming homeless he did or failed to do something intentionally, we are cutting out just about everybody whom the Bill is intended to assist. I urge the House to accept the manuscript amendment. Without it we shall destroy the purpose of the Bill. Its value will be very small.
  My third amendment is to leave out the words "in good faith" inserted by the other place in subsection (3) of New Clause E. I appreciate that the words were put in at the request of the charities, with most of which I am in close association and agreement, but their effect is to put an additional burden on the defence when it is a question of establishing whether someone has done the act deliberately. Previously, all that a person had to prove to establish that he had not done something deliberately was that he was unaware of any relevant fact. The insertion of the words "in good faith" does not advance the object for which I believe they were inserted, and it would be preferable to remove them.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: The House is having to debate the amendments within four hours of receiving them from the Vote Office. Those that we are considering now go to the heart of the principle of the Bill. They arise from a major debate in this Chamber only a fortnight ago in a Report stage that took up a full Friday sitting. It would be wrong for the House to pass by the formulation that finally expresses what has been the nub of the debate on the Bill since Second Reading—the concept of self-inflicted homelessness—without some debate on it.
  I hope that the House will sympathetically consider the manuscript amendments and will note that, although they were drafted at 2 a.m., they bear the signa-
  880
  tures of half the Government Back Benchers who served on the Committee and would have received more than half if the others could have been found in the precincts after that hour. That is an indication of the unease about the present formulation.
  It has been alleged that the definition of "intention" meets the objections raised by the seven charities that have monitored the Bill from the start. That may well be so, but one of our difficulties in receiving 54 Lords amendments at five minutes after midnight is that we have been unable to consult the charities or anybody else. The Lords amendments do not meet the objections that I spelt out on Report; nor do they entirely succeed in meeting the terms of the letter sent by my hon. Friend the Minister to those of us who served on that Committee that the amendments would
  "make clear that the intentional homeless are to be construed as those who act with deliberation to bring homelessness about, not those who find themselves in the grip of circumstances."
  At report stage I felt that a number of people found themselves in the grip of a number of different circumstances which could be considered intentional homelessness.
  For instance, what does a local authority do about someone who appears to be homeless as a result of rent arrears? How does the authority determine whether that was intentional, or the result of loss of income, or difficulty in meeting the rent. A number of hon. Members have difficulty in accepting that arrears arise other than from an intention, but there is the case of people having to default because of change of circumstances. How then do local authorities sort out who is homeless as a result of intentional fault and who is not?
  There are a number of other points which I put on Report when I spoke for 28 minutes and incurred odium and I suspect that I would incur even greater odium if I spoke for 28 minutes at this time. However, on a strict legal interpretation of the cases I instanced on Report those people could legitimately be refused help by a local authority. All we are seeking to do in the manuscript amendment is to express a genuine fear about not getting the spirit of the clause across to local authorities.

  881
  It will not be easy for any applicant to abuse his rights, because of the many amendments to the Bill. To succeed in getting accommodation by this Bill, he will have to establish that he is homeless within the meaning of the Bill, that he is within the area of the authority to whom he applies, that he does not have a home with relatives in another locality, and that he is within a priority group as defined. Having done all that, as a result of this amendment he will have to show that he is not intentionally homeless.
  It would be a minor concession to accept this redefining of intentionality, or of intentionality to misuse and abuse this legislation and not simply to become homeless.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: This argument has been rehearsed many times. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) made a good speech on Report; so did Lord Gifford, to whom I listened on the Friday before last and last Friday. This is a matter with which we tried to deal and this new clause goes some way towards meeting the point, but it is impossible to get both sides to agree to the wording.
  The Association of District Councils is very much opposed to it. Discussions have taken place on slightly different wording, but local authorities feel that it would be putting an unnecessary burden—a sort of double proof, as lawyers describe it—on them. None of us wants to disqualify other than those who set out to buck the system so it will rest on the authority to decide that a person is intentionally homeless. The authorities are obliged to give reasons in writing, and that is extremely important.
  The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) referred to the addition to the Bill earlier today in the Lords of the expression "good faith". I went to great trouble to get into the Bill words that would meet the fears of the voluntary bodies that one or two local authorities would try to find a way out of the Bill. It was at their request that these words were added and we went to great trouble to see that a manuscript amendment was put down this morning in the Lords and passed this afternoon.
  If the voluntary bodies have difficulties with definition, it is beyond me. but they
  882
  sought to fill a gap in the Bill last night and this morning and I am disappointed that they are not satisfied when the amendments seemed to meet the point last night.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: The proposal to delete the words was not put forward as a result of consultation with the voluntary bodies. It represents entirely my view and that of those with whom I have discussed the matter. The words detract from rather than add to the Bill.
  3.45 a.m.
  Mr. Ross: I appreciate the point, but I cannot ask the House to accept the manuscript amendments. That would be to break faith with the people with whom I have had discussions. The manuscript amendments would put the onus back on the local authorities.
  It has been rightly said that we have tried to achieve a consensus on the Bill. It is not a bad Bill for that. That we have had discussions and have come up with an amended Bill which seems to go a long way to meeting the fears of local authorities and the voluntary bodies is an achievement, in spite of all the rude remarks made in the House.
  I ask the House to agree to Lords Amendments No. 17 and 51 as drafted and request the withdrawal of the manuscript amendments.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: I support what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has said about the Lords amendments and the manuscript amendments.
  This matter has preoccupied and exercised the minds of hon. Members in Committee and on Report. We were concerned to ensure that genuinely homeless people would be provided for and found homes by local authorities, but, at the same time, we wished to ensure that the door was not opened to people to abuse the system, and deliberately to create homelessness for themselves in order to be rehoused by local authorities before people who had been patiently waiting for many years on council housing waiting lists. We wanted to stop queue-jumping.
  We have tried a whole range of words in order to achieve our aim. In Committee we spoke of people who were homeless through circumstances which they could have foreseen. Objections were

  883
  raised to that form of wording on the basis that if somebody defaulted on his mortgage because he had not the money they were circumstances which he could have foreseen and he would have been penalised as a result of using that form of wording. Objections were raised to the form of wording which referred to people who had been rendered homeless through no fault of their own.
  Now we have the wording proposed by the other place, which is the best wording that parliamentary counsel have been able to devise to try to meet the clear Mention of hon. Members in Committee and on Report. It is always possible for people to nitpick over wording and to be clever about it. The difficulty is to achieve in legal terms something which reflects as precisely and in as watertight a way as possible the intention of Parliament. Given all the limitations on language, this is the best wording that we have been able to devise. We would seek to alter this wording at our peril.
  Let us look at the wording which has been criticised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). It is:
  "becomes threatened with homelessness intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything, in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy."
  Let us consider some circumstances. Let us take the case of someone who goes into an off-season holiday let, to which the protection of the Rent Acts does not apply. At the end of the letting he goes to the local authority and tells them that he is homeless because his landlord—with the absolute right—has turned him out. Therefore, that person has deliberately done something to render himself homeless.
  If that sounds rather far-fetched, perhaps the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will permit me to tell the House of an incident involving him. A short while after he had introduced this Bill and had received a certain amount of publicity as a result, a man and his wife turned up at the hon. Member's surgery and asked him to rehouse them under his Bill because they were homeless. He
  884
  asked them where they came from and they said "Portsmouth". The hon. Member then asked them what accommodation they had there. They told him they were council tenants who had left voluntarily because they thought that the Isle of Wight was a better place in which to live. They believed that the hon. Member's Bill imposed a duty on the council to rehouse them in the Isle of Wight.
  These poor, misguided people had created a desperate situation for themselves because they believed that this Bill would help them. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight saw immediately that he would have to introduce a form of wording into the Bill in order to remove any possible suggestion that people behaving foolishly in this way would have the right. Therefore, we have the words "intentionally" and "deliberately".
  The other words are "or fails to do". These would cover a situation in which someone deliberately withheld his rent so that the landlord obtained a possession order to which a defence was not entered in the county court, resulting in that person being made homeless.
  If we look at the words that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden is trying to introduce to mitigate some of the harshness, we see that all they would succeed in doing is rendering this clause unworkable. The wording requires a local authority to look into an intention of an intention. It does not require a great deal of thought or speculation to realise what a task this would impose on ordinary council officers in having to examine the motivation of people to this extent. If the hon. Member pressed his amendment and required local authorities to do that, the Bill simply would not work.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: The intention in my amendment is the intention referred to in the word "intentional" in the clause. Will the hon. Member tell us what would happen in the examples that I gave—of a person withholding rent, not because he deliberately wants to be made homeless, but because he wants to force the landlord to make repairs; the person who did not pay because he did not go to the Social Security office when he should have done; or the person who

  885
  went into holiday accommodation hoping to find something else, but failed to do so? Would all these people be excluded under the amendment as it stands?
  Mr. Rossi: I should have thought not. They would then be acting in good faith, which was the intention of the wording introduced by the charities into subsection (3). That was part of the representations made by the charities to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I had doubts about the wisdom of inserting those words, but they insisted on them.
  The code of guidance to be produced by the Government for local authorities will spell out to local authorities the way in which the Government and Parliament expect local authorities to act when exercising their discretion under the Bill. That is the fail-safe system. It is impossible to spell out in taut, legal language wording to cover every possible permutation and combination of human activity. All we can do is to use words that cover as best we can the generality of cases. But within that, and especially where discretion is being allowed, as it is being allowed here, the local authority could determine whether it houses or re-houses in certain circumstances, and guidance and help can be given to those authorities by the Secretary of State in more protracted and extended language in the code of guidance. That code is something that will have a statutory backing.
  The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden should be content to leave it at that instead of seeking to introduce wording into the clause to make the task of local authorities impossible in requiring them to exercise judgments over the mentality of a person, which they are not fit or competent to do. I hope on that basis he will think twice and withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I was grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) for emphasising that the House is in considerable difficulty in dealing with this Bill in the way it is presented to us.
  We have not been able to consult the charities closely concerned with this Bill, but with the benefit of the suspension granted to us one has been able to con-
  886
  sider this important new clause and the manuscript amendment to it more carefully than one has been able to consider some of the other provisions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is not a new clause but a Lords amendment.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The Lords amendment seeks to add a new clause, New Clause E. It relates to page 11, line 7, and seeks to insert New Clause E—or that is what it says on my copy.
  I conclude that the key word is "deliberately". It is right that we should be concerned not to exclude from the Bill's provisions cases of the type mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham)—in other words, those who have not paid rent because they did not think they were entitled to a rent allowance or rebate and did nothing about it. But in those circnumstances they have not done something deliberately. The words are
  "deliberately does or fails to do".
  If it is not something they know about, they cannot deliberately do it or fail to do it. It appears that only two Members on the Government side of the House signed one manuscript amendment and the other manuscript amendment has only one such signature. The manuscript amendment complicates the problem of the housing authorities in making a judgment on the meaning of the word. It would not reinforce the protection given to those cases that have been referred to.
  I therefore support the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) on this occasion in asking the House to approve the Lords amendment and to reject the manuscript amendment to the Lords amendments.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 5

  DUTY OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY PROTECTION FOR MOVABLE PROPERTY
  Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 6, line 34, after "authority" insert
  "have become subject to a duty towards a person under any provision of this Act to which

  887
  this subsection applies (whether or not they are still subject to any such duty) and".
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 33 and No. 40.
  4.0 a.m.
  Mr. Ross: An undertaking was given at an earlier stage that the duty to protect the property of homeless people would be looked at again in the light of points made during debate, and these amendments are the result of that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 23 to 33 agreed to.

New Clause 6

  DUTIES OF NOTIFICATION
  Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 7, line 8, at end insert new Clause C—
  "C.—(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 homlesssness.
  (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

  (a)of their decision on the question whether he became homeless or thereatened with homelessness intentionally, and

  (b)whether they have notified or propose to notify any other housing authority that his application has been made.

  (4) If they notify him—

  (a) that they are not satisfied—

  (i)that he is homeless or threatened with homelessness, or

  (ii)that he has a priority need, or

  (b) that they are satisfied that he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, or

  (c) that they have notified or propose to to notify another housing authority that his application has been made, they shall at the same time notify him of their reasons.

  (5) When it has been determined whether subsection (3) or (4) of section [Responsibility as between housing authorities] above applies to a person to whom a notification under that section relates, it shall he the duty of the notifying authortity to notify him—

  (a)whether they or the notified authority are the authority whose duty it is under that section to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation and

  (b)of the reasons why the authority subject to that duty are subject to it.

  (6) If a housing authority cease in respect of the property of any person to be subject to the duty imposed by subsection (1) of section 5 above or, subject to subsection (6A) below, to have the power conferred by subsection (1B) of that section, it shall be their duty to notify him—

  (a) that they have ceased to be subject to the duty or, as the case may he, to have the power, and

  (b) of the reason why they are of the opinion mentioned in sections 5 (3) (c) above.

  (6A) An authority who cease to have the power conferred by section 5(10) above in respect of the property of any person need not notify him that they have ceased to have the power unless they have exercised it.
  (7) Subject to subsections (9) and (10) below, any notification of reasons required to he given to a person under this section shall he treated as having been given to him only if the requirement specified in subsection (8) below is satisfied.
  (8) The requirement mentioned in subsection (7) above is that any such notification and reasons shall for a reasonable period be made available by the housing authority at their office for collection by or on behalf of the person to whom they are required to be given.
  (9) A notification required under subsection (6) above may he given to the person to whom it is required to be given only—

  (a)by delivering it to him, or

  (b)by leaving it at his proper address, or

  (c)by sending it by post to him at that address.

  (10) For the purposes of this section and section 26 of the Interpretation Act 1889 (service of documents by post) in its application to this section, the proper address of any person to whom such a notification is to he given shall he his last known address."
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords Amendment No. 43.
  Mr. Ross: I should draw the attention of the House to a misprint in the Order Paper. Lords Amendment No. 43 says

  889
  "leave out 'three'". It should say "two". I hope that that will be noted.
  The new clause reflects the changes made in the duties of local authorities to notify those who have sought their help. The authorities must notify decisions on priority of need, mobility, intentionality, and protection and storage of furniture. They must give reasons in appropriate cases and notifications about the storage of furniture, or they must give notice or arrange for the notification to be collected at their offices. No specific notice is made about the notification being in writing since it is clear from the context that it must be in the form of a document that can be collected or posted.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

  CO-OPERATION BETWEEN AUTHORITIES
  Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 7, line 18, leave out "or 4" and insert "4 or".
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords Amendments Nos. 36 and 38.
  Mr. Ross: This is essentially a drafting amendment which makes clear that a body that is required to co-operate with a housing authority is not required to exercise any of the latter's functions except those to which the request relates. The other amendments are all consequential.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 agreed to.

Clause 7

  POWER TO CHANGE
  Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 7, line 35, leave out "(3) or 4" and insert
  "(4) 4 or (Responsibility as between housing authorities)".
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  890
  This amendment is consequential on other amendments which result in the duties of a housing authority to secure provision of accommodation being included in Clauses 2, 3 and 4.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments No. 40 and 41 agreed to.

Clause 8

  OFFENCES
  Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 8, line 21, leave out "fails to give information reasonably required by the authority" and insert
  "knowingly withholds information which the authority have reasonably required him to give".
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This is purely a self-explanatory drafting amendment.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman says that the amendment is self-explantory. Perhaps it is, because it is, unfortunately, five minutes past four in the morning, but it is not as self-explanatory to me as it should be. It seems to me that it significantly weakens the effect of the clause, which introduces I think necessary but, I hope, to be seldom used penalties for misleading the housing authority, particularly in the matter of not giving it information. The words
  "failing to give information reasonably required"
  are surely clearer.
  Perhaps I may quote an example. If the couple to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) referred had a cottage somewhere and failed to give information about it to the housing authority in the Isle of Wight, there would be no question that they had failed
  "to give information reasonably required"
  about the accommodation available to them. But inserting the words "knowingly withholds information" seems to make the burden of proof a great deal more difficult for the housing authority, particularly in the word "knowingly". Could the hon. Gentleman explain a little more clearly why the amendment improves rather than weakens this clause?
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I gather that this follows a precedent from the Road Traffic Act 1972, which concerns declaration of information given to insurance companies. It does not affect the objectives of the clause but if anything makes it clearer. A failure to give information is not an offence unless that information was knowingly withheld. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I think that the Lords amendment does make the clause clearer, but whether the parallel with the Road Traffic Act is a good one for this purpose I am highly doubtful on the basis of what has been said. Surely the point is that in this case a person is having to apply, volunteer information

  Division No. 230]

  AYES

  [4.08 a.m.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Ashton, Joe

  Golding, John

  Parry, Robert

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Graham, Ted

  Pendry, Tom

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Penhaligon, David

  Bates, Alf

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Hardy, Peter

  Roper, John

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Harper, Joseph

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Skinner, Dennis

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Horam, John

  Small, William

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Huckfield, Les

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hunter, Adam

  Snape, Peter

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  John, Brynmor

  Stallard, A. W.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Stoddart, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Judd, Frank

  Stott, Roger

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Strang, Gavin

  Cowans, Harry

  Kerr, Russell

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  McElhone, Frank

  Tinn, James

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Urwin, T. W.

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Davidson, Arthur

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Deakins, Eric

  Madden, Max

  Ward, Michael

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Mahon, Simon

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Dempsey, James

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Dormand, J. D.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Woodall, Alec

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Millan. Rt Hon Bruce

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Eadie, Alex

  Molloy, William

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Moyle, Roland

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Noble, Mike

  Mr. Richard Wainwright and

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Mr. A. J. Beith.

  Freeson, Reginald

  NOES

  Durant, Tony

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury and

  Mr. Michael Morris.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 43 agreed to.
  and make a claim. I think that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who objected to the weakening of the provision, was right to do so. Some false claims will not be caught by the amended language but they would have been caught by the previous language.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I can only add that there were people in this House who felt that the clause was perhaps a bit too tough as originally drafted. I am told that the amended language will be perfectly adequate.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 1.

Clause 9

  GUIDANCE TO AUTHORITIES BY SECRETARY OF STATE
  Lords amendment: No. 44, in page 9, line 6, leave out "authorities or".
  4.15 a.m.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  I understand that the Government never intended to issue guidance to individual local authorities. It may be that at some time or other they would want to issue guidance to certain groups of authorities, such as the London boroughs, or non-metropolitan districts, or conceivably to authorities in a certain area in the event of an emergency, such as a flood. I am satisfied that the effect of Clause 9, if amended as proposed, will cover all those situations.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10

  FINANCIAL AND OTHER ASSISTANCE TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS CONCERNED WITH HOMELESSNESS
  Lords amendment:s No. 45, in page 9, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 46 and 47.
  Mr. Rossi: These amendments are the result of views expressed in the House that we should do all that we reasonably can to ensure that funds granted or loaned to voluntary organisations under the clause are properly applied. I wish to express some disappointment on this amendment because it does not go as far as the House indicated it would like the sponsor of the Bill to go. The House will recall that when we were discussing on Report the question of payments of money to voluntary organisations, either by way of grant or loan, the experience of the Greater London Council concerning the Longfellow Road incident was recalled. In that incident moneys were granted to
  894
  voluntary organisations, insufficient care was taken in the granting of that money, and certainly no scrutiny was made as to how the money was applied. The result was that the public lost considerable amounts of money and no one knows the destination of that money.
  In Committee and on Report proposals were put forward to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and the Government. The first was that voluntary organisations should be required to keep strict books of account of all moneys either loaned or granted to them by public bodies. Those amendments found their way into the Bill and there is provision for the keeping of proper books of account by local authorities.
  The second proposal was that we should go further and not only require voluntary bodies to keep proper books of account but require public bodies granting or loaning that money to ensure that they kept a scrutiny on the voluntary organisations to ensure that the money granted or loaned was used for the purposes for which they received it. I understood that that would happen.
  The House may recall that on Report I moved an amendment which required public bodies to have due regard to the proper application of the moneys that were received or paid by them. That wording was criticised, I think by the hon. Member for Islington North and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), because he felt it was inappropriate language to use. The language was borrowed from legal documents in connection with trustees and the application of moneys in trust. The parliamentary draftsmen were therefore asked to devise another form of wording which would give effect to the concept.
  Lords Amendment No. 47 is the result of that attempt and I feel that it does not meet the principle we sought to enunciate in the House. Lords Amendment No. 47 requires only that as a condition of receiving money the voluntary organisations shall give an undertaking to the authorities lending or granting the money about the purpose to which the money would be directed. It also gives the authorities power to require voluntary organisations to certify information regarding the application of the moneys in the form required by the authorities.

  895
  The trouble is that there is nothing in the amendment requiring the authorities themselves properly to scrutinise the undertakings to ensure that day are obliged to examine public books of account. It may be argued that it is a question of common practice for local authorities and certainly for any borough treasurer worth his salt, where an authority lends money to an outside body, to keep a close eye on the money to make sure that it can be repaid to his authority on the due date.
  A totally different situation arises when we are considering grants of money. There is not quite the same incentive on the part of local authority officers to see how money granted is applied. That was precisely the Longfellow Road situation, and a public scandal arose from it.
  I understood that it was the wish of the House to introduce wording that would require local authorities to take the trouble to inquire whether the money they gave was used for the purpose for which it was given. The amendment does not do that. It does not go far enough. We are disappointed that in this respect the sponsor of the Bill has not carried out to the full the arrangement that he made with us.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). The possible abuse of public money has caused concern in London. I am particularly concerned that the situation might rebound on the whole of the housing association movement, which should not be damaged by the behaviour of some bodies which were associated with the movement but were not within it.
  The amendment omits the vital requirement in subsection (3) that the local authorities should ensure that the voluntary organisations keep
  "proper books of account and have them inspected and audited."
  It is strange that there were five lines in Clause 10(3) when it left us. Now we have 55 lines and yet we manage to leave out the vital words.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman read subsection (4D) of Lords amendment No. 47? It states:
  896
  "The conditions subject to which assistance is given under subsection (1), (2) or (4) above shall in all cases include, in addition to any conditions determined or agreed under the subsection in question, conditions requiring the voluntary organisation receiving the assistance—

  (a)to keep proper books of account and have them audited in such manner as may be specified, and

  (b)to keep records indicating how they have used the money, furniture or other goods or premises made available to them, and

  (c)to submit the books of account and records for inspection—

  (i)By the Secretary of State if assistance was given to them under subsection (1) above, and

  (ii)by the housing authority or the Greater London Council, as the case may be, if assistance was given to them under subsection (2) or (4) above."

  Those words are stronger than those in the subsection that is to be removed.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I agree that the amendment spells out in full bureaucratic language what is meant by the brief expression "keep proper books". But the original Bill explained that succinctly. We now say the same thing in more words and leave out the requirement that conditions are to be imposed upon the voluntary organisations.
  It is not a sufficiently serious matter upon which to seek to divide the House at this stage.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 agreed to.

Clause 11

  TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY AND STAFF
  Lords amendment: No. 48, in page 10, line 5, leave out "(whether real or personal)".
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This is a drafting change. It is not a matter of particular substance. The term "real and personal" would not be appropriate in Scotland. It is better that it be omitted.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 agreed to.

New Clause E

  PERSONS INTENTIONALLY HOMELESS OR THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS
  Lords amendment: No. 51, in page 11, line 7, at end insert new Clause E—
  "—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, for the purposes of this Act a person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy.
  (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, for the purposes of this Act a person becomes threatened with homelessness intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything the likely result of which is that he will be forced to leave accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy.
  (3) An act or omission in good faith on the part of a person who was unaware of any relevant fact is not to be treated as deliberate for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) above.
  (4) Regard may be had, in determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above whether it would have been reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation, to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in the area of the housing authority to whom he applied for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation."
  Read a Second time.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, in subsection (1) at end insert—
  'and does or fails to do so with the primary intention of securing accommodation under the provisions of this Act.'—[Mr. Douglas-Mann.]
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, in subsection (2), at end insert—
  "and does or fails to do so with the primary intention of securing accommodation under the provisions of this Act".—[Mr. Douglas-Mann].
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, in subsection (3), leave out "in good faith".—[Mr. Douglas-Mann.]
  Amendment negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 52 agreed to.

Clause 13

  INTERPETATION
  Lords amendment: No. 53, in page 11, line 14, at end insert—
  "appropriate consultations" means consultations—

  (a)with such associations representing relevant authorities, and

  (b)with such other persons,

  as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
  "available", in relation to accommodation shall be construed in accordance with section [Meaning of "accommodation available for occupation".] above".
  4.30 a.m.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
  Mr. Ross: These amendments deal with the interpretation and indexing of a number of expressions discussed on earlier amendments.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 agreed to.

Clause 14

  REPEALS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT
  Lords amendment: No. 56 in page 12, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 57.
  Mr. Ross: These are purely drafting amendments. They move provisions for repeals to the end of the clause in order to place them after the consequential

  899
  amendments in subsections (3) and (4) and at the end of the clause, where logically they belong. They make not substantive change.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 57 agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Plaistow Maternity Hospital
  4.32 a.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg leave to present a petition, signed by 8,863 residents of the London borough of Newham.
  The petition reads as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled;
  The Humble Petition of the undersigned ratepayers and residents of the London Borough of Newham Sheweth:
  That the statement of the Secretary of State for Social Services that he will permit the closure of the Plaistow Maternity Hospital has given grave offence to the citizens and burgesses of the London Borough of Newham;
  That notwithstanding the requests of a deputation of representatives of the Borough Council, the Community Health Council, the Voluntary Agencies Council and Members of Parliament of the Borough of Newham, the Secretary of State did not engage in local consultation, or cause a clinical assessment to be made, or require an early commencement of building of replacement facilities on the site of the new Woodside Hospital;
  That the savings on revenue costs stated by the said Secretary from the said closure and other closures, would in a period of less than five years pay for costs of new facilities;
  That the said Secretary of State has made no statement concerning the likely additional population of 20,000 persons resulting from the development of adjacent docklands;
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that this Honourable House will require that the said Secretary of State for Social Services shall suspend, change, or otherwise vary his permission for the closure of the Plaistow Maternity Hospital, or any other similar facilities serving the Borough of Newham, unless and until new alternative
  900
  facilities are completed at the Woodside Hospital site.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Disabled Persons (Mobility)
  4.34 a.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I beg leave to present a petition, signed by 1,127 people from Market Harborough in my constituency, in relation to the National Mobility Campaign. These signatures were obtained recently, and the main concern of those who signed this document was that they felt that disabled people should have the choice of either a mobility allowance or a special or adapted car.
  The petition reads as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled. Whereby the statement of the Secretary of State for the Social Services on 23rd July 1976 on mobility policy for the disabled causes your humble petitioners great concern in that it removes the assurance of continued independent mobility from those severely disabled persons now driving invalid tricycles, and condemns many new applicants for mobility assistance to be housebound as a result of the inadequate levels of the mobility allowance. Your humble petitioners pray that your honourable House call upon the Secretary of State for the Social Services to promote policies and propose such necessary legislation as will:

  (a)Immediately guarantee the rights of comtinued independent mobility to current invalid tricycle drivers when the supply of tricycles is exhausted, in order to allay their great anxiety for the future.

  (b)Restore immediately the option of a suitably adapted car or an invalid tricycle to new applicants for mobility assistance, under the powers granted to the Secretary of State for the Social Services by Section 33 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.

  (c)Actively promote steps to design and produce specialised vehicles which will enable an increasing number of severely disabled people to enjoy independent mobility.

  (d)Yourself enact the legislation.

  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

STONEHENGE (POP FESTIVAL)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Coleman.]
4.36 a.m.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: This is the third consecutive all-night sitting this week and I would not choose to keep the House sitting at this hour.
The Minister will remember my speaking in the House about Stonehenge a few months ago. We are certainly proud of the monument, but there are times when it proves something of a mixed blessing. I mentioned then that Stonehenge used to belong to the family of Sir Philip Antrobus, who lives in Amesbury, and later it was presented to the nation. Last year the Minister collected from visitors no less a sum than £154,955. Indeed, the Minister has every cause to be grateful for the past munificence of local people and it is because of their help that he is today a highly successful stately home owner. The number of visitors leaves Blenheim, Chatsworth and Longleat standing.
I spoke in December about the immense significance attached to the fact that the main axis of the monument is aligned to the mid-summer sunrise. I mentioned that the monument is highly sophisticated inter-locking series of astronomical observing instruments of astounding ingenuity.
Indeed, the French share our fascination of alignments. I mentioned in December that the Arc de Triomphe was set up to commemorate the victory of Napoleon's troops and that Paris is aligned so that the sun, when viewed from the Champs Elysées on Napoleon's birthday on 15th August sets in the center of the arch.
Certainly as the years go by the fascination of the summer solstice at Stonehenge continues to grow and grow. This summer yet again a free pop festival was expected at Stonehenge from 18th June to 26th June. It had been widely advertised.
The Department owns some 30 acres of land on which the monument stands. These 30 acres are ringed by a larger area belonging to the National Trust and let to tenant farmers, among them my
902
constituent Mr. Jack Wort, who is an excellent farmer and a first-class citizen.
On 14th June, a week before the solstice, Lady Birk wrote to me. I quote only two sentences:
"The Department will do what it can in conjunction with the police to prevent the invasion and abuse of land under its control. We realise, of course, that action to deter trespass on our land may deflect the festival on to other land nearby."
In the event, that is precisely what happened.
The free festival was deflected on to other land nearby. Mr. Jack Wort had 20 cows in his field. A large notice had been affixed to the gate bearing the words "Private land". The gate was padlocked. His farm manager reported "All quiet" at 9.45 p.m. An hour later hippies had descended like an army of locusts. Thwarted in their am to reach the monument, unable to penetrate the Minister's defences, denied the chance to pitch their camp within the stone circle, they turned off the road in sight of but a few hundred yards short of the monument, forced Mr. Wort's padlocked gate, and moved in. By the time they left, hundreds of yards of fencing had been destroyed and damage done to the tune of some £2,000.
As Lary Birk had written,
"We realise, of course, that action to deter trespass on our land may deflect the festival on to other land nearby."
It certainly did.
It cannot be right—and this is the nub of my submission—that a Department of State should knowingly and publicly put at risk the property of a private citizen and, when damage has been sustained, wash its hands of the responsibility. The action by the Minister, however honourable—and he is right to give top prioity to the protection of the monument—was directly responsible for what happened.
I cannot anticipate what the Minister will say at the end of this debate. If he finds the present situation acceptable, it will reflect little credit on his Department, and it will not be the end of the story. With £154,955 tucked under his belt, the Minister will hardly endear himself to my constituents if he cannot find 1 per cent. of that sum to compensate Mr. Jack Wort for damage directly caused by his own Department's action. I hope that the Minister does not intend to show us

903
that he is prepared to fight for his monument to the last round and to the last Wiltshire farmer.
Stonehenge stands up starkly in the big open landscape. It is visible from miles away. No one knows what purpose it served. No one knows who built it. No one knows from where the stones came. It is this mystery and magic surrounding the monument which makes it so powerful a magnet.
I shall be deeply shocked if the Minister suggests that his duty is to safeguard his own plot at whatever cost to his immediate neighbours. Mr. Jack Wort's land provided the escape valve. It eased the pressure on the monument. It provided Stonehenge with the necessary protection.
This is the third year running that Mr. Wort has had trouble. Is he to have trouble again next year? What does the Minister plan to ensure that next July at 4.45 in the morning we are not once again debating the matter here?
Would it not be a simple matter to set road blocks on the approach roads and to direct the main stream of traffic away from the monument altogether? Will the Minister do that? Will he give assurances here and now that Mr. Wort's claim will be considered? Will he give the further assurance that next year Mr. Wort and his neighbours, if they can be shown once more to have taken pressure off the monument, at their own heavy cost, will in simple equity be eligible for compensation?
4.45 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): Last December in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, although at a much more reasonable hour, the hon. Gentleman raised the matter of damage to Stonehenge rather than around Stonehenge. I remember the night particularly, because I had two more debates after the hon. Gentleman's debate at 9.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman has asked tonight for a number of assurances that I am sure he realises I am not in a position to give on this occasion. I should like to make it clear, to avoid misunderstanding, that the Department has neither
904
encouraged nor condoned the free festival at Stonehenge. It is unauthorised and entirely unwelcome. The event took place on the Department's land surrounding the monument in 1976 only because trespassers established a substantial presence by forcible means and the police advised that it would be impracticable to expel them.
The vicinity of the monument is unsuitable as a site for a festival. The area is highly sensitive archaeologically, so that the digging of pits for latrines or even levelling ground in order to erect a platform or tents is liable to cause archaeological damage. In fairness, I must add that the festival participants themselves have no desire to cause such damage to the monument and have accepted advice about particularly vulnerable places. Nevertheless, the risk of such damage exists. The presence near the monument of what, without wishing to be provocative, I can only describe as a noisy and—in a sanitary sense—sordid encampment undoubtedly offended many visitors to the monument, a high proportion of whom are, at this time of year, from overseas.
For those reasons, and because we do not wish to encourage the belief that monuments in our care are available for free festivals, we thought it right to defend the monument and the land immediately surrounding it in the ownership of the Department more thoroughly this year. I am glad that we were successful, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for his support for our action. I regret that the festival was able to establish itself on other land in the vicinity and that the owner and occupier of the land suffered damage and loss from the forcible invasion. I sympathise sincerely with Mr. Jack Wort. I have not met him, but I know of his record and reputation as a public-spirited citizen and one who has also shown great tolerance in the face of the provocation he has had in the past.
As I have explained, the Department has protected the land in its care, for good reasons, but we cannot be held responsible for the actions of the festival-goers. We do not organise the festival or give it any support or encouragement. The fact that the Department took steps to protect the property in its own ownership does

905
not mean that it can then be held responsible for the property of other people who were affected.
The suggestion that the trespass on Mr. Wort's land protected the monument would not, I am advised, stand legal examination. As a matter of general principle, it would be unjust and illogical for anybody suffering a trespass to be able to claim against others whose property next door was better protected. The hon. Gentleman will realise that one of the reasons why I am saying this is the implication for other areas where, say, a householder or public authority adequately protects buildings or land and others suffer as a result.
The only point I can think of at present is that of football crowds doing damage to shops and houses on their way to football grounds, in which cases the owners of the grounds cannot be expected to compensate all in the area for something a third party does. Under the law as it stands, any property-owner is entitled to use a reasonable amount of force to eject trespassers from his land. Alternatively, he can seek an injunction or an order for possession, although I agree that that is too long-winded.
If his property sustains damage he may seek compensation through the courts from the person responsible for inflicting that damage. This is the general situation, which applies whatever the number of trespassers or the purpose of the trespass. It is true that in certain circumstances, where large numbers of people are involved, and these include not only pop festivals but other types of event where large numbers are involved, it may not always be easy or cheap for property owners affected by such events to obtain permission or compensation for damage through these procedures as quickly or as fully as might be desirable. Those who suffer in this way deserve every sympathy. In the case of this festival, it is extremely difficult to identify all the organisers of the festival—or to believe that there is a great deal of organisation about it.
It is an unfortunate fact that if sufficient people get together and break the law it is very hard to prevent it happening, or, as in this case, to identify the
906
culprits. The Working Group on Pop Festivals is currently looking at the whole question of the control of pop festivals. It is to be hoped that they will be able to find ways of alleviating the problems to which some—and it must be stressed that it is only a small proportion—of these festivals give rise.
However, I must bear in mind that the Law Commission has also looked recently at the problem of trespass. If weighed carefully the need to protect the rights of property-owners against the need to avoid creating situations conducive to breaches of the peace. It concluded that, except where residential property was involved, the balance of advantage lay in leaving the property-owner to exercise his rights through the civil courts. It is to Mr. Wort's credit that he has been very tolerant and has avoided a confrontation.
We must consider future action to protect not only the monument but the surrounding land. There have been discusions among the police, the local authorities, the National Trust and the Department about the recurrent festival at or near Stonehenge. My Department has been willing to co-operate in joint efforts to deal with it, but so far no effective means of keeping the festival out of the area has been found.
The nature of the terrain, which affords a large choice of areas with little physical obstruction to invasion, presents a most formidable problem for the Wiltshire police, for whom I have much sympathy. All I can say is that we would most gladly co-operate in a fresh examination of the problem and possible ways of dealing with it. The hon. Member will understand that I would prefer not to be more specific.
He has already had some discussions with Lady Birk, who has responsibilities in this. We shall welcome discussions on future policy and should start them at an early stage, in time for next year.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: The Minister has not commented on the fact, which I stressed strongly three times, that his Department is on record as saying
"We realise, of course, that action to deter trespass on our land may deflect the festival on to other land nearby."

907
Does he endorse that statement? Does he agree that action by his Department was responsible for the army of hippies moving on to Mr. Wort's land?
Mr. Marks: It was not action by the Department that caused the damage. It to
908
was action by the people that caused the damage.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes Five o' clock a.m.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (APPOINTMENTS)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (APPOINTMENTS)
  LORD ADVOCATE (APPOINTMENTS)
  LORD ADVOCATE (APPOINTMENTS)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Staff Pay
  Staff Pay
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (APPOINTMENTS)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (APPOINTMENTS)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Caravans (Legislation)
  Caravans (Legislation)
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Vegetables
  Vegetables
  Food Subsidies
  Food Subsidies
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Broadcasters (Fees)
  Broadcasters (Fees)
  Gas Fires
  Gas Fires
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Beer
  Beer
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Engineering
  Engineering
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
TRADE
  Textiles (Exports)
  Textiles (Exports)
  English Tourist Board
  English Tourist Board
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Cars (Japan)
  Cars (Japan)
  Worker Participation
  Worker Participation
  Index of Competitiveness
  Index of Competitiveness
DEFENCE
  Wellington Barracks
  Wellington Barracks
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Security Firms
  Security Firms
  Quarters
  Quarters
CIVIL SERVICE
  Members of Parliament (Payments)
  Members of Parliament (Payments)
  Peers
  Peers
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Pay
  Pay
  Computers
  Computers
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Mr. Maurice Jones
  Mr. Maurice Jones
  Arms Control and Disarmament Department
  Arms Control and Disarmament Department
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Chileans
  Chileans
  PROSECUTIONS
  PROSECUTIONS
  LAWYERS (FEES)
  LAWYERS (FEES)
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  REAL ESTATE FUND OF AMERICA
  REAL ESTATE FUND OF AMERICA
  CIVIL LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURY
  CIVIL LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURY
  ACROHURST
  ACROHURST
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL
ENERGY
  Belvoir Coalfield
  Belvoir Coalfield
  Coal Reserves
  Coal Reserves
  Sulphur
  Sulphur
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Coal Miners (Pay)
  Coal Miners (Pay)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Heating Systems
  Heating Systems
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Coal Supplies (Power Stations)
  Coal Supplies (Power Stations)
INDUSTRY
  Mr. Joe Gormley
  Mr. Joe Gormley
  Electrical Appliances
  Electrical Appliances
  Man-made Fibres
  Man-made Fibres
  Cotton Spinning
  Cotton Spinning
  Electronic Components
  Electronic Components
  Computers
  Computers
  Mechanical Handling Equipment
  Mechanical Handling Equipment
  Heating and Ventilating
  Heating and Ventilating
  Process Plant
  Process Plant
  Chemicals
  Chemicals
  Wool Textiles
  Wool Textiles
  Plastics
  Plastics
  Office Equipment
  Office Equipment
  Power Plant Manufacturing
  Power Plant Manufacturing
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Rubber
  Rubber
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Scientific Instruments
  Scientific Instruments
  Clothing
  Clothing
  Knitwear
  Knitwear
  Foundries
  Foundries
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Steel Imports
  Steel Imports
  Cotton Spinning
  Cotton Spinning
SCOTLAND
  Herring Processing
  Herring Processing
SCOTLAND
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Muirdrum (Traffic)
  Muirdrum (Traffic)
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Fisheries (Compensation Fund)
  Fisheries (Compensation Fund)
  Beef Imports
  Beef Imports
  Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group
  Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group
  Social Security Frauds
  Social Security Frauds
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
TRANSPORT
  Roads (Leicester)
  Roads (Leicester)
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Wangford Bypass
  Wangford Bypass
  Motor Vehicles (Check Weighing)
  Motor Vehicles (Check Weighing)
  British Railways (Refreshments)
  British Railways (Refreshments)
  Motor Vehicle Tests
  Motor Vehicle Tests
  A158 (North Greetwell)
  A158 (North Greetwell)
  Brake Fluid
  Brake Fluid
  Statistics (Collection Cost)
  Statistics (Collection Cost)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Roads (Loan Charges)
  Roads (Loan Charges)
  M62–A1 Link Road
  M62–A1 Link Road
  Ripon (Bypass)
  Ripon (Bypass)
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  M40
  M40
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Works Contracts (Advertising)
  Works Contracts (Advertising)
  Trade Balance
  Trade Balance
  European Community Aid
  European Community Aid
  European Community (Budget Council)
  European Community (Budget Council)
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Appointments)
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Appointments)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Counter-inflation Policy
  Counter-inflation Policy
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  European Assembly
  European Assembly
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Motor Cycles (Accidents)
  Motor Cycles (Accidents)
  Hospitals (Complaints)
  Hospitals (Complaints)
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Mental Health Services
  Mental Health Services
  Haydock Cottage Hospital, St. Helens
  Haydock Cottage Hospital, St. Helens
  Contraception
  Contraception
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Elderly Persons (Heating Allowances)
  Elderly Persons (Heating Allowances)
  School Nurses (Pay)
  School Nurses (Pay)
  North East Thames Regional Health Authority
  North East Thames Regional Health Authority
  Mental Health Act 1959 (Amendment Proposals)
  Mental Health Act 1959 (Amendment Proposals)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Artistic Therapy
  Artistic Therapy
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Invalidity Pension and Mobility and Attendance Allowances
  Invalidity Pension and Mobility and Attendance Allowances
  Hospitals (Fire Precautions)
  Hospitals (Fire Precautions)
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Radioactive Heart Pacemakers
  Radioactive Heart Pacemakers
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Oral Hygiene Instruction
  Oral Hygiene Instruction
  Disabled Drivers
  Disabled Drivers
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations
  State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations
  Enterovioform
  Enterovioform
  Cigarette Advertising
  Cigarette Advertising
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Respiratory Diseases (Inquiry)
  Respiratory Diseases (Inquiry)
  Travel Expenses
  Travel Expenses
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Grimsby
  Grimsby
  Wiltshire
  Wiltshire
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Foundries
  Foundries
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Waiters and Waitresses>
  Waiters and Waitresses>
  Journalism
  Journalism
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Demyelinating Diseases Unit, Newcastle
  Demyelinating Diseases Unit, Newcastle
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  School Classes (Size)
  School Classes (Size)
  Schools Council
  Schools Council
  Handicapped Children (Grimsby)
  Handicapped Children (Grimsby)
  Teacher-pupil Ratios
  Teacher-pupil Ratios
  Nursery Schools (Grimsby)
  Nursery Schools (Grimsby)
  Hudson Report
  Hudson Report
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Speech Therapy
  Speech Therapy
  Art Purchases (Tate Gallery)
  Art Purchases (Tate Gallery)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Local Government Elections (Ward Boundaries)
  Local Government Elections (Ward Boundaries)
  Brigadier Jan Visser
  Brigadier Jan Visser
  Police (Tape-recorded Interrogations)
  Police (Tape-recorded Interrogations)
  World Administrative Radio Conference
  World Administrative Radio Conference
  Mobile Radio
  Mobile Radio
  Community Service
  Community Service
  Mr. Maurice Jones
  Mr. Maurice Jones
  Ian Brady and Myra Hyndley
  Ian Brady and Myra Hyndley
  Television Licence Fees
  Television Licence Fees
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Prisons (Creative Arts)
  Prisons (Creative Arts)
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Vehicle Excise Licences (Offences)
  Vehicle Excise Licences (Offences)
  Foxes
  Foxes
  Ninian Park, Cardiff
  Ninian Park, Cardiff
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Divorce Reform (Northern Ireland) Bill
  Divorce Reform (Northern Ireland) Bill
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Royal Visit
  Royal Visit
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Irish Republican Army
  Irish Republican Army
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Education Awards
  Education Awards
WALES
  Temporary Accommodation
  Temporary Accommodation
  Unfit Houses
  Unfit Houses
  Rating
  Rating
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Bilingual Schools
  Bilingual Schools
  Advisory Bodies
  Advisory Bodies
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Point Seiont, Caernarvon
  Point Seiont, Caernarvon
  Regional Development Fund
  Regional Development Fund
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
ENVIRONMENT
  Community Land
  Community Land
  Inner City Areas
  Inner City Areas
  House Building
  House Building
  Water Supply (Reddish)
  Water Supply (Reddish)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Water Supply and Sewerage
  Water Supply and Sewerage
  Property Damage (Subsidence)
  Property Damage (Subsidence)
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Housing Improvement (Expenditure)
  Housing Improvement (Expenditure)
  Planning Delay (Expenditure Committee's Report)
  Planning Delay (Expenditure Committee's Report)
  Council Property (Sale)
  Council Property (Sale)
  High Storrs Rough, Sheffield
  High Storrs Rough, Sheffield
  Luton Airport
  Luton Airport
  Community Law Centres
  Community Law Centres
  Palace of Westminster (Tourists)
  Palace of Westminster (Tourists)
  Waterways (Maintenance)
  Waterways (Maintenance)
  Departmental Shop, Parliament Street
  Departmental Shop, Parliament Street
  Departmental Gardeners
  Departmental Gardeners
  Peterborough New Town
  Peterborough New Town
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Planning Decisions
  Planning Decisions
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Policy Note 13
  Policy Note 13
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Countryside Review Committee
  Countryside Review Committee
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Otters
  Otters
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Community Laws
  European Community Laws
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)
  Companies (Disclosure of Information)

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

LORD WEDDERBURN OF CHARLTON
Kenneth William Wedderburn, Esquire, having been created Baron Wedderburn of Charlton, of Highgate in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Brockway and the Lord McCarthy, and made the solemn Affirmation.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
2.46 p.m.
Lord MACLEAN: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Location of Offices Bureau (Amendment) Order 1977 be made in the form of a draft approved by your House on 14th July last.
"I will comply with your request."

PARKING METER OFFENCES
The Earl of SELKIRK: 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 an offence is inevitably committed by parking a car on a parking meter, without having the correct coin immediately available.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, an offence is committed if a car is parked at a meter without payment during the hours of control, except when the car's stay is covered by unexpired time on the
970
meter, or if the meter head is covered by an "out of order" bag, or if the vehicle is parked solely to load or unload, or if the vehicle is exempted under the order designating the parking area.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, that Question was not perhaps the simplest, but does the noble Baroness accept the dictum of the Lord Chief Justice, that the time allowed at the parking meter is only that required to get out of the car and put a coin in the meter? If that is correct, and if it is rigidly enforced, would it not be fair and perhaps courteous that parking meters should show outwardly what coin is required—whether it be an old 6d, a new 5p or a new 10p?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I should not like to comment on the dictum of the Lord Chief Justice. I shall certainly bring the points raised by the noble Earl to the attention of my right honourable friend. I am not certain about the significance of marking all the meters with the exact coin that is required. I should have thought that by now they would all have been converted to new coins, but it is certainly a point which I shall take up with my right honourable friend.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Baroness would agree that my noble friend's point would be met if traffic wardens could be given some modest discretion, which at present is not allowed to them?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, if there is difficulty because someone does not have the correct change in his pocket when he arrives at a parking meter, I am sure that, if a traffic warden is there and the situation is explained, the warden will be co-operative. The fact remains that traffic wardens are not in sufficient supply to enable one to be parked at every meter. Therefore, it is not possible for us always to have someone there to co-operate with the motorist who is without the exact change.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, would it not be possible for traffic wardens, as well as having booking orders in their satchels, to be allowed

971
to have a purse with a few 5p pieces? That would be a tremendous convenience and help to motorists who wish to pay, but inadvertently have no 5p piece.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, in an ideal situation, if we had one traffic warden at every meter. But our manpower situation is not such that we can do that.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many traffic wardens look nicer than they actually are?
Baroness STEDMAN: That, my Lords, is a matter of opinion.
Lord SEGAL: Alternatively, my Lords, would the Government consider installing a coin changing machine at certain designated parking areas?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I should have thought that that might have been a very expensive project. But I will certainly bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that parking meters are very far from uniform? Quite a variety of coins is required, and, if inflation goes on, many more coins will probably be required. Have parking meter attendants any discretion at all in this matter?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as I have said, if there is a warden there and if there are problems and the driver explains the situation to him or her, I am certain that a period of grace will be allowed to enable the motorist to get change. But if you have a ticket, the only person who can cancel it is the chief officer of police.

FERTILISER PRICE INCREASES
2.51 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: 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 are pressing ICI to
972
increase the price of its fertilisers and, if so, how they reconcile this with fighting inflation and with Food From Our Own Resources (Cmnd. 6020).
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are consulting interested parties about the arrangements that might restore all firms in the fertiliser manufacturing industry to a competitive footing.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, am I correct in saying that, in other words, the Government are encouraging ICI to increase its prices for nitrate fertilisers?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I do not know what is going on in these commercially confidential discussions, but it is hoped that arrangements might restore all firms in the fertiliser manufacturing industry to a competitive footing.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, could the noble Lord then say what is not competitive at the moment? Is it that ICI can sell its nitrate fertilisers at £65 per ton ex-farm gate while others cannot, and that therefore by restoring the competitive position the Government are trying to use the wartime fertiliser regulations to increase the price of fertilisers? Can this possibly be correct?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Earl has touched upon a complicated subject. ICI accounts for 80 per cent. of the ammonia produced in the United Kingdom, and it has a very favourable long-term contract with the British Gas Corporation for the supply of gas which only expires in 1984. Perhaps the arrangements made between ICI and the British Gas Corporation are causing some imbalance in the industry at the moment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, in other words, am I correct in saying that the Government are penalising ICI for having had the foresight to make a good, long-term contract with British Gas, and that those who did not have such foresight will be subsidised by the British farming industry which, as we know, is not allowed to increase prices in order to keep pace with inflation?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a very complicated economic subject. All one can say is that at the end of the day it is the housewife who pays. She pays either more for her gas or more for her food. If, therefore, one increases the price of gas, this is what happens.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, will the noble Lord draw the attention of his right honourable friend to the matters which have been raised by my noble friend Lord Onslow and, in addition, draw his attention to the article which appeared in the Economist to which the noble Earl has drawn attention?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords, I will do that.

THE NEUTRON BOMB
2.54 p.m.
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 if, as reported, the NATO States "want President Carter to deploy the neutron in Europe" and whether the United Kingdom is committed to this view.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as my honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently said in another place, the United States Government have made it clear that their devices are only in the development stage, and no decisions about deployment have yet been taken.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, President Carter has stated that the neutron bomb:
"presents attractive options for Western Europe".
Is it not the case that The Times correspondent who was then in Brussels met the officers of NATO and that they expressed the opinion that is set down in this Question? Will Her Majesty's Government refuse to have anything to do with this new weapon, which would destroy life while retaining property?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the weapon that we are discussing is not
974
different in its nature from other tactical nuclear weapons. But certain elements have been excluded and fewer human beings would be killed if this bomb should ever be used than in the case of existing tactical nuclear weapons.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the matter of the neutron bomb is a subject that I propose to raise later this afternoon in connection with my Unstarred Question? Therefore, is it not preferable to discuss the alleged advantages and disadvantages of this new weapon in the course of a discussion, however short, rather than in answer to a Starred Question?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. This is a complex subject and a slightly longer discussion than is possible during Question Time ought to be held.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, since the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches has run a "trailer" for his Unstarred Question, may I put it to the noble Lord that, for good or bad reasons, we in the West seem to be closing so many of the conventional options which have been open to us that we ought to make sure that we do not close the only other options which might then be open to us?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I assume that my noble friend's question is addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, with great respect, no. The noble Lord may also find that question to be complex, although I myself find it to be a good deal more simple. However, I am addressing it to him, as Her Majesty's Minister responsible to this House.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government must keep all their options open.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, in view of the colossal increase in Soviet armaments in the last two or three years, notably since the Helsinki Agreement, would it be sensible if, after all, Her Majesty's Government were to discourage any of their allies from undertaking further research on any lines of defence equipment?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that would be an impossible request.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us have read about the withdrawal of 6,000 troops from Korea by Mr. Harold Brown, the United States Secretary of State for Defence, who was supported by President Carter? President Carter said that the use of the nuclear umbrella was not recommended, because its use would mean the end of those who used such weapons as well as the end of those who received them. Anybody who thinks that a nuclear weapon will solve our problems is living in "Cloud Cuckoo-land".
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, only continued peace will solve our problems, and so far we have managed to achieve it.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I be allowed to ask another question as an introduction to the later debate? When the Minister says that there is no difference in nature between this bomb and other nuclear bombs, is it not the case that the purpose of this bomb is to destroy life while not destroying property? Has the Minister seen the surprising but very welcome article by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that appeared in The Times last Monday, in which he argued that this bomb should be absolutely banned because it would mean the destruction of human life while leaving houses, shops and factories still standing?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am in favour of lessening destruction in general, be it human or be it material. If this bomb were to reduce overall destruction, in particular the destruction of civilian life, perhaps the noble Lord might decide that it was worth considering.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord and the Government bear in mind, as I am sure they do, that the purpose of these weapons is to prevent war, not to wage it?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I thought I had said that.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise for asking another question. Is it not the case that this bomb, while at
976
present intended for local use, would inevitably in war preparations be made more extensively available? Is it not also the case that the Hiroshima bomb killed 200,000 people? The Cruise missile can now kill 2 million people, so would not this bomb be used on an extensive scale to kill life everywhere?

POLICE CADET ENLISTMENT
3 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: 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 action they are considering following the representations by the Association of Chief Officers of Police that some small part of the substantial sums now being spent on job creation might be directed towards making good part of the cut-back in the enlistment of police cadets.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the purpose of the Job Creation Programme is to provide short-term, worthwhile jobs for people who would otherwise be unemployed, on projects of community benefit. Projects must provide new employment opportunities on work which would not be carried out without JCP funds. Job Creation Programme funding may not be used to restore cutbacks in areas of public spending, and therefore cannot be used to subvent or replace the employment of police cadets.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he really believes in that Answer which he has given me? Will he not accept that there are a great many people in this country who think it far more sensible that some small part of this money should be used to provide permanent jobs for which training facilities are already in existence, rather than temporary jobs for which special arrangements and supervision have to be made? Has he not observed that recruiting for the police is at the moment falling and that wastage is not being made good by new recruits, and that what I suggest would be an admirable course looked at from several different points of view?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, it is not possible for these funds to be used, but in point of fact the JCP fund is used to help the police force in another direction by assisting in the provision of civilian jobs with the police. To date Manpower Service Commission grants totalling £1,226,762 have been allocated to 38 police projects approved under the Job Creation Programme, creating 761 jobs.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, since police recruits are civilians, would it not be easy to widen the scope of the operation that the noble Lord has just mentioned so that it can be used to support the cadet service which has been cut back so cruelly?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the noble Lord is in some confusion in regard to this matter because the Job Creation Programme is a short-term programme. The police cadet scheme is a long-term programme of preparing young people between the ages of 16 and 18 by means of existing relevant training and experience for careers as permanent police officers, and the cost of training each cadet is estimated at £6,000.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the cut-back in police expenditure has resulted in a reduction in overtime for existing manpower in a period of an increasing crime rate, and would he agree that funds might be made available in order to take care of this situation?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, it is not correct to say that police expenditure has been cut. It has not been reduced. In order to keep within the public expenditure limits the police authorities have been asked to keep total civilian staff numbers, including cadets, to 1 per cent. above the September level. Some police forces have reduced the numbers of cadets, but it is not correct to say that police expenditure has in fact been cut.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: My Lords, is it not true that the regional local authorities are cutting police expenditure as part of the cut-back in public expenditure, and this has resulted in a reduction of overtime opportunities for
978
members of the police force in areas with increasing crime rates?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, that is a matter for the local police authorities to decide in their wisdom, but the Government have not cut police expenditure.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: SECURITY
3.4 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I wish to inform the House of certain decisions which have been taken following the consideration of a report about security in the Palace of Westminster made to me and to Mr. Speaker by the informal Joint Committee of both Houses under the chairmanship of the right honourable Member for Wakefield, Mr. Walter Harrison.
The House will recall that Sir James Starritt, formerly Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, made a comprehensive report on security here in 1975, and a number of proposals he then made for improving physical security have since been carried into effect.
He also recommended, however, some major changes in the organisation of security arrangements.
In particular, he recommended the establishment of a combined security force for the whole Palace of Westminster under a single command and the integration of the existing custodian force, at present employed by the Department of the Environment, into the Metropolitan Police organisation.
It was with this aspect of security that the Joint Committee have been concerned, and following their report and consideration by Ministers of the consequential financial arrangements, it is now proposed to go ahead with the implementation of these recommendations. The aim is to set up a combined security force for the whole Palace of Westminster; to raise the operational standards of the officers concerned, particularly by giving to the police responsibility for the recruitment and training of custodians and to

979
improve co-ordination between the security staff within the Palace and the Metropolitan Police generally.
The necessary steps are accordingly now being taken by the Departments concerned, in consultation with the police authorities and the staff directly affected, with a view to the new structure being operational by 1st October.
It has been agreed that expenditure on security within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster should in future be wholly borne on the Votes of the two Houses, and this will involve the transfer of public expenditure at present being borne by the Department of the Environment and the Metropolitan Police. The additional public expenditure involved in these organisational changes will amount to about £100,000 a year. These proposals were agreed to yesterday by the Offices Committee.
I believe that these changes in our security arrangements will be to the advantage of Parliament and the personal safety of Members and staff of both Houses, and I am grateful to the Members of both Houses who served on this Joint Committee, and particularly, to its chairman, Mr. Walter Harrison.

HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) BILL
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness and priority need for accommodation]:
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("considers") and insert ("consider").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope I shall be able to take the House through this Bill without confusing either myself or your Lordships. There are a number of Amendments, but I can assure your Lordships that most of them are drafting Amendments. Amendment No. 1 is, in fact, a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("a result of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, this was an Amendment which was moved in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandys and myself, and we are, of course, grateful that this drafting point has been cleared up. I am bound to say that we shall find ourselves in considerable difficulties this afternoon with four sheets of Amendments before us, some of which we have actually seen only less than an hour ago. I hope we shall take this subject at a reasonably steady pace so that we understand what we are doing. It would be very unfortunate if a second housing Bill got itself into the same situation as the Rent (Agriculture) Act did and required supplementary legislation because the House was unable to follow in detail the very complicated series of Amendments. On this side of the House we are not at all happy about having so many alterations to alterations to deal with at extremely short notice.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to add a few words. When I was asked originally whether we would agree to take the Report and remaining stages today I agreed, on the assumption that there would be a proper Marshalled List of Amendments and that there would be reasonable time to study them. That has not been adhered to, and I feel we must reserve our position as to whether we are prepared to take Third Reading today or whether it may have to be postponed until a later date.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I take that point. I would only point out that it certainly was not my wish that we should have a list of manuscript Amendments. There is one down in the names of Lord Wade, Lord Kirkhill and myself, one in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her colleagues. The rest are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford I take the point of the Opposition Chief Whip. I hope that what he suggests will not be necessary. Of those manuscript Amendments, the main ones, falling

981
on Clause 16, are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and are really all tied up with a certain amount of discussion which took place in Committee and will presumably take place again today on Report. The point is the definition of "intent". That leaves two other manuscript Amendments. Certainly we did not wish to add to this list in this way, and most of the Amendments are already on the Marshalled List.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, I must plead two mitigating circumstances. One is that the switchboard of this House was not working last night. The second is that serious changes in this Bill were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, only three days ago in Committee.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, with the leave of the House, this is in no sense a criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who is, of course, perfectly entitled to put down manuscript Amendments. I have no objection to that. I take his point about the Committee stage but for those of us who are trying to take the Bill seriously and to follow it, to have this complex series of Amendments coming up at the last moment makes it very difficult. It is difficult for the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and it is difficult for those of us on these Benches. I think it arises because for some inexplicable reason we are not having a spill-over period in which we should have had proper time to study these Amendments and debate them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert—
("(7A) Any reference in this Act to a person having a priority need is a reference to his having a priority need for accommodation within the meaning of this section or any order for the time being in force under subsection (6) above.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, may I say that I certainly do not wish to be in any way discourteous to the House and I hope I shall be pulled up if I attempt to deal with drafting Amendments with undue haste. I am anxious that as much time as possible should be available for the Amendments of substance. I think in this
982
case that it might be helpful to the House if we could consider Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 16 and 17 together. After the remarks that have been made, I hesitate to use the word "drafting", but I think that these are primarily of a drafting nature.
May I explain that the purpose of Amendment No. 4 is effectively to improve the Bill by dividing Clause 1 into two parts. The first deals with the definition of homeless persons and those threatened with homelessness, and the second with the definition of priority need. The other Amendments are consequential. It would seem to me that these Amendments deal with the structure of the Bill and not in any way with the effect of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 4:
Divide Clause 1 into two clauses—

(a) the first consisting of subsections (1) to (3), and

(b) the second consisting of subsections (4) to (7A).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 4A is a drafting Amendment which makes clear, in Clause 2, that the areas in relation to which a housing authority may make inquiries as to an applicant's local connections, if any, are the areas of housing authorities. They could not, for example, be areas outside Great Britain. I hope that that explanation will satisfy your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 4A:
Page 3, line 23, leave out ("any area other than their own") and insert ("the area of another housing authority").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 4B:
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("has") and insert ("have").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that this is clearly a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 4C:
Page 3, line 37, after ("satisfied") insert ("(i)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4C, which is on the list of manuscript Amendments, and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 5, which is on the first of the Marshalled Lists. This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It was tabled at Committee stage but ruled out of order—I think mistakenly, if I may say so—by the Table at the time, and has therefore had to be retabled. All it does is to import into Clause 3(2)(b) that classification of people which one could describe in short-hand as the "emergency homeless". I do not think any further explanation is required. I would suggest that, as there are plenty of other matters of more substance, I could move this Amendment with that explanation.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, it occurs to me that this is not quite a drafting Amendment, and I wonder whether the noble Lord can satisfy me on one point. The "emergency homeless", as he has described them, are, under this Amendment, to benefit from the duty to be furnished with advice and assistance, and again, under subsection (3), they will benefit from the duty to have accommodation made available to them for a reasonable period. Is it not right that they also benefit from the duty under subsection (5) to have accommodation secured for them for their occupation, because they are of course priority needs? The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is possibly to create some confusion as to exactly how far the duty with respect to the emergency homeless stretches. With this Amendment they will, as I see it, fall within subsection (2), subsection (3) and subsection (5). I am not opposed to that but I hope that it is appreciated, for the avoidance of doubt.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that, with a clause as complex as this, it would be foolish to say that the issue was without doubt, but I am satisfied that, when it is examined carefully, the case is as the noble Lord and I would want it to be.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I do not want to be awkward while we are proceeding
984
so amicably, but I am a little unhappy about this Amendment. Perhaps I may explain as clearly as I can my reasons for saying that. This Amendment, as I understand it, would mean that, where people become homeless in an emergency, the authority would not be obliged to secure accommodation for them but only to offer advice and assistance, and ensure that interim accommodation was available. The Amendment makes a slight alteration clarifying the position.
I turn to the main point which concerns me. I understand the reasoning behind the Amendment. No doubt most of those people who become homeless in an emergency will not be in need of permanent rehousing, but will need shelter for only a limited period—perhaps while repairs are being carried out. Where that is the case, the authority will simply arrange temporary accommodation for those people. Obviously, the authority will not offer a permanent council tenancy to someone who has a home of his own. Nor do I see any danger that people who are not happy with their previous accommodation could compel the authority to give them a tenancy.
In any event, when the emergency was over, the authority's duty would cease because accommodation would, presumably, be available to the people concerned. Nevertheless—and this is the main point that I wish to make—there will be some people who become homeless in an emergency and who will, or may, be in need of permanent rehousing. It may be that their house has been totally destroyed. If they were owner-occupiers one hopes that they would be insured to cover such a situation. However, if they were private tenants they might find themselves in real difficulties through no fault of their own. In such a case, I think that the duty under Clause 4(3), which deals with temporary accommodation, would not be adequate.
Persons becoming homeless in an emergency were included in the priority groups laid down in the joint circular. It would not be right, in my view, for them to find themselves in a worse position under the Bill than under the circular. Therefore I feel confident that the Bill is right as it now stands. It ensures that all emergency cases will be provided with accommodation while allowing for them to all be

985
dealt with, I hope sensibly, according to the circumstances. I appreciate that this also covers the single person and others not otherwise in priority groups, but as I have explained, there is a wide range of ways in which the duty can be satisfied by the housing authority. In the light of the perhaps exceptional circumstances, we must not forget them. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will feel inclined to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, which I hope will, in our special circumstances, be granted, I should say that, in circumstances such as those about which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is concerned, subsections (2), (4) and (5) are available for the local authority to come to the view that, although the householder in question is in the category which I have described as "emergency homeless", he has, because of those special circumstances, a priority need, in which case it can act under subsections (4) or (5). I am satisfied that that would be sufficient to secure for him the accommodation that he would need.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have also looked at this matter very carefully. I see what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is getting at and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and my noble friend Lord Gifford, that it could mean that, when people became homeless in an emergency, the authority would not be obliged to secure accommodation for them but only to offer advice and assistance and secure that interim accommodation was available. That possibility is something which I do not think should be accepted within the Bill. Therefore, I must join with the other noble Lords who have spoken and ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, replies I should like to say that I, too, believe that this might especially affect the situation of the single person who is seeking accommodation. It might cause confusion as regards what is already, in my view, not a very satisfactory position and it might even add to the difficulties of the single homeless. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whether he will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I should like to say that I am happy to respond to the request that the Amendment should be withdrawn. I think that it would have improved the Bill, but it is not a matter of great moment and there are a number of other matters which are of more substance. It is a pity that we were not able to discuss this matter during the Committee stage when we could have handled it more readily and then reflected in a more leisurely fashion on the points of view that have been put forward. However, in the light of the importance of trying to get the Bill on to the Statute Book, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Duties of housing authorities to homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("that") to ("is") in line 4 and insert ("he").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Responsibility as between housing authorities]:
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 5B:
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("he has no") and insert ("neither he nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him as a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before dealing with this Amendment, I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his helpfulness. I am sure that he is desirous of getting the Bill through. At the same time, we do not wish the House to feel that matters are not being adequately discussed.
Amendment No. 513 is a drafting Amendment. It is intended to ensure consistency of wording in Clause 4. Under subsection (1) an authority are not subject to a duty to secure accommodation for a person if they are of the opinion

987
that, among other things, neither he nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has a local connection with its area, but that he or such person has such a connection with the area of another housing authority. In such a case, if the authority so notify the housing authority in whose area there is such a connection, the duty to secure the availability of accommodation becomes that of a notified authority in certain circumstances. As it stands at present, subsection (3) deals solely with the case where the applicant has no local connection with the notifying authority's area. This Amendment therefore brings subsection (3) into line with the rest of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 (Duty of housing authorities to provide temporary protection for property):
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 5C:
Page 6, line 32, leave out from ("authority") to ("and") in line 34 and insert ("have become subject to a duty towards a person under any provision of this Act to which this subsection applies (whether or not they are still subject to any such duty)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that it would be helpful to the House if we considered Amendment No. 5C together with Amendments Nos. 5D and 5E, which relate to furniture. They are drafting Amendments designed to make clear that the duty to protect furniture arises in each case when housing authorities have a duty to secure the provision of accommodation. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 5D:
Page 6, line 41, at end insert—
("(1A) The provisions of this Act to which subsection (1) above applies are—

section 2(4);

section 3(3), (4) and (5); and

section 4.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 5E:
Page 8, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
"(b) have not become subject to a duty towards him under any provision of this Act to which subsection (1) above applies,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.31 p.m.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 5F:
Page 8, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 13 and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be helpful also to deal with Amendments Nos. 5F and 5GG together. I apologise again to the House for the fact that noble Lords are having to consider so many Amendments. This Amendment deals with furniture and again is a comparatively small point. The Amendment would mean that the authority's duty to protect property would cease in the same circumstances as in the power in subsection (2), when the person concerned is able to protect it himself. I hope that that seems reasonable and obvious.
Amendment No. 5GG is consequential. It seemed to us that the original clause did not quite provide adequate protection. If a homeless person was placed in furnished accommodation, the authority's duty to secure accommodation might well be fulfilled, but a need to protect the furniture might remain. This Amendment would therefore strike out subsection (6) and allow the duty to continue—which would still be only temporary—until the person concerned is able to look after the furniture himself or herself. That is the purpose of the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Duties of notification]:
Lord WADE: My Lords, I apologise for the delay, but my papers seem to have got slightly mixed up.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 5G and 5H:
Page 9, line 25, after ("or") insert (",subject to subsection (6A) below,")
Page 9, line 30, at end insert—
("(6A) An authority who cease to have the power conferred by subsection (2) above in

989
respect of the property of any person need not notify him that they have ceased to have the power unless they have exercised it.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord. I think that we are dealing with Amendments Nos. 5G and 5H. The effect of these Amendments would mean that authorities would have to notify a person that their power to protect his property has ceased only in cases where they have exercised the power. We expect authorities to have to exercise their power to protect property very rarely, but on reflection it seems rather excessive to ask authorities to notify people that the power has ceased even when the power has, in fact, ceased. This would only add unnecessarily to the work of the local authorities. Therefore, the Amendments provide that notification is required only when the power has been exercised. I beg to move.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I have just arrived at the same conclusion having found my notes. I support these Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved manuscript Amendment No. 5GG:
Page 9, line 30, leave out ("have so ceased") and insert ("are of the opinion mentioned in section 6(8) above").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved manuscript Amendment No. 5HH:
Page 9, line 30, at end insert—
"(6A) An authority who cease to have the power conferred by section 6(2) above in respect of the property of any person need not notify him that they have ceased to have the power unless they have exercised it.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this is a drafting Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is now amending an Amendment that has just been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It would help the House to have on record the difference in effect of this further Amendment from the one that has just been moved.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I am afraid that I must call in aid the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the words "Section 6" were evidently omitted from the other Amendment. That is all that this Amendment amounts to. I do not seem to have a note of the Amendment, but it was an error of words being omitted.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we are of course grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for explaining this and I appreciate that she is in considerable difficulty. But it makes it very difficult for us on this side of the House to follow this when no one seems to be fully briefed on the detailed effects of all these altered Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 5J:
Page 9, line 33, after ("him") insert ("only").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment also deals with notifications. I hope that I shall explain it this time with clarity, which I was unable to do on an earlier Amendment. The effect of this Amendment would be that a notification required under Clause 7, other than under subsection (6), which relates to termination of the duty or the power to protect the property under Clause 6, must be made available for collection at the authority's office. That does not mean that all the authority has to do is to have it available at the office. This is an additional duty.
The object of this Amendment is to specify that where an authority is required to give a notification under this clause, with the exception of a notification relating to the protection of personal property, it must make it available for collection at that office. In addition, if it wishes and if it knows that it is likely to reach the applicant, it may send it through the post or deliver it by any other means. But in any event it must be available for collection. That is the only way in which to ensure that people whose addresses may be uncertain are reasonably certain of receiving the notification. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, appreciates that sometimes difficulties arise when people just cannot be found. The addresses

991
given by homeless persons or those threatened with homelessness are, in the nature of things, liable to change.
This Amendment does not mean, of course, that the applicant himself would have to call and collect the document. It can be collected by someone else on his or her behalf if that is more convenient. It is hoped that this will help to create as much certainty as possible that, where there is a notification, the person for whom it is intended will receive it.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point about this. It is, necessary because it will be essential to explain in the guidance that goes to local authorities, or some form of circular, that people must know that they can collect this notification from presumably the housing department of the local authority, otherwise its effect will be nullified.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. Although it does not arise on this Amendment, may I say that I hope that all the words of notification and other documents will be written as clearly and simply as possible.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.41 p.m.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 9, line 41, at end insert ("only").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is also to do with furniture. It makes clear that the notification required by Clause 7(6)(b) that a housing authority have ceased to have a duty or the power to protect a person's property under Clause 6(1) or 6(2) may be given only in three ways specified. This Amendment makes it clear that where a housing authority have such a duty the necessary notification is given as specified in the form that I have just mentioned. As the clause stands, it would be open to doubt whether the ways specified are exclusive or whether the authority may, if they chose, notify the person in some other way instead; for instance, by making the notification available at their office to which I have just referred. That might be inconvenient since the person would not be expecting such a notification and might have to call repeatedly at the office.
992
This Amendment is intended to clarify the position still further. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Co-operation between authorities.]:
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10, line 17, after ("2") insert (",3").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be helpful to take Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10A and 11 and group them together. Amendment No. 10A will replace the original Amendment No. 10. I can honestly say that these are drafting Amendments. They deal entirely with cross-references which I hope will clarify the wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 10, line 21, after ("2") insert (",3").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 10, line 23, leave out ("their functions") and insert ("the functions to which the request relates").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is essentially a drafting Amendment. It makes clear that a body which is required to co-operate with a housing authority is not required to exercise any of the latter's functions except those to which the request relates. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 10A:
Page 10, line 27, leave out ("reference to sections 2 and 4 above in that subsection") and insert ("the reference to sections 2, 3 and 4 above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already referred to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("5") and insert ("6").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the same remarks apply to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Power to charge]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 11A:
Page 10, line 34, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4), 3").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Wade, here. This is an Amendment that is consequential on Amendments that were accepted during Committee stage, and these resulted in duties on housing authorities to secure the provision of accommodation being included in Clause 2(4) and Clauses 3 and 4. The power to charge needs to relate to these. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Offences]:
3.46 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 11, line 13, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. It is a very much more substantial matter. It concerns Clause 10 which deals with the offences introduced by the Bill which people applying for accommodation under the Bill might commit. Clause 10 (1) contains an offence which is similar to offences in legislation of this kind whereby if one makes a false statement in order to get accommodation from a local authority under this Bill one will be guilty of an offence. I have no quarrel with that offence. It parallels provisions in similar Statutes.
Subsections (2), (3) and (4), which are those I am seeking to delete from the Bill, deal with a different kind of offence. If one looks at subsection (4), the offence is if you fail to comply with subsection (2). If you marry that up with subsection (2), the offence will be committed if a person who has applied to a housing authority for accommodation fails to
"notify to the authority as soon as possible any change of facts material to his case".
994
On reading that I found it somewhat grotesque that someone should be liable to be charged with failing to notify something as soon as possible, particularly when it is something so vague as a fact material to his case.
It smacks of the jackboot if you are committing an offence if you fail to tell something to somebody on your own initiative without being asked any questions. It is made worse when one looks at the provisions of subsection (3). Everyone who applies for accommodation under this Bill has to be told in ordinary language about this offence. What one has to imagine is that everyone who is homeless and comes to the town hall is going to have to be told something like this: "I have got to tell you that if you don't notify us as soon as possible of any change of circumstance which is material to your case, you will be committing a criminal offence." It is a duty on local authorities to give that warning.
It is stressful enough to be homeless and without a roof without having some official informing you, in language which cannot fail to be intimidating, that you are a potential criminal if you do not come along and tell them. What do you have to tell? What is a change of facts material to one's case? One can envisage the case of a woman driven out of a home by a violent husband, and applies for accommodation in desperation under this Bill. Let us suppose, as may well happen, that two or three days later the husband comes round and says, "I am sorry, darling. You can come back again. I won't do it again." Even if that has been said many times before, I suppose that it is a material fact that the husband says he has changed his mind and is not going to be violent or get drunk again. It is the sort of thing that someone would have to notify to the local authority as soon as possible.
I wondered whether there was any precedent to this offence. I looked at other legislation dealing with welfare benefits and relationships with authorities, such as the National Assistance Act 1948, which this modifies, the Supplementary Benefits Act, the Family Allowances Act, the Social Security Act. All those provisions have an offence similar to Clause 10(1), but it is an offence if you tell lies to the local authority or to the department concerned. None of them has the offence

995
of failing to notify a material change of circumstances. Thanks to my noble friend Lady Birk, I have been informed that there is a precedent; apparently such an offence appears in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. It seems therefore that this is a new offence which some official has begun to introduce into recent legislation. If so, I suggest that the less we see of it the better because it is totally unnecessary.
If somebody applies for accommodation, fills out a form and tells the truth, no doubt in due course, if that person obtains accommodation, somebody can ask, "Before you are admitted into this council house which we are prepared to provide for you, tell us if there has been any change in your circumstances; have you found somewhere to live?" If the person falsely answers, "No", he can be prosecuted under Section 10(1) as it stands. Therefore there is no need for this sort of vague offence, the effect of which can only be to intimidate people who are homeless.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Gifford; having made out a strong case, I have no doubt that the Government will wish to agree with him.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this provision is not designed to make life difficult for homeless people or to frighten them off by giving warnings about criminal proceedings. It is designed to protect the interests of the genuinely homeless by preventing housing authorities from being unreasonably burdened at a time when we are all aware that their resources are extremely stretched. We are trying to find ways to make the Bill not just something written on to the Statute Book but a measure which will work in practical terms. It is a counterweight to the duty on the authority to notify reasons for giving its decision; by giving those reasons in writing, that will act as a safeguard.
I could not agree with my noble friend Lord Gifford in the example he gave of a woman driven out of her home because of violence or a threat of violence and returning with the husband saying, "I will now behave myself", because that example meets the pattern followed in so many cases of battered wives, and a woman
996
in that position would be absolutely protected under other clauses of the Bill. It would in no way be a fact which was material to the case in this instance.
It is important that authorities should make the position clear to applicants, clear in a way that is not threatening but clear in a way which will reveal the changes about which they need to know. I could not agree with Lord Gifford that this will be done, to use his words, in language that cannot fail to be intimidating. I accept that it could be done in such a way, but we are very concerned—I have discussed this because I am personally concerned about it—to see that it is made quite clear in the code of guidance exactly what the responsibilities are. It should be done in such a way that the applicant is given information and told about his rights and responsibilities, and of course this is a responsibility.
It may be that, when a person's circumstances change, it does not occur to him to report that. We do not expect ordinary people to refer to an Act of Parliament every time something needs to be dealt with—to expect that would be absolutely outrageous—but they should know their position because this is not simply a question of people trying to do something wrong. It is also a question of the housing authority needing to be made aware of a change of circumstances which can affect the rest, or certainly some, of its allocation of housing, both in terms of the long-term housing list and for homeless people.
The idea behind subsection (2), to which my noble friend takes exception, is that if a person applies to a housing authority and claims in good faith to be homeless, which he is at the time, then if, while the authority is considering his case, something happens—say, some other accommodation becomes available to him—he should be obliged to tell the authority so that it will not be required to secure accommodation for somebody who is no longer in need of it.
There is a certain degree of fairness here from the point of view of other people who are in a similar position. Somebody might want deliberately to withhold information, and that would be covered. But perhaps people simply do not inform about a change of circumstances, and in

997
that situation it is extremely important to know the facts because every unit of accommodation counts. There is also the question of the need for careful monitoring.
I am sure we will hear about it if the provision is abused; local councillors, voluntary organisations and, I am sure, my noble friend will hear about it, and then, in the light of information which shows that it is being misused, something can be done about it. If it reaches the point of a person being guilty under the provision, being liable on summary conviction—and we do not envisage many cases coming into that category—the court would have to be satisfied; the local authority is not being given power to fine people on the spot.
Although this will not be used very much—it is, as it were, a fall-back clause—I do not think it will have the devastating effects my noble friend thinks it will have. It will also make local authorities feel that they have covered any loopholes and gaps that might otherwise affect their housing allocations and their ability to deal with other homeless people who are in equally desperate circumstances. I hope that my noble friend will accept that explanation and will not press the Amendment.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, having listened to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Birk, I am still rather mystified. If one is in need of accommodation one normally tries to get one's name on several lists. Obviously if one obtains accommodation, there is no reason not to inform the other lists that one is no longer in need of accommodation. I cannot visualise the case of a homeless woman, say a battered wife, not informing the local authority if she obtains accommodation. To make it an offence in the way proposed seems serious. It is all very well the Minister saying this power may not often be used, but is it wise to have such a clause, one which could be used? While listening to the Minister I tried to imagine the sort of case she had in mind and, frankly, I failed to do so. As I say, there seems no reason why, if one finds accommodation, one should not inform the local authority.
Lord WADE: My Lords, this is the old problem of trying to be fair and at
998
the same time taking into account that there are a few who abuse the law, while the majority suffer in consequence. I should like to make a general point here. There are cases where legislation such as this is passed with the best of intentions—and I certainly hope that this Bill will reach the Statute Book—and there is perhaps only one case of somebody abusing the law. There is then an outcry, with the possible result being an amending Act which destroys the good work that has been done; and all of this is because of only one or two people. Those facts must be taken into account.
The main point here is that the Amendment would remove the applicant's duty to notify material changes of fact to the authority considering his case. I think it is reasonable that an applicant should be under such a duty, and I regretfully feel that we ought not to accept the Amendment. If the noble Baroness, Lady Young, makes a very persuasive speech in the other direction, it may affect the position, but I have explained how I feel about the matter, and that is evidently the view of the spokesman for the Government.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, I am not at all satisfied with what I have heard. Those who have spoken against the Amendment appear to me to be far too ready to introduce into the law new crimes of a very vague nature. We must remember that we are here talking about crimes. We are concerned with the crime of omission, of not doing something, or not doing it as soon as possible. We are introducing this kind of crime without thinking whether it needs to be on the Statute Book at all.
Having said that, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Birk for the very full reply she gave me. To some extent, I am impressed by the fact that the guidance which is to be issued will deal with this aspect of the Bill. Those who have had experience of local authority officials in some districts—only a minority of districts, but it is perhaps the difficult minority of districts with which the Bill is most concerned—will know how callous officials can sometimes be. I am not at all satisfied that any guidance which may be given by the Department would encourage officials to be sympathetic in the way in which they administer this clause. I hope that I heard my noble friend aright

999
when she said that the guidance would contain some provisions as to the way in which local authorities should deal with applicants and should explain to them their rights and responsibilities.
There is another comment which must be made. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who talked about the need to be fair in this Bill. It is beginning to strike me that whenever a responsibility is laid upon a homeless person, failure to carry it out is immediately to be visited with criminal prosecution and penalty. On the other hand, if the local authority fails to do its duty, there is no such sanction, and I fear that this may appear in the working of the Bill. Having said that, I will—somewhat reluctantly, in view also of the support I have received from my noble friends Lady Phillips and Lord Longford—accept the invitation to see how this matter goes. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.5 p.m.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 12A:
Page 11, line 17, leave out ("3") and insert ("7").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on earlier Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Guidance to authorities by Secretary of State.]:
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 11, line 32, leave out from ("functions") to ("to") in line 33.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No 13, which would restore this clause to its former terms. A relevant authority must have regard to guidance given by the Secretary of State, but will not be required additionally to have regard to local circumstances and the facts of individual cases. Possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, may help us on that point, but I understand that this matter arises from an alteration made during the Committee stage.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this matter arose because when the noble Lord,
1000
Lord Sandford, moved Amendments to this clause at the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, then indicated that he was not happy about it. Neither was I. But I think that the matter went through very quickly, as it was one of those occasions when we were speeding along. A degree of confusion then arose because we were discussing two Amendments together. The words which the previous Amendment inserted, and, which the present Amendment seeks to remove, have the effect of undermining the status of the guidance which is to be issued by the Secretary of State. As I understand it, an authority could effectively disregard the Secretary of State's guidance if it decides that the local circumstances, or the facts of individual cases, warrant it. The wording conveys that flavour to me.
I do not suggest that an authority should lose its discretion to determine the facts of a particular case, or what to do about a case in the light of local circumstances. But to suggest that an authority should be entitled to disregard the Secretary of State's guidance, or to have regard to it just to the extent that it suited it, is to misconstrue the purpose and nature of the guidance.
The general housing responsibilities and duties of authorities are set down in the main body of housing legislation from the 1957 Act onwards. Nothing by way of guidance from the Secretary of State under this clause can affect those responsibilities and duties. The purpose of the code is to provide a set of criteria, or an operating framework within which all authorities would be acting consistently regarding their functions under this Bill. It is very much to the benefit of authorities, as well as the homeless, that this consistency should prevail.
The code of guidance is not something that is to be imposed peremptorily. Drafts of it have already been the subject of detailed discussions with the local authority associations. These discussions will continue with the object of securing as broad a consensus as possible. But without doubt a code of guidance aimed at a consistency of approach is necessary, if only because even now getting on for 40 per cent. of housing authorities have not implemented Circular 18/74, which has no statutory backing. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that

1001
the position should be restored to what it was peviously. I do not think I am mistaken in saying that the noble Lord was quite surprised over the short period of triumph when the Amendment went through previously, by default, as it were.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I regard it as a very unusual procedure for the Government to agree to an Amendment on Committee, and then decide to take it out on Report. I accept that this is a Private Member's Bill, but what I have just said is the effect of this Amendment. It is perfectly true that we, on this side, were not expecting the Amendment to be agreed in Committee. Nevertheless, it was agreed, and that is the situation. I have looked up the matter in Hansard, and I see at column 714 of the Official Report that the Amendment was agreed to without discussion. Although it was not discussed, there is a very real local government point which lies behind this matter; namely, the freedom of the local authority to consider the local circumstances and the facts of the case. Surely this involves a not unreasonable request so far as a public authority is concerned. Local circumstances vary, and the facts of any given case vary, and all that is being sought in the Amendment is that these factors should be taken into account, as well as the guidance from the Secretary of State. It is quite common practice in other matters of local government. It would not be an exception, and I am very surprised that the Government should seek to take it out again at this stage.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to that. At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said:
"I am not entirely happy, but I do not wish to discuss the matter at the moment".—[Official Report, 22/7/77; col. 715.]
As the hour was late—and I think that at that time the noble Baroness herself was also anxious to get on with the business—the Question was quickly put, and the Amendment was agreed to. I took it, speaking from the Government side, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, having said that he did not wish to discuss it at that moment, that we would certainly be returning to it, and we have now in fact done so. All that is happening is that the discussion which would have taken place in Committee is now taking place
1002
on Report. I think that the points made by the noble Baroness and by her noble friend in Committee have been very well aired—in fact, they have now had two very good airings—and I hope that, with that, they will now withdraw their opposition and let the Amendment go through.
Lord SANDFORD: That may be, my Lords, but not just yet. The position that I should like to make clear first of all is that it did not at all surprise me that the Amendment which I moved in Committee was accepted, because I thought it was a good one, and I still do. Nor was it in any sense an Amendment that was accepted by default. We may have been wanting to get on—I as much as anybody else—but it was quite clearly moved. I thought I explained it briskly but nevertheless clearly, and the point is exactly as my noble friend has just indicated. The noble Baroness just now referred to undermining people's status. What will be undermined if this Amendment is now carried is the status of the housing authorities. They, as your Lordships know, are local authorities, which are controlled by locally-elected councillors, and they are not in any sense at all the agencies of the Secretary of State. This is the position we were anxious to secure.
The second point I should like to make is that it is one of the rules of the House that there should not be reversed at Third Reading, the last stage of a Bill, Amendments which have been accepted at an earlier stage. It is perfectly true that we are now at Report stage, but, as my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip said at the beginning of these proceedings, we have agreed that Report and remaining stages should be taken today. So I think that, at any rate in the spirit if not in the letter, the rule that we do not reverse at this stage something which has been accepted at a previous stage ought to apply. I therefore take considerable exception to an Amendment which, if the noble Lord, Lord Wade, or the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, had wanted it so, could in fact have been debated fully at the previous stage.
Lord WADE: My Lords, if wrath is to fall on anyone, no doubt it should fall on my head for being too peaceful a person. I merely said at the time that I was not happy about this, but as there seemed to

1003
be a general desire to get on I did not press the point. No doubt I should have pressed it then and not left it till now. But I am bound to say that I hope the House, I having been duly rebuked and having considered it, will accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Financial and other assistance to voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness]:
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 13A:
Page 12, line 12, at end insert—
("(3A) Neither the Secretary of State nor a housing authority nor the Greater London Council shall give a voluntary organisation assistance under this section unless the organisation have first given an undertaking—

(a) that they will use the money, furniture or other goods or premises made available to them for such purposes as may be specified in the undertaking, and

(b) that if the Secretary of State, or, as the case may be, the housing authority or the Greater London Council serve notice on the organisation requiring them to do so, the organisation will, within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the notice is served, furnish a certificate giving such information as may reasonably be required by the notice with respect to the manner in which the assistance given to them is being used.

(3B) Subject to subsection (3C) below, if it appears—

(a) to the Secretary of State, in a case where assistance has been given under subsection (1) above, or

(b) to a housing authority or the Greater London Council, as the case may be, in a case where assistance has been given under subsection (2) or (4) above,

that a voluntary organisation to whom the assistance was given have failed to carry out their undertaking under subsection (3A)(a) above, the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the housing authority or the Greater London Council, shall take all reasonable steps to recover from the organisation an amount equal to the amount of the assistance.
(3C) No sum shall be recoverable under subsection (3B) above unless the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the housing authority or the Greater London Council, have first served on the voluntary organisation a notice specifying—

(a) the amount which in their opinion is recoverable, and

(b) the basis on which that amount has been calculated.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been spoken to already. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, this Amendment is, I think, of a more serious nature, and it is one which was discussed at length in another place. I think it is designed to meet the sort of situation which, in the context of this Bill, can be conveniently summed up by saying it was described in the television programme, "Goodbye Longfellow Road"; and it is intended to cover the case of voluntary organisations which receive public money. It was the wish of my honourable friend Mr. Rossi and noble Lords on this side of the House, not only that the accounts of these voluntary organisations should be properly kept but that the local authority concerned should see that its intentions with regard to the keeping and the spending of the money should be properly observed. An exact parallel of this, I think, would be the case of trustees and a trust. It is not good enough simply that the money must be spent correctly; it must be spent in the way in which the trustees and the trust lay down.
I am bound to tell noble Lords that we on this side of the House are not entirely satisfied with the drafting of this Amendment. Nevertheless, I understand the position to be that it would be too late at this stage of the Bill to look at all the relevant law on trusts and then to write it into this Bill, and that in the time that is available this is the best that can be achieved. It is, I think, more than a drafting point. It is in fact an important matter of principle; and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has felt that this can be put into the Bill. We on this side of the House would have liked it to be a little tighter than it is, but at any rate it is considerably better than was the position originally.
4.18 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I should like to support very strongly what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I think that, in respect of the matter to which she referred and which was exposed some time ago on television, we had the experience of a terrible abuse of public funds. The position is one which requires extremely careful consideration. The idea that money can be abused in the way that was illustrated, particularly in view of the fact that homelessness is so prevalent and that housing associations are so terribly important for

1005
the purpose of meeting the needs of the situation, is something which should be given the most careful consideration, particularly in relation to the points raised by the noble Baroness. It is very important, I think, that, in a manner similar to that in which trusts have to be carried into effect, the use of this money should be subject to similar careful scrutiny, so that abuses such as that to which we have referred can be avoided. In the circumstances, whatever may be the wording of the Amendment—I have not examined the wording very carefully, but I think it covers the point—I think we should strongly support it.
Viscount GAGE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Janner, not for the first time, has criticised the entire housing association movement on the basis of two bodies which are not registered and which are not really considered housing associations at all. I hope he will not go on expounding this view, because it is untrue. Although I will not contest what my noble friend has said, I sometimes wish that people would remember that voluntary bodies are voluntary, and if you make things too difficult for them they just will not work at all.
Lord JANNER: Of course, the voluntary bodies, although they do remarkable work, also have an obligation to see that any funds that come into their possession are properly dealt with. I am not going to say that they do not make mistakes. Of course, they do; otherwise no lawyer would be able to live. But, at the same time, it is of great importance that in the use of public funds the most careful consideration should be given to ensure that there is no abuse.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think that this Amendment covers the point which was expressed by my noble friend Lord Janner and by the noble Baroness; but obviously it is not intended as an insult or as a weapon against properly run and properly audited voluntary societies, any more than the fraud laws are there to be used against people who do not commit fraud. Nevertheless, it is true that there have been cases in the past—and I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, will agree—and that when these things happen they often tend to give the reputable bodies a bad name, and to smear them unfairly.
1006
What this Amendment does is to make sure that they keep proper books of account and have them audited. We have been pressed that Clause 12(4)—and the noble Baroness clearly said so—does not go far enough. We hope (and I think this convinces me) that we have found the right point. It is the point between what has been expressed by my noble friend Lord Janner and by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. This Amendment, in requiring a procedure for obtaining repayment if the money is not used for the purposes for which it was given, meets the substance of this point. Local authorities are responsible to their ratepayers for the stewardship of substantial sums of money and I am confident that, with this now in the Bill, it can be left to them to judge whether the organisations which they propose to assist are responsible and trustworthy. In order to help them to do that, it seems sensible to introduce a safeguard of the sort envisaged in this Amendment against what we all hope is the occasional abuse which tends, as I have said, to bring discredit on the whole voluntary housing movement. I hope noble Lords will support this Amendment.
Viscount GAGE: My Lords, for the record, would not the noble Baroness agree that the purpose of the registration system which has been introduced was to circumvent these bad associations, and that it could not happen again with any new associations?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, one hopes not. Of course, those in default were those who were not registered. But I think we need a safety net, which is what this is.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I want to make it clear that there is no implication on local authorities generally or on voluntary bodies generally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Meaning of accommodation available for occupation.]:
4.25 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 15A:
Page 14, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("available") in line 11 and insert—
("For the purposes of this Act accommodation is only available for a person's occupation if it is").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 15A and 15B are drafting Amendments. There are several references in the Bill to accommodation being available. Some are worded in different ways. These Amendments are simply to cover these more satisfactorily in drafting terms than does the present text. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 15B:
Page 14, line 13, at end insert ("and any reference in this Act to securing accommodation for a person's occupation shall be construed accordingly.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Persons intentionally homeless or threatened with homelessness]:
4.28 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 15C:
Page 14, line 15, after ("if") insert ("with a view to gaining an advantage under this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15C. This Amendment is to be found as a manuscript Amendment on the list of manuscript Amendments which has been circulated. Perhaps it will be to the convenience of the House if I were to speak also to the other four Amendments which stand in my name on that list. No doubt, also, there should be debate on Amendment No. 15E on that list in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and my noble friends Lady Birk and Lord Kirkhill. These Amendments all deal with the clause regarding intentional homelessness, so called.
In presenting this Amendment, it is necessary briefly to review the history of this concept. When the Bill was originally introduced in the House of Commons there was no reference in it to any question of intentional homelessness. However, in Committee in another place, concern was expressed by various Members that people
1008
would abuse the Bill; that, in effect, they would say to themselves, "Here we are with an authority that has a duty to house the homeless. Let us make ourselves homeless in order to benefit."
Because of that concern, Amendments were introduced on Report in the other place introducing into the earlier clauses the concept of intentional homelessness. There has been further amendment in this House and, as the Bill stands now, your Lordships will find, first in Clauses 2 and 3, various references to those who are homeless intentionally or threatened with homelessness. In respect of such people, the duty which the local authority has is very much less than it has to other priority need people. Their duty is only to secure interim accommodation, such accommodation as they would consider reasonable, and would be fulfilled, for instance, by providing shelter and bed and breakfast for a short space of time, a week or two; whereas the main duty is to secure accommodation on a permanent basis.
Once those Amendments had been made, a great amount of concern was expressed both in this House and outside that the introduction of this concept of intentional homelessness would provide a major loophole through which local authorities who did not wish to observe the spirit of the Bill could evade entirely their responsibilities. On Second Reading in this House many noble Lords—some of whom, like the noble Lords, Lord Soper and Lord Hylton, are not here at this moment—expressed serious reservations about that concept.
On Committee, I sought to move an Amendment to delete that whole concept of intentional homelessness and, receiving little support in the face of very stout opposition from both Front Benches, I withdrew it and I do not now seek to reintroduce it. However, also in Committee a whole new clause, now Clause 16 of the Bill, was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and carried. That clause as it now stands reads:
"… for the purposes of this Act a person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy".
Subsection (2) has similar provisions with regard to those threatened with homelessness; and subsection (3) reads:

1009
"An act or omission on the part of a person who was unaware of any relevant fact is not to be treated as deliberate for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) above".
There is a further provision in subsection (4) allowing the authority to pay regard to local circumstances in determining what is reasonable.
On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, described the very phrase "intentional homelessness" as "gobbledygook". We now have a whole series of phrases, and if the phrase was originally gobbledygook, this new clause makes it far worse. It is my serious contention that, as it stands, the clause renders this Bill worse than useless. Any local authority is faced with different kinds of people who come to it for assistance: people who are in arrears of rent or mortgage payments; people who have had family disputes; people who have taken on holiday lets or short lettings. In almost all those categories, the loophole is there, if they choose to use it, to say: "No, you have become intentionally homeless. You have done, to quote Clause 16, a deliberate act".
Among the many appalling cases which have been brought to our attention by the charities, there is that of a family in Cleethorpes on Humberside. Because of the unemployment of the husband, they fell behind in their mortgage payments. They were required by a court to pay £19 a week off a mortgage when they were receiving benefits of only £30 a week. This is a family with one child. Of course, they could not keep up with that and they were evicted. The local authority refused to house them because they had intentionally made themselves homeless—intentionally, I suppose, because, being in receipt of benefits of £30 a week, they intentionally decided to spend some or all of that money on food or clothing rather than on paying a £19 a week mortgage instalment. Practically anything which leads to homelessness, apart from fire and flood and that kind of emergency, is the consequence of some kind of act which is deliberate in the sense defined by this clause; that is to say, it is not accidental.
My Lords, I have gone in some detail into the history of the Bill as it is so far, in order to explain the purpose of my Amendment. On Committee, the various spokesmen of the Front Benches agreed, after some pressure, that the wording of
1010
this new clause could be looked at. I have put down a series of Amendments which will have the effect of making Clause 16(1) read:
"… for the purposes of this Act a person becomes threatened with homelessness intentionally if with a view to gaining an advantage under this Act he does or fails to do anything the likely result of which is that he will be forced to leave accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy."
Subsection (2) is amended in a similar way. Subsection (3), with its very convoluted wording, "unaware of any relevant fact", would not be necessary.
That wording is put forward in a moderate spirit and a spirit of compromise. What it retains is the power to prevent those who have a deliberate intention of abusing the Act by getting an advantage under the Act from qualifying to be rehoused. It hits at those who have the motive which, so far as I understand it, is the motive with which people want to deal. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, who has steered this Bill with great moderation and courtesy, said on Second Reading that the "intentional" clause was designed to deal with
"people whose object is to abuse the system and jump the queue".
That is from column 1131 of Hansard for 15th July. My Amendment would cover such people who have a motive to gain an advantage under the Act. It would delete from the Bill this concept of deliberateness, with its very artificial definition, and would make the clause generally very much more simple to operate. If a local authority were satisfied that someone was abusing the Act, it could act accordingly and not be under a duty to rehouse such a person.
I do not know whether that wording, the final form of which I only put forward this morning because of the great shortage of time on this Bill, is acceptable to the various Front Bench spokesmen. From the fact that two Front Benches have put their names to Amendment No. 15E, it may be that it is not acceptable, and that they contend that Amendment No. 15E does the trick. Because of that, I will deal shortly with that Amendment.
Amendment No. 15E would insert in subsection (3) the words, "in good faith" It would read:

1011
"An act or omission in good faith on the part of a person who was unaware of any relevant fact is not to be treated as deliberate".
That narrows the Bill; it makes it even more difficult to get round the intentional homelessness criteria. It certainly does not go any way towards the vice which I say the Bill has. It only deals with people who, in good faith, are unaware of something. A lot of people, such as the person who defaulted on his mortgage payments, were not unaware of any relevant facts, but were just crippled with poverty. It is the people who are crippled with poverty, that we want to see rehoused under this Bill rather than allowing them to escape through loopholes of this kind. Having heard my noble friend Lady Birk I may have to come back to the Government Amendment. For the present, I commend most seriously the series of Amendments to which I have spoken. I beg to move.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it will be helpful, save time and make a more coherent debate if we discuss his Amendments together with the Amendment standing in my name and that of my colleague. May I just say to my noble friend who said that if this clause is left in the Bill, the Bill will be worse than useless, that he should go and tell that to the people who are at this moment homeless, who have no other recourse, and for which there is no statutory rescue to which they can turn. To say that is not only going too far oratorically, but is taking a completely impractical and counter-productive approach to the Bill.
My noble friend is aware—and we discussed this at some length at Committee stage—that this Bill is the result of a consensus between the sponsors, the Opposition and the Government. I have been quite frank, and there are many of us who would prefer not to see this particular clause in the Bill. I and my colleagues in another place and in this House are not prepared to jeopardise the first Statute to go on the Book to deal with the homeless because we have had to come to a compromise on a clause.
I will explain why I think that the Amendment standing in my name should be accepted, and that the Amendment
1012
standing in the name of my noble friend should be rejected. I have explained that what is proposed narrows this clause as finely as possible to make it acceptable to get this Bill through. But this means it will have to have Royal Assent by the end of this week. These are the brutal facts of the case. Under this Bill, just about all who are homeless, or threatened with homelessness, are entitled to advice and assistance from their housing authority. Those in categories with a priority need are entitled to immediate shelter, and subsequently to permanent accommodation. As we know, the priority categories include families with children, pregnant women, and those vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability. Moreover, the homeless are explicitly defined to include those subject to violence or real threats of violence, so that a battered woman is entitled to advice and assistance from the housing authority and, where she has children with her, to shelter and permanent accommodation if she needs it.
The Bill also provides for arrangements to be made, subject to Parliamentary approval, governing the responsibilities of authorities for the homeless moving between one area and another. It can no longer be the case that the homeless will be shunted willy-nilly from one local authority area to another. I apologise to noble Lords for going over this once again, but I feel it important to stress that all these provisions represent very significant advances on the very limited terms of the National Assistance Act 1948, and on the joint Circular 18/74. Not only do they establish an integrated legislative and administrative system; they apply to all housing authorities, not just to those who, at their discretion, have adopted the joint circular in whole or in part.
However, the comprehensive character of this new system has created genuine fears in another place, in this House and generally among local authorities throughout the country, that it will be used by some people, quite deliberately, to gain an unfair advantage in competition with the genuinely homeless and at the expense of others, with a real need, on the waiting list. It is fair to say that this Bill commends itself to Parliament and to everyone outside, in so far as it deals with the intentionally homeless.

1013
Clearly, then, the wording of the Bill with respect to the intentionally homeless is of great importance, because I think I have shown that this fear has been expressed. Whatever the degree of fear, which varies between different people, it is there and it has been agreed that this aspect should be included in the Bill. I certainly do not quarrel at all with my noble friend Lord Gifford for raising this matter again. He is absolutely right, that I said in Committee that I would have a look at the drafting. I was very careful and scrupulous, in making it quite clear that the motivation of the intent clause would have to remain in the Bill in some form or another, without changing its meaning. The Amendment which stands in our joint names is the result of that look at the drafting.
None of us wants to disqualify from any of the benefits of the Bill anyone other than those who set out to "buck" the system. That is why the burden of proof is put on the housing authority—which I think my noble friend will agree is certainly an improvement on the original version—to determine that the applicant is intentionally homeless. Moreover, the authority can no longer hide behind any cloak of secrecy, because they are obliged to give their reasons in writing.
Nor do we want to leave without shelter those with a priority need, however deliberate their homelessness might be. That is why the Bill provides that even the intentionally homeless are to be provided with shelter for as long as is reasonable for them, with advice and assistance from the housing authority, to secure other accommodation. The area of the intentionally homeless is a very difficult and delicate one, and there is no getting around that. Having agreed that this is to be in the Bill, it is absolutely impossible to find a form of words which will be acceptable to everyone concerned, certainly in this House and in another place. So I am afraid that there has to be a considerable amount of compromise, if one wants to get the Bill through.
Let me therefore turn to the exact words in Clause 16:
"a person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy".
1014
My noble friend wants to insert "with a view to gaining an advantage under this Act"; he would also delete the reference to "deliberately" and with it subsection (3).
I have looked very carefully and sympathetically at these changes, but I cannot accept them, because they are not just a refinement of the present wording. They are not just clearer drafting changes. They constitute a significant change of meaning, and I do not think, from his point of view, that the deletion of "deliberately" helps. They require a housing authority to determine two highly difficult matters: first, that the homelessness was intentional; and, secondly that the intent was to gain an unfair advantage under the Act. In other words, the authority would be obliged to demonstrate the intention of an intention. That would put them in an impossible position and the Bill would lose credibility, both with housing authorities and with the general public.
We have studied the wording of the Bill very carefully, as I promised my noble friend, and I would commend the wording in my name, which would protect those who acted in good faith; for example, those who followed mistaken or misleading advice and became homeless in consequence. This wording means that you cannot say to someone "If you were unaware of the fact, ignorance is no defence in law". You have, in addition, to show that someone has acted in bad faith. I am a little surprised that my noble friend has not immediately found this acceptable, because I believe that a number of other people and colleagues feel that this strengthens the clause and makes it rather tighter, in that it gives an applicant greater leeway. It adds to his side of the problem.
This change will help to express in the wording of the Bill the concept that the sponsor, noble Lords opposite and we have agreed it should contain. Beyond this, we must see what can be done outside the Bill itself, bearing in mind that the provision is intended, above all, to be a deterrent. It is not intended that local authorities should use this provision in order to prevent eligible people, who are among the priority groups, from getting housing. In any case, they cannot do so, because of the way the rest of the Bill is framed. The point that it is only a

1015
deterrent has not been sufficiently emphasised. Those intending to "buck" the system are more likely than others to read the small print of the Bill, and be deterred. Those who are quite unaware, in the circumstances in which they find themselves, that it will have this result, and who are also acting in good faith, will now be covered by this Amendment. I should be surprised, and very much alarmed, if the numbers of intentional homeless proved to be large.
From time to time, local authorities take quite a lot of bashing and criticism, as well as praise, but the impression that all local authorities are waiting to pounce, and use this clause in order not to house any homeless, is not only untrue but grossly unfair. I do not believe this to be so. If one accepts that, one is saying that not only officials but also local councillors of each Party, and Independents, will be in cohort in order to stop the housing of homeless people. This is entirely contrary to what is taking place. I find in my Department that there is passionate lobbying in the form of letters and deputations from local authorities which are anxious to find some way to increase their housing resources. If one carries it too far, one will reach the position where the tail will wag the dog. However, this is not so and we must keep the problem in proportion.
We shall make clear in the circular on the Act and in the code of guidance what we see as the purpose of the provision and its appropriate consequences. We shall also monitor the situation through the statistics on homelessness which we collect from local authorities. The House will be glad to know that in the light of this Bill we have already started to discuss with the local authority associations arrangements for the collection of statistics. The statistics will certainly deal with the intentionally homeless. They will enable us to watch what is happening and—to pick up the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, at Committee stage—in dealing with the question of the allocation of resources which must follow the Bill we shall take account of the possibility that in some cases social service authorities may have a residual responsibility.
I appreciate the fears of those who feel that many for whom homelessness is a
1016
disaster may be branded as intentionally homeless, but I do not share the fear that this will apply to a great many people. Now that we accept that "homelessness and poverty" is not just a phrase and believe that something should be done about it, the idea that any of us could sit back and quite happily see human beings branded as intentionally homeless when they are nothing of the kind would be quite unfair to everybody concerned. If the purpose of the provision is respected by authorities and by everybody concerned—which includes the locally elected representatives, Members of Parliament, the voluntary organisations, the ordinary, interested citizen and ourselves as Members of this House—then not only will there be little to fear but we shall know what is going on. If there is abuse, obviously we shall have to deal with it. We shall be monitoring the situation very carefully and will be ready to act, if required. One cannot be completely certain at this stage just what the particular effects will be. However, I repeat that it would be folly of the utmost order to jeopardise the benefits which this Bill can begin to bring to the homeless, and which I described when I began, if we allowed what I believe will turn out to be exaggerated fears to overturn our common sense.
I apologise to the House for taking up so much time, but I believe that this is an extremely important point. It is the most important basis of difficulty, contention and discussion, and I am glad that by putting forward his Amendments so that we could bring the matter out into the open again and discuss it my noble friend Lord Gifford has given me the opportunity to state the position as I see it. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendments and that the House will accept the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, my noble friend Lord Kirkhill and myself.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said in explanation of the Bill as it stands at present. I intervene to make two points. First, I was very glad to hear in the course of the explanation given by the noble Baroness that the

1017
Government acknowledge that social service departments may well have residual responsibilities under the Bill, and I hope that they will enter into discussions on the financing of those responsibilities. My noble friend Lord Amory has asked me to say that he is very sorry not to be in his place this afternoon, because unexpectedly he has had to go to a funeral; otherwise he would have intervened on this point.
Secondly, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, regarding his Amendments and the Bill as it stands at the moment that I hope he will feel that Amendment No. 15E, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, helps his case. I drew the inference from what he said when he moved his Amendments that he felt it made the position worse—or, at any rate, no better. I should have thought that this was not true. It means that somebody who becomes homeless because he has accepted had or misleading advice will be helped, as provided in Clause 1; therefore he is not covered by the position set out in Clause 16.
We on this side of the House are quite prepared to accept Amendment No. 15E. It is a reasonable compromise which I should have thought the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, could accept. I hope very much that he will not press his Amendments. I believe that to do so would disturb the basis upon which agreement has been reached on the series of Amendments that we on this side of the House have moved. I should like the noble Lord to believe that we have moved at least some way in his direction since the Committee in terms of Amendment No. 15E, which we are happy to accept. In that spirit I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, will withdraw his Amendments.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I need to say only a few words. First, I was glad to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had to say about the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, because the noble Viscount mentioned several times to me this particular worry of his, and I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will be writing to him on the matter.
There are three points which I wish to make. I am very glad to hear that the
1018
noble Baroness, Lady Young, is prepared to accept the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and myself. I must admit that I find the words "intentionally homeless" emotionally repugnant. I am sorry that we have to use the expression at all; if we could find some other words which had the same meaning I should be happier. Nevertheless, there are certain cases which, even if a different term were used, would amount to this and we have to recognise that fact.
I do not intend to quote examples; several were quoted in the other place. The disadvantage of quoting examples is that it tends to arouse feelings both ways and does harm. Therefore I shall not go into details. However, in both Houses a great deal of time has been spent upon trying to find the right wording and finally reaching this rewording, and I hope that, as the best compromise we can reach, this Amendment will be accepted.
4.59 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, first may I reply to the two noble Baronesses who have spoken about the "good faith" Amendment. I accept what they say: that this Amendment improves the Bill if it includes the little word "or". To say:
"An act or omission in good faith or on the part of a person who was unaware of any relevant fact",
would go a long way towards meeting the kind of objections which I have been making. However:
"An act or omission in good faith on the part of a person who was unaware of any relevant facts"
must restrict the ambit of Clause 16(3).
Clause 16(3) already allows into the scope of the duty of the local authorities people who are unaware of any relevant fact. With the Amendment, only those who are unaware of the relevant fact and are also in good faith are to be within the ambit of that duty. It certainly goes nowhere to meet the objections that have been made both by myself and outside Parliament. It may not make that much difference because no doubt those people who are unaware of material things are also people who are acting in perfectly good faith, so it probably does not advance

1019
or retard very much, but strictly speaking it restricts the ambit. If any of those who have spoken could indicate that at Third Reading they could agree to the insertion of the little word "or" I would withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that I am sorry but it would be quite impossible. I should not like him to spend time needlessly pursuing that line because inserting the word "or" would open the whole controversy again. The noble Lord was good enough to say that he believed that this improved the Bill and I hope he will accept that. In many ways, I think the words "in good faith" and "unaware" work together and in a rather odd way can work as alternatives, but we really cannot insert the word "or" into the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will accept that.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, that really underlines the next point that I want to make. It is the question of a consensus. As I have understood the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and my noble friend Lady Birk, from time to time, Amendments have been tabled to this Bill which both would have been quite happy to see accepted and yet those Amendments have been rejected in this House with their approval because there is no three-Party consensus. As I understand that, it means that, because of the late stage in the Parliamentary Session at which this Bill is being taken through Parliament, the Tory Party has an effective veto on any Amendments which the other two Parties would have been able to pass, even if they would have carried the majority here or elsewhere. That kind of consensus passage of legislation is not the way in which I should wish to see a Bill carried through Parliament. But there it is: if it is to be a law at all it seems that it must be carried through by Friday.
Next, I wish to reply to my noble friend who accused me of being unfair in taking such a pessimistic view of the consequences of this Amendment and appealed for common sense in support of her appeal. The difficulty is that a minority of local authorities, although nevertheless a substantial number, are, here and now, without this Bill being on the Statute Book,
1020
praying in aid the excuse of intentional homelessness in order to refuse to rehouse people in the most deserving and devastating of cases. If they are praying that reason in aid now, how much more will they do so when, as a specific exception to their duties, they are able to turn away anybody who has deliberately done something in consequence of which they have become homeless? Common sense requires us to appreciate that people who are doing something now will go on doing it if the law allows them to do so, as this law will.
Of course, a large number of local authorities are complying with Circular 18/74. Nothing that I say is an attack on local authorities in general. A great many of them—indeed, the majority—are housing the homeless. Those who are not doing so will not, with the Bill as it now stands, be required to, except, in my judgment, in a minority of cases. I do not at all see how the Amendments that I have finally tabled are in any way unworkable. In fact, they bring into the Bill those people who—to quote my noble friend—"set out to buck the system", and why the law cannot be clear in that way I do not know. I do not feel able to withdraw my Amendment because I believe that these Amendments are as reasonable as can be and I must see what their fate is to be.
On Question, Amendment 15C negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 15CC, 15D, 15DD, and 15DDD not moved.]
5.6 p.m.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 15E:
Page 14, line 26, after ("omission") insert ("in good faith").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has already been discussed. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [General Interpretation]:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Jacques): My Lords, to keep the Amendments in proper sequence in relation to the Bill, I shall now call Amendment No. 18.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 16, line 7, at end insert —
(""a person vulnerable as a result of old age" means a person who has reached retirement age or any other elderly person who has a special need.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Longford has asked me to make the first speech in moving this Amendment which stands in our joint names. This is an Amendment which seeks to make more precise the duty of local authorities towards the elderly. At present, the categories of priority need include those who are
"vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason".
The word "vulnerable" of course imports a considerable amount of judgment and, so far as the other categories of mental illness, handicap or physical disability are concerned, it is inevitable that some element of judgment must come into play as to how handicapped or how disabled one has to be. But, so far as old age is concerned, that is something that is measurable in years, and this Amendment seeks to define a person vulnerable as a result of old age as a person who has reached retirement age or any other elderly person who has a special need. In other words, it requires local authorities—as I am sure the great majority do—to treat as having priority need anybody of pensionable age.
Noble Lords may think that any humane authority would indeed do that and that no person of pensionable age who was homeless would not be rehoused by the authorities, but the information that I have is that that is simply not the case. There are authorities which say of certain elderly people who approach them that they are not vulnerable, and can fend for themselves. They say, "You are a hale and hearty person". That may be so, but are we really to allow any authority to turn away any pensioners—even if they appear to be as spry as many of your Lordships are—who have not a roof over their heads? The information that I have comes from Age Concern and if it is true—and I have no reason to doubt it—it is scandalous. I hope that those who are responsible for this Bill will feel able to accept this very modest Amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. In a way, it might be thought that I was better equipped—or perhaps more biased—to deal with this Amendment. A person "vulnerable as a result of old age" would apply to me much better than to him. I come here with a travel permit on the buses, a senior citizens' rail card and no doubt other signs of old age.
Take the case of a travel permit on the buses. I think we must agree that it would be a great mistake to allow a bus conductor to say, "You do not look as old as that". They would not say it to me of course, but they may say it to other noble Lords who do not seem so old. Or take the case of a rather tiresome ticket collector who may refuse to accept your permit. These things must not be left to the whim of a minor official. They must be handled in the methodical and objective way the noble Lord has proposed. So I support him strongly.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, although the aims of this Amendment appear to be very helpful and straightforward, I suggest to both noble Lords that perhaps the result of their Amendment may be quite contrary to what they wish. They are placing here a quite specific age, that is
"a person who has reached retirement age".
It has been suggested to me that there are those persons perhaps a few years below retirement age who would come within this category, and if this Amendment is written into the Bill those persons will be turned away by the local authority who will say, "You have not reached retirement age and are therefore not eligible". If the Bill stands as it is at present drafted, they will have an opportunity, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, so rightly said, of a judgment. Nevertheless, it will have to be a judgment based not on a specific age. I think the Amendment may be a little too restrictive.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I am glad the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has had his opportunity. I felt that he rather missed his chance during that very long Committee stage. I am sure no one would regard him as elderly. I do not think I need to add a great deal to what has been said. We must be quite clear what this Amendment means. It would mean that

1023
all persons of retirement age would be classed as having priority need, together with any other elderly persons who have special needs. This would diminish the discretion which authorities would have under the present wording to decide whether persons are vulnerable as a result of old age. Of course, one would like to say that all elderly people should be in the same category, but there is the problem to which we have referred over and over again of limited resources and the question of priorities. We discussed whether youth should come into the priorities. Here we face the problem again. I am hound to say that I would advise the House not to accept the Amendment, although f think we all have tremendous sympathy with the point of view that has been expressed.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I, too, should like to oppose the Amendment. Surely it is extremely insulting to imply, as the Amendment does, that men of 65, and even more so women of 60, should be classified as elderly. What is more, it is not only insulting but it is not in accordance with the facts, given that the great majority of men and women in their 60s and their early 70s cannot possibly be bracketed as helpless or incompetent or senile, and they certainly do not wish to be treated as such. What is more, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wade, was hinting, if the Amendment were carried it would mean that a millionaire of 65 could apply to be housed under the Act. I think the Amendment is misconceived and unnecessary, and I hope the House will reject it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I will not go over the arguments that other noble Lords have used, except to agree that the Amendment would oblige local authorities to use retirement age as a measure of vulnerability, and it would take away the choice of criteria in the case where somebody below retiring age could be considered, for all sorts of reasons, to be vulnerable because of old age. But I should say that the Government do intend to include a passage on this problem in the code of guidance to be issued under Clause 9. There we shall recommend that retirement age should be one of the
1024
main criteria, and authorities will be obliged to have regard to this recommendation. I hope that this will go part of the way—I can see that it will not go the whole way so far as the noble Earl is concerned—to show that this aspect is not being omitted, that this will be used as a criterion. With our restricted use of priority groups at the moment because of resources, I think this is the best way to deal with it.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, we have had some contradictory reasons for disagreeing with this Amendment. When the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, indicated his view, that less people would be rehoused if this Amendment were passed, I thought he was going to support it, he being one who does not wish to see local authorities' resources being overstretched. But the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said it would cause perhaps more people to be rehoused and that resources were limited, which was a contradictory reason for opposition, coming from what has been so far a very monolithic consensus. However, having heard my noble friend Lady Birk say that this will be covered in guidance, and having aired the matter, and knowing, as we do, that the working of this Bill can be monitored over the years, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Meaning of "local connection"]:
Lord WADE Lord WADE: moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 16, line 7, at end insert—
(""priority need" shall be construed in accordance with section 1(7A) above;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a very long time ago, at the beginning of the Report stage, this Amendment was discussed with an earlier Amendment. I therefore formally beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 16, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.20 p.m.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Wade.)
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, I would not wish to prolong these proceedings unnecessarily. There is at this stage only one plea I would wish to make. I and other noble Lords, and people outside Parliament, have expressed grave concern because the Bill as it has been amended has become very flexible. It has all sorts of words in it such as "intentionally homeless", "vulnerable", "reasonable", which enable a considerable amount of discretion to be imported into its working. That has been a direct consequence of this consensus approach. We fear that the effect of the consensus will produce a very woolly Bill.
I ask my noble friend Lady Birk whether, where vague phrases occur—especially in Clause 16, which deals with intentional homelessness and which contains a number of flexible words—the guidance that the Government are to give to local authorities will really be specific and clearer than perhaps the Bill is as regards the way in which it should be implemented in the most common cases? I am thinking in particular of rent arrears and family disputes. The most common causes of homelessness are well known. Such a situation will, perhaps, in some cases of difficult local authorities, tip the scales. I hope that that assurance can be given.
5.22 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I, too, should like to make a few comments. As your Lordships have undoubtedly gathered from the speeches that have been made during various debates on the Bill, some of us have been very disturbed about certain aspects which have been included in the Bill, as well as some which have been excluded. What has prompted most of us to ask leave to withdraw our objections has been the fact that there is no doubt that the Bill itself is useful as regards most aspects. Consequently, I think that it is necessary to emphasise once again that that is the reason why we have refrained from obstructing the passage of the Bill. There has not been sufficient time to press certain points, but
1026
we do not want to destroy that part of the Bill which is good, in the hope that when instructions come from the Government they will be of such a nature as, in some ways, and possibly entirely, to meet the points that we have raised.
I should not like the various voluntary organisations who have been so devoted and dedicated to their work, to feel that what they have in mind and what they have already done as regards various matters—from my own experience the fear of single homelessness is such a matter—has not been properly expressed or considered. It is really due to the fact that we want certain persons or certain categories of people to be included, as they are in the Bill, in the list for priority consideration by the local authorities.
This is an extremely bitter pill for some of us to swallow, but I hope that it will not have the terrible effects that some of us fear. I point out as a warning—I hope that my noble friends will not take it unkindly—that, if, in the course of the operation of the Act, we find that those points that we have put forward are not dealt with in one way or another, they must understand that some of us may, and probably will, be prompted to raise these matters again, perhaps through Questions, but more likely in a Private Member's Bill, with the intention of making improvements.
I believe that the Bill will give special, important and necessary treatment to certain categories of people. As a result, I feel that, although there are surrounding difficulties, we ought to pass the Bill so that those people at least may benefit from it.
5.24 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, speaks from long experience of over 40 years in Parliament. However, he reminded his noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that he would conceivably bring up certain matters at a later stage. My Lords, I think that the House—I say this in no mood of self-congratulation because I have taken almost no part in the discussions—should be extremely pleased with the way it has managed an extremely difficult Bill over a period of nine sitting days.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will forgive me for interrupting him but I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the others who have participated in the debate on both sides of the House for the manner in which they have conducted it.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am sure that those views are most appreciatively expressed from this side of the House. Nevertheless, I think that that should be coupled with our comment, which was most eloquently expressed by my noble friend Baroness Young, that we were invited to look at the Bill on Friday 15th July. I think that this is the ninth sitting day. We have proceeded at a smart gallop, but the Government had the opportunity of taking the Third Reading in what we term the "spillover period." They have chosen not to do so for reasons best known to themselves. It might well have been possible to have had certain Amendments which could have been reached by consensus. However, I should like to point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that I believe her substantial explanation on Clause 16 was helpful both to the House and to the general understanding of the whole Bill, to which she devoted considerable care.
The Bill is a step in the right direction. All those who took part in discussions in another place—discussions which have, of course, assisted us substantially—are to be taken as sharing in our appreciation of the work done as a united attempt to do something about those in this particular distressing predicament.
5.26 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, most of what I wish to say has been said eloquently by my noble friend Lord Gifford, who has played a notable part throughout the proceedings, and by my noble friend Lord Janner. I am one of those who is very disappointed with the Bill in its present form. I am not one of those who think that it will do more harm than good and that we should be better without it—not at all; it is an advantage. However, it is disappointing compared with what it might have been. The anxieties of those most concerned with the single homeless, battered wives and other
1028
groups have already been expressed. It would be wrong for any noble Lord to gain the impression that in some way we believe that the Bill is better than when it started: it is worse than when it started and one must accept that. I pay a tribute to the noble Baroness and to all those who have played active parts.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for the inclusion of Clauses 14 and 17. As far as I know, this is the first time that preference has been given to the people in Her Majesty's Services, including the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and the Women's Royal Naval Service. Those people are often in a very difficult position because, when they occupy quarters provided by the Services and have to leave for some reason or another, they are not included on the register of the local housing authority. Sometimes they have no means of knowing when they will have to leave—there may be special reasons why they have to leave the Service—and are in great difficulty. With the low pay that they now receive, together with the fact that they have to pay high rents and they have to rent their furniture, they have very little opportunity, particularly in the lower echelons, of saving any money in order to provide their own homes. Therefore, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for finding an opportunity of including this matter in the Bill after I raised it on Second Reading.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I had intended to say a few words on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, in accordance with our more ancient custom; but as these valuable contributions have been made on Third Reading I shall say a few words and then be silent when it comes to the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I should like to express my very grateful thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Birk and Lady Young, and her colleagues, and all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We have had a great deal of very valuable and constructive criticism and helpful advice. As we very well know, everyone is not satisfied, but I am absolutely sure that it has all been well worth while.

1029
Turning to the time factor, I very much dislike Bills coming to us late in the Session. I have expressed my views on that before. It is only fair to say that Mr. Ross—and this is a Private Member's Bill—introduced the Bill in another place very early on in the Session. Even with Government support, it is pretty hazardous to get a Private Member's Bill on to the Statute Book and there are not so many who succeed. I congratulate him. It has taken a long time for the Bill to reach us. I am sure that noble Lords have done their utmost to improve the Bill within the limited time available. It is an important step forward and I hope that the Bill will very soon reach the Statute Book.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords first, may I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for the way in which he has carried the Bill through the House in the most difficult circumstances. It is a complicated Bill and the noble Lord introduced it more or less single-handed.
At this stage I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that if we had taken the Third Reading in the spillover session there may have been time for longer discussion. However, in the circumstances in which the Bill was, so to speak, conceived and from the way it has now grown, I believe that there would not have been any substantial difference. A few "i's" may have been dotted and "t's" crossed, but I think that we have reached the end of the road so far as any substantial agreement was concerned. The fact that the Bill will be—as I hope—on the Statute Book this week and implemented fairly soon afterwards towards the end of the year is really the most important point.
My noble friend Lord Longford referred to the Bill in its original form. Many of us regret the fact that some parts of it are not now in the form in which they were orginally drafted. Nevertheless, when the Bill came to your Lordships' House it contained a number of substantial unresolved points and a great many more points on which there was grave unease. In the short time in which we have considered the Bill, I think that to the best of our ability we have managed to resolve many of them. The Bill is improved. Of course it is not perfect
1030
and I do not believe that we could have a Bill of this kind which would suit us all.
My noble friend Lord Gifford referred to the discretion involved. However one worded the Bill, and even if the different points that he wanted could have been added, there would always have to be elements of discretion within it, unless a far greater resource allocation was possible. There would always need to be flexiblity because I believe that we must have flexibility. I can assure my noble friend that we shall do our very best to be as helpful and as clear as we can in the code of guidance. The remarks that he and other noble Lords have made during the Bill's passage through this House have been of tremendous help both to me and my Department in relation to the code of guidance. It is now emerging and we are very much clearer about what should be added and included in it—not only as regards the factual material but also as to the way in which people are handled, how they are treated and how the information is imparted to them.
We shall certainly monitor the operation of the Bill and keep a very watchful eye on the way in which it is interpreted. In fact, there are few Bills that will have so many voluntary, involuntary and other watchdog bodies keeping eagle eyes on them as they proceed.
Finally, even with its imperfections and with the dissatisfactions expressed by many people, the result of our work is a social measure which will be of real benefit to homeless people. On behalf of the Government who have supported the Bill from its introduction in another place, I should like to thank noble Lords for the care with which they have considered the Bill and for the way in which they have all been prepared to hurry it through, which has involved a great deal of work—I am very conscious of that—and giving it a great deal of attention in the short time available. That was possible because of the one point on which there was general agreement; namely, that if we were to have a Bill on homelessness, the sooner it was put on the Statute Book the better. Everyone in this House has helped to do that, and I look forward, together with everyone else, to seeing some real improvement in practice in the lot of the homeless.

1031
I hope that this will be just a beginning and that we shall be able to add the other priority groups, about which so many noble Lords feel so passionately, in as short a time as possible.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) BILL

  PRICE INVESTIGATION AND EXAMINATION (EXCEPTIONS) ORDER 1977
  5.38 p.m.
  Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY rose to move, That the draft Price Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order 1977, laid before the House on 22nd July, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, although it is not my intention to move the three orders en bloc, for the convenience of the House and particularly the Opposition I propose to make one speech outlining the principles and purpose of each order in the sequence in which they are printed on the Order Paper. Eventually, of course, the Questions will have to be put to the House separately for each order.
  First dealing with the draft exclusion orders, Section 22(2) of the Price Commission Act 1977 provides that the Secretary of State may, by order, make such exclusions from the provisions of the Act as he specified. We have before us the draft order giving effect to those exclusions. Parts I, II and III of the draft specify prices and charges which are to be exempt from investigations by the Price Commission into price levels under Section 5(1)(b) of the Price Commission Act.
  We propose to make these exemptions for a number of reasons. First, because there are prices and charges which are either the subject of some international obligation on the part of the United Kingdom (for example, coal and steel by virtue of our membership of the European Coal and Steel Community); or are simply outside the United Kingdom's effective control (for example, import prices). Secondly, there are areas where prices and charges are determined in such a way that they do not lend themselves to price control. For example, we do not seek to
  1032
  control prices determined on a commodity market or at auction. Thirdly, there are areas where prices are under the supervision of a body other than the Price Commission. There are a number of prices and charges which fall into this category—for example, the price of ethical medicines where control is exercised by the Department of Health and Social Security.
  In these three general areas, exemption from investigation is achieved by Article 2(1) of the draft order. This Article excludes from investigation into price levels under Section 5 of the Act those prices and charges in Parts I, II and III. These same prices and charges are also to be excluded from undertakings which a firm may give following investigations. They are also automatically excluded from investigations into prices increases under Section 4 of the Act because none of them are to be subject to the requirement to notify the Commission in advance of a proposed price increase. The effect of the draft order is therefore to take all the specified prices and charges completely outside the scope of investigations. Although these prices and charges are not to be individually investigated, it does not necessarily follow that they should also not be examined on a sectoral basis under Section 10 of the Act. We believe that there are some sectors which—although exempt from investigations—should be liable to examinations and to potential action under Section 10. These are set out in Part III of the Schedule.
  There are also some sectors which, for a number of reasons, merit complete exclusion from examination. These are dealt with in Article 2(2) and covered in Part I of the Schedule. In addition, there is a third category set out in Part II of the Schedule. This is an area which it is perhaps a little more difficult to understand at first sight. It is a category which is neither outside the system of examinations, nor fully within it. Instead, Article 2(3) of the draft order proposes a category which will be liable to examination under Section 10, but exempt from any action in consequence of such an examination. This will be achieved by excluding the prices and charges in question from those provisions of Section 11 of the Act which provide for the Commission to give advice in reports on

  1033
  examinations and to indicate matters which they think should be remedied. Prices and charges in Part II of the Schedule are also to be excluded from undertakings given to the Secretary of State under Section 12 in consequence of an examination.
  The effect of Article 2(3) is to make specified prices and charges subject only to fact-finding examinations and to ensure that no action whatsoever can result from an examination. The reason for proposing what may seem to be a rather strange half-way house is two-fold. There will be times when there is a real need for a fact-finding examination, but for nothing more than that. This is the sort of examination which the Commission have already carried out from time to time under the powers contained in the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. To exclude completely the prices and charges in Part II of the Schedule from examinations would deny the Secretary of State the power in those cases to direct the Commission to carry out a fact-finding examination. We believe it right to preserve the ability to have this sort of examination.
  The second reason for wanting to keep certain prices and charges within the scope of examinations concerns the nature of the examinations which the Commission will be asked to undertake. Many examinations are likely to be wide-ranging and could therefore suffer from over-restrictive terms of reference. If we exclude too many areas from examination, we run the risk of inadvertently prejudicing a Commission examination into a non-excluded price where they need also to look at other prices and charges which are excluded from examination but have a bearing on their examination into the related price or charge.
  In drawing up the list of exceptions proposed in the draft order, the Government have tried to steer a middle course. On the one hand, there is clearly a danger that too many exclusions will detract from the effectiveness of the new system of investigations and examinations. Ultimately, this would detract also from the credibility of the new system. But there is also a danger in claiming to control prices and charges which, for one reason or another, cannot or should not fall
  1034
  within the remit of the Price Commission. That too could only undermine credibility.
  We believe that the draft order steers the right course. It excludes only those prices and charges which should be excluded, in whole or in part, from investigation and examination. I have explained to the House why this should be so. But I also believe that, measured against the scale of industry and commerce in this country, the proposed exclusions represent only a fraction of the prices and charges which the consumer is called upon to pay. The draft order will not therefore detract in any way from the effectiveness of the new policy when it comes into operation in August. I therefore commend the draft order to the House.
  I now come to the limits on Remuneration Order.
  In the White Paper The Attack on Inflation After 31st July 1977 (Cmnd 6882), the Government outlined the further measures which are proposed in the fight against inflation and unemployment. As the White Paper explained, these measures have been drawn up in the light of discussions with representatives of the TUC and of the revised prospects for the economy. In the past two years, the nation has derived immense advantages from the guidelines on pay which the TUC has formulated in agreement with the Government. The Government and the TUC have recognised that the period after 31st July must bring an orderly return to free collective bargaining. The keystone for bringing about such a return is the TUC's guidance on the strict maintenance of settlements made under the current policy. The guidance, which is set out in the While Paper, will go far to prevent a wage explosion from developing after July 1977. It will mean that the Phase 2 policy will continue to affect the level of the nation's earnings until the last settlement made under it expires at the end of July 1978.
  The Government have therefore proposed in the White Paper to continue the provisions in relation to employers in the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975 to the extent needed to support and enforce the TUC guidance on the 12-months' rule. The limits on Remuneration Order enables that objective to be achieved. The procedure under the new

  1035
  order will be exactly the same as in the last two years. If the Secretary of State, certifies that the pay limit has been breached then the pay sanction will be applied. As my noble friend Lord Oram made clear in the debate on the report stage of the Price Commission Bill (Official Report, 18/7/77, col. 16), the sanction will be the disallowance of the full cost of the relevant settlement in calculations made of profit margin controls under the Price Code. The further order needed to achieve the continuance of margin control for a further year will be laid later this week. The order also gives employers protection, similar to that in the last two years, in situations where they can keep within the pay limit only by breaching contractual obligations.
  I should conclude by explaining the legal basis for this order. The original pay limits for the purposes of Section 1 of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975 were set out in the White Paper referred to in subsection (1) of that section, namely The Attack on Inflation (Cmnd. 6151). This provided the limits generally known as the £6 policy. Under the powers in Section 1(2) of the Act, the Limits on Remuneration Order 1976 added to those limits a reference to the limits set out in the White Paper The Attack on Inflation: The Second Year (Cmnd. 6507). This order adds a reference to the limits set out in the new White Paper. It is specifically stated in Annex A of the White Paper that the TUC Statement of 22nd June alone constituted the pay limits in that White Paper.
  I come to the third order, which affects dividends. The main purpose of the draft order is to prolong powers to control dividends under Section 10 of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. It arises out of the Government's White Paper The Attack On Inflation After 31st July 1977 approved by the other place in the "confidence" debate last week. The reference to dividends is in paragraph 15. The draft order prolongs the controls until 31st July 1978, after which all legislative authority ceases. There are no changes in the form of the controls as compared with Phase II. The statutory limit remains at 10 per cent., within a range of provisions, for dividend increases above the limit in certain circumstances,
  1036
  notably the raising of new capital for investment.
  Besides Section 10, the order also prolongs Section 8. This gives power to the Government to modify Statutes relating to prices. It was used to ensure that the price control could override any previous Statutory provision relating to prices, but has not been needed for some years and it is unlikely to be needed in the forthcoming year. The provision however is necessary to maintain the validity of the orders made under it. I hope I have not detained the House for too long and complicated the situation by running three speeches into one, but I thought it would be for the convenience of the House to speak to the three orders together. I beg to move the first Motion.
  Moved, That the draft Price Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order 1977, laid before the House on 22nd July, be approved.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
  5.53 p.m.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for moving the Motion and for telescoping his three speeches into one, no doubt thereby detaining your Lordships for a shorter period. To deal first with the first order, as the noble Lord explained this provides for a series of exceptions, either in whole or in part, to the provisions of the Price Commission Act which passed through this House the week before last.
  Throughout the passage of that measure we on this side were concerned to ensure that firms were adequately protected against cost rises beyond their control, and we were therefore anxious to see that the exclusions were sufficient to achieve that purpose. That indeed was one of the planks of the Government's argument; that we should wait for this order to see how generous and fair they would be. The order is in fact largely as expected. There are some areas which are of some puzzlement, but as I understand that some of my noble friends will ask the noble Lord some questions, I will not detain the House with any specific questions. Whether the list is in fact sufficiently comprehensive only time will tell.
  With regard to the second order, the limits on remunerations, of course we

  1037
  regret that in the light of the draconian price control powers which are contained in the new Act, the Government have not been able to produce a more effective wage control policy. I do not want to be drawn into the argument whether I am for or against a wage control policy at this juncture, but I would say that we certainly need a wage control policy where there is strong and powerful control of prices, because it is necessary and indeed only just that firms should not be subjected to over-stringent price control when there are great areas of costs which are beyond their control and which are not adequately covered by the code or by exceptions granted to the general rules. The Chancellor's plea that a figure of 10 per cent. should be the norm is of course welcomed so far as it goes. What a pity it is that that figure, or something like it, could not have been written into this order along with the 12 months' rule; it seems that only the 12 months' rule was acceptable to the TUC.
  The third order, as Lord Wallace explained, refers to dividends. I think we labour under a delusion if we imagine that the consumers whom we seek to protect by controlling prices are equally protected by the control of dividends. Consumers are very often shareholders in a small way, through unit trusts or pension funds, in companies and, in that capacity, they suffer when dividends are unreasonably or unnecessarily controlled. Furthermore, when companies are not able to distribute their profits or, worse still, are not able to make them in the first place because of the control on their prices, the growth of those companies must inevitably suffer, and when growth suffers employment suffers.
  The Government have just announced the latest unemployment figures and they are an all-time record, anyway since the war—1·6 million no less are now unemployed. I wonder whether these new provisions will do anything for those unfortunate people. We reluctantly agree that these orders should pass and we shall listen with interest to the specific points which my noble friends will raise.
  5.58 p.m.
  Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we accept these three orders arising in connection
  1038
  with price regulation and the incomes policy, or the absence of it in the formal sense that we have been accustomed to in the last two years. Of course, in a perfect world these are not regulations which we would wish to see, but this is very far from being a perfect world and, in our view, there is one issue of overriding importance to which all lesser issues at this stage have to be sacrificed.
  However, before developing that point I wish to take up two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he said that there were draconian powers being used against employers under the new Price Commission Act. There are strong powers implicit in the Act, but there is no reason to suppose that they will be used in a draconian or unreasonable way. I would draw attention to Section 2 of that Act, which lays down very clear, though general, guidance as to the way in which investigations will be carried out and the grounds of investigation, and I submit that that section gives reasonable safeguards to people who have no wish or intention of abusing their position as manufacturers.
  I also disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he regrets that there is no specific norm—of a kind to which we have become accustomed over the past two years—written into the policy. A norm has always become a minimum, and to write it in at present is to invite inflationary increases. The idea of an overall earnings figure, as distinct from a norm, has the advantage that it is not a minimum in this sense, and it has the other very great advantage that it gives an opportunity for flexibility. I am sure that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches will agree that industry is extremely anxious to have flexibility, and that a rigid norm would deprive it of that flexibility.
  For my part, I am also glad that we do not now have the Government coming with a cut and dried plan that has been fixed with the TUC outside both Houses of Parliament, which Parliament then has to accept. Surely it is better that after consultation with the TUC and with the CBI, the Government should make up their mind, and have discussions in both Houses of Parliament, rather than come here and say, "This is what has been decided. This is what has to be done."

  1039
  Reverting to the overriding argument, although there is much about these matters which ideally we would not like to see, nothing is more important than to restrain inflationary wage increases. If these are the terms that are required to restrain inflationary wage increases, then the price is cheap. Of course it all depends on whether the Government, having said what their policy is, intend to stick by it. That is what matters. That is what matters to my Party, and it is upon that matter that the support of my Party for the Government's policy depends.
  6.2 p.m.
  Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will forgive me if I do not follow her line of thought, which seemed to relate more to the Act than to the orders. In rising to endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, I want to ask the Government some specific questions about two of the orders, and I shall take them in the same sequence as they appear on the Order Paper. I wish to refer, first, to the exceptions order, and in particular to paragraph 13, which appears on page 4, and which is in Part H of the Schedule. On first reading this I saw, under the exclusion list, a reference to the sale of manufactured goods
  "… which have not been substantially changed after completion of their manufacture".
  That is splendid—practically all manufactured goods are not changed after completion.
  There are some exceptions which I could mention, but generally speaking there are no changes after completion. But on reading that part of the order more closely, I see that the part which starts with the words, "which have not been substantially …" perhaps relates, or is intended to relate, to the prices for the sale of manufactured goods, and I should have thought that in terms of the English language that was not quite good enough, and that paragraph 13(b) could well be taken to relate to manufactured goods. This is a matter in which the Government may like to help themselves by improving the position. As I understand it, we are not in a position to amend orders, and I suppose that they can only be withdrawn and reissued. If the Government feel reasonably strongly about this,
  1040
  they had better get on with it. But if I have a point here, it would seem that it could be pleaded that all, or very nearly all, manufactured goods escape under the terms of the paragraph to which I have referred.
  In passing I should like to mention that I believe that the Government have done themselves no good over the speed with which they have tried to force the Bill and the subsequent orders through our House. On the one hand, there is the question of the wording to which I have referred which, with a little more time, may have been considered more closely, so that the possible error which I have mentioned would not have arisen, and on the other hand, a point arises relating to the heading under Part HI of the Schedule, which states:
  "Exceptions from sections 5(1)(a), 7(5)(b) of …".
  Upon looking at the headings under Parts I and II of the Schedule, one sees that in each case the word "and" is included before the last reference in those headings. Therefore the word "and" ought to be included in the heading under Part III. Perhaps this can be treated merely as a printing error, and the order need not be reissued for that reason. But, again, if further action is needed, then the Government ought to get on with it, because there is not much time for them if these orders are to become effective from after 31st July.
  With regard to the texts, one has not had time to study them. I fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, said about the criteria under which they were drawn up, but I think it would be fairer on all concerned had it been possible to have had more time here. I am pleading for more time. We should have been discussing these orders on or about 30th June, so as to have had a month before they were due to come into effect. That would have given us an opportunity to consider whether, under the terms of the criteria mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, various products could reasonably have been included in any of the Parts of the Schedule. Not only have the Government done themselves no good by rushing this matter, but, potentially, the time factor could be seen to be unfair.

  1041
  Your Lordships may ask, "What is unfairness?" I make this point because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, hopefully the new Price Commission will be absolutely "spiffing" and will do everything in the right kind of way, and we need not worry at all. But nagging me in the back of my mind—and I cannot omit this—is this beastly business of the price freeze which, it strikes me, is quite irrelevant to the main purposes of the Act. I do not intend to make a great song and dance about the price freeze now, but it is because it is there, and because it can be so damaging to people, that it is unfair not to give them a chance to see whether these Schedules are fairly comprehensive.
  I am sure that the Government do their best, but that does not mean that they have all the knowledge and expertise of people who are out at the sharp end, in the field. I am concerned about the punitive aspects of the Act; and I should say in passing that, although I believe it is now an Act, I could not obtain a copy, because Acts are not printed for a fortnight or so. Here is another example of the consequences of this matter being rushed through. It is an Act in name, but not in fact, so far as I am concerned. I should very much like answers to my questions on paragraph 13(b) and on the heading to Part III of the Schedule, and I should also like to know what the Government propose to do if my fears and suppositions are right.
  I now turn to the Limits on Remuneration Order. I find it extraordinarily difficult to regard this as being legal. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace mentioned specifically what rendered the order legal, and I regarded it as significant that he did so. The parent Act of 1975 reads in section 1(1)
  "…necessary to keep the remuneration within the limits imposed by the policy set out in the document laid before Parliament … in … 1975 (Cmnd. 6151)…".
  Everybody knows that that set out specific limits, and last year, again, the 1976 document set out specific limits. This order gives the impression that Cmnd. 6882 sets out limits on remuneration. On looking at pages 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Cmnd. 6882 I find no remuneration limits. There is a rather hazy time limit, but there is not a remuneration limit—
  1042
  not anywhere. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, may have had a jolly good point in saying that it is a good thing not to have a remuneration limit—I was rather taken with her argument—but the fact of the matter is that we are discussing an order which specifically says thare are limits.
  When the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was talking to us, he said that the limits were in Annex A on the back page, which is all that the TUC found themselves able to contribute to this general subject this year. But there is there only a back reference to last year's limits, which so far as it goes, if the timing of your negotiations is well on into the 1977–78 period, I suppose could be said to suffice. My own timing is the 1st June, so I am going to be limited by the 1976 rules. But that is not what this says. This talks about the 1977 rules, and Cmnd. 6882. In the trade union contribution, again, the only limits that could be called limits, though they are not so described in the text—nor, incidentally, are they earlier in the document—are time limits.
  I would think that if someone found themselves in difficulty under this order which we are discussing he would stand a jolly good chance of being able to get a court of law to say that this is not a legal document. It is referring to something which does not exist. It is referring to limits on remuneration in Cmnd. 6882, and there are not any. So I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the Government had better get weaving. They have either got to withdraw this order because it has no validity or they have got to get somebody to give it some pay limits which it can refer to, and turn it into a legal document.
  Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS: My Lords, I have a question of which I have given the noble Lord private notice, and it is this. Referring to the Price Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order, could the Minister say why, in paragraph 11(b) of Part II,
  "charges for the provision of landing and related facilities for aircraft"
  should be included? I should like to know for two reasons. First, it is not part of any international agreement; and, secondly, from the purely practical point

  1043
  of view, landing fees for small aircraft are often quite out of proportion to the facilities provided.
  6.13 p.m.
  Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I sympathise very much with the perplexity of my noble friend Lord Mottistone about the order dealing with limits on remuneration. As I see it—and I hope the noble Lord will confirm this—what the Government are trying to do is to hold the 12 months' rule, and at the same time, as they say in paragraph 10 of the Command Paper The Attack on Inflation,
  "urge that the general level of pay settlements should be moderate enough to secure that the national earnings increase is no more than 10 per cent.".
  This obviously means that they recognise that in some individual cases an increase of more than 10 per cent. might be justified; but, equally, if you intend to hold the national average at 10 per cent. then there must be some increases which will be less than 10 per cent. Indeed, there may well be firms which could not afford to pay an increase of as much as 10 per cent., and there may be cases in particular industries or in a particular firm where an increase of as much as 10 per cent. would not be justified. It is only in this way that the national average of 10 per cent. would work. If anything else was intended, the Government would do doubt have insisted on a flat 10 per cent. increase, but this is not what is done.
  In the earlier debate we had, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, whom I am glad to see here today, if I understood him correctly pointed to the real danger here; that is, that in the months immediately after this order comes into effect, from the 1st August onwards, there will be settlements well over the average of 10 per cent. If you are to get an average increase of 10 per cent. for the year, you will thereafter have to have increases of very much less than 10 per cent., but in actual fact, of course, exactly the opposite will happen. Here is my noble friend Lord Mottistone who has to wait till next June for his increase. Is it to be supposed that, if there are increases of well over 10 per cent. in the early part of the year—that is, in August, September and October—others will wait the whole 12 months' period before they get a comparable increase?
  1044
  This is the great difficulty that we are in over this order, and indeed over the policy as a whole.
  I do not say for an instant that the Government are wrong in trying to achieve this, but I think we must reckon that the chances of their achieving a good result from their policy do not appear to be favourable at the moment. All I can do is to wish them the greatest of luck with their efforts to urge the unions in the early stage—in August, September and October in particular—to be extremely moderate in their increases, and to hold fast to the policy (the guidelines, as the Government say) that increases should not average more than 10 per cent. a year. I do not think there is anything more we can say about this order, except that we understand what the Government are going to do. We are going to have a terrible job to achieve it, and it all depends on their success in urging those unions whose wage settlements come up for review in the next three months to accept the guidance that the Government have given.
  6.17 p.m.
  Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I certainly have a large number of questions to reply to, but I shall not be too long in answering because your Lordships have other business to do. At the same time, I shall endeavour to give what answers I possibly can. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and others asked, "Why control dividends at this stage?" The simple answer is that successive Governments have taken the view that, where there are constraints on pay bargaining, incomes from dividends should also be limited. That is the simple basis. We shall have to see how things go. May I say generally on the question of pay that I entirely agree that there is a teriffic responsibility on employers and trade unions in this field of pay bargaining, as to whether they keep to the TUC recommendation. The TUC have given their support, and it is now up to the workers and the employers to face up to the situation in the national interest—because that is what these orders are about. They are in the national interest, and not in anybody's personal interest or in the interest of any section of the community.

  1045
  The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, made a number of inquiries. The first one was on paragraph 13(b), which deals with second-hand goods. It is cumulative, so the reference to prices for the sale of manufactured goods applies to both (a) and (b). This is achieved by the word "and" at the end of paragraph 13(a). This word "and" is very important, apparently, because, on the noble Lord's second point, we agree that the word "and" is missing from the heading of Part III of the Schedule to which he referred. We accept that point. This will be corrected when the order is reprinted for publication. It is merely a printing omission. The noble Lord asked when the print-out will be available. It should be available at the end of this week. That is the latest information.
  Generally, on the question of exceptions, it is a question of timing in getting the orders out. The Department and those responsible for the job of sorting it all out have put in great efforts and tribute should be paid to those anonymous people for having done the best that they can. They think that they have achieved the ideal balance. But nobody is 100 per cent. perfect and it is possible that there may be occasion for reasonable suggestions to be made for other exceptions. That can be done. The only problem is that it takes time for these suggestions to be fully considered. Nevertheless, it does not mean that because this has been published, it is the end of it. Any reasonable suggestion will be fully considered. We hope that there will not be too many of them; but, of course, they could arise.
  I will come back to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, later. The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis, asked an interesting question. On the face of it, his case is reasonable, but, on the other hand, when we go into it in detail regarding the landing fees for aircraft and so on, the charges for landing and related facilities for aircraft on international journeys have been outside the control under the code for some time. This is because such charges are akin to being export prices. Experience has shown that airports could not extricate the costs of services for domestic travel from international travel. It is difficult to sort it out. It makes it difficult, if not
  1046
  impossible, to control domestic charges in any satisfactory way. In August of last year we therefore made all landing charges free of control under the code. We are now proposing to extend this exemption to investigations under the Price Commission Act and to action in consequence of examinations, but they will be liable still to fact-finding examinations.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am a little unhappy about something the noble Lord said about it having something to do with export prices. If he is saying that export prices are not controlled, that we accept. But aircraft landing fees levied by United Kingdom airports are surely not part of export prices.
  Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I shall repeat what I have said. I said that charges for landing and related facilities for aircraft on international journeys have been outside the control of the code for some time. This is because such charges are akin to being export prices.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if the House will allow me, I must come back to this point. Landing fees for aircraft, so far as the major airports are concerned, are set by the British Airports Authority, as the noble Lord will know. Most other airports followed the lead given by the BAA in deciding what charges to set; but by no means all of the smaller airports are controlled by the BAA. I wonder whether the noble Lord or the Government are right in excluding those charges from the effect of this order. The answer that the noble Lord has given is puzzling and confusing. Perhaps he will be able to look at the matter again and write to my noble friend.
  Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am grateful for that suggestion. It is a very complicated matter and I shall certainly see what I can do to get a clearer explanation for the noble Lord and his noble friend and others who are interested.
  Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, might I point out, although it is not my job to do so, that when the noble Lord talks of exports to a certain extent he is right, in that

  1047
  foreign aircraft landing on British airfields pay their landing fees and those fees can be treated as invisible exports. I think that the noble Lord was about 50 per cent. right.
  Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am grateful for that intrusion into the debate. Whether the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is grateful we shall sort out later. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, raised the question of limits of pay. It is absolutely correct that the pay limits referred to in the limits on the Remuneration Order are those which are set out in Annexe A relating to the timing of increases in remuneration after the Phase 2 settlements. We should not underestimate the value of the strict maintenance of settlements made under the current policy. In both of the last two years, the 12 months' rule has been one of the pay limits. That is the pay limit existing now.
  Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, he is now talking about a pay limit while the text is talking about a remuneration limit. However you try to grapple with the English language, you cannot turn a time limit into a remuneration limit. One is one and the other is the other.
  Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I may be a little innocent in these matters but I should have thought that remuneration and pay go together; that, colloquially, "remuneration" was a posh way of saying "pay". One talks of salaries and wages.
  Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, my argument is not of equating remuneration with pay but of equating remuneration with time. The document talks about a time limit. That is the only limit. There is mention of remuneration or of pay but not in a limiting sense. The order talks about remuneration limits and the document referred to does not do so at all.
  Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the limit is entirely based on Phase 2 and the 12 months' rule. That is the basis of the whole thing. We hope that this will work and that it will be accepted, for it is a vital fact that must
  1048
  be observed by the British people. I can say no more than that. It is quite simple really, although it is terribly hard to put into effect.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LIMITS ON REMUNERATION ORDER 1977
  Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Limits on Remuneration Order 1977, laid before the House on 22nd July, be approved.
  Moved, That the draft Limits on Remuneration Order 1977, laid before the House on 22nd July, be approved.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COUNTER-INFLATION (CONTINUATION OF ENACT-MENTS) ORDER 1977
  Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Counter-Inflation (Continuation of Enactments) Order 1977, laid before the House on 22nd July, be approved.
  Moved, That the draft Counter-Inflation (Continuation of Enactments) Order 1977, laid before the House on 22nd July, be approved.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
  6.28 p.m.
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [References are to Bill [122] as first printed for the Commons]
  1 Clause 1, page 2, line 18, leave out "or immoral" and insert ",immoral or antisocial"
  2 Clause 1, page 2, line 24, leave out "or immoral" and insert ",immoral or antisocial"
  3 Clause 2, page 3, line 8, after second "of" insert "matter constituting"
  4 Clause 2, page 3, line 17, after "available" insert "in confidence"
  5 Clause 2, page 3, line 22, leave out "by, or who obtained it from" and insert "in confidence by"
  6 Clause 2, page 3, line 24, at end insert "or who obtained it from any person so mentioned because he or the person from whom he obtained it believed that he was entitled to obtain it"
  7 Clause 2, page 3, line 27, leave out "or other proprietor of the invention"
  8 Clause 2, page 3, line 29, leave out "in confidence"
  9 Clause 2, page 3, line 29, leave out "either of them" and insert "the inventor"
  10 Clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out "successor in title of his" and insert "proprietor of the invention for the time being."
  11 Clause 5, page 5, line 18, at end insert—
  "(3A) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply for determining the priority date of an invention for which a patent has been granted as they apply for determining the priority date of an invention to which an application for that patent relates".
  12 Clause 5, page 5, line 22, after "country" insert "(specified under section 87 below)"
  13 Clause 5, page 5, line 25, after second "or" insert "international".
  14 After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
  Disclosure of matter, etc., between earlier and later applications.
  " .—(1) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that where an application (the application in suit) is made for a patent and a declaration is made in accordance with section 5(2) above or in connection with that application specifying an earlier relevant application, the application in suit and any patent granted in pursuance of it shall not be invalidated by reason only of relevant intervening acts.
  (2) In this section—
  "relevant application" has the same meaning as in section 5 above; and
  "relevant intervening acts" means acts done in relation to matter disclosed in an earlier relevant application between the dates of the earlier relevant application and the application in suit, as for example, filing another application for the invention for which the earlier relevant application was made, making information available to the public about that invention or that matter or working that invention, but disregarding any application, or the disclosure to the public of matter contained in any application, which is itself to be disregarded for the purposes of section 5(3) above".
  15 Clause 6, page 5, line 35, after second "or" insert "international".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 15 en bloc. I would also ask that the following Amendments be considered with Amendments Nos. 1 to 15: Amendments Nos. 34, 107, 112, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 149, 150, 182 and 186. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 improve the correspondence between Clause 1(3)(a) and Clause 15(2)(b) of the Bill on the one hand, and Article 53(a) of the European Patent Convention on the other hand. The following Amendments are basically drafting Amendments; that is to say, Amendments Nos. 3 to 9 inclusive and Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 29, 134 and 150. Perhaps I should say a brief word about Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is not anxious for explanations. I do not know whether he wishes to intervene?
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, for my part, I am perfectly willing to say that, so far as I am concerned, very few explanations are necessary in this matter.
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I know that we are anxious to make progress with this vast number of Amendments, and I will keep extremely brief any explanations that I have to make. Regarding Amendment No. 10, reference to the "inventor" throughout subsection (4) should include references to whoever is the proprietor of the invention instead of to the inventor himself. This is because the inventor may never be the proprietor in cases where he is an employee and the invention belongs to his employer. To meet this point, and rather than insert several references to the inventor or other proprietor throughout, these Amendments delete the single such reference and insert a reference of general application to the clause.
  Amendment No. 11 probably explains itself. In relation to Amendment No. 12, all I need say in that connection is that this Amendment and associated Amendments derive from an appreciation that Clause 87, which was taken with minor changes directly from Section 68 of the 1949 Act, now serves only one purpose; namely, to enable Convention countries to be defined for Clause 5(4)(b). Amendment No. 14 is important, having regard

  1051
  to the many times we discussed in your Lordships' House the problem of self-collision. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in particular had much to say in this point. Now we have a new clause which replaces Clause 70, and that will be omitted when we come to Amendment No. 107. The new clause is more in accordance with the wording of Article 4(b) of the Paris Convention. I believe it was the noble Lord's anxiety that the Bill as he saw it did not sufficiently accord with Article 4(b) of the Paris Convention, and I hope that he agrees that that has now been achieved. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
  Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for Amendment No. 14 to which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, referred. Amendment No. 107 will delete what was new Clause 70, which was inserted by my noble friends and myself in the Bill, and instead Amendment No. 14 writes into the Bill another new clause having the effect which the noble Lord explained. I am very relieved to see that written into the Bill. I welcome it and thank the Government for it.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  16 Clause 6, page 6, line 11, leave out second "so".
  17 Clause 10, page 9, line 4, leave out from "Where" to "that" and insert "an order is made or directions are given under section 7 above"
  18 Clause 10, page 9, line 10, leave out "section 7 or 9 above" and insert "that section"
  19 Clause 10, page 9, line 12, leave out "as the applicant" and insert "or those persons as the applicant or applicants"
  20 Clause 10, page 9, line 36, at end insert "and may, if he considers it appropriate, order the grant of such a licence."
  21 Clause 11, page 9, line 37, leave out from "patent" to end of line 40 and insert "is granted for an invention in pursuance of an application made under the law of any country other than the United Kingdom or under any treaty or international convention (whether or not that application has been made)"
  22 Page 10, line 27, leave out from "by" to "a" in line 29 and insert "the relevant convention court with respect to"
  23 Page 10, line 41, leave out "been"
  24 Page 10, line 41, leave out from "before" to end of line 43 and insert "the relevant convention court"
  25 Page 11, line 4, leave out from "or" to "determines" in line 6 and insert "the relevant convention court"
  26 Page 11, line 14, leave out "subsection (c)" and insert "subsection (1)"
  27 Page 11, line 18, after "may" insert ",within the prescribed period"
  28 Page 11, line 22, leave out "on which the earlier application was filed" and insert "of filing the earlier application"
  29 Page 11, line 29, after second "or" insert "international"
  30 Clause 12, line 36, leave out "specification of a'
  31 Page 12, line 12, leave out "specification" and insert "patent".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 31 en bloc. Many of these are of a minor drafting character, particularly Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 inclusive and 22 to 31 inclusive. In regard to Amendment No. 20, subsection (5) is defective in that it does not specifically give the comptroller power, after he has decided that a person is entitled to a licence, to order its grant. Amendment No. 20 cures this defect.
  Amendments Nos. 21 and 312 are consequential upon action that we took in your Lordships' House to divide the original Clause 3 into two clauses and I hope will be acceptable. In moving Amendments Nos. 16 to 31, may I suggest we also take note of Amendments Nos. 40, 63 and 132?
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  32 Clause 15, page 14, line 37, at beginning insert "Subject to section (Information prejudicial to defence of realm or safety of public) below"
  33 Page 15, line 5, leave out "a specification contained in a" and insert "the specification of a".
  6.36 p.m.
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. May we also take into consideration Amendments Nos. 36, 38, 114, 172,

  1053
  205 and 230? Amendment No. 33 is purely drafting. Amendments Nos. 32 and 36 are paving Amendments for the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 38. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is in his place. In view of his interest in this matter, perhaps I should say a few words of explanation. Noble Lords will recall that the clause dealing with the publication of information prejudicial to the defence of the Realm or to the safety of the public was deleted from the Bill in this House. The new clause reinstates unchanged the provision in the Bill relating to patent applications containing information prejudicial to the safety of the Realm or safety of the public.
  In this connection, perhaps I may be allowed to say that most other countries have analogous provisions for the review of newly filed patent applications from the security point of view. The United Kingdom have arrangements with NATO countries and some others in this respect. I make this point because I recall that the noble Earl suggested at one point in his argument on the earlier occasion that other countries do not have legislation comparable to ours. I assure the noble Earl that we have given the deepest thought to the consequences of the Amendments that he moved, and we believe that the restoration of this clause is essential from the point of view of national security.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  34 Clause 15, page 15, line 11, leave out "or immoral" and insert ", immoral or anti-social ".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  35 Clause 16, page 15, line 14, leave out "within" and insert "before the end of".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the
  1054
  Commons in their Amendment No. 35. Under Clause 16(1), as drafted, the request and fee have to be filed within the prescribed period which will begin on the date of filing. Should the request have been made or the fee paid on the day when application was actually filed but a later date is treated as the date of filing the application under Clause 14, the applicant could not comply with Clause 16(1) unless he filed a second request or fee. The change in wording made by the Amendment prevents this effect, which was never intended.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  36 Clause 17, page 17, line 17, leave out "section 18" and insert "sections 18 and (Information pre udicial to defence of realm or safety of public)".
  6.40 p.m.
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36. This was included in Amendments to which I referred earlier. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  37 Page 17, line 22, leave out "this" and insert "that".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. This is purely drafting. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  38 After Clause 20 insert the following new clause:
  Information prejudicial to defence of realm or safety of public.
  Security and Safety
  .—(1) Where an application for a patent is filed in the Patent Office (whether under this Act or any treaty or international convention to which the United Kingdom is a party and whether before or after the appointed day) and it appears to the comptroller that the application contains information of a description notified to him by the Secretary of State as being information the publication of which might be prejudicial to the defence of the realm, the comptroller may give directions prohibiting or restricting the publication of that information or its communication to any specified person or description of persons.
  (2) If it appears to the comptroller that any application so tiled contains information the publication of which might be prejudicial to the safety of the public, he may give directions prohibiting or restricting the publication of that information or its communication to any specified person or description of persons until the end of a period not exceeding three months from the end of the period prescribed for the purposes of section 15 above.
  (3) While directions are in force under this section with respect to an application—

  (a) if the application is made under this Act, it may proceed to the stage where it is in order for the grant of a patent, but it shall not be published and that information shall not be so communicated and no patent shall be granted in pursuance of the application;

  (b) if it is an application for a European patent, it shall not be sent to the European Patent Office; and

  (c) if it is an international application for a patent, a copy of it shall not be sent to the International Bureau or any international searching authority appointed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

  (4) Subsection (3)(b) above shall not prevent the comptroller from sending the European Patent Office any information which it is his duty to send that office under the European Patent Convention.
  (5) Where the comptroller gives directions under this section with respect to any application, he shall give notice of the application and of the directions to the Secretary of State, and the following provisions shall then have effect—

  (a) the Secretary of State shall, on receipt of the notice, consider whether the publication of the application or publication or communication of the information in question would be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public;

  (b) if the Secretary of State determines under paragraph (a) above that the publication of the application or the publication or communication of that information would be prejudicial to the safety of the public, he shall notify the comptroller who shall
  1056
  continue his directions under subsection (2) above until they are revoked under paragraph (e) below;

  (c) if the Secretary of State determines under paragraph (a) above that the publication of the application or the publication or communication of that information would be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public he shall (unless a notice under paragraph (d) below has previously been given by the Secretary of State to the comptroller) reconsider that question during the period of nine months from the date of filing the application and at least once in every subsequent period of twelve months;

  (d) if on consideration of an application at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the publication of the application or the publication or communication of the information contained in it would not, or would no longer, be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public he shall give notice to the comptroller to that effect; and

  (e) on receipt of such a notice the comptroller shall revoke the directions and may, subject to such conditions (if any) as he thinks fit, extend the time for doing anything required or authorised to be done by or under this Act in connection with the application, whether or not that time has previously expired.

  (6) The Secretary of State may do the following for the purpose of enabling him to decide the question referred to in subsection (5)(c) above—

  (a) where the application contains information relating to the production or use of atomic energy or research into matters connected with such production or use, he may at any time do one or both of the following, that is to say, inspect and authorise the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to inspect the application and any documents sent to the comptroller in connection with it; and

  (b) in any other case, he may at any time after (or, with the applicant's consent, before) the end of the period prescribed for the purposes of section 15 above inspect the application and any such documents;

  and where that Authority are authorised under paragraph (a) above they shall as soon as practicable report on their inspection to the Secretary of State.
  (7) Where directions have been given under this section in respect of an application for a patent for an invention and, before the directions are revoked, that prescribed period expires and the application is brought in order for the grant of a patent, then—

  (a) if while the directions are in force the invention is worked by (or with

  1057
  the written authorisation of or to the order of) a Government department, the provisions of sections 52 to 56 below shall apply as if—

  (i) the working were use made by virtue of section 52;

  (ii) the application had been published at the end of that period; and

  (iii) a patent had been granted for the invention at the time the application is brought in order for the grant of a patent (taking the terms of the patent to be those of the application as it stood at the time it was so brought in order); and

  (b) if it appears to the Secretary of State that the applicant for the patent has suffered hardship by reason of the continuance in force of the directions, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make such payment (if any) by way of compensation to the applicant as appears to the Secretary of State and the Treasury to be reasonable having regard to the inventive merit and utility of the invention, the purpose for which it is designed and any other relevant circumstances.

  (8) Where a patent is granted in pursuance of an application in respect of which directions have been given under this section, no renewal fees shall be payable in respect of any period during which those directions were in force.
  (9) A person who fails to comply with any direction under this section shall be liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000; or

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

  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38. This was referred to earlier. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
  The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I divided the House on this issue on the last occasion, but, with only 24 hours to go in the other place, this is not the time for a Cross-Bencher to initiate a game of ping-pong. I shall not press the matter to a Division, though I am not content with the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. Our allies may have similar clauses. I conceded in the previous debate that the French make it penal to publish the subject matter of a patent,
  1058
  whether it is in defence or any other field, for a certain specified period. But our law does not provide for this. The drafting of our law is completely ineffective, because you can steer a horse and cart through its provisions without the slightest difficulty.
  First, you can publish anything you like. You deny yourself a patent by doing so, but you can publish anything you like in the Daily Express, Nature or a journal of a learned society and you have committed no wrong, whether it is the most precious defence secret or not. Secondly, if you choose to put it into the conversazione at the Royal Society and have a leading article about it in Nature, you are all right so far as the law is concerned, if you patented it 24 hours beforehand, so that the Patent Office has not had time to react. So that it is basically a silly clause but, in so far as, to my certain knowledge, we have lived with its prececessor since 1949, I do not think it is the kind of point of which we ought to make too much. We can go on living with it for the time being.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  39 After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
  Restrictions on applications abroad by United Kingdom residents.
  " .—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no person resident in the United Kingdom shall, without written authority granted by the comptroller, file or cause to be filed outside the United Kingdom an application for a patent for an invention unless—

  (a) an application for a patent for the same invention has been filed in the Patent Office (whether before, on or after the appointed day) not less than six weeks before the application outside the United Kingdom; and

  (b) either no directions have been given under section (Information prejudicial to defence of realm or safety of public) above in relation to the application in the United Kingdom or all such directions have been revoked.

  (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to an application for a patent for an invention for which an application for a patent has first been filed (whether before or after the appointed day) in a country outside the United Kingdom by a person resident outside the United Kingdom.
  (3) A person who files or causes to be filed an application for the grant of a patent in contravention of this section shall be liable—

  1059

  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000; or

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

  (4) In this section—

  (a) any reference to an application for a patent includes a reference to an application for other protection for an invention;

  (b) any reference to either kind of application is a reference to an application under this Act, under the law of any country other than the United Kingdom or under any treaty or international convention to which the United Kingdom is a party."

  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39, and I should also like to mention Amendment No. 205 in this connection. The purpose of this Amendment is to reinstate the second of the two clauses concerned with patent secrecy, which were deleted by this House, and I hope that the noble Earl will take a similar attitude with regard to this. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
  The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I will not disappoint the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, but I feel that I must take my stance on why I think that this, too, is a silly clause. First, it leads to the embarrassment of a British subject resident in Britain but either holidaying or working in America, because it puts him between the opposing fires of the British and American legal systems. If, while resident in America, he makes an application, that is all right in America, but he has broken the law in Britain. If, on the other hand, he comes home and patents something here, he has broken the law in America. It is entirely contrary to public policy, because we are putting the subject in a conflict of loyalties between breaking the law here and breaking the law in America.
  Where does his interest lie? His interest lies in securing the earliest priority for his invention, so that we are writing into the Statute an incentive to break the law, which seems to be completely contrary to common sense and public policy. The other feature of the clause is that the penalty is set far too high. It is equated
  1060
  with the penalty involving a breach of security yet all that the man has done is try to acquire the earliest priority, which could be of the greatest value to this country. I do not believe that this clause has ever produced a result of any benefit to the common weal, and I know of two cases where it has very nearly led to gross injustice to two most distinguished inventors—one, Sir Christopher Cockerell the inventor of the Hovercraft, and the other a distinguished Nobel prizewinner. Again, I must express myself as not content, but I do not intend to press the matter to a Division.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  40 Clause 21, page 18, line 28, at end insert ",the names of the proprietor and (it different) the inventor and any other matters constituting or relating to the patent which in the comptroller's opinion it is desirable to publish".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  41 Clause 22, page 18, line 42, leave out from beginning to "paid" in line 2 on page 19 and insert "if during the period of six months immediately following the end of the prescribed period the renewal fee and any prescribed additional fee are."
  42 Page 19, line 12, at end insert—
  "(5) Rules shall include provision requiring the comptroller to notify the registered proprietor of a patent that a renewal fee has not been received from him in the Patent Office before the end of the prescribed period and before the framing of the notification ".
  43 Clause 25, page 20, line 11, leave out from first "period" to "not" in line 13 and insert" or that that fee and any prescribed additional fee were paid within the six months immediately following the end of that period, and
  (b) those fees were "
  44 Clause 25, line 24, at end insert "the end of the period of six months beginning with"
  45 Clause 25, line 26, after "section ", insert—
  "(a) a person continued to do or did again an act which would have constituted an infringement of the patent if it had not expired and which he first did before the end of that period,

  1061
  that act shall constitute such an infringement; or
  (b) "
  46 Clause 25, line 30, leave out "but subject to section 22(4)(b) above".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 to 46 en bloc. The purpose of Amendment No. 41 is to do away with the reference to a "request" to the comptroller for an extension of time in which to pay a renewal fee. Amendment No. 42 is intended to allay fears felt by patent agents, in particular, that without some specific provision in the Bill requiring the comptroller to issue reminders when renewal fees on patents were due, the Patent Office's practice of issuing such reminders could be discontinued unilaterally, so to speak. In fact, the intention is to continue to issue reminders, but I appreciate the desire for a safeguard on this point and the Amendment places on the comptroller a statutory obligation to issue reminders.
  Amendment No. 43 amends Clause 28(3)(a), which at present refers to the period allowed under section 25(4) above ". This is erroneous, and the Amendment puts that right. Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46, which are linked, concern Clause 25 which has to do with the restoration of patents that have lapsed through non-payment of renewal fees, and subsection (5) provides that a person who in good faith begins to "infringe" a patent after it has lapsed but before an application for its restoration was made, may continue the act in question. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
  Lord LYELL: My Lords, if I may say a word in reference to Amendment No. 42, I think that the noble Lord was looking in the direction of my noble friend Lord Belstead and myself in relation to the safeguard as to the issue of reminders to pay renewal fees. It is very gratifying that he and the Government have taken notice of the legitimate fears expressed by all practitioners in regard to the maintenance of patents. We are very grateful to the Government.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  47 Clause 27, page 22, line 25, leave out "any such patent or application or a share" and insert "a patent or any such application or a share in"
  48 Clause 28, page 22, line 37, at end insert—
  "(2A) Any patent or any such application, or any right in it, may be assigned and security may be granted over a patent or any such application or right."
  49 Clause 28, page 22, line 43, at end insert and any such licence or sub-licence may be assigned and security may be granted over it."
  50 Clause 28, page 22, Page 23, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
  51 Clause 28, page 22, Page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (4).
  52 Clause 30, page 24, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 25 and insert—
  " .—(1) Any person who claims to have acquired the property in a patent or application for a patent by virtue of any transaction, instrument or event to which this section applies shall be entitled as against any other person who claims to have acquired that property by virtue of an earlier transaction, instrument or event to which this secton applies if, at the time of the later transaction, instrument or event—

  (a) the earlier transaction, instrument or event was not registered, or

  (b) in the case of any application which has not been published, notice of the earlier transaction, instrument or event had not been given to the comptroller, and

  (c) in any case, the person claiming under the later transaction, instrument or event, did not know of the earlier transaction, instrument or event.

  (2) Subsection (1) above shall apply equally to the case where any person claims to have acquired any right in or under a patent or application for a patent, by virtue of a transaction, instrument or event to which this section applies and that right is incompatible with any such right acquired by virtue of an earlier transaction, instrument or event to which this section applies."
  53 Page 25, leave out lines 34 and 35.
  54 Page 25, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
  " (5) Where an application for the registration of a transaction, instrument or event has been made, but the transaction, instrument or event has not been registered then, for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above, registration of the application shall be treated as registration of the transaction, instrument or event."
  55 Clause 32 page 26, line 21, at beginning insert" Each of the following, that is to say—(a)"
  56 Clause 32 page 26, line 23, leave out "or an extract from the register or any such document" and insert—

  1063

  " (b) a document reproducing in legible form an entry made in the register otherwise than in legible form; or

  (c) an extract from the register or of any document mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above; "

  57 Clause 32 page 26, line 39, after "subsection" insert "and section 52 below"
  58 Clause 34, page 29, line 4, after "or" insert ",as the case may be"
  59 Clause 34, page 29, line 12, after "under" insert "subsection"
  60 Clause 35, page 29, line 37, leave out from "by" to "to" in line 39 and insert "the old proprietor or proprietors shall, subject to section 30 above and"
  61 Page 30, line 11, leave out from "proprietors" to "or" in line 13.
  62 Page 30, line 21, leave out "the patent or".
  6.48 p.m.
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 62 en bloc, and I suggest that we should also take into account Amendments Nos. 139 and 184. A good number of these Amendments are of a minor drafting character, particularly Nos. 47 to 50 inclusive, 53, 58, 59, 61 and 62. Amendments Nos. 51, 55 and 56 make provision for documents which reproduce in legible form entries made in the register, otherwise than in legible form, to be admitted in evidence in any court if certified by the comptroller and sealed with the seal of the Patent Office. Amendments Nos. 52 and 54 are concerned with Clause 30, which deals with the effect of registering transactions, instruments or events of the kind specified in subsection (4) of the clause. The aim is to encourage registration as soon as possible after the transaction has been entered into, the instrument has been executed or the event has occurred. I hope that is a sufficient explanation of this group of Amendments. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  63 Clause 35, page 30, line 29, at end insert "and may, if he considers it appropriate, order the grant of such a licence."
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the
  1064
  Commons in their Amendment No. 63. The Amendment was referred to earlier.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  64 Clause 37, page 31, line 20, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  " (b) his rights in the invention, or in any patent or application for a patent for the invention, have since the appointed day been assigned to the employer or an exclusive licence under the patent or application has since the appointed day been granted to the employer; "
  65 Clause 37, page 31, line 27, leave out "was" and insert "is".
  66 Clause 38, page 32, line 15, after "above" insert "in relation to a patent for an invention",
  67 Clause 38, page 32, line 18, at end insert "or from the assignment, assignation or grant to a person connected with the employer of the property or any right in the invention or the property in, or any right in or under, an application for that patent."
  68 Clause 38, page 32, line 21, after "of" insert—
  (a)"
  69 Clause 38, page 32, line 22, after "patent insert" for the invention or an application for such a patent; or
  (b) the property or any right in the invention; "
  70 Clause 38, page 32, line 26, after "Crown" insert "or a Research Council",
  71 Clause 38, page 32, line 34, at end insert "or, as the case may be, a Research Council.
  In this subsection "Research Council means a body which is a Research Council for the purposes of the Science and Technology Act 1965."
  72 Clause 38, page 32, page 36, line 8, after "assistance" insert ",by the provision of opportunities",
  73 Clause 38, page 32, line 20, after third "the" insert "making",
  74 Clause 38, page 32, line 39, leave out "and Northern Ireland".
  75 line 43, leave out "or decree".
  76 Clause 40, page 35, line 21, after "representatives" insert or their successors in title ",
  77 Clause 40, page 35, line 23, leave out "but they may not assign that right",
  78 Clause 40, page 35, line 30, leave out "Taxes" and insert "Tax".
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with

  1065
  the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 64 to 78 en bloc, and, with the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 142, 143, 163 and 164. These Amendments all relate to Clauses 37 to 40, dealing with employees' inventions. They are all tidying-up Amendments not affecting the substance of the clauses in any way, and, unless any noble Lord wishes to raise a question upon an Amendment, I do not think that I need to trouble the House with discussing them in detail. I should, however, mention Amendments Nos. 76 and 77. Clause 40(6) previously provided that, where an employee died, his personal representatives might exercise his right to make an application for compensation, but the right was not assignable. The reason for this was that the Government felt that it was a right which should be personal to the deceased. However, in another place this provision was amended and the Government are content to accept that Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I hope that it will not be unconstitutional if I briefly thank the other place for having put back substantially an Amendment which I raised at the Report stage. I indicated then that it was a technical, Chancery point. Therefore, it appears that I have must put the matter very badly. I can see that the Bar adviser on Chancery matters is looking at me. The matter was put far more clearly in the other place, which appears to appreciate Chancery points far better than this House.
  The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for including Amendment No. 70, which is designed to give the employers of Research Councils the benefit of civil servant status. I raised this matter on a Government Amendment at Third Reading, and I am extremely grateful to the Government for
  having reacted to what I said then.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that kind acknowledgment. I can only congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on the fact that once again
  1066
  he has been proved to be right and that the failure of noble Lords, including myself, to understand the full intricacies of his Chancery dialectic was put right in another place. It only goes to show how both Houses can achieve alterations and improvements in the law as a Bill goes through Parliament.
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord for his remarks.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  79 Clause 41, page 36, line 39, leave out "him" and insert "that other party".
  80 Clause 42, page 37,1ine 31, at end insert—
  " (2A) If on an application under this subsection made by either party to a contract or licence falling within subsection (1) above, the court is satisfied that, in consequence of the patent or patents concerned ceasing to be in force, it would be unjust to require the applicant to continue to comply with all the terms and conditions of the contract or licence, it may make such order varying those terms or conditions as, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it thinks just as between the parties.
  (2B) Without prejudice to any other right of recovery, nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to entitle any person to recover property bailed under a hire-purchase agreement (within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974) ".
  81 Clause 45, page 41, line 15, after "being" insert "so".
  82 Clause 50, page 45, line 39, leave out subsection (2).
  83 Page 46, line 19, leave out from "treaty" to end of line 20 and insert "or international convention to which the United Kingdom is a party".
  84 Clause 51, page 46, line 33, after "to" insert "that in".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79 to 84 en bloc, and, with the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendment No. 166 at the same time. There are a number of drafting Amendments in this group: they are Amendments Nos. 79, 81, 83 and 84. Amendment No. 80 is of more substance. The City of London Solicitors' Company has pointed out that Clause 42(1) provides only for the determination of such terms of the contract between the patentee and customer, or the licence agreement between the patentee and licensee, as relate to the patented

  1067
  product or patented invention. Such contracts and licences, they say, often deal with other matters like know-how, trade mark rights, design rights or copyright, and the obligations undertaken in respect of these would still continue in force; but those obligations, when considered in isolation, might no longer be fair. Accordingly, the new subsection empowers the court to vary those other terms in such a way as, having regard to all the circumstances, is just.
  In relation to Amendment No. 82, all I need to say is that this Amendment paves the way for Amendment No. 166, which defines the effect of a licence granted by the comptroller under any of the provisions of the Bill under which he has that power. The effect of the new clause would be to make the provision of Clause 50(2) superfluous.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  85 Clause 54, page 52, line 6, leave out "knows" and insert "has been informed".
  86 Clause 55, page 53, line 12, at end insert—
  " (3A) In determining whether or not to grant any relief under this section and the nature and extent of the relief granted the court shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, apply the principles applied by the court immediately before the appointed day to the granting of relief under section 48 of the 1949 Act.
  (3B) On a reference under this section the court may refuse to grant relief by way of compensation in respect of the use of an invention for the services of the Crown during any further period specified under section 22(4) above, but before the payment of the renewal fee and any additional fee prescribed for the purposes of that section.
  (3C) Where an amendment of the specification of a patent has been allowed under any of the provisions of this Act, the court shall not grant relief by way of compensation under this section in respect of any such use before the decision to allow the amendment unless the court is satisfied that the specification of the patent as published was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge."
  87 Clause 55, page 53, line 33, at end insert—
  " (6A) In considering the amount of any compensation for the use of an invention for the services of the Crown after publication of an application for a patent for the invention and before such a patent is granted, the court shall consider whether
  1068
  or not it would have been reasonable to expect, from a consideration of the application as published under section 15 above, that a patent would be granted conferring on the proprietor of the patent protection from an act of the same description as that found to constitute that use, and if the court finds that it would not have been reasonable, it shall reduce the compensation to such amount as it thinks just."
  88 Clause 55, page 53, line 37, after "patent" insert "(the new proprietor or licensee)",
  89 Clause 55, page 53, line 39, leave out "that person" and insert "the new proprietor or licensee".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 85 to 89 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 are drafting Amendments. Amendment No. 85, which relates to Clause 57(8). specifies that, where there is an exclusive licensee, any determination by the court of an amount of payment in respect of Crown user of the invention shall be of no effect unless the licensee knows of the reference to the court and is given an opportunity to be heard. Proof of knowledge may, however, be difficult to establish. Proof of notification, on the other hand, should always be possible, if it has in fact taken place. The Amendment therefore requires that the licensee should have been informed as opposed to knowing of the reference.
  In relation to Amendments Nos. 86 and 87, these two Amendments make provision in relation to the Crown use of patented inventions analogous to certain provisions governing infringement of patent. In other words, although use of a patented invention for the services of the Crown does not constitute infringement, there is parallelism between Crown use and infringement that makes it appropriate to make both subject to the same provisions, mutatis mutondis.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  6.59 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  90 Clause 57, page 55, line 23, leave out "(other than the proprietor of the patent"),
  91 Clause 57, page 55, line 42, after "force" insert "and without the consent of the proprietor",
  92 Clause 57, page 55, line 43, leave out second "to",
  93 Clause 57, page 55, page 57, line 20, leave out "on" and insert "in",
  94 Clause 57, page 55, line 23, leave out (as revised by subsequent conventions) ".
  95 Clause 58, page 58, line 31, leave out sub-section (7).
  96 Clause 62, page 60, line 36, leave out "any such" and insert "the subsequent",
  97 Clause 62, page 60, line 38, at beginning insert—
  " (1) In the application of section 57 above to a patent of which there are two or more joint proprietors the reference to the proprietor shall be construed—

  (a) in relation to any act, as a reference to that proprietor or those proprietors who, by virtue of section 33 above or any agreement referred to in that section, is or are entitled to do that act without its amounting to an infringement; and

  (b) in relation to any consent, as a reference to that proprietor or those proprietors who, by virtue of section 33 above or any such agreement, is or are the proper person or persons to give the requisite consent."

  98 Clause 66, page 61, line 35, leave out sub-section (2) and section 72(5) "and insert subsections (2) and (3)",
  99 Clause 66, page 61, line 41, leave out "sub-section (2)" and insert "subsections (2) and (3)",
  100 Clause 66, Page 62, line 11, at end insert—
  " (3) Section 59(2) and (3) above shall not apply to an infringement of the rights conferred by this section, but in considering the amount of any damages for such an infringement, the court or the comptroller shall consider whether or not it would have beeen reasonable to expect, from a consideration of the application as published under section 15 above, that a patent would be granted conferring on the proprietor of the patent protection from an act of the same description as that found to infringe those rights, and if the court or the comptroller finds that it would not have been reasonable, it or he shall reduce the damages to such amount as it or he thinks just."
  101 Clause 68, page 63, line 2, after first "declaration" insert "or declarator",
  102 Clause 68, page 63, line 9, leave out "the plaintiff or pursuer" and insert "that person",
  103 Clause 68, page 63, line 15, at end insert—
  " (2) Subject to section 69(5) below, a declaration made by the comptroller under this section shall have the same effect as a declaration or declarator by the court."
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 90 to 103 en bloc, and, with the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendment No. 188 at the same time. Again, there is a list of drafting Amendments which
  1070
  I shall indicate: they are Amendments Nos. 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 101, 102 and 103. Amendment No. 91 is more substantial. Subsection (2) is defective in failing to refer to lack of the proprietor's consent for an act falling within the subsection to constitute infringement. The Amendment cures this defect and brings the subsection into line with Article 30(1) of the Community Patent Convention.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
  Lord LYELL: My Lords, I do not believe that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Oram, say anything about Amendment No. 100. Therefore, I hope he will forgive me if I say a few words about it. After examination of the Amendment, it seems to me that the Government have allowed me this point. It was one which I pleaded at both the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. Indeed, the basis of my special pleading was that we should not allow our own national patents to give broader protection than the Community Patents Convention. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, explained with infinite patience, both at Committee stage and at Report stage, that he could not envisage these damages being anything other than reasonable. It is interesting and encouraging to find that the tail end of this Amendment provides the same amount of protection, no more and no less, as I sought at Report stage. If I am correct in my reasoning, I should like to thank and, indeed, to congratulate the Government and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Oram.
  Lord ORAM: I acknowledge that the noble Lord is right in what he said, including his congratulations.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  104 Clause 69, page 63, line 18, at end insert "by order".
  105 Clause 69, page 63, line 22, leave out from "person" to end of line 24 and insert who was not the only person entitled under section 6(2) above to be granted that patent or to two or more persons who were not the only persons so entitled; "
  106 Clause 69, page 63, line 31, leave out "14(4) or 34(4) above" and insert "or 34(4) above or as mentioned in section 14(4) above".
  107 Clause 70, leave out Clause 70.
  108 Clause 71, page 65, line 12, after "initiative" insert by order ".
  109 Clause 72, page 66, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  " (4) No determination shall be made in any proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) above on the validity of a patent which any person puts in issue on the ground mentioned in section 69(1)(b) above unless—

  (a) it has been determined in entitlement proceedings commenced by that person or in the proceedings in which the validity of the patent is in issue that the patent should have been granted to him and not some other person; and

  (b) except where it has been so determined in entitlement proceedings, the proceedings in which the validity of the patent is in issue are commenced before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date of the grant of the patent or it is shown that any person registered as a proprietor of the patent knew at the time of the grant or of the transfer of the patent to hint that he was not entitled to the patent.

  (4A) Where the validity of a patent is put in issue by way of defence or counterclaim the court or the comptroller shall, if it or he thinks it just to do so, give the defendant an opportunity to comply with the condition in subsection (4)(a) above.
  (4B) In subsection (4) above entitlement proceedings, in relation to a patent, means a reference under section 34(1)(a) above on the ground that the patent was granted to a person not entitled to it or proceedings for a declaration or declarator that it was so granted."
  110 Clause 74, page 67, line 19, leave out "14(4) or 34(4) above" and insert "or 34(4) above or as mentioned in section 14(4) above".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104 to 110 en bloc. The drafting Amendments are Nos. 104, 105, 106, 108 and 110. We have already dealt with Amendment No. 107 when dealing with No. 14. The purpose of Amendment No. 109 is to make it clear that validity may only be put in issue under Clause 72(4) by the person who is rightfully entitled to the patent. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  111 Clause 75, page 68, line 33, at end insert—
  "(4A) Where—

  (a) under the European Patent Convention a European patent (UK) is revoked for failure to observe a time limit and is subsequently restored; and

  (b) between the revocation and publication of the fact that it has been restored a person begins in good faith to do an act which would, apart from section 52 above, constitute an infringement of the patent or makes in good faith effective and serious preparations to do such an act;

  he shall have the rights conferred by section 25(6) above, and subsections (8) and (9) of that section shall apply accordingly."
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 111. This Amendment is designed to implement Article 102(6) of the European Patent Convention. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  112 Clause 76, Page 69, line 22, at end insert "section (Disclosure of matter, etc., between earlier and later applications)"
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, this Amendment was referred to earlier. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 112.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Lord Oram.)
  On Question. Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  113 Clause 76, page 69, line 40, after "be" insert "so".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 113, which is purely drafting.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  114 Clause 76, page 69, line 41, leave out "extended" and insert "altered,".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114, which has already been referred to.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  115 Clause 76, page 70, line 17, leave out subsection (5)
  116 Clause 76, page 70, line 26, at end insert—
  " (6A) Where between those subsections ceasing to apply to any such application and the re-establishment of the rights of the applicant a person begins in good faith to do an act which would, apart from section 52 above, constitute an infringement of the application if those subsections then applied, or makes in good faith effective and serious preparations to do such an act, he shall have the rights conferred by section 25(6) above, and section 25(8) and (9) above shall apply to the exercise of any such right accordingly."
  117 Clause 78, page 71, line 36, leave out "or 77"
  118 Page 72, line 4, leave out "or 53"
  119 Page 72, line 8, leave out "either of those sections" and insert "that section"
  120 Page 72, line 24, after "would" insert "(apart from section 52 above)"
  121 Page 72, line 27, leave out "subsections (8) and (9) of that section" and insert "section 25(8) and (9) above"
  122 Clause 79, page 73, line 13, leave out "his" and insert "the"
  123 Clause 80, page 74, line 31, leave out one "and insert" either "
  124 Clause 82, page 76, line 32, leave out from "unless" to end of line 34 and insert "permitted to do so under the European Patent Convention."
  125 After Clause 82 insert the following new clause:—
  European patent attorneys.
  .—(1) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that any person whose name appears on the European list shall not be guilty of an offence under section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 or Article 22 of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 by reason only of his describing himself as a European patent attorney.
  (2) A person whose name appears on the European list shall not be guilty of an offence under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (3) below by reason only of the preparation by him of any document (other than a deed) for use in proceedings before the comptroller under this Act, in relation to a European patent or application for such a patent.
  (3) The enactments referred to in subsection (2) above (which prohibit the preparation
  1074
  for reward of certain instruments or writs by persons not legally qualified) are—

  (a) section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974;

  (b) section 39 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1933; and

  (c) Article 23 of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.

  (4) In this section "the European list" means the list of professional representatives maintained by the European Patent Office in pursuance of the European Patent Convention.
  126 Clause 83, page 77, line 32, after "Sections" insert "11,71(2)"
  127 Clause 84, page 78, line 7, leave out from "court" to end of line 10 and insert "does not include"
  128 line 11, leave out "one" and insert "any"
  129 Clause 86, page 79, line 9, leave out "while this subsection applies" and insert "until this subsection ceases to apply"
  130 line 22, at end insert—
  " (cc) where a period of time relevant to priority is extended under the Treaty, the period of twelve months specified in section 5(2) above shall be treated as altered correspondingly;"
  131 line 29, leave out "while subsection (1) above applies" and insert "until subsection (1) above ceases to apply"
  132 Page 80, line 8, at end insert—
  " (5A) Before the relevant conditions are satisfied, subsection (1) above shall not operate so as to secure that an international application for a patent (UK) is to be treated for the purposes of section 7 above as an application for a patent under this Act and shall not affect the application of section 11 above to an invention for which an international application of a patent is made or proposed to be made, but when the relevant conditions are satisfied the international application shall be so treated and accordingly section 11 above shall not apply to it."
  133 Page 81, line 11, at end insert "or which contains an indication that the applicant wishes to obtain a European Patent (UK)."
  7.5 p.m.
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 115 to 133 en bloc, and take into consideration also Amendments Nos. 140, 154, 155, 159, 185, 233 and 234. Of this group the purely drafting Amendments are 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 129, 130 and 131. Another group of Amendments, beginning with No. 127, inserts a general definition of the words "relevant convention court" into Clause 124, which is the Interpretation Clause. Amendment 117 leaves out a potentially misleading reference in Clause 78(2).

  1075
  The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will recall Amendment 124, because at Third Reading he expressed concern that the Bill, as then proposed to be amended, would permit foreign owned companies to hold themselves out as carrying on European business when the issue as to whether they should be so permitted had not yet been resolved by the European Patent Office. He suggested a form of words very close to that which this Amendment would now substitute. The Government are pleased to accept his point and this Amendment is the result. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  134 Clause 87, page 81, line 21, after "treaty" insert "international".
  135 Clause 87, page 81, line 23, leave out from first "of" to end of line 28 and insert "section 5 above.".
  136 Clause 87, page 81, leave out lines 32 to 36 and insert "those purposes".
  137 Clause 87, page 81, line 38, after "protectorate" insert "and".
  138 Clause 87, page 81, line 39, after "and" insert "every".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, these Amendments have been referred to earlier. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 134 to 138 en bloc.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  139 Clause 88, page 82, line 20, after "institution" insert "or reproducing in legible form any information in such custody otherwise than in legible form".
  140 Page 83, line 4, leave out from "court" to "a" in line 7 and insert "does not include".
  Clause 89
  141 Leave out Clause 89 and insert the following new clause:
  Obtaining evidence for proceedings under the European Patent Convention.
  .—(1) Sections 1 to 3 of the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 (provisions enabling United Kingdom courts to assist in obtaining evidence for foreign courts) shall apply for the purpose of proceedings before a relevant convention court under the European Patent Convention as they apply for the purpose of civil proceedings in a court exercising jurisdiction in a country outside the United Kingdom.
  (2) In the application of those sections by virtue of this section any reference to the High Court, the Court of Session or the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland shall include a reference to the comptroller.
  (3) Rules under this Act may include provision—

  (a) as to the manner in which an application under section 1 of the said Act of 1975 is to be made to the comptroller for the purpose of proceedings before a relevant convention court under the European Patent Convention; and

  (b) subject to the provisions of that Act, as to the circumstances in which an order can be made under section 2 of that Act on any such application.

  (4) Rules of court and rules under this Act may provide for an officer of the European Patent Office to attend the hearing of an application under section 1 of that Act before the court or the comptroller, as the case may be, and examine the witnesses or request the court or comptroller to put specified questions to the witnesses.
  (5) Section 1(4) of the Perjury Act 1911 and section 1(4) of the Perjury Act (Northern Ireland) 1946 (statements made for the purposes, among others, of judicial proceedings in a tribunal of a foreign state) shall apply in relation to proceedings before a relevant convention court under the European Patent Convention as they apply to a judicial proceeding in a tribunal of a foreign state.
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Amendments Nos. 139 to 141. In relation to Amendment No. 141, perhaps I need only make the point that it is designed to implement Article 132(2) of the European Patent Convention. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  142 Clause 90, page 83, line 26, leave out "and Northern Ireland".
  143 Clause 90, page 83, line 29, leave out "or decree".
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, these Amendments were referred to earlier by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 142 and 143.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(Lord Oram.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  144 Clause 94, page 85, line 1, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
  "(c) a decision to give directions under subsection (1) or (2) of section (Information prejudicial to defence of realm or safety of public) above".
  145 Clause 94, page 85, line 6, leave out from "may" to end of line 8 and insert "consist of one or more judges of that".
  146 Clause 94, page 85, line 11, leave out "that section or section 31(1)(f) of that Act" and insert section 31(1)(f) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925"
  147 Clause 94, page 85, line 17, after "7" insert "11".
  148 Clause 94, page 85, line 31, after "7" insert "11".
  149 Clause 96, page 86, line 5, after second "or" insert "international".
  150 Clause 99, page 86, line 23, after second "or" insert "international".
  151 Clause 99, page 86, line 31, after "(1)" insert or "(3)".
  152 Clause 99, page 86, line 32, at beginning insert "Without prejudice to the right of counsel to appear before the High Court, a member of the Bar of England and Wales who is not in actual practice,".
  153 Page 87, line 3, leave out "the 1949 Act".
  154 Page 87, line 5, leave out "European Court or the European Patent Office" and insert "relevant convention court".
  155 Clause 101, page 87, line 39, leave out "the European Court or the European Patent Office" and insert "or the relevant convention Court".
  156 Page 88, line 7, leave out "an individual" and insert "a person".
  157 Page 88, line 8, after "(1)" insert "or (3)".
  158 Page 88, line 10, leave out "the 1949 Act".
  159 Page 88, line 11, leave out "the European Court or the European Patent Office" and insert "or the relevant convention court".
  160 Page 88, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
  161 Clause 102, page 88, line 30, leave out from "of" to end of line 34 and insert "patent proceedings within the meaning of section 101 above".
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 144 to 161 en bloc. Amendment No. 144 was in fact dealt with by my noble friend Lord Oram at an earlier stage. These are largely drafting Amendments and there is only one point to which I think I need refer. Amendment No. 152 confers upon employed barristers the same right of audience as is given to solicitors and patent agents before the Patents Court when it is hearing appeals from the comptroller. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I should like to welcome Amendment No. 152 which relates to employed barristers. This is an important development, for which we are grateful to the Government.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  162 After Clause 102, insert the following new clause:
  Costs and expenses in proceedings before the Court under s. 37

  .—(1) In proceedings before the court under section 37 above (whether on an application or on appeal to the court), the court, in determining whether to award costs or expenses to any party and what costs or expenses to award, shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the financial position of the parties.

  (2) If in any such proceedings the Patents Court directs that any costs of one party shall be paid by anoher party, the court may settle the amount of the costs by fixing a lump sum or may direct that the costs shall be taxed on a scale specified by the court, being a scale of costs prescribed by the Rules of the Supreme Court or by the County Court Rules.

  7.8 p.m.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 162. Your Lordships will remember that both in Committee and on Report the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, by moving Amendments,

  1079
  made resolute attempts in order to have the effect that in applications by an employee for compensation under Clause 37 of the Bill no costs could have been awarded against the employee. On those earlier occasions I endeavoured to make it plain that, like the noble Lord, I was anxious that nothing should be done or provided for to discourage an employee with a good case from making an application, but I thought that the cross-sanction should be retained to deter employees from making applications without merit. I pointed out that since the employee was always the applicant he had the option of beginning his proceedings before the comptroller, where costs are relatively modest and where discretion is given to the comptroller. I still hold these views, but while the Bill was being debated in another place it was put to me that there was nothing to prevent an employer appealing from the comptroller to the Patents Court, where costs are not on such a modest scale, and the mere threat of such an appeal might suffice to deter an employee from making an application.
  Accordingly, I agree that the Patents Court should have a discretion to award costs, either on the High Court scale or on any of the county court scales, or to make a lump sum order for costs. This provision, which, incidentally, is similar to that followed by the Lands Tribunal, will give the Patents Court a wide discretion, and when exercising that discretion the court will be obliged to take into account the financial position of the parties. I hope, accordingly, that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will feel that this has gone a good deal of the way to make the point to which he attached such importance. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I briefly express my gratitude to the Government for introducing this new clause, which goes some way to meet the points I had in mind in regard to the employee-inventor. A gross injustice would be involved if an employee-inventor were discouraged from applying for his rights under the Bill. I have already on many occasions congratulated
  1080
  the Government on introducing these clauses extending the rights of employee-inventors in this way. This clause reduces, to some extent, the financial hazards which would have faced an employee-inventor. As I have said on so many occasions in this House, patent litigation is notoriously expensive. This Amendment will go some way to assist the employee-inventor in trying to exercise his own rights.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  163 Clause 103, page 88, line 39, leave out "and Northern Ireland"
  164 Clause 103, page 88, line 42, leave out "or decree"
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 163 and 164. These have already been spoken to earlier.
  Moved, that this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  165 Page 89, line 15, leave out "or application" and insert "application or notice"
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 165. This is a purely technical Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  166 After Clause 103, insert the following new clause:
  Licences granted by order of comptroller
  . Any order for the grant of a licence under section 10, 35, 45 or 46 above shall, without prejudice to any other method of enforcement, have effect as if it were a deed, executed by the proprietor of the patent and all other necessary parties, granting a licence in accordance with the order.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No 166. This Amendment has already been spoken to be my noble friend

  1081
  Lord Oram. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that the clause has been inserted to cover a purely technical defect and is another of those points which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, would describe as a pure Chancery point.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  167 Clause 106, page 90, line 24, leave out from "that" to end of line 25 and insert "a patent has been applied for in respect of it".
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 167. This is a purely technical Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  168 After Clause 106, insert the following new clause:
  Misuse of title "Patent Office"
  ". If any person uses on his place of business, or on any document issued by him, or otherwise, the words "Patent Office" or any other words suggesting that his place of business is, or is officially connected with, the Patent Office, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500".
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 168. This new clause introduces a provision corresponding to Section 91(2) of the Patents Act 1949. The difference is that while in 1949 that offence would have cost the offender £20, the fine today would be £500. However, this is a provision which has very rarely been invoked—somebody pretending to be a Patent Office—and for this reason was not included in the Bill originally; but we now accept that even if it does not do very much good, it cannot do any very great harm, and is appropriately included in the Bill.
  Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  169 Clause 107, page 90, line 36, at end insert—
  "(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate."
  170 Clause 108, page 91, line 17, leave out "of the body and" and insert "or, where the body's affairs are managed by its members, every member of the body and in any event,"
  171 Page 92, line 1, leave out "or the Court of Session".
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 169 to 171 en bloc. With the leave of the House, I will at the same time speak to Amendment No. 183. I regret that there is an error in Amendment No. 170 as printed. It reads:
  "Page 91, line 17, leave out 'of the body and' and insert …"
  It should read:
  "Page 91, line 14, leave out 'or member of the body and' and insert 'or, where the body's affairs are managed by its members, every member of the body and in any event,'."
  Perhaps it may be useful, after having given those incomprehensible observations, to read paragraph (b) as it will be when amended. It will read:
  "in any other case, every director or, where the body's affairs are managed by its members, every member of the body and in any event, if it has a manager who is not a director or member, that manager, is so registered".
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  172 Clause 112, page 93, line 34, at end insert "nor shall that subsection prevent the Secretary of State from inspecting or authorising the inspection of an application for a patent or any connected documents under subsection (6)(a) of section (Information prejudicial to defence of realm or safety of public) above."
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 172. This Amendment has already been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Oram.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  173 Clause 117, page 95, line 30, leave out "order" and insert "rules"
  174 Clause 117, page 95, line 31, leave out from "7" to "68" and insert "11, 34, 37(1) or (2), 38(8), 58(3),"
  175 Clause 117, page 95, line 32, at end insert— "(ff) providing for the appointment of advisers to assist the comptroller in any proceeding before him;"
  176 Clause 117, Page 96, line 12, at end insert— "(4A) The remuneration of any adviser appointed under rules to assist the comptroller in any proceeding shall be determined by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service and shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."
  177 Clause 118, line 29, after "order" insert "or rule".
  178 Clause 119, line 38, leave out "in" and insert "of".
  179 Clause 121, page 97, line 29, leave out "(subject to the provisions of that Schedule)"
  180 Page 98, line 12, after "provisions" insert "and savings".
  181 Clause 124, page 99, line 29, leave out "the first occasion on which it has a" and insert "its"
  182 Clause 124, page 99, leave out lines 41 to 43
  183 Page 100, leave out lines 30 to 35
  184 Page 101, line 30, at end insert—
  ""mortgage", when used as a noun, includes a charge for securing money or money's worth and, when used as a verb, shall be construed accordingly;"
  185 Page 102, line 17, at end insert— ""relevant convention court", in relation to any proceedings under the European Patent Convention, the Community Patent Convention or the Patent Cooperation Treaty, means that court or other body which under that convention or treaty has jurisdiction over those proceedings, including (where it has such jurisdiction) any department of the European Patent Office;"
  186 Page 103, line 21, after first "5" insert ",(Disclosure of matter, etc., between earlier and later applications)".
  187 Page 103, line 21, after "69(1)" insert "and (2) 72(4)".
  188 Page 103, line 26, at end insert— "(7A) The Arbitration Act 1950 shall not apply to any proceedings before the comptroller under this Act".
  189 Clause 126, page 104, line 18, leave out "and this subsection" and insert ",this subsection and the repeal of section 41 of the 1949 Act".
  190 Clause 126, page 104, line 28, leave out "subject to any savings contained in that column".
  7.16 p.m.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 173 to 190 en bloc. These are purely technical Amendments. I do not think there is anything to which I should draw your Lordships' attention.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I speak very briefly to Amendment No. 175, which provides for the appointment of advisers to assist the comptroller in any proceedings before him. This is something more than a technical Amendment. This is a very important power now given to the comptroller and a matter which was pressed by me at several stages of the Bill. The comptroller can now have rules which will enable him to have advisers sitting with him in connection with the assessing of compensation for employee-inventors. It may arise that there will be very serious difficulties in regard to the accounts of a company, and the comptroller can now get assistance in that direction. Also there may be important matters in relation to industrial relations in the company where the advice of those experts in industrial relations, the trade union organisation, would be able to help. I therefore welcome Amendment No. 175 as an important development.
  Lord LYELL: My Lords, I ask the House to give its attention to Amendment 189. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can settle a point on which I have a query in my mind. It is my understanding that the old Section 41 of the 1949 Act was repealed as a result of a Division at Committee stage. Why is the repeal of Section 41 to be delayed beyond the commencement of this Act. If we look at Amendment No. 189, this is inserted as an amendment to subsection (5); this fixes the date when the Act shall come into effect with the exception of three or four paragraphs. Yet the Amendment includes the repeal of Section 41.

  1085
  I believe that Section 41 still is a valid enactment. Could the noble and learned Lord confirm that it is not the Government's intention to re-enact this section? I understand that the Minister in another place gave assurances that adequate safeguards would exist parallel to Section 41, and therefore would replace it. This resulted from the continuous discussion under various voluntary price regulation schemes. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could enlighten me on this particular small Amendment.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for underlining the importance—and it is significant—which he attaches to Amendment No. 175 which, as he has indicated, inserts in Clause 117(2) a power for the Secretary of State to provide by rules that the comptroller may be assisted by advisers in any proceedings before him. I know that the noble Lord has always favoured that, and the Patent Office has now taken the view that it would be useful to enable the comptroller to call in outside assistance in appropriate cases—it is not suggested that this should apply in all cases—especially on applications by employees for compensation. The advisers need not be, and probably would not be, scientific advisers: that was a point that the noble Lord made earlier and I am grateful that he has brought it forward.
  As regards the matter raised in respect of Amendment No. 189, the repeal of the special compulsory licence provision for patented medicines of Section 41, of the 1949 Act, has already been announced. The purpose of Amendment No. 189 is to make the repeal effective from the date of enactment of the Bill—in other words, from Royal Assent. If there were to be an interval between enactment and repeal, applications for licences under Section 41 might be filed while repeal was pending and that would be undesirable. That is the explanation.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  191 Schedule 1, page 105, line 6, at end insert "(but not in relation to patents and applications for patents under this Act)."
  192 Schedule 1, page 105, line 7, leave out from "12" to "69" in line 8 and insert 13, 15 to 17, 19 to 21, 22(1) to (3), 23 to 26, 28 to 33, 46 to 53, 55, 56, 59 to 67,"
  193 Schedule 1, page 105, line 33, leave out "fourteen" and insert "eleven".
  194 page 106, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
  195 page 106, line 16, leave out "subsections (4) and (5) of that section" and insert "sections 22(3) to (5) above".
  196 page 106, line 19, leave out from "under" to "except" in line 21 and insert "section 22(3) to (5) above".
  197 page 106, line 27, after "shall" insert ",together with any contract relating to the licence,"
  198 page 106, line 28, after "force" insert "(unless determined otherwise than in accordance with this sub-paragraph)".
  199 page 106, line 29, after "shall" insert "after the end of that year".
  200 page 106, line 34, at end insert— "(c) every such patent shall after the end of that year be treated as endorsed under section 35 of the 1949 Act (licences of right).".
  201 page 106, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
  "(3) Where the term of a new existing patent is extended by this paragraph and any Government department or any person authorised by a Government department—

  (a) has before the appointed day, used the invention in question for the services of the Crown; and

  (b) continues to so use it until the end of the sixteenth year from the date of the patent,

  any such use of the invention by any Government department or person so authorised, after the end of that year, may be made free of any payment to the proprietor of the patent.".
  202 Page 107, line 15, at end insert—
  "5A. Notwithstanding anything in section 32(1)(j) of the 1949 Act (ground for revocation that patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation), it shall not be a ground of revoking a patent under that subsection that the patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation that a claim of the complete specification of the patent had a priority date earlier than the date of filing the application for the patent, but if it is shown—

  (a) on a petition under that section or an application under section 33 of that Act; or

  (b) by way of defence or on a counter-claim on an action for infringement;

  that such a suggestion or representation was falsely made, the priority date of the claim shall be taken to be the date of filing the application for that patent."
  203 Page 107, line 22, at end insert—
  "(2) At the end of the said section 33 there shall be added the following sub-section:—
  "(5) A decision of the comptroller or on appeal from the comptroller shall

  1087
  not stop any party to civil proceedings in which infringement of a patent is in issue from alleging that any claim of the specification is invalid on any of the grounds set out in section 32(1) of this Act, whether or not any of the issues involved were decided in that decision."."
  204 Schedule 2, page 107, line 31, leave out "The" and insert "Without prejudice to those provisions of Schedule 4 below which apply (in certain circumstances) provisions of this Act in relation to existing patents and applications, the".
  205 Schedule 2, page 107, line 35, after "sections" insert "(Information prejudicial to defence of realm or safety of public), (Restrictions on applications abroad by United Kingdom residents), 22(3) to (5)"
  206 Schedule 2, page 107, line 36, leave out "112 to 117" and insert "112(1) to (3), 113 to 118"
  207 Schedule 2, page 107, line 36, after "126" insert "(2)"
  208 Schedule 2, page 107, line 39, at end insert—
  "(aa) a reference to a specified provision of this Act other than one of those provisions shall be construed as a reference to the corresponding provision of the 1949 Act (any provision of that Act being treated as corresponding to a provision of this Act if it was enacted for purposes which are the same as or similar to that provision of this Act);"
  209 Schedule 2, page 107, Schedule 3, page 108, line 19, leave out paragraph 1
  210 Schedule 2, page 107, line 32, leave out "also"
  211 Schedule 2, page 107, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  "(b) section 32(3) (revocation for refusal to comply with Crown request to use invention);"
  212 Schedule 2, page 107, line 48, leave out paragraph (g)
  213 Schedule 4, page 109, line 17, leave out "either" and insert "whether to a person entitled to apply for a patent for the invention,"
  214 Schedule 4, page 109, line 18, leave out "subject to sub-paragraph (3) below"
  215 Schedule 4, page 109, line 28, after "to" insert "sub-paragraph (3) below"
  216 Schedule 4, page 109, line 30, leave out "paragraph (b) of section 52(5)" and insert "sections 52(5)(b) and 55(6A)"
  217 Schedule 4, page 109, line 41, leave out "subject to sub-paragraph (3) below"
  218 Schedule 4, page 109, line 43, leave out from first "and" to "Act" and insert ", in addition to those provisions of the 1949 Act which continue to apply by virtue of Schedule I above, section 70 of that"
  219 Schedule 4, page 110, line 5, after "to" insert "sub-paragraph (3) below"
  220 Schedule 4, page 110, line 6, leave out "paragraph (b) of section 66(2) "and insert" section 66(2) and (3)".
  221 Schedule 4, page 110, line 14, leave out from "of" to end of line 16 and insert "that patent or those privileges or rights".
  222 Page 111, line 2, leave out paragraph 6.
  223 Page 112, line 3, leave out "appointed" and insert "relevant".
  224 Page 112, line 11, leave out "appointed" and insert "relevant".
  225 Page 112, line 14, at end insert—
  226 "(3) In this paragraph "the relevant day" means, in relation to section 41, the date of the passing of this Act and, in relation to sections 35 to 40 and 43 to 45, the appointed day."
  Page 112,line 14, at end insert —
  "Convention countries
  9A.—(1) Without prejudice to paragraph 1 above, an Order in Council declaring any country to be a convention country for all purposes of the 1949 Act or for the purposes of section 1(2) of that Act and in force immediately before the appointed day shall be treated as an Order in Council under section 87 above declaring that country to be a convention country for the purposes of section 5 above.
  (2) Where an Order in Council declaring any country to be a convention country for all purposes of the 1949 Act or for the purposes of section 70 of that Act is in force immediately before the appointed day, a vessel registered in that country (whether before, on or after that day) shall be treated for the purposes of section 57 above, as it applies by virtue of paragraph 3(2) above to an existing patent or existing application, as a relevant ship and an aircraft so registered and a land vehicle owned by a person ordinarily resident in that country shall be so treated respectively as a relevant aircraft and a relevant vehicle."
  227 Page 112, line 14, at end insert—
  "Appeals from court on certain petitions for revocation
  9B. Where the court has given judgment on a petition under section 32(1)(j) of the 1949 Act before the appointed day, any appeal from the judgment (whether instituted before, on or after that day) shall be continued or instituted and be disposed of under the old law."
  228 Page 114, leave out lines 7 to 10.
  229 Page 114, line 14, at end insert—

  "16A.—(1) Nothing in the repeals made by this Act in sections 23 and 24 of the 1949 Act shall have effect as respects any such application as is mentioned in paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 1 above.

  (2) Nothing in the repeal by this Act of the Patents Act 1957 shall have effect as respects existing applications.

  (3) Section 69 of the 1949 Act (which is not repealed by this Act) and section 70 of that Act (which continues to have effect for certain purposes by virtue of paragraph 3 above) shall apply as if section 68 of that Act had not been repealed by this Act and as if paragraph 9A above had not been enacted."

  230 Schedule 5, page 114, line 16, at end insert:
  "Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (c. 44)
  1. In section 3 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, for subsection (2) there shall be substituted:
  "(2) Nothing in the preceding subsection or in any other provision of this Act shall affect the rights of any Government department under Schedule I to the Registered Designs Act 1949 or section 52 of the Patents Act 1977, or the rights of the Secretary of State under section (information prejudicial to defence of realm or safety of public) of the said Act of 1977.""
  231 Schedule 5, page 114, line 19, leave out "substitute" and insert "there shall be substituted".
  232 Schedule 5, page 114, line 21, leave out "insert" and insert "there shall be inserted"
  233 Schedule 5, page 114, line 42, at end insert
  "Atomic Energy Authority (Weapons Group) Act 1973 (c. 4)
  5. In section 5(2) of the Atomic Energy Authority (Weapons Group) Act 1973—

  (a) after the first "Patents Act 1949 there shall be inserted", the Patents Act 1977"; and

  (b) after the second "Patents Act 1949" there shall be inserted "section 52(4) of the Patents Act 1977".

  Fair Trading Act 1973 (c. 41)
  6.—(1) In paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 to the Fair Trading Act 1973 for "Patents Act 1949" there shall be substituted "Patents Act 1977".
  (2) After the said paragraph 10 there shall be inserted:—
  "10A. The services of persons carrying on for gain in the United Kingdom the business of acting as agents or other representatives of other persons for the purpose of applying for or obtaining European patents or for the purpose of conducting proceedings in connection with such patents before the European Patent Office or the comptroller and whose names appear on the European list (within the meaning of section 82(7) of the Patents Act 1977), in their capacity as such persons."."
  234 Schedule 5, page 114, line 42, at end insert—
  "Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (c. 34)
  7.—(1) In paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, for "the Patents Act 1949" there shall be substituted "the Patents Act 1977".
  (2) After the said paragraph 10 there shall be inserted—
  "10A. The services of persons carrying on for gain in the United Kingdom the business of acting as agents or other representatives of other persons for the purpose of applying for or obtaining European patents or for the purpose of conducting proceedings in connection with such patents before the European Patent Office or the comptroller and
  1090
  whose names appear on the European list (within the meaning of section 82(7) of the Patents Act 1977), in their capacity as such persons ""
  235 Schedule 6, page 115, line 3, at end insert—

  "7 Edw. 7. c. 29.

  The Patents and Designs Act 1907.

  Section 47 (2).

  9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 80.

  The Atomic Energy Act 1946.

  In section 12, subsections (1) to (7)".

  236 Schedule 6, page 115, leave out lines 5 to 7.
  237 Schedule 6, page 115, line 8, at end insert "section 16(6)"
  238 Schedule 6, page 115, line 9, at end insert "section 22(4) and (5)"
  239 Schedule 6, page 115, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—

  "In section 23(1), the words from "(not exceeding" to "ten years)".

  In section 24, in subsection (1), the words "(not exceeding ten years)" and in subsection (7) the words from "but" to the end."

  240 Schedule 6, page 115, line 13, leave out from "32" to end of line 19 and insert "subsection (3)"
  241 Schedule 6, page 115, leave out lines 22 to 24.
  242 Schedule 6, page 115, leave out lines 26 to 28.
  243 Schedule 6, page 115, line 38, at end insert "Schedule 3, except paragraphs 1 and 26"
  244 Schedule 6, page 115, leave out lines 39 to 42.
  245 Schedule 6, page 115, leave out lines 45 to 49.
  246 Schedule 6, page 115, leave out lines 50 to 53.
  247 Schedule 6, page 115, leave out lines 54 and 55 and insert—

  "9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c. 25.

  The Patents and Designs (Renewals, Extensions and Fees) Act 1961.

  In section 1(1), the words from "sub-section (5)" to "and in". Section 2."

  248 Page 116, line 2, column 3, leave out from "Schedule 1" to end of line 8 and insert "the entry relating to section 84 of the Patents Act 1949"
  249 Page 116, leave out lines 12 to 14.
  250 Page 116, line 14, at end insert—

  "1968 c. 64.

  The Civil Evidence Act 1968.

  Section 15."

  251 Page 116, line 32, at end insert—

  "1971 c. 36 (N.I.).

  The Civil Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Section 11."

  252 Page 116, leave out lines 33 to 39.
  7.21 p.m.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 191 to 252 en bloc—that is to say, even unto the final Amendment in this great, long list. I recognise that it is not a usual event to speak to 62 Amendments in I shall not say one breath but at once. It is the case that some of the Amendments add some new material to the Schedules, but really they are all consequential on other provisions of the Bill and I venture to think that, while they are necessary, none calls for special mention.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that these are all technical Amendments. However, Amendment No. 193 is a matter as regards which I should like to register my discontent and I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is also nodding his head in agreement with me.
  Amendment No. 193 is the important Amendment dealing with the extension of the term of patents that are in being now and therefore only get a period of 16 years of life plus some further four years if it is possible to make a case in the High Court about extension, whereas all patents applied for after this Act comes into power will get 20 years. On the basis of an Amendment that I moved, this House resolved that there should be a period of only two years, whereas Amendment No. 193 makes the period five years. Therefore the other place has reversed the Amendment which succeeded in this House.
  I want to register my discontent only briefly. This Amendment may have a very serious effect upon, in particular, pharmaceutical patents. I understand that in the other place the Minister has agreed that, in view of the representations that have been made recently about the extension of terms of pharmaceutical patents, the matter will be reconsidered by the Standing Advisory Committee and new legislation will be necessary if the Standing
  1092
  Advisory Committee consider that pharmaceutical patents are in a special situation. I shall not at this late hour deal with the matter in any detail, but I register my discontent as regards Amendment No. 193. However, I shall not move the House to divide on this matter.
  The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I am sorry that I am making my swan song on the Bill on such a sorry business. However, I do not know what to do about it. Dividing the House would not be an answer. I sometimes wonder, in the context of provisions of this kind, whether we ought not to include the General Confession in our prayers before our proceedings. If ever there is a body of men who need a constant reminder that they leave undone those things that they ought to do and do those things that they ought not to do, it is the legislature when it is in a mood to discourage all the things that it ought to encourage and encourage all things that it ought to discourage. This Amendment benefits the licensee at the expense of the licensor—the inventor user. The licensee is the man without the initiative to make inventions. The licensor is the man with the initiative to make inventions. Therefore, we are putting obstacles in the way of initiative. That is something we ought not to do. Therefore, I can only express myself as discontent, but I shall not carry my discontent to its logical conclusion.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry that after the happy course of the proceedings this evening when so many victories were recorded by, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in a number of matters, we should end on a note where, alas! we have to disappoint them. However, it is not an easy matter.
  The effect of the Amendment is to extend the term of an existing patent to 20 years only if it has at least five years to run and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said, it reverses the Amendment that was carried in your Lordships' House which would have extended the term if it had only two years to run. The position really is that it has always been agreed that it is a matter

  1093
  of judgment where to draw the line, but the Government at least have the comfort of having followed the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Committee on Patents, and that was the view taken in another place.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has referred to the position of pharmaceutical patents. In another place the Opposition tried, unsuccessfully, to make a special exception for them. While other old patents would have received the 20-year term only if they had had at least five years to run, pharmaceutical patents would, if that attempt had been successful, have been given the 20-year term if they had only two years to run. That was resisted by the Government but the Minister, as has been said, undertook to consider the position of the pharmaceutical industry and conceded, without giving any undertaking, that if he thought it warranted, there was the possibility of introducing further legislation. Therefore, I am sorry that we have not fully met the wishes of the noble Lords, but I am grateful to them for their intimation that they will not now press these differences to a Division.
  Lord LYELL: My Lords, before the Question is put, I should like to intercede. I did not get on my feet quickly enough after the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, sat down. This group of Amendments includes Amendment No. 211. If the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, chances to look at the Amendment, he will see that it seems to flow from my comments at Third Reading when I was moving an Amendment which sought to prevent secret prior use of a particular patent. Also, in my comments on Third Reading, I found that there was a problem covered by the Standing Advisory Committee where the grounds of fair basis were not permissible as a reason for revocation.
  However, Amendment 211 appears to allow the whole of Section 32 of the 1949 Act to be used in revocation proceedings of patents subject to the 1949 Act. I believe that that is admirably consistent and we are delighted that the Government see fit to allow our point. After the weighty and lengthy consideration given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I was pleased to see that he finished the Third Reading by saying that
  1094
  the matter would be discussed in another place. Certainly my noble friends and I did not dream that your Lordships' House would find our case made for us.
  I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, would not regard any discussion of the Patents Bill as complete without what I call the ritual of estoppel and issues. This must be a tidying up, a drafting. We hope that this is the last sally—perhaps I could call it "Lyell's revenge" —and possibly I have had the last word on this particular issue. However, I should like to say how grateful we are that Amendment No. 211 seems to have incorporated something that we moved at an earlier stage.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

  DEFENCE STRATEGY
  7.32 p.m.
  Lord GLADWYN Lord GLADWYN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their opinion that the stretagy of "flexible response" is becoming increasingly inoperative and that it should be replaced by the gradual building-up of a forward defence based on conventional forces adequate to hold any conventional assault and backed up by "tactical" nuclear weapons for use only, and if necessary, as a second strike. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that I owe your Lordships an explanation—or such of your Lordships as are now present, which number does not include very many—for raising this vast and immensely important matter on an Unstarred Question. The reason is simple. There was virtually no other way of raising it. If, as in the past, it comes up as it has done occasionally on the Defence Estimates, it is drowned in a discussion of the state of the TAVR; the desirability of going ahead with some particular weapon; the necessity or otherwise of cuts in defence expenditure; the protection of oil rigs; the conditions of service in the BAOR; pension matters; regimental reorganistaions, or I know not what.
  The Government spokesman may, indeed, say that remarks on strategy are interesting and deserve study, but that is as far as one gets. An actual debate on strategy can, indeed, take place only on Government initiative, on a Party day (and the Liberals have only two days), or as a result of a ballot. So the chances of getting any profitable discussion going, other than by means of a Parliamentary Unstarred Question or as a result of a Government initiative, are slender.
  No doubt in the recesses of the Ministry of Defence or in NATO there is intelligent talk about whether our whole present scheme of defence is sound or unsound; echoes of those talks are quite often heard in American technical journals and, indeed, in Survival, an excellent magazine published by the Institute of Strategic Studies. But the results are never made known in the Palace of Westminster and I doubt whether even the Cabinet has either the time or the inclination—and more especially the inclination—to consider a rather distasteful subject (and how distasteful it is may be seen by the comparative absence of Government supporters from tonight's debate) which may be considered by many to be a matter for military experts only and one on which even military experts may be divided. And yet there are now, apart from general strategy, some rather ugly features as regards which the ordinary citizen of this country has surely a right to know the Government's attitude. I refer to the Cruise Missile, the MX or Mobile Intercontinental Ballistic Missile and the so-called neutron bomb. I shall deal with those in a moment.
  First, however, let us consider the whole concept of what is called "flexible response", on which our whole defensive posture still seemingly rests. As we all know, that is based on the idea that any aggressive action on the part of the adversary—and of course, there is now only one possible adversary; namely, the Soviet Union and its satellite forces—must be countered by an appropriate reaction. Perhaps it would be more correct to call it a policy of "graduated" response and as such it is no doubt acceptable theoretically in a general way.
  Thus, if the adversary's move should prove to be not an all-out offensive but a
  1096
  simple probing operation, with limited political objectives, then it should be possible to check it with our available conventional forces, as they are called. Meanwhile, our Reserves would be mobilised and rushed to the front, their object being, if possible, to check the adversary if the push should prove to be more than a probing operation, or at least to hold him so as to facilitate negotiations.
  But if all that is not enough and the adversary still advances, then an initial nuclear shot will presumably be necessary, and even if that should not be heeded our available tactical nuclear weapons will, so I understand, probably be directed against the adversary's front-line troops, who by that time presumably are well inside the Federal Republic, but in any case, against his lines of communication. I think that I am right in saying that that is the present theory.
  This general strategy has unfortunately become less "credible" of recent years because of two developments. The first is the build-up of the Warsaw Pact forces in Europe, and notably in the German Democratic Republic, to an extent which largely vitiates any balance between these forces and those in Europe of the North Atlantic Alliance. The point has been made again and again in debates in this House and I shall not weary your Lordships with a description of the details of this imbalance as it exists in most fields, but chiefly in tanks, aircraft and armoured fighting vehicles.
  It is not I think denied—and if it is the Government will no doubt reassure us—that the Soviet superiority in these weapons, some of which are at least equal in quality to the corresponding NATO weapons, is so marked that there would be no prospect of preventing an armoured thrust from penetrating a long way into the Federal Republic unless the allocated Reserves had already arrived and had been deployed, or unless recourse had been had from the outset to the use of the nuclear bomb.
  But would it be possible for the Reserves to be deployed in time? As to that, there is increasing doubt. For the second major development has been the immense improvement in the state of readiness of the Soviet Armed Forces and in their lines of communication which would enable them,

  1097
  so we are given to believe by all the experts, even now to launch an offensive of great power on a small front with little warning, and quite possibly in a year or two's time with no warning at all.
  So, in all probability, not only would the Reserves not be available in time to affect the issue of the battle, but the bulk of our forces in Germany, situated as they now are at a considerable distance from the frontier, would hardly be out of their barracks and into their transporting vehicles before a large part of the Federal Republic was in the hands of the adversary, who had crashed through the rather thin line of conventional forces on the frontier zone, unless—and I repeat unless—from the very outset the NATO forces had had resort to the so-called tactical nuclear weapons. It is, I know, suggested by some that the necessity of getting the Soviet Fleet out into the oceans would always provide some warning, but I doubt whether we should rely on that. After all, there could always be world-wide Soviet naval "manoeuvres" which could hardly trigger off any mobilisation on the Western side.
  This brings us to the heart of the matter. It may still be said, I suppose, that if the Russians believe that the American President will not hesitate to authorise the use of nuclear weapons, if necessary within a few hours of the launching of any offensive, such an offensive will never be launched. Maybe. But the fact remains that in the future it will probably be less certain than it now is that such a decision will be taken. That is the probability. For if it were taken there is no serious doubt on the part of anybody that the Soviet forces would reply in kind, and that their reply would be unlikely to be limited to the "tactical nukes", though they have these too, of course. Some at least of the MRBMs (medium range ballistic missiles) now trained on all the major cities of Western Europe—and no doubt and more especially, I should think in the circumstances, those trained on certain Western German towns—would probably be let off.
  Nor is it at all likely, I am afraid, that such second strike action on the Soviet side would be precluded by a perhaps rather improbable announcement from Washington that, if taken, it would result
  1098
  in a full-scale nuclear assault on the Soviet Union itself, still less such a declaration issuing from Paris or London. First use by NATO of nuclear weapons might indeed result in the halting of a Soviet armoured thrust, but only in return for quite unacceptable retaliation in Europe. The operation, in other words, might well be successful, but the patient would die.
  All this does not mean, of course, that the Soviet Government are at all likely to bank on the likelihood that the United States Government will not, in the event of their attempting some coup in Europe, or even in the event of some clash in some other part of the world, authorise the first use of nuclear weapons. For if Europe died the Soviet Union would certainly not be better off. But it does mean that unless the situation changes, the Soviet political position, and hence their ability to drive hard bargains in negotiation, will get stronger and stronger. There is no doubt about that.
  How, therefore, can we best prevent the position of the West from getting weaker and weaker? Well, clearly the most logical, and indeed the most desirable, way would be so to strengthen the forward positions of the allied forces on the Eastern border of the Federal Republic, and more especially of course in the North German plain, as to have a prospect of holding any conventional armoured thrust, at least for a considerable period, by employing sufficient conventional weapons of the very latest type. It would naturally also involve a transformation of the present NATO armoured divisions into smaller and more mobile forward-based units.
  The general way in which this might be done has been often described in this House, and I need not repeat it. Most experts seem to think that such an effective defensive screen could be installed without any enormous extra expense and within a reasonable period of time. But most would also agree, I feel, that it could not even be attempted without a serious and successful effort, if not to produce all the necessary new weapons in common in Europe, at least to achieve what is called "interoperability": for this purpose to pool, in many respects, though not totally, the R and D programme of the European members of the Alliance, including France; and in any case to redeploy all the available ground forces of NATO

  1099
  so as to constitute a forward defence with a corresponding abandonment of the whole concept of a "second battle" after the presumed arrival of reserves.
  For a time it looked as if this sort of concept was making some progress. Two years ago a speech by the French Chief of Staff, General Méry, followed by a pronouncement of the Head of State himself, suggested that the old—and logically indefensible—strategic theories based on total French independence were about to be revised. After all, it is undeniable that the existing French—and indeed, I would say, British—nuclear arsenal could only act, and can only act, as a deterrent against direct Soviet nuclear action against our own countries, and can never be used on a first nuclear strike.
  Eighteen months ago, too, a body known as the European Programme Group, whose declared object was the harmonising of the production of advanced conventional weapons, was actually established with French participation. But such tendencies seem recently to have rather faded out as the French election approaches and the Gaullists' hope of overcoming the Left lies in an increasing beating of the national drum. True, there has been some successful effort, whether in the Eurogroup or, so to speak, alongside it, to produce certain modern weapons in common, notably the Tornado—or MRCA—fighter bomber, the FH medium gun, the Milan anti-tank guided weapon, the Roland ground-to-air missile, the Alpha-Jet fighter and the Anglo-French Jaguar aircraft, but so far as I know there has been no real attempt to reorganise our present defensive posture, which means that we must rely on a very early use, or threatened use, of nuclear weapons of some sort; in other words, as Soviet strength increases, in a steady lowering of the so-called "nuclear threshold".
  The first question I would therefore ask the Government is simply whether they agree generally with my argument so far and with its conclusions, and if not, why they do not. If they do, however, the situation is grave, and it is here that we come up against the tiny neutron bomb (I believe it can be fired from the "Lance" missile launcher or even from
  1100
  a gun) which is supposed to have a lethal effect on concentrations of men, its damage to buildings and installations being more or less insignificant.
  Great efforts have been made over many years now by the prospective manufacturers and promoters of this weapon to have it adopted by NATO. On the face of it, as I remember pointing out some years ago, it seems to be chiefly designed to make the possibility of the employment of tactical nuclear weapons less unpalatable to the Germans, who would not wish large areas of their own territory under (it would be hoped) temporary Russian occupation to be devastated, and hence to make it easier for the President of the United States to authorise a nuclear "first strike", if he has to do so, directed rather against invading Russians than Germans, and of course sparing all German constructions and buildings.
  Of course its actual first use would not prevent appalling retaliation, although that would presumably follow the first use of any kind of nuclear weapon. Would it, however, if installed, have any real use as a deterrent? That is really the question before us. Personally I think this doubtful, and the violent Russian reaction against it is not particularly reassuring. The chances are indeed, as I believe, that it would make arms control more difficult. On the other hand, the more likely its use the greater the deterrent—or so it could be argued.
  It has been attacked understandably on humanitarian grounds, notably this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, but I am not sure that it is more frightful than a "normal" small size nuclear bomb which would kill masses of people anyhow in horrible circumstances, and in just as frightful a way. All nuclear weapons are appalling, but I think that, whatever views we have on this, whether we think it has any use as a deterrent or not, we should surely know on which side of the controversy the Government stand. So my second question is: Do the Government approve of the acquisition by NATO and the deployment in Germany of the neutron bomb? The Government must have had ample time, many years now, to consider their attitude, and it really is rather intolerable that they should

  1101
  apparently, as I noticed from Lord Winterbottom's reply earlier this afternoon, seek to avoid this issue altogether by saying, as I understand it, that it is only a matter for the Americans, and that this weapon in any case has not yet been fully deployed. I therefore repeat my second question: Do the Government approve of the acquisition by NATO and the deployment in Germany of the so-called neutron bomb?
  We are excluded from the SALT talks, but I understand that they are now unfortunately stalled because, apart from the neutron bomb, the Russians accuse the Americans of contemplating going ahead, first, with the production of the so-called Cruise missile, which, by following the contours at low altitude and at subsonic speeds, and guided by satellite or otherwise, in theory, and at the moment I think largely in practice, could destroy, by nuclear or other means (it could have a conventional or a nuclear warhead) any target with perfect accuracy at thousands of miles range without at the moment much possibility of interception; and, secondly, with the possible installation in the United States of mobile ICBMs, perhaps also fired from 20-mile long tunnels, which could not be eliminated on a first nuclear strike.
  This last one, the mobile ICBM, is something which we can clearly do nothing about. I believe—at least I am told—that the Americans do not really want to develop this weapon but are using its possible existence for bargaining purposes. Giving them public advice on this matter might perhaps best be left to the President of the French Republic, but presumably we could give our private advice on how its adoption would be likely to affect the policy of détente, on which we have built such hopes in the past, and perhaps we have already done so in conversation with Mr. Carter; who knows? Perhaps I should not ask that question at the moment.
  The Cruise missile, on the other hand, is something which, like the neutron bomb, if deployed, would affect us very directly. This weapon, which already exists in an imperfect form, can be employed, as I say, either for strategic purposes or in what is called the theatre of war. At present there is little defence
  1102
  against it, though no doubt, more especially over the longer ranges, it could be installed without great difficulty, if at great expense. But in the theatre of war it could be deadly and might well take the place of aircraft and of the present so-called tactical nuclear weapons. It would also, as weapons go, be very cheap to produce. Consequently, if deployed in sufficient numbers, it could do a great deal to redress the present imbalance, and it is this that no doubt worries the Soviet Government. My third question, therefore, is whether the Government feel that the Cruise missile could with advantage be deployed in Europe and, if so, should we consider acquiring and manufacturing a number of these for our own individual use?
  I confess that I doubt whether I shall receive any very straight answers to these questions this evening. However, I hope that, by merely posing them, I may somehow provoke or instigate a full-blown debate before the end of the year, in which noble Lords who have already reflected on these grave matters may be persuaded to give their valuable advice. Though I do not think it sould necessarily be limited to members of the Services, past and present, I should in particular hope that, by that time, the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Carver, who has now taken his seat, will feel able to take part in such a debate.
  In any case, the nuclear issue hangs over all of us like a cloud which, like death, most of us prefer not to think about. But the American Senate and its powerful committees do discuss this fearful subject, so why should not we? Surely this House is well equipped to consider it and might even be thought to be failing in its duty if it did not. It is really this thought that I wish to leave with your Lordships in asking the Question which is now before the House.
  Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, a question about the neutron bomb, arising out of his most interesting speech? Is not the reason why we have such feelings of revulsion against the neutron bomb because it puts property much higher than the consecration of human life?
  Lord GLADWYN: I am not sure the noble Baroness is right, my Lords. It

  1103
  would destroy human beings just as effectively as any nuclear weapon would. It is true that it would not affect buildings, but if one looks at it from the German point of view, which the noble Baroness might not wish to do, it might be thought of advantage that a great many Russians would be killed yet buildings in the Federal Republic would not be destroyed. They might consider that of advantage. I am not saying they would, but I think it likely.
  Baroness GAITSKELL: I would take a lot of convincing about that, my Lords.
  Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, the noble Baroness might care to reflect on that possibility.
  7.56 p.m.
  Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, perhaps I should interrupt the dialogue between the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I intend to be brief, though judging from the number of questions he has had thrown at him, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, might welcome a brief interlude before he gives the answers.
  There is no doubt that the issues raised by Lord Gladwyn are at the very heart of defence thinking and we cannot exaggerate their importance. However, it is perhaps a pity that the noble Lord's expertise and eloquence are possibly being wasted on an Unstarred Question of this nature, although I sympathise with his reasons. He is possibly underrating the effectiveness of our usual channels, which I am aware want to have some kind of defence debate.
  Lord GLADWYN: When?
  Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: In the autumn, my Lords, and an issue of this sort, which I completely agree can become submerged in all the other issues with which we try to deal in defence debates, is something to which we should return in due time.
  It seems to me that the nuclear umbrella has served us well since the end of Hitler's war by the sheer magnitude and awesome
  1104
  nature of its threat. It is certainly right to say that the mini-nukes or tac-nukes, or whatever jargon one uses to talk about them, and other similar developments, such as the proposed neutron bomb, are in danger of eroding the clear-cut nuclear threshold to which we have been accustomed and which was so clearly defined. That point was ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in an article in The Times earlier this week in which he said that there was a danger inherent in anything nuclear which tended to blur the distinction between nuclear and nonnuclear.
  I am in no doubt whatever that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will be performing a valuable service if this debate serves once again to reiterate the danger of the disparity which is gradually appearing in conventional forces. There is no doubt that NATO is increasingly falling behind the Warsaw Pact in this respect. Consider one example which has been quoted in this House before. The Warsaw Pact countries now possess the classic three-to-one preponderance in tanks which Liddell Hart deemed to be the margin needed to launch an attack. I saw an article in Newsweek earlier this year by Arnaud de Borchgrave in which he said very neatly:
  "Conventional muscle and the will to use it in what the United States or Russia perceive to be their vital interests are the real keys to the balance of power. On that front NATO has never been more vulnerable".
  The point in this connection is that disparities of this kind tend to lower the nuclear threshold to a point at which we may find our vital interests so threatened that we would have to contemplate the awesome possibility, the unthinkable possibility, of resort to the nuclear armoury to redress the balance; and, of course, this becomes increasingly tempting if this is the area in which one has a technical lead—
  Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I wonder whether he has taken into consideration the enormous significance of the Tornado? From all that I can understand, the Tornado is really far superior to anything that can be posed on the other side. Surely the noble Lord will agree that the forward defence, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has referred, is largely

  1105
  an outdated mode of thinking, and that today we are thinking much more in terms of what happens 200 miles behind the border, rather than at the border. Surely the Tornado is extremely important in this respect.
  Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am delighted to hear from such an expert as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, such an encouraging report of the Tornado, which is entirely in line with everything that one hears. I recognise the danger of posing as an armchair strategist, but I should not have thought that, however excellent one particular aeroplane, it was likely to compensate for the conventional disparity in other kinds of arms, which are increasingly appearing in the NATO forces. I simply would not set myself up as an expert; but this is a very fair point.
  I should like to revert to one of the conclusions which I think one should draw in passing. The disarmers must face the danger that they increase the risk of war and that they increase the risk of the subsequent escalation into nuclear conflict, with the terrible consequences of which we are all aware. When we talk of flexible responses, I do not see how it is possible to establish recognised steps on the stairway from conventional to all-out nuclear war, however desirable that may be. It is also worth saying that uncertainty is an element of great value, and here we ought to appreciate that, however limited it may be, the nuclear capabilities possessed by the United Kingdom and France have a considerable contribution to make here, in that they are another complicating factor to be considered by any potential adversary who engages in warlike manoeuvres.
  I was rather relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, did not go too far down the road in advancing what we might call the Euro defence policy as a panacea for our problems, because I believe we must understand that NATO continues to be our linchpin, and NATO includes the United States. Therefore, we should welcome President Carter's recent reassertion of his commitment to Europe, and his intention to have a 3 per cent. increase in the American defence budget. In passing, it is worth asking why a nation like the United
  1106
  States feels it necessary to commit itself to such an increase. It does not do this kind of thing lightly. I do not believe that the noble Lord will be wholly angry with me if I say that I contrast this with the 28 per cent. cut which has been advocated by some members of his Party in another place, and—
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: It is just a discussion document.
  Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am very relieved that the noble Lord treats it so lightly. However, I believe that my honourable friend in another place was right when he said the other day that our defence posture was something of a façade and something to worry about. I should like to end by saying that I hope that the debate will serve to underline the perilous course which we are following, and the need to reassert the national will to reverse the drift into disaster which I believe we are embarked upon.
  8.5 p.m.
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, when we debated the Statement on the Defence Estimates on 12th May, I said that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, had raised a most interesting question when he suggested that NATO's basic strategy of flexible response and nuclear doctrines were outdated and needed revision. I said at the time that this was an issue that could not be ducked, since it lay at the heart of our entire defence policy. To try to do so would be to lapse into a "Maginot" mentality. I am, therefore, grateful to the noble Lord for giving us this opportunity to discuss the subject. I hope that the noble Lord is grateful to me for having suggested to him the way that we might do it. I hope that he will also realise that it is a sensitive subject, and I am certain that he will understand if I adhere closely to the carefully chosen form of words that I am to use. I hope he will also understand that this excludes a number of questions which he put to me, because my reply to his Question is based upon the question, and not upon the subsequent interesting tactical and strategic elements that have raised their heads within the past week or so.
  I have listened carefully, and with great interest, to the points made in this debate.

  1107
  But I conclude that there is no viable alternative to the current NATO strategy of deterrence by flexible response and forward defence, and that, so far from being outdated, it continues to offer the best means of securing the safety of the West. Let us consider what alternative strategies NATO might adopt. At one extreme, the Alliance could go back to its "tripwire" strategy of the '50s and early '60s, adopting a clearly declared policy that the first Russian foot on Western soil would be met by instant and massive nuclear retaliation. I need hardly point out to your Lordships the inflexibility of such a policy in dealing with minor acts of aggression, and the risks of unleashing nuclear war by accident. No, my Lords, a return to a "tripwire" strategy is untenable, particularly with the advent of broad strategic equivalence between the nuclear arsenals of the two sides.
  Could we then go to the opposite extreme—that proposed by the noble Lord—and put virtually everything into conventional defence, keeping both our theatre and our strategic nuclear weapons for use only to deter or retaliate against use of nuclear weapons by the other side? Such a course would, in the first place, demand a massive increase in resources for defence. The Western nations would have to go a long way towards eliminating the numerical advantage which the Soviet Union has always enjoyed in conventional forces. In order to provide their massive conventional capability, in addition to nuclear forces, the Soviets have to subordinate much of their industrial and economic capacity to defence; and the cream of their scientists and engineers have to work on defence projects. May I ask the noble Lord: would he like to see the same situation here, and within the Alliance as a whole? Would he like to see spending on social programmes, the health service, pensions, and other items drastically decreased? They would have to be decreased because a massive increase of conventional defence is an expensive option—
  Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, for many years my thesis has been that it would not necessarily be very much more expensive, if more expensive at all, to constitute this new defensive screen.
  1108
  I said this afternoon that if one contemplates perhaps the employment of Cruise missiles, instead of aeroplanes and technical nuclear weapons, one might save a vast amount of money. One would also save a vast amount of money if one managed to some extent to pool one's R and D with one's neighbour.
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have had the pleasure of listening to the views of the noble Lord in a number of defence debates, and perhaps come autumn, when we really get down to discussing the White Paper, we might anatomise this point with care. By implication, I think, the noble Lord suggests that NATO should pledge itself not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. He forgets that NATO is already a defensive alliance, designed to deter aggression and defend NATO territory should aggression occur. I must ask the noble Lord, question for question: Does he really believe that we should renounce in advance one of the means of defending ourselves?
  Lord GLADWYN: No, my Lords; I never said that. I said that whether we used tactical nuclear weapons on a first strike depended, in practice, not on us but on the decision of the President of the United States. I also said that at the moment it is quite possible to believe that the Russians think he would authorise such action, and it is on that that our whole strategy now rests. I would not dispute that for a moment. All I said was that in the future it might become increasingly doubtful whether the American President would authorise such action. That is all I said.
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord said it tonight, but at any rate he has said it in the past, and I agree with him. This is a complex subject, and I cannot give him the whole truth on a plate. Nor can I speak for President Carter, who is probably feeling his way through a minefield at the moment. May I go back to the point. Does the noble Lord really believe that we, the British, should renounce in advance one of the means of defending ourselves?
  Lord GLADWYN: No, my Lords.
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: I thank the noble Lord. Even if we were to bankrupt

  1109
  our societies and build a massive conventional defence, we would still be weakening our security if we denied ourselves the option to be first to use nuclear weapons in the face of an overwhelming attack. NATO's strategy depends on providing a range of options to meet aggression with a defence tailored to the situation but which cannot be predicted in advance by the enemy. Remove one of those options, and the risks involved in aggression become more precisely quantifiable, military adventures become more attractive and deterrence is weakened. The noble Lord has not said it, but does he believe that NATO can do without its strategic nuclear forces?
  Lord GLADWYN: No, my Lords.
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: I thank the noble Lord. While strategic nuclear parity means that we can no longer rely on strategic nuclear forces to deter against all forms of aggression, it certainly does not mean that we can discard these weapons completely. Vitally important as is the maintenance of an adequate conventional and theatre nuclear posture, this is insufficient in itself when we are dealing with a strategic nuclear Power. Unless the West maintains a strategic nuclear capacity of its own, it would have no credible answer to Soviet use of their own strategic nuclear forces as an instrument of blackmail.
  Other students of the subject have argued that NATO strategy and the role of nuclear weapons within it should be altered in a very different way. They foresee a bigger role for theatre nuclear weapons as a result of the possibilities afforded by new technology. Adherents of the so-called "Mini-nuke" school claim that intense battlefield use of these low-yield, short range, precisely targetable weapons would enable NATO to terminate a major conflict in Europe, possibly without needing to maintain strong conventional forces, and without needing to threaten to escalate to the strategic level.
  Lord GLADWYN: It is nonsense, my Lords.
  Lord WINTERBOTTOM: I was just about to say that. Noble Lords will appreciate, I hope, the potentially disastrous implications of NATO ever
  1110
  regarding her nuclear weapons in such a way. I agree with the noble Lord: it is nonsense. First, it could have the effect of lowering or blurring the nuclear threshold. The otherwise laudable aims of reducing and confining the collateral damage caused by nuclear weapons could lead to a situation where nuclear warfare became more acceptable, and thus more likely. Consider also the Warsaw Pact's reaction—possibly with "dirtier" and less discriminate weapons—and the results of an intensified nuclear battle in Europe. Clearly this is no acceptable or desirable alternative to our present arrangements. Quite apart from the question of which side would actually win the military conflict (if either side would win it in the strict sense of the word), such a policy would be tantamount to inviting our European allies to countenance wholesale the nuclear destruction of their territory.
  Such is the situation we get into if we start to regard tactical nuclear weapons purely as a mainstay of NATO's battlefield defences, detaching them from other elements in the NATO Triad and altering their role. This is not their key function. They are there, essentially as part of a deterrent, supporting conventional forces, on the one hand, and linked to strategic forces, on the other. This deterrent function is vital, but is often misunderstood, especially by those who criticise the present theatre nuclear doctrines. Let me try to explain it more precisely. Should deterrence fail to prevent an attack, the conventional resistance that the West can put up should be sufficient of itself to convince an aggressor that no easy victory was open to him, and that we were determined to resist at whatever level was necessary. If the aggressor persisted, some limited use of nuclear weapons might he necessary to supplement our conventional forces in achieving this end. While also being militarily effective, the basic purpose of a theatre nuclear strike would be to convince an aggressor of the continuing reality of the deterrent threat, of the risk of escalation to the strategic level if he persisted, and the certainty that he could never gain his objectives. Thus, the coupling of the tactical use of nuclear weapons to the strategic deterrent remains vital to NATO's nuclear doctrine.
  In emphasising this deterrent function, I am not suggesting that the potential developments in theatre nuclear forces, to

  1111
  which noble Lords have alluded, should be rejected outright: only that they should be exploited in a way which will enable the alliance to implement its present strategy better, rather than to move to a new strategy. We must continue to rely on all three elements—the strategic nuclear deterrent, theatre nuclear weapons and conventional forces—for our security. These elements support one another, and all are necessary if the West is to present a credible deterrent posture. Of course, to say that the basic strategy is right is not to say that we can sit back and relax in the face of the build-up of Warsaw Pact forces, particularly conventional forces. While maintaining the search for genuine and enforceable measures for arms control and for nuclear disarmament through multilateral negotiations and agreements, we must also, within our economic capabilities, maintain our collective defence efforts.
  I would agree with the Question we are debating to the extent that, in meeting the present challenge, particular emphasis must be placed on conventional improvements—and I think the noble Lord would agree with that. In addition to redressing any potentially dangerous trends in the balance of these forces, it would also have the effect of keeping the nuclear threshold high—something which I know noble Lords will agree is of the greatest importance. I do not need to go into details about the re-equipment and modernisation programmes which NATO currently has in hand, but I would stress that our own record on this is rather good. We spend a higher proportion of our defence budget on equipment than virtually any other alliance member, notwithstanding the recent necessary reduction in planned defence expenditure. NATO Defence Ministers have recently decided to develop a programme of measures to meet the changing defence needs of the 1980s. Thus, there is no tendency towards complacency: the alliance's forces are being modernised and improved to enable NATO to carry out the strategy of deterrence and flexible response.
  One of the areas in which improvements are planned is readiness, and I know that there have been many expressions of anxiety, both in this House and elsewhere, about the possibility of a surprise
  1112
  attack by the Warsaw Pact. The first point that must be made is that there is no evidence that the Soviet Union contemplates an attack on Western Europe; and, so long as NATO maintains vigilant and effective deterrent forces, there is no likelihood of an attack developing. None the less, credibility of NATO's deterrent posture requires that the alliance be able to meet any eventuality, and I can assure the House that forward defence is an integral part of alliance strategy. NATO will continue to plan and provide forces adequate to display the alliance's determination to resist in all parts of the NATO area, including the most forward areas, whether the period of warning is long or short. I do not know whether I have satisfied the noble Lord, but at least the material is there to indicate to him what is the Government's thinking on the subject.

  KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  ORKNEY ISLANDS: PROPOSED MINK FARM
  ORKNEY ISLANDS: PROPOSED MINK FARM
  CONCORDE: OPTIONS AND SERVICES
  CONCORDE: OPTIONS AND SERVICES
  THE POST OFFICE: SUNDAY COLLECTIONS
  THE POST OFFICE: SUNDAY COLLECTIONS
  THE POST OFFICE: SECOND DELIVERY
  THE POST OFFICE: SECOND DELIVERY
  BARBITURATES: PRESCRIPTION CONTROL
  BARBITURATES: PRESCRIPTION CONTROL
  SCHOOL ENTRANTS; IMMUNISATION STATISTICS
  SCHOOL ENTRANTS; IMMUNISATION STATISTICS
  HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICT
  HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICT
  LEGAL AID LIMITS
  LEGAL AID LIMITS
  LEGAL AID BENEFICIARIES
  LEGAL AID BENEFICIARIES
  THE OTTER: WILD CREATURE STATUS
  THE OTTER: WILD CREATURE STATUS