Sitting of 16 May 1977

ENERGY
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Petrol
  Petrol
  Policy
  Policy
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Electricity Supply
  Electricity Supply
  Drax B Power Station
  Drax B Power Station
  North Sea Oil (Allocations)
  North Sea Oil (Allocations)
  Uranium (Control and Supply)
  Uranium (Control and Supply)
  Coal Exports
  Coal Exports
INDUSTRY
  Power Plant Manufacturing
  Power Plant Manufacturing
  Drax B Power Station
  Drax B Power Station
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd.
  Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd.
  Reyrolle Parsons Ltd.
  Reyrolle Parsons Ltd.
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Resale Price Maintenance
  Resale Price Maintenance
  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Century Oils Ltd.
  Century Oils Ltd.
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Technological Aid
  Technological Aid
  Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia
  Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia
  Mozambique
  Mozambique
  United Nations University
  United Nations University
  Aid Expenditure
  Aid Expenditure
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Eggs (Grading)
  Eggs (Grading)
  Marketing Board
  Marketing Board
  Sea Fisheries Committees
  Sea Fisheries Committees
  Arable Land
  Arable Land
  Salmon (Conservation)
  Salmon (Conservation)
  Land Loss
  Land Loss
  LAW OF CONTEMPT
  LAW OF CONTEMPT
CIVIL SERVICE
  Dispersal
  Dispersal
  Government Hospitality Fund
  Government Hospitality Fund
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Works of Art (Export)
  Works of Art (Export)
  Commerce and Industry
  Commerce and Industry
  Engineering
  Engineering
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
EMPLOYMENT
  Pay
  Pay
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Wages (Underpayment)
  Wages (Underpayment)
  Job Creation Programme
  Job Creation Programme
  Council of Engineering Institution
  Council of Engineering Institution
  Lewisham
  Lewisham
  London
  London
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  European Community Standing Committee
  European Community Standing Committee
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Ricardo Yanez Espinoza
  Ricardo Yanez Espinoza
  Urban Programme (Lewisham)
  Urban Programme (Lewisham)
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Standards of Conduct in Public Life
  Standards of Conduct in Public Life
  Parliamentary Candidates (Declaration of Interests)
  Parliamentary Candidates (Declaration of Interests)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Cabinet Ministers (Salaries)
  Cabinet Ministers (Salaries)
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Customs and Excise Act 1952
  Customs and Excise Act 1952
  Portugal (United Kingdom Pensioners)
  Portugal (United Kingdom Pensioners)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Tax Yields
  Tax Yields
  Jubilee Crowns
  Jubilee Crowns
  One-Parent Families (Tax Reliefs)
  One-Parent Families (Tax Reliefs)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorists
  Terrorists
  DOCTORS (PAY)
  DOCTORS (PAY)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (CONFERENCE)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (CONFERENCE)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Parliament
  Parliament
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Portugal (British Pensioners)
  Portugal (British Pensioners)
  United States (Her Majesty's Ambassador)
  United States (Her Majesty's Ambassador)
  Ethiopia (British Nationals)
  Ethiopia (British Nationals)
  Uganda
  Uganda
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Housing Policy
  Housing Policy
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits
  Haddock (Landings Order)
  Haddock (Landings Order)
  Arable Land
  Arable Land
  Law of Contempt
  Law of Contempt
  Education (Statistics)
  Education (Statistics)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Baby Units
  Baby Units
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Retrolental Fibroplasia
  Retrolental Fibroplasia
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Spinal Injuries Association
  Spinal Injuries Association
  St. Marks Hospital
  St. Marks Hospital
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Maternity Services
  Maternity Services
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  District Nurses
  District Nurses
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Hearing Tests (Children)
  Hearing Tests (Children)
  Pensions (Uprating)
  Pensions (Uprating)
  Hospital Laundry Services
  Hospital Laundry Services
  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Infant Mortality Rate
  Infant Mortality Rate
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Death Rate
  Death Rate
  Rotherham District General Hospital
  Rotherham District General Hospital
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Hospitals (Expenditure)
TRADE
  USSR
  USSR
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Birmingham Airport
  Birmingham Airport
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Company Accounts (Filing Fee)
  Company Accounts (Filing Fee)
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Licences (Reminders and Application Forms)
  Vehicle Licences (Reminders and Application Forms)
  Lorry Drivers
  Lorry Drivers
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Vehicles (Ownership Transference)
  Vehicles (Ownership Transference)
WALES
  Britannia Bridge
  Britannia Bridge
ENVIRONMENT
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Flags
  Flags
  Construction Industry Liaison Group
  Construction Industry Liaison Group
  Construction Programme Policy Group
  Construction Programme Policy Group
  Windscale
  Windscale
  Disabled Persons (Rating)
  Disabled Persons (Rating)
  Community Land
  Community Land
  Government Rented Property
  Government Rented Property
  Historic Buildings (Nonconformist Chapels)
  Historic Buildings (Nonconformist Chapels)
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Rateable Values
  Rateable Values
  Bath
  Bath
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
DEFENCE
  BAOR (Broadcasting Programmes)
  BAOR (Broadcasting Programmes)
  Civilian Employment
  Civilian Employment
  Warships
  Warships
  Bird Class Patrol Craft
  Bird Class Patrol Craft
  Nimrod Airborne Early Warning Aircraft
  Nimrod Airborne Early Warning Aircraft
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Pay
  Pay
  BAOR
  BAOR
  Departmental Personnel (London)
  Departmental Personnel (London)

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

NORTH SEA OIL RIGS: SECURITY
Lord GRIDLEY: 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 satisfied with the existing facilities in the North Sea for the protection of oil rigs against armed attack from a foreign Power.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the courtesy of that reply, first may I ask him whether he is really satisfied, in view of the many expressions of opinion by noble Lords in the defence debate last Thursday, that our conventional forces are adequate to deal with a sudden emergency which might arise, and which might be directed against our oil interests in the North Sea? Secondly, may I ask him whether he thinks that we are in danger of falling into a posture with inadequate conventional forces, whereby we might have to call in a nuclear strike in defence of our vital interests in this area?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord does not think that my short Answer was discourteous, but until he put his supplementary question I was not certain what he wished to know. His question is the first that we have received on this subject, which relates to an armed attack on the rigs by a foreign Power. An attack on the rigs would be equivalent to an attack on the national territory of the United Kingdom, and would be dealt with within
452
the general plans for the defence of the United Kingdom and adjoining sea areas. The resources immediately available are adequate for the type of attack, short of a general war, that might arise in some twilight period.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, have the Government prepared, with those concerned, for what may be a more immediate danger; that is, the possibility of terrorists of any kind capturing a production platform, holding those on board as hostages and threatening our supplies of oil and gas?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords. Adequate facilities are available for that purpose. Royal Marine forces and explosive ordnance disposal teams, with the necessary Sea King helicopter airlift, are available at short notice to go to the scene of such an incident, and backup forces can be provided as required from various units of the Armed Forces.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, in view of the fact that our nuclear submarines are too large to operate in the North Sea and the English Channel, would it not be a good idea, in view of this Question, for the Government to reverse their policy of phasing-out or reducing our conventional submarines which can operate in these areas?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question.

AIRCRAFT OPERATING MINIMA
2.40 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to implement the recommendation in Aircraft Accident Report 18/76 which relates to the introduction of mandatory operating minima for non-public transport aircraft.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, may I first point out that the recommendation in Aircraft Accident Report No. 18/76 is for

453
the publication of recommended aerodrome operating minima for non-public transport flights, and not mandatory minima as suggested in the noble Lord's Question. The Civil Aviation Authority are responsible for air safety matters, and for deciding what action is to be taken on aircraft accident report safety recommendations. They have advised me that they have accepted this recommendation. Details of a scheme for implementing the recommendation were circulated for comment to interested parties in February. The Authority are now considering the many replies received, and hope to introduce the scheme in the near future.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, and, I think, agreeing that the introduction of recommended weather minima, rather than mandatory weather minima, would be very desirable in these circumstances, may I ask whether he would agree that the accident in question would have occurred anyway, whatever the law, because the pilot in that case was wholly unlicensed? Therefore, would not the efforts of the Government and the CAA be better employed in persuading people to observe the existing law, before embarking upon making new ones?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. This accident was a very unfortunate and unusual one, and the law was indeed being flouted. Efforts should, of course, be made to ensure that people keep to the law, but that does not mean that we should not improve the situation, as this recommendation is designed to do.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, as public anxiety about air safety is increasing, with recent reports of near misses and so on, can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government will look again at their policy of not publishing anything about military accidents? I have in mind particularly the recent tragic case of the Canberra accident, which might well have some overflow value for civil accidents.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have taken note of what the noble Earl has said. I have no doubt that the authorities
454
concerned are constantly reviewing these matters in the light of recent events, but I will bring his suggestion to the attention of those concerned.

GUERRILLAS: PRISONER-OF-WAR STATUS
2.44 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the United Kingdom delegate to the Diplomatic Conference on the Humanitarian Laws of War in Geneva abstained in the vote on the proposal to give combatant and prisoner-of-war status to guerrillas, instead of joining with the Brazilian and Israeli delegates in voting against it.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the United Kingdom supports in principle the humanitarian aims of draft Article 42, which would extend prisoner-of-war status to guerrilla or resistance fighters who are members of organised armed forces taking part in armed conflicts of an international character. Such combatants are not adequately protected by the existing law. However, as is made clear in the delegation's explanations of vote, a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House, certain aspects of the text of the draft Article gave rise to doubts which led to our abstaining in the vote, rather than giving the draft our support. These doubts were not considered to be so serious as to justify a negative vote.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. However, would he not agree that, whatever may be the varied considerations that motivated Britain's abstention, ratification of this Article will, without question, lead to an increase in the number of aircraft hijackings, and, indeed, to an increase in the frequency of attacks upon aircraft on the ground? Will he not agree that it will increase the probability of a repetition of the Munich Olympics massacre, or something of that nature, and will further endanger the lives of the Security Forces

455
and of innocent civilians in Northern Ireland? Would not the Minister further agree that each and every one of these prospects is totally abhorrent to the British people?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly I agree that every one of those prospects is completely abhorrent to the British people and to all thinking and humane people everywhere. As was made clear in another place on 3rd May, draft Article 42 would not apply to terrorist activities in peace time, including the present or any foreseeable future situations in Northern Ireland. Our aim in these discussions has been to prevent any increase in the risk to innocent civilians by any change in the provisions for the status of guerrillas. There is a distinct possibility that if we do this without due thought, then we may be imperilling further the position of quite innocent people—innocent bystanders. I should also like to assure the noble Lord that so far we have abstained because of our doubts about the efficacy and equity of this Article. However, the plenary session will be considering the Article towards the end of this month or the beginning of June. Between now and then we shall be considering the position further, especially in consultation with Western Powers and, indeed, other countries.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, while welcoming the statement of the noble Lord, which I take to be an assurance that in no circumstances whatever will prisoner-of-war status be granted to members of the IRA, especially in view of the horrible arrest, torture and murder of a young Grenadier Guards officer this morning, may I ask the noble Lord whether or not it would be right that if they wish to be treated as prisoners of war the guerrillas themselves should observe the laws of war?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, yes, indeed; I could not agree more with the noble and learned Lord on both of the points which he has made. Certainly this does not apply to people like the IRA in Ireland, or to people in any other country or in any other circumstances. They are not covered by this Article. I join with the noble and learned Lord in once more deploring and abomin-
456
ating the practices which characterise this kind of movement. On the second point, of course I agree with the noble and learned Lord and give my full assurance upon it, too.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to realise that what has already been pointed out is tremendously important? The hijackers, the terrorists, all the gangsters who are acting in this capacity, are likely to ask for protection of this nature, whereas in fact they are downright villainous terrorists who have no excuse at all, except that they are taking certain actions against humanity in order to destroy civilisation.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord has spoken for us all in his denunciation of these practices. I think that I could add once more the assurance to those who have taken part in these exchanges that draft Article 42, with which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is concerned, would not apply to terrorist activities in peace time, including the present or any foreseeable future situations in Northern Ireland, or comparable situations in other countries.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his attention has been drawn to an article on Mozambique in the Sunday Telegraph of yesterday's date and to its horrifying details? In view of the fact that terrorists from Mozambique are progressively making attacks on British territory, does not the noble Lord think that, in order to show to the world our disagreement over the behaviour of these terrorists, it would more properly have befitted the United Kingdom if the British representative had voted against the proposal?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the draft Article does not apply to activities of that kind unless they are of an international character. Where they arc, of course the draft Article will be applied.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me whether any conditions are attached to the protection afforded to these guerrillas to the effect that they should be combatant in uniform, so that they could be identified from civilians?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords; the proposal is that there should be distinguishing marks for such combatants so that these provisions could be fairly accorded to them, because they are properly distinguished as being part of organised armed forces in an international action; in that way it would make it more possible to protect innocent bystanders.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, the noble Lord referred twice to a qualification regarding peace time. Can he make it clear that in no circumstances would combatant status be accorded to hijackers, who essentially are not in uniform although I suppose they might put their uniform on at the last moment? However, I imagine that that would not absolve them from the qualification that they must clearly be combatants in uniform and recognisable as such.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the first sentence of the noble Lord's supplementary question is the one to which I would say absolutely Yes; that is the position.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, the noble Lord said that protection would only be afforded to guerrillas under this Article in times of war. Do not the PLO consider themselves to be the representatives of a Palestinian nation which is at present at war with Israel?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is a definition of "a state of war" in international terms. Of course what has been said this afternoon will form part of the caucus of consideration which our representatives will be discussing with other interested countries. We were joined by a large number of countries which were anxious to effect necessary humanitarian reforms but also we were concerned about the difficulties, many of which have been mentioned this afternoon.

WASTE PAPER IMPORTS
2.52 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is necessary to import 100,000 tons of waste paper, in view of the amount available for collection were local authorities to co-operate with householders.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, last year imports, net of exports, amounted to about 50,000 tonnes, that is 2½ per cent. only of the paper and board industry's annual usage of waste paper. This trade helps to meet shortages of particular types of waste paper. Steps are being taken to increase waste paper collection. These include efforts by the waste paper merchants and local authorities to develop joint arrangements to improve their collections. Voluntary organisations can also play a useful part. The Waste Management Advisory Council will shortly be launching a national campaign to encourage and advise them on the collection of waste materials.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, which has a little encouragement in the last sentence, is he aware that to buy waste paper when we can provide it ourselves is surely wasting a lot of money, which we can ill afford to do with our present balance of payments difficulties, and that the housewife would be only too willing to co-operate with the local authorities if a really big move was made in that direction? I know from experience during the war, when for seven years I, with my organisation, helped to collect waste paper. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that it is tragic that we should spend money unnecessarily.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Government are well aware of this possible saving, and with that in view they launched last year a £23 million scheme to help the paper industry to increase its recycling capacity, which will enable the industry to absorb a greater collection of waste paper. Quite clearly, the Waste Management Advisory Council's campaign is now timed to tie up with the increased capacity for the recycling of waste.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he realises

459
that there is a vast amount of waste paper in professional offices and in other places which has to be shredded before it can leave those premises, and will he exercise his influence to see to it that some provision is made for the collection of that kind of paper? There must be a vast amount of it throughout the country.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the point he has made and I will see that it is drawn to the attention of the Waste Management Advisory Council.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether newspaper is useful waste paper? Many of us have a great deal of this and we often wonder what to do with it. Would that be useful, and would the authorities collect it for us?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, speaking away from my brief, it is useful because of research done in this country on the de-inking of paper of that type.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, did the noble Lord say that in order to save money the Government had spent £23 million? If so, what was it spent on?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it was spent on recycling plant. That is not a bicycle; it is plant which will take waste paper and turn it into usable paper.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, is that machinery then to be used to recycle the 100,000 tons of imported waste paper?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, one of the mysteries of this art is the fact that not all waste paper is the same. There is high quality and low quality waste paper, and there is an international trade in it. We imported 100,000 tons of waste paper but exported 55,000 tons last year, and I am glad to inform the noble Lord that previous to that we had an export surplus in the waste paper trade.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance that when the Committee reports the Government will take action? This is a hardy
460
annual; it is continually cropping up. Local authorities are pressed to take some action, but very little action is taken and the tremendous wastage that is taking place is a disgrace because of the heavy expenditure involved. Will my noble friend ensure that there will be some result from this expenditure of £23 million; that the plant will be put into action, and we shall be saved the inconvenience of the adverse economic situation?
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, while welcoming the statement made by the noble Lord of the intention to conduct a national campaign for the collection of waste paper, may I ask him whether he would think it appropriate that in connection with the present scheme of substituting a number of hours of community service in place of imprisonment, help in the collection of waste material could result in the commuting of prison sentences? It was recently explained to me that one small troop of boy scouts collected waste paper and had been receiving £40 a month for it. Picture that situation, my Lords, over the whole country.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a most interesting idea, which I will draw to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, when my noble friend draws attention to the suggestion made by the noble Lord. Lord Barnby, will he also bear in mind that it could be very dangerous indeed to use ex-convicts and serving convicts to go around visiting houses and collecting waste paper?—because in so doing they would merely be "casing the joint".
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that 40 years ago there was a very large trade from this country in baled newspapers to the oriental bazaars, where copies of the News of the World were used to wrap up sweetmeats and grain, and so on, in small quantities? Does that trade still exist, and is the 50,000 tons that he mentioned part of that trade?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a highly technical question, which I am afraid I cannot answer.

THE JUDICIARY: MR. FOOT'S SPEECH
2.59 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the speech at Bournemouth of Mr. Michael Foot represents the attitude to the Judiciary of Her Majesty's Government, and whether they will make a Statement?"
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the Judiciary is, as it always has been, one of confidence in their impartiality and consciousness of the value of their independence. My right honourable friend, as he has personally assured me this morning and as appears from the rather fuller report of his speech in today's newspapers, was giving an historical survey of the attitudes of the courts in the past towards the trade unions. As he made clear, and as he specifically said, he was not casting aspersions on any particular judge or any particular decision; he was talking about the past, starting, as he has told me, with the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, while of course we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that exculpation of his colleague, is he aware that in fact the present Lord President referred specifically not only to trade unions but to the liberties of the subject?—or "citizen" as he prefers to say. Is it not the case that these repeated attacks by the Lord President of the Council on the Judiciary are really becoming too serious to ignore? Does the noble and learned Lord not agree that it makes it all the worse that he said he was not attacking any particular judge or any particular decision, because that can only be construed as an attack on the Judiciary as a whole? Will the noble and learned Lord further confirm that judges are appointed by or on the recommendation of Lord Chancellors, and their appointments by successive Lord Chancellors have for a very long time now been made wholly without political considerations being taken into account on either side? Will he repudiate any
462
aspersions on himself or on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, or even upon little me, by his colleague?
Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor further bear in mind that in all contested litigation one party has to lose? How can he expect the ordinary subject or citizen who has the misfortune to lose a case to respect and obey the decisions of the courts if subjected to this unconstitutional vilification at the hands of the Lord President of the Council? Will the noble and learned Lord not go to the Prime Minister and say, "Either Mr. Michael Foot contains himself or I will resign"?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, when I seek advice upon the question of whether I should resign I do not think the noble and learned Lord will be the first person I shall go to. It is perfectly true that, certainly in my lifetime, the appointments to the Judiciary have been exactly as the noble and learned Lord has described. I do not think there was any insinuation in the speech of the Lord President to the contrary. I do not believe he was attacking the Judiciary as a whole. He was identifying one part of the experience of the trade unions in the historical past. I do not think that there has ever been any better illustration of what he was referring to than that given by the Home Secretary, Mr. Winston Churchill (as he then was), in speaking in the House in May 1911 on the Trade Union Bill, which followed the Osborne judgment, and which subsequently became the Trade Union Act 1913. What he said was this:
"One of the purposes of the Bill was to relieve trade unions from the harassing litigation to which they have been exposed and set them free to develop and do their work without the perpetual check and uncertainty of frequent trials and without being brought constantly into contact with the courts. It is a very unseemly thing—and indeed in the House of Commons we must regard it as such—to have the spectacle we have witnessed these last few years of these trade union organisations being enmeshed, harassed, worried and checked at every step and at every turn by all kinds of legal decisions, which came with the utmost surprise to the greatest lawyers in the country".
That is the kind of development in the historical past to which the Lord President was referring. He was not making a general attack upon the Judiciary today.

BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Peart will repeat a Statement on Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington.
Noble Lords may also like to know that dinners will be available on Wednesday and Thursday of this week, on account of the long debates on those two days.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FIDELITY TRUST BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Avebury to advance the Committee stage of the Construction of Roads (Time Limit) Bill from Thursday 16th June to Tuesday 24th May, and to the Lord Wigg to advance the Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) (No. 2) Bill from Tuesday 14th June to Tuesday 24th May. —(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a pure consolidation Bill. There is nothing in it in particular to
464
which I need refer your Lordships. It will be referred after Second Reading to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It would consolidate certain provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and related Acts. The few provisions of the 1973 Act which are not consolidated by the Bill, such as Section 9 dealing with remand homes and training schools, are not temporary in their duration, nor are they directly linked to the security situation in Northern Ireland.
The Government regret the necessity for emergency legislation in Northern Ireland. It is not their intention by introducing this Bill to prolong the emergency powers for one moment longer than required. The temporary provisions in the Bill are exactly the same as those in the existing legislation, as are the procedures for renewing and suspending them. In these, as in all other respects, the present law is not changed by the Bill.
The 1973 Act has now been amended by no less than 14 different enactments when the renewal orders are included. The consolidation of this legislation is, therefore, timely and appropriate. It will enable individuals, the courts, and everyone concerned, to ascertain from a single Act, instead of scattered enactments, exactly what the law is. Given that the legislation is, unfortunately, necessary, it should, I think—and I believe your Lordships will be disposed to agree with this—be set out in as clear and as compact a form as possible. I believe that this Bill meets those requirements. Accordingly

465
on behalf of the Government, I welcome this consolidation by the Law Commission and have pleasure in commending it to the House. If it is read a second time the Bill will be examined by the Joint Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Russell of Killowen, in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Appeals etc. from courts-martial]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("Where") and insert ("Without prejudice to section 31 above, where").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical Amendment to make it clear that there is no conflict between the new Section 33A of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act, which enables an appellant, whether successful or unsuccessful, who is not in custody to be awarded his out-of-pocket expenses, and the existing Section 31 which enables a successful appellant to be awarded his full legal costs. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
"Extent of powers of receivers and managers in respect of companies.
—(1) A receiver appointed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom in respect of the whole or part of any property or undertaking of a company and in consequence of the company having created a charge which, as created, was a floating charge may exercise his powers in any other part of the United Kingdom so far as their exercise is not inconsistent with the law applicable there.
(2) In subsection (1) above 'receiver' includes a manager and a person who is appointed both receiver and manager".
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment inserts a new clause which enables a receiver or manager appointed by the court in one part of the United Kingdom to exercise his powers over the company's property situated in another part unless they are inconsistent with the law of that other part. It extends and replaces Section 15(4) of the Companies (Floating Charges and Receivers) (Scotland) Act 1972 which will be repealed by an Amendment to Schedule 5. It implements a proposal originally put forward by the Scottish Law Commission in 1970 in relation to Great Britain. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I have looked at the background to this. Clearly it was something that could not be put into the 1972 Act because that applies only to Scotland and this is intended to be applied nation-wide. I should have thought that this was just the sort of thing that should go in the Bill and, as the noble and learned Lord is adding a clause here and a clause there, perhaps he will welcome other people's attempts to do so also.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for that gracious and tolerant attitude towards this something of a rag-bag Bill, as most Administration of Justice Bills are. However, I cannot promise that the particular pets of his choice will necessarily get fair wind, but we shall see when we come to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Right of audience in county courts]:
Viscount AMORY Viscount AMORY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 28, leave out ("solicitors' employees") and insert ("persons employed in solicitors' offices").
The noble Viscount said: The reason for this Amendment is very narrow and I hope that I can explain it briefly. As I understand it, this clause empowers the Lord Chancellor if he thinks fit to give directions to permit selected employees of solicitors a right of audience in county courts. The object of this Amendment is to extend the same right under directions from the Lord Chancellor to similar grades of employees who are employed not directly by solicitors but in the legal departments of local authorities. The categories referred to are precisely similar and it would seem right and appropriate that both categories should receive the same rights, if so directed by the Lord Chancellor, to have audience in the county courts. They have the same qualification and I am told that Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1972 already permits such persons, even if employed by local authorities, to have limited rights of audience in magistrates' courts. Therefore, it is really pari passu and I suppose that one can say that what is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander, if I may coin a phrase. I do not think that I need describe it any more clearly. May I express the hope that the noble and learned Lord will see the point of my suggestion and perhaps give it his blessing.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount has explained that the purpose of this Amendment is to extend the scope of Clause 14 to cover persons employed in the solicitors' offices of local authorities or other national and public undertakings. If one assumes—and I think it is a reasonable assumption—that in this context one is talking of legal executives, then I am happy to agree that the proposition put forward by the noble Viscount is a sound one. It is really not easy to distinguish, where litigation is concerned, between the work
468
done by a legal executive employed by a solicitor in private practice and that done by another legal executive employed by a local authority.
The most important factor to bear in mind as regards the public interest is that the legal executive appearing before a county court judge must be under the supervision of the solicitor who has the conduct of the proceedings and who is, at the end of the day, responsible for them. That is essential if the proper professional standards are to be maintained so that the judge can indeed have as much confidence in the legal executive appearing before him as he would have in the solicitor charged with the conduct of the proceedings.
With respect, the Amendment seems to be drawn in terms which provide that safeguard and accordingly I am happy to accept the Amendment in principle. However, I am not absolutely confident that the words "solicitors' offices" will necessarily cover the legal departments of every local authority or corporation. Sometimes the head of such a department is, for instance, a member of the Bar. However, if the noble Viscount is willing to permit me to look again at the drafting of the Amendment, I can assure him that it will be dealt with on Report.
I should like to add a few remarks in relation to what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, raised earlier concerning the scope and nature of the direction which I propose to give under this clause. My intention is to make an initial direction giving Fellows—but only Fellows—of the Institute of Legal Executives the right of audience before a county court judge in open court, but only in two circumstances. The first would be on an unopposed application for an adjournment. The appearance of a Fellow on application for an adjournment would have to be confined to unopposed applications because, of course, if the application is refused the trial might have to proceed at once and in those circumstances the Fellow would not be able, as of right, to conduct the case. Secondly, there would be a right of audience on an application for judgment by consent; that is, where the case is compromised and the terms of the judgment have been agreed beforehand by the parties to the dispute.

469
I shall certainly keep a close eye on the operation of the direction which I intend to make, and in due course I, or my successor, will have to consider whether it should he extended or varied, or even, if the exercise of this new power proves unsatisfactory, rescinded. However, I have no reason to believe that that might come to pass. Before seeking to amend the direction in any way, I would consult the profession and the Judiciary in the matter. If the noble Viscount is content with my suggestion, and after the noble Viscount, Viscount Colville of Culross, has spoken, perhaps he would indicate his willingness to withdraw the Amendment, which I think might be the better course.
3.21 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: May I say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I am grateful for the latter and more general part of what he has just said. I was going to raise this once more on the Question, That the clause shall stand part. There has been a certain interest from the Law Society about the form of the direction that the noble and learned Lord would make. He has now explained it, and I hope that that will satisfy them. I believe that they had in mind that if the experiment was successful and attracted the support of the Judiciary, they had one or two other senior staff whom they might at some stage seek to include in the scheme. However, I believe that they would be content to leave that for a while to see how this initial stage works. I am sure that if any further question arises they will approach either the noble and learned Lord or myself, but for the moment it is a very satisfactory answer.
Lord HALE: I say, frankly, that I have come here not having seen the Amendment, but would my noble and learned friend recall one other fact. There is at the moment a Royal Commission sitting on these matters, on which I think they will say that the Law Society have given the most generous co-operation. To my knowledge inquiries are going out to solicitors who are being pressed to provide all the information that the Royal Commission may seek to have.
470
Of course I am very happy with my noble and learned friend's assurance, but while the Royal Commission are considering this point the question of consulting them might arise. I do not know whether one can consult a Royal Commission while they are sitting. I appreciate the assurances given by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that there has been some contact with the Law Society. I have no opposition of course, but I hope that we shall not prejudice the situation by making amendments of this kind at this moment if the Royal Commission are likely to be able to report in a reasonable time.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: There has been consultation with the Law Society. Their main concern has been that the right of audience should only be conferred upon Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives, and that the class of work which they should be able to deal with would be limited on the lines I have indicated. Where there has been so much common agreement in the profession and the Judiciary and, if I may say so, in my own Department, it is not really necessary to wait upon the outcome of the Royal Commission. I am sure that with their membership and chairmanship they will not tarry unduly, but I think that it is reasonable to proceed on the lines of the noble Viscount's Amendment.
Viscount AMORY: I am very glad indeed that my noble friend Lord Colville and the noble Lord, Lord Hale, are present to receive the impact of the last part of the observations of the noble and learned Lord because these matters are far too difficult for me. I was watching my noble friend carefully and I think I saw him give a nod of about two-thirds of an inch, which I take to be approval. I will not comment further on that. I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord. What he said about the need for the legal executive to be responsible to some legal senior is perfectly clear and reasonable and right, for the type of individual I am thinking of is the legal executive who might be a managing clerk, or somone like that, and would not be a solicitor.
I am very grateful for what the noble and learned Lord said. Bearing in mind

471
what he has said, I am quite sure that he will produce an Amendment of the kind I am looking for. I have been here about 15 or 16 years, and I have never once succeeded in producing an Amendment which could be adopted in the words I have brought forward, so there is nothing new about this to me. But I go away in a state of some exultation because this is the closest I have got to having my Amendment accepted. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Register of county court judgments]:
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
3.26 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: This is the point about the register of county court judgments. On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord told us a little about the history of the proposals we have here. He had originally intended to abolish the register altogether, he said: but this drew upon his head a considerable volume of criticism and he decided to put forward the compromise which was in fact previously outlined to the House and part of which is in the Bill. Some of it of course depends upon regulations, which we have not yet seen and which may vary from time to time.
It has been my lot this time to receive the volume of representations. In considering what a short time it is since the Bill emerged, and no doubt the difficulty in finding out who I was, I was surprised at the large number that have reached me. They come from what I believe is called the credit industry and also from a number of large multiple retailers, and all say that the register as it stands is invaluable to them.
What I suspect has happened is that the purpose of the register has altogether changed. We were told on Second Reading that the sum has been £10; that is to say, if you are a judgment debtor and you fail to pay within 28 days, if the sum is £10 or more you now find your name placed upon the register. There is of course a central register which anybody can consult upon the payment of a fee.
472
I do not know what the origin of the register was in 1854, and I have not succeeded in finding out by research, but whatever it may have been then the use that is made of it now is very widespread and, I am told, extremely important. Anybody who wishes to obtain credit, especially a small amount of credit, is liable to be checked up on by the person supplying him with that credit. The modern method of doing it is to approach a credit reference agency of some sort or another, unless the firm is large enough to keep its own system. Those credit reference agencies use the county court judgments register on, I suppose, the basis that if anybody has got to the stage of incurring a debt and been taken to the county court to be forced to pay it, but still has not paid it after 28 days, he may be described as a bad payer, and he is the sort of person who does not get credit from whatever source it may be.
Although I do not often go to the county court, even I have heard judges and registrars say that they cannot imagine why a particular person who has come up for summary judgment of one sort or another was ever given credit. The shop-keeper, or whoever it may be, is blamed by the Judiciary for giving extended credit to this person and then complaining to the county court that the person has not paid. A good deal of trouble is taken to avoid this, and, as I said, the register is used.
I entirely understand the noble and learned Lord wishing to restrict the number of entries on this register; I quite appreciate that it is consuming in terms of manpower and time, and everybody wants to make economies in the public sector at the present time. However, I am also impressed by two other points. First, the information that I have been given—I do not know whether this is similar to what the noble and learned Lord received at the time—is that a very substantial number of people whose shortfall in terms of debt has been less than £50 are checked up on by means of the credit reference agencies; and by "very substantial" I mean over half of them. These of course would no longer be registered at all, with the result—considering that the firms and the industry concerned are as worried as they say they are—that they would have to go back to the old days, they tell me, of compiling

473
their own register from other sources, which may be much more unsatisfactory. But I shall return to that shortly.
Secondly, when we discussed this matter on Second Reading the noble and learned Lord and I were in agreement that one of the difficulties about these registers, and certainly the private ones which are compiled from the county court register, is that they can easily constitute an invasion of privacy, in that nobody can find out what is in them concerning themselves. As from today that is completely cured, because, as we heard over the weekend if we were listening to the media, the introduction of certain provisions in the Consumer Protection Act now enable people who are refused credit by any retailer, and I should think by anybody else, to find out why. If it is because their name is on a list, they can, for the payment of a fee of 25p, get the list altered and corrected. Indeed, if there is something they wish to insert, they can have it inserted in place of what exists. This seems to me to be an admirable step forward and it relieves my mind greatly of the use of these registers.
It occurs to me, however, that if the noble and learned Lord reduces the liability of the official register to the extent that there will not be on it anything like all the names of the people with whom the credit givers are concerned, they will, as I said, have to make their own lists from whatever sources they can get—from tittle-tattle, hearsay, from the corner shop, in the pub and so on—where they may or may not be told correctly. This will lead to a proliferation of lists and, I should think, a proliferation of mistakes.
It so happens that a programme on television on Saturday night picked out one mistake that had been made in the official register prepared under the auspices of the noble and learned Lord's Department, but I am told that that is one in several million and that they are renowned and esteemed for their accuracy. I shudder to think what may happen in the case of some of the others; there will be a great number of lists which will not necessarily tell either the whole truth or any truth at all, and that I would wish to avoid.
474
I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to look at this matter again. Of course I understand that he wants to save money and manpower, but there is now a responsible public role that is being fulfilled by this list. Has the noble and learned Lord considered whether it would be best to continue on the present basis but to charge an economic price for the information that is being accorded to those who use it? I understand that he has just put up the fees, but it may be that that will not be enough. My understanding of the situation is that those who use this register of judgments consider it to be so valuable that they might be prepared to pay an economic price so that it should go on giving the information that is at present available to them, particularly in view of the two other points that I have made; that is, the new ability to correct mistakes and, in the absence of this list, the proliferation of other, less reputable, ones. I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider this, and while he will not necessarily wish to give me in reply a decision or announcement today, I believe there is a serious point here and one where the private and public interest could be reconciled.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising interesting questions about Clause 16. I am sure that what he said about the volume of correspondence that he has received reflects concern on the part of those in business who give credit to their customers, and I certainly do not want to make their position excessively difficult. I am bound to say, as the noble Viscount said, that when I considered this matter I had it in mind to abolish the register because it constituted an invasion of privacy, but the volume of correspondence I had took me away from that possibly virtuous path. As the noble Viscount said, the Consumer Credit Act coming into being will diminish the possible mischief which, without it, might have existed. Accordingly, I decided not to proceed with my initial proposal because of the representations I had that it would damage the commercial credit arrangements of the country and could increase the number of bad debts, which of coures I have no interest in encouraging.
There was another substantial reason why I took a different view. All Govern-

475
ment Departments, as the noble Viscount indicated, must in the present economic situation save as much as they can both in direct expenditure and in manpower. To seek to achieve that, I decided to raise the amount in respect of which unsatisfied judgments shall be registered to £50 instead of the present figure of £10, and, as has been pointed out, that £10 figure has stood since 1852. What the equivalent value would be today in terms of that I do not know, but it would certainly run into a far higher figure than the £50 I have in mind. But already I have had representations about the £50. I hasten to say that I am not dogmatic about the figure of £50, and I am very willing to consider what lower figure might be acceptable both to commerce and the interests of saving manpower and money that I have in mind.
I have to tell the Committee that in terms of saving manpower, it is likely that the £50 limit may save something like twice the number of posts as would be saved by raising the limit to, say, £30. Any saving would not, of course, be immediately achieved in any event, but it might be accomplished over a year or so as the effect of the change worked its way through the system. Accordingly, it is something that I have seriously to bear in mind if there is to be a reduction of the £50 figure.
The noble Viscount raised the question of the raising of fees by charging fees for the use of the services of the register which covered the costs of running it. Since 1st April the fees charged to the credit reference firms which make extensive use of the register have in fact, as has been pointed out, been increased, though the fees charged to individuals for searching the register for copies of entries in it have not been increased since October 1975. As a result, it may be expected that the register will cover its own expenditure in this financial year. But the register in turn depends for its operation on the fact that judment debtors in county courts are required normally to pay those judgment debts into court and not directly into the hands of the creditor. Accordingly, each county court has to make a record of payments and is in a position to know when a judgment debt for more than £10 has remained unpaid for more than 20 years after judgment and accordingly to notify the register.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Did the noble and learned Lord mean 28 days?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: That is what I said, did I not?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: The noble and learned Lord said 20 years.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Dear me, what a slip of the tongue conies to one in the period of anecdotage! The accounting involved in each county court is very labour intensive because there are many payments and often very small amounts by way of instalments. It is that function that is so expensive in manpower, but it is essential if the register is to continue to operate on its present basis; that is, the automatic registration of a judgment debt of whatever amount it may be remaining unpaid after a certain period. The estimated cost of running the register in this financial year is £420,000 and it is expected that that will be met by the fees now charged, but the judgment debt accounting function costs something like £3½ million a year and that is where I hope to make the saving.
As to the rule-making power which will be provided by this clause, perhaps it may be useful for me to say that it will, in particular, enable me to make regulations whereby the name of a judgment debtor, which has been entered on the register, will be automatically removed when he satisfies the judgment debt in full. At present the judgment debtor has himself to take the initiative for this to be done, and that can often cause injustice.
Accordingly, as I have said, I am not dogmatic about the figure of £50. I am very willing to look at it again, but I feel that it is important that the clause should remain in the Bill and that we should endeavour to reach a figure that will satisfy commercial users and save both money and manpower in the way I have in mind.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I know that the House wishes to listen to the Statement of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. May I just thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has said? I believe there is a very straight

477
choice to be made here: either we must come to a sensible compromise or we shall do quite a bit of damage—the sort of damage that will be felt in extra prices passed on to people who buy goods in shops. That is something which I know the Government would not wish to become a by-product of this situation. May I leave it that the noble and learned Lord may like to have some further contacts with the industry? Would he also be prepared to work out—since, after all, I suppose that a good number of the staff concerned in the recording of the payments which are or are not made must have to do so in the ordinary course of their work in any event, because otherwise the court itself will not know whether the debt has been paid—the extent to which he can separate out the extra cost of transferring that information additionally on to the register? That seems to me to be the area for which payment is not at the moment being made and, if the staff were financed from the industry itself, presumably there would be no harm done to the noble and learned Lord's aspirations as to the public sector expenditure side. Perhaps, therefore, there is room for further negotiations about this. If there is anything that I can do to help the noble and learned Lord, he may be assured that I will do so. Meanwhile, I certainly should not wish to take the clause out of the Bill at this stage. I only wished to use this opportunity to speak about this matter and to have the sort of discussion that we have had. Perhaps we can return to it at a later stage.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Viscount and I shall certainly communicate with him and, perhaps, draw upon the massive correspondence that he has apparently received. I hope that we can come to a right solution on this matter.
Lord BROWN: May I seize this opportunity to make a slightly general point? I do not know whether it is in support of my noble friend or not. On previous occasions I have drawn attention to the necessity that is constantly with us for indexing financial limits in legislation. If £10 was right in the last century, it certainly cannot be right today, so, whatever the intentions of Parliament many years ago, they have certainly not been carried out if the same financial figure
478
remains in the Bill. If we would only move towards indexation of financial limits, a lot of the discussion that takes place in this House need never take place and the original intention of Parliament would hold, whereas, at the present moment, the original intentions of much legislation of even five years ago are no longer being carried out because of inflation. In making this comment I was told by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on the previous occasion that I was prognosticating the future trend of inflation. I am doing nothing of the kind. I am merely saying that it is a wise provision to take account in the legislation of the fact that inflation can occur. If it does occur, any financial limits in the way of penalties or other limits put into Bills become out of date as soon as there is any serious inflation. So I just make this general point once more and I hope to have the opportunity of making it whenever this point arises in the House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: This is becoming a King Charles's head of my noble friend, but it is none the worse for that. It raises an interesting point which we have discussed in the House before. The effect of what I have in mind is that I should be able to make regulations which will enable the figure of indebtedness which requires to be registered to be dealt with by regulations instead of by amendment to an Act of Parliament.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

HM AMBASSADOR IN WASHINGTON
3.47 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
"The House will recall that last Thursday, 12th May, when I was questioned about the position of Sir

479
Peter Ramsbotham, HM Ambassador in Washington, I said that Sir Peter had served with distinction and that I had no criticism to make of him. I added that when I became Foreign Secretary he was on the point of taking up his post and that as incoming Foreign Secretary I confirmed him in it.
"Since then, as a result of reports in the newspapers, it has been charged that a smear campaign has been launched against Sir Peter Ramsbotham, which—and I quote—
"… bears all the marks of being governmentally inspired".
I therefore wish to make clear that no such campaign has been launched. The honourable Member for Blackpool South first raised this in a public letter to me late on Thursday evening, and I replied immediately to confirm that what I had said in the House at Question Time represented my view in all respects.
"I have myself since then been able to examine the account written by the Press Association of the official briefing on Thursday morning, and this contains no offensive personal reference to Sir Peter Ramsbotham.
"The Press Secretary at No. 10 issued a personal statement on-the-record' on Friday morning to this effect.
"During the past weekend further Press reports appeared alleging that the personal remarks about Sir Peter Ramsbotham were made subsequent to the official briefing, in private conversation. By their very nature, it is impossible to prove or disprove these charges. In these circumstances, I think it right, therefore, to say to the House that I do not hold these views about Sir Peter Ramsbotham; and I should perhaps add that he himself is in no doubt about this, since I telephoned him immediatly last Thursday, after the stories had appeared, in order to assure him of my confidence and to confirm that the reports I have referred to do not reflect the views of Her Majesty's Government."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the House will wish to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having repeated that Statement. I believe that I should say at the outset that the disquiet which this incident has aroused has nothing to do with the appointment of Mr. Jay as Ambassador in Washington. Those who know him and know of him will, am sure, believe that he will make a very successful Ambassador and envoy of this country.
I welcome and, of course, accept what the Prime Minister has said in the Statement, and I am glad that he was able to make it. However, I think I must say that the whole of this episode has left a very nasty taste in my mouth, and it raises questions about the identical headlines in the two London evening newspapers. I have known Sir Peter Ramsbotham for over 40 years, and I regret and deplore the fact that so distinguished a servant of this country should be subjected to the kind of comments that have been made about him. I hope that he will note that there will be nobody on any side of your Lordships' House who would subscribe to any of those sentiments.
3.51 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches we, too, would endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, and we would certainly acquit the Prime Minister of any responsibility for any type of smear campaign against the present Ambassador. However, it seems equally clear that such a campaign was organised from somewhere, and to that extent we deplore it very much indeed. I accept what is in the Statement. I think that it is very difficult to prove or disprove allegations of this kind. All we can say is that they seem to arise from circumstantial evidence, but I should not think that we would be pursuing a very profitable course if we were to take this matter further. I think we ought to let it settle here.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I wish to say how grateful I am for the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers. I, too, knew the Ambassador when he held his Cyprus

481
post. I also stayed with him when I visited the United States some time ago, and I have every confidence in him. I am most grateful for what has been said. Let us leave it at that.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, before we leave the matter absolutely at that, I should like to say that no one had ever thought that the Prime Minister had been a party to any of the words that were used. But in the Statement one sees no evidence that he has had any inquiry made into the matter—not even a personal inquiry—to see whether or not, even inadvertently, something damaging was said against a senior civil servant who cannot answer for himself. Do I understand that he did not make any kind of inquiry, so that a withdrawal could be made—even of something which may have been said inadvertently—not only on behalf of himself and members of the Government, but on behalf of the governmental system, which is, after all, part of the image that is given abroad today?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I thought the Statement of the Prime Minister confirmed exactly what had been said.
Lord SHERFIELD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while most of us—though I can speak only for myself—roundly condemn the slur, whatever its origin, on Sir Peter Ramsbotham, many of us also regret the handicap which this furore may have imposed on Mr. Peter Jay on taking up his appointment? Therefore, does the noble Lord not think that this affair, after there is drawn from it whatever conclusions may be appropriate, should now he left to the healing process of time?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, a former Ambassador, for the views he has expressed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
3.53 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Lord GARDINER Lord GARDINER moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Persons to preside at meetings of Justices: Magistrates' Courts
.—(1) The following subsection shall be substituted for section 13(3) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (under which the chairman or a deputy chairman of the justices for a petty sessions area must preside at any meeting of the justices, if present):—
"(3) Subject to the next following subsection, if the chairman or a deputy chairman of the justices for a petty sessions area is present at a meeting of those justices, he shall preside unless he requests another justice to preside in accordance with rules made under this section.".
(2) At the end of subsection (5) (power to make rules) of the said section 13 there shall be added the words "and
(c) as to the justices whom a chairman or deputy chairman of justices may request to preside at a meeting,".
The noble and learned Lord said: Section 13(3) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 provides that:
"the chairman or a deputy chairman of the justices shall preside, if present…"
at any meeting of the justices for a petty sessions area. The question of who should take the chair in a magistrates' court has rather a chequered history. At one time it was always the senior magistrate, who was usually the oldest, and sometimes, frankly, too old, and obviously not necessarily the most competent. Then at one time there were many ex officio justices, of most extraordinary and varied character. In a borough the mayor was an ex officio justice. The chairman of district councils and all kinds of odd people, like the Lord Chancellor, were ex officio justices of the peace. When I was in Office in 1968, we got rid of all that in the Justices of the Peace Act 1968.
The mayor had always insisted on taking the chair if he sat. He sat only rarely, and therefore did not know the work properly: nevertheless he always insisted on taking the chair when he did sit.
Now we have got rid of all the ex officio justices, and the chairman and deputy chairman are elected by their fellows. But one difficulty has arisen, as I shall now explain. As many experienced magistrates have told me, after years of doing this work, liking it, and knowing it thoroughly,

483
one day they are asked to take the chair. They think that there is nothing in it because they have sat for years and years hearing how chairmen take the chair, yet the first day in the chair can be a cause for the gravest concern. A justice in such a situation finds that he has never realised how specialised the post is: after all, it is usually only the chairman who speaks, and he is responsible for the conduct of his court and for asking those questions which should be asked, and so forth.
But at the moment, because of the section in the Justices of the Peace Act to which I have referred, somebody who is being tried out as a deputy chairman for the first time cannot have an experienced chairman or deputy chairman sitting next to him to whom he could turn if he felt he had got into a jam. Conducting a court is indeed a responsibility. In that admirable monthly publication The Magistrate I see from time to time little problems set with regard to things which have happened in the course of a particular case. There is the matter of what the chairman failed to do which rendered a whole case a nullity and the conviction had to be quashed.
This is a difficult situation. For some time now the Magistrates' Association has been asking that benches, not compulsorily, but if they wish, should be able to have a chairman or deputy chairman sitting in court next to someone very much less experienced who in effect is being tried out. This proposal also has the support of the Justices' Clerks Society. I acknowledge with gratitude the assistance I have had in the drafting of the Amendment, and if there is any alternative drafting which my noble and learned friend might prefer, I should be only too happy to accept it. Subject to that point, I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that the Government are happy to accept the Amendment as moved by my noble and learned friend. If I might catch my noble and learned friend's ear for a moment, I should like to say that I well remember the battle over the issue of ex officio justices of the peace which he, with his customary determination, fought to a successful conclusion, with perhaps
484
not such able assistance in another place. It is clearly desirable that a justice who has not yet become chairman or deputy chairman of his bench, should sometimes be given the opportunity of taking the chair and should have the advantage of having that experience in the presence of the chairman or deputy chairman who can give him advice and guidance.
I am also satisfied that my noble and learned friend is right in seeking to achieve this object by taking a rule-making power rather than by a straight Amendment to Section 13 of the 1949 Act, because if the proposed system is implemented, we might run into unexpected and unforeseen difficulties, and it is right that we should be able to rectify these by amendments to the Magistrates' Court Rules, instead of having to resort to further legislation. I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend for his initiative in putting down this Amendment.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Before my noble and learned friend replies to the Lord Chancellor, I should like to say that it is a delightful change to hear magistrates receiving some extra encouragement in this Chamber, because quite recently, during the passage of another Bill, I got the feeling that they were not too popular with some of your Lordships, for various reasons. As one who has frequently been described as a senior member of the bench and therefore forced rather reluctantly into the chair, I would endorse everything that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner has said. Being in the chair is certainly very different from sitting on the bench beside the chairman. While I did not send somebody to be hanged and then have to say that the penalty would be only a fine of £10, in the terms of the apocryphal joke of the magistrates' courts, I can recall several occasions when the clerk had to put me right, which I suspect would not have happened had one been in the situation envisaged if this becomes part of the Bill. As a magistrate I should like to express my appreciation for the fact that this suggestion has been so readily accepted by my noble and learned friend.
Lord JANNER: Before my noble and learned frend answers, may I, too, add a word to the thanks which have been

485
expressed by my noble friend. I would point out that the magistrates themselves do take certain initiatives, in that, for example, in some places they actually hold meetings which are addressed by experienced chairmen—I speak from very personal knowledge of one case, anyhow—in order that those who are likely to be in the chair at a later stage may have the benefit of experience and have explained to them what are the duties of a chairman. I think the Magistrates' Association uses its utmost endeavours to see to it that, while those who take the chair for the first time obviously cannot understand as much as a very experienced chairman, they will, even at the initial stage of their taking the chair at a court, have some understanding of what should be done and how to do it.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: While on balance I think the Amendment that is being accepted is right, I think the way it is put into practice ought to he kept in mind. I know things are rather different now, but when I first sat as a magistrate many years ago—and I sat regularly in those days—one took the chair on occasions without it being obvious that one was what might now, in this discussion, be called a learner chairman; and, bearing in mind that one has to deal with cases in which the people concerned want to feel that they are getting justice and that they are being dealt with by the top people, the number one people, while they may not be aware of the technical considerations (and they are very real ones) which are embodied in this suggestion which is now going to be accepted, T would hope that it will not be an obvious learner chairman who is involved when it is actually administered.
I remember that years ago—and I find to my horror that I have been a magistrate now for something like 32 years—you attended your court regularly and you saw how the chairman of the bench, whom you admired, worked; and you learnt your trade, if you like, as a future chairman, from being there and seeing how it was done. That is rather how it is done in Parliament, too, if one wants to be a worthwhile Minister. If this results in it being obvious that on this day the one presiding and the only one who is going to make the comments, as the noble and learned Lord has said, is in fact the learner
486
chairman (I use that term again) of that day, it could have the effect of interfering with the general acceptance of the judgment in a way which may not be altogether helpful. When you are behind a bus carrying a sign on the back saying, "learner driver", you do not quite feel that it is being driven by someone who is as experienced in road usage, and so on, as the real chap who might have been in charge. I am merely saying that, while one sees in theory the good sense of what is embodied in what is now being accepted, one hopes that it will be applied in a way which, even during the transitional period of teaching someone to be a chairman, does not give the impression that the real people are not in charge in handing out a judgment which may be hurtful to people involved in the case.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may say in regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has just said that I am quite sure the magistrates will deal with this sort of situation sensibly, and obviously will not throw a tyro into the deep end at an early stage in his magisterial career. In addition, of course, since the days when the noble Lord plunged, unbelievably all those many years ago, into the affairs of the bench, we have started quite a substantial system of training of magistrates, so that training in chairmanship will also have been inculcated. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lady Phillips and Lord Janner for what they have said; and may I say that, while wishing every success to my noble friend Lady Phillips in her new endeavours, I hope it will not keep her away from the bench too long.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.5 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Membership of Rule Committees.
".It shall cease to be a requirement that the practising barristers included among the persons empowered to make rules of court under section 99 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 and section 50 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 be members of the General Council of the Bar".
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is necessitated by the following circumstances. The Rule Committees

487
which make the Supreme Court Rules and the Matrimonial Causes Rules are each required to include, in addition to other distinguished persons, two practising barristers and two practising solicitors, so that the views of the practising profession may be taken into account when rules of procedure are being made. As the relevant Statutes now stand, both practising barristers have to be members of the Bar Council. Very often, expert assistance may be needed in Chancery matters, for instance, or in family law, and the most suitable person may not happen to be at the time a member of the Bar Council. Furthermore, a barrister who was a member of the Bar Council when he was appointed to the Rule Committee may cease to be so shortly afterwards, so he ceases to he eligible for membership of the Rule Committee and the necessary continuity of membership is lost. The sensible thing clearly is to relax this requirement and enable vacancies to be filled from the practising Bar after appropriate consultation. Perhaps I should explain to your Lordships that the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar are content for this change to be made on the understanding that they will be consulted as they have been in the past. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I have no hesitation in welcoming this Amendment. It must be right that the noble and learned Lord should be able to choose for the Rule Committees people who are most likely to be useful members, and I am delighted to think that my profession has been so ready to give assistance in getting rid of this unnecessarily inflexible piece of legislation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Jurisdiction of ancient courts]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 12, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("business") in line 40 and insert ("but any such court may continue to sit and transact such other").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment clarifies the drafting of Clause 19(2) and brings out the basic policy which underlies the Law Commission's proposal. The ancient courts
488
which are referred to in Schedule 4 are to lose any jurisdiction which they still possess (and which has gone into disuse) in theory although not in practice, to hear and determine legal proceedings, but they are to retain their jurisdiction to transact any other business which it is customary for them to transact. In my view, this will appear more clearly if the subsection is amended in the way proposed, and the Law Commission agree with that view.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say a few words on the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, on Second Reading. The management of common lands and the regulation of common rights may well be included in the customary business which a manorial court will retain. That is made clear in Part III of Schedule 4, which lists the customary business of certain courts. If, in the cases which the noble Lord mentioned, the steward of the manor was exercising administrative functions of that kind, I see no reason to suppose that he will lose them. Without knowing more of the whole circumstances, I cannot speak with complete certainty, but I think that will be the position; and I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord CLITHEROE: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having considered this matter. I am sure that the Amendment which he has drafted will make it clearer, and I think that the situation as it prevails at present, at any rate in some places, will be able to continue without any difficulties being caused. I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: The only thing that remains as a scintilla of doubt in my mind about this is the possibility that people may think that the clause that we are now dealing with removes the teeth of any courts which may be sitting to deal with administrative matters but which nevertheless ought to have the backing of the law in so doing. As I recall it, my noble friend's common rights concerned cattle and sheep, and I can well believe that the ancient manorial customs that such a person should have only a certain number of beasts upon the common need to be enforced. Of course,

489
the clause as it now reads abolishes jurisdiction to hear and determine legal proceedings. I think probably what we need to be sure about is that, although the matters that were being discussed by my noble friend Lord Clitheroe do not count as legal proceedings, the courts still have full jurisdiction, I suppose, in the last resort, to insist that whoever it is who is exceeding his number of beasts on the common should abide by the rule and be constrained in the end by the lord of the manor's court not to do so. This is, I believe, the only area of doubt left to me. Clearly, it cannot be resolved today. If my noble friend Lord Clitheroe were to give details of the commons he is concerned with and the powers and the duties of the courts, this could be looked at further. I believe it to be very complicated.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful for the two interventions. I think the position is safeguarded by the terms of subsection (2) of Clause 19. But I am willing to look at it and receive any parculars that the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, may have which may enable me to put the matter beyond peradventure.
Lord CLITHEROE: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that and for his letter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 13, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) The descriptions of courts in Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act include courts held for manors of which the Queen or the Duke of Cornwall is the Lord".
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment makes Clause 19 bind the Crown. The Bill as it stands takes away the obsolete jurisdiction of, among other courts, courts baron, courts leet and customary courts of the manor. Some of these courts are royal courts, where the Queen or the Duke of Cornwall is the lord of the manor; for example, in the case of the court leet of the Island and Royal Manor of Portland. Since Acts of Parliament do not bind the Crown unless that intention is stated, the clause as now drafted leaves a technical doubt as to whether those royal courts would retain or lose their obsolete jurisdiction, a jurisdiction which, I am sure, the Monarch
490
and the Duke would have no interest or wish to preserve. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that courts leet and courts of Royal Manors, like those other manors, are to lose their obsolete jurisdictions. Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Cornwall have agreed that this should be made clear in the Bill; and the Amendment, I hope, does so. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord LEATHERLAND: I must confess that I felt staggered, albeit rather mildly, when I learned from Clause 19, in association with the Schedule on page 28, that the ancient Macclesfield Court of Portmote is to be abolished so far as its judicial functions are concerned. I thought to myself, "Are they trying to tamper with the history of a town I love?"—for anybody who has lived in Macclesfield has learnt to love it. It is a place where everybody knows everybody else and where nearly everybody greets his neighbour by his Christian name. I spent four of the happiest years of my life in Macclesfield. I went there about 55 years ago to join the editorial staff of the old Macclesfield Courier, one of those local newspapers which were founded in the days of the Battle of Waterloo. I found the people were proud of their town and that the mayor on formal occasions, would always refer to it as this "loyal and ancient borough".
I had much to do with the courts in that district. Three times a week I was reporting the borough magistrates' court; once a fortnight the county magistrates' court; and once a month the county court under that eminent Judge Ruegg, perhaps the greatest expert on rents that the law in this country has ever seen. Every quarter, I would be at Knutsford quarter sessions and from time to time at the Chester Assizes if there were any malefactors from Macclesfield who happened to be appearing there.
I thought that I knew everything about the courts in that district so that, when I noticed that the court of Portmote was mentioned, I began to wonder whether I had missed something or whether I had

491
been neglecting my reporting duties. I thought therefore that I would wait a little before I decided whether to bless or condemn this part of the Bill. I have been able to inform myself about the court of Portmote through the courtesy of the chief administrative officer of Macclesfield Borough, the man whom we formerly referred to as the town clerk.
He has sent me a few pages from a history of the borough. This was printed recently to celebrate 700 years of the borough's Charter. May I read a few passages from this historical document:
"The Portmote of the Borough of Macclesfield met at three-weekly intervals on Tuesdays … it dealt with offenders against the bye-laws for maintaining the quality of food, with disputes between burgesses, with brawls, public disorder and breaches of the peace … the scold was admonished or punished for annoying her neighbours, officers were appointed to supervise the selling of goods and the brewer and baker were … charged with offering an inferior article for sale".
This historical account goes on to record many cases in which people were fined two, three or four pence for assaulting their neighbours or breaking the law in some other way. The Portmote also had the duty of appointing the mayor and other officers of the town. One of these officers was the custodian of ale. He had to go about the town tasting the ale for sale at various places and judging whether it was up to standard or not.
Although these fines of two, three or four pence perhaps do not seem excessive today, the document goes on to say:
"The fines levied were heavy when considered in relation to the value of money".
It was our old friend inflation creeping up. It goes on:
"The labourer's rate at the beginning of the fourteenth century was Id a day; at the end of the century it had doubled and was still rising. Thus a 6d fine would be between two and three days' pay at the basic rate".
This Portmote seemed to have had a busy time giving judgment in perhaps 12 or 14 cases every time it met and imposing appropriate fines. It also kept a close eye on the standard of beer sold in the town. It says:
"It is noticeable that most, indeed all, it seems, of the offenders concerned with the brewing of ale were women; the term ' ale-wife ' is also an indication that brewing ale was a woman's occupation. There were three qualities of ale, strong, `mediocre' and small; each quality was
492
differently priced and for each a standard was enforced".
It goes on to say that the price fixed for ale in the days of Henry VIII was a gallon of new ale for three-halfpence and a gallon of olde ale for 2d. Time has marched on since then.
But the Portmote continued to exercise its authority, earning the respect of the populace, for many centuries; until, the document says:
"the resentment felt in the town at the encroachment of privilege by the Portmote … gathered strength towards the middle of the Sixteenth Century".
It goes on:
"Tumults broke out over the custody of the key to the Guild Hall; apparently the mayor and the steward had been attempting to lock each other out. Feeling ran high and the need for standardising and regularising the machinery of local government must have been felt".
So things went on until 1595 when the borough obtained a new charter and when this old court sank into desuetude. Having informed myself on all those matters, I can be quite easy about accepting the proposal that the court shall now be formally and officially abolished from a judicial point of view, and therefore the Bill will have no objection from me.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: No doubt this will be tremendously interesting to a great number of people. A lot of people will be very sorry about what is being done. I am ignorant about all this, but I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord opposite said. Has there been any public representation about what is going on now or does no one know anything about it, except what is now being done in the Bill? Nobody has said very much. I should love to know what went on in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, having spent my life there and having been a member of the bench there for years. I have never heard anything about that particular matter. I should like a little more historical fact, if that is possible.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Nothing would give me more pleasure, if I knew the history, than to regale the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, with the history of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Courts of Conscience or Requests and Conservancy. It embraces a multitude of aspiration and judicial activity. I expect its

493
activities were as recent as 1595, when we heard of the demise of the Macclesfield court, which was indubitably equitable and no doubt a by-product of the activities of the Lord Chancellor of the time.
All I can say by way of assurance to my noble friend Lady Ward is this; the Law Commission engaged in as wide consultation as they could with all the local interests and local authorities concerned. I have little doubt that they sent someone up to Newcastle-upon-Tyne and discovered that the jurisdiction of that court had been out of use for hundreds of years. One always has a pang of regret about these matters. I remember when I had the honour last year of representing Parliament in Washington. When we loaned one of the original copies of Magna Charta, I did not dare tell Congress that we had repealed all of it except two paragraphs, because that might have seemed absolute blasphemy so far as they were concerned.
That is the position. We have done our best, and if any of these courts continue to have any administrative or business functions at all, they will continue to exercise them. I am not sure what the form is in Macclesfield, whether the Macclesfield Court of Portmote can continue to appoint the mayor, if that is what the inhabitants want. No doubt my noble friend Lord Leatherland, will pursue his inquiries in that direction. He has given a most notable requiem to the Macclesfield court and we have all been very interested in what he has said.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: While thanking the noble and learned Lord for his reply, may I say this: he has said that inquiries have taken place wherever possible. But did everybody agree to what is now being put into the Bill? Did anybody object?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think anybody objected to the courts being listed as obsolete. The local historians, no doubt, were of considerable assistance. For once I can give a total assurance to the noble Baroness that nobody objected. This simply removes the accumulation of the obsolete from the administration of justice.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Inspection and copying of registers and documents in custody of Land Registry in connection with criminal proceedings etc.]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 36 and insert ("make an inspection under this section in relation").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to correct a minor defect in the wording of subsection (1) of Clause 20. It does not alter the substance of the Bill in any way. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 23 agreed to.
4.26 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:—
Amendment of Oaths Act 1888 51 & 52 Vict. c. 46
( ). In section 1 of the Oaths Act 1888 the words from "person" to "religious belief shall cease to have effect.
The noble Viscount said: I confess that when I first saw this Bill I did not think that there could be anything left in the way of law reform that had not been included in it. Since then I have been in touch with the Council of the Law Society, and discovered that my fond hopes to start with are far from the truth. The Law Society at the moment are extremely busy with the Law Commission and, therefore, I did not have time to do very much about the points that they have raised. Indeed, this Amendment is the only one that I could draft quickly enough in time for the Committee stage.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord can say a little about this matter, because it has been the subject of quite a substantial study. It was a little while ago, but I am sure that his Department were given a copy of it in 1970, and that he has since had a chance to read it. It appears that those who are nearest to the "front

495
line" in the administration of justice have found that the ancient provisions of the 1888 Oaths Act are really no longer the current scene in court today. The Act provides that everybody shall take the oath unless they specifically object on the grounds either that it is against their religious beliefs to take that oath or, alternatively, that they have no religious beliefs. The Act goes on to say that, even if they do not have any religious beliefs and take the oath, that does not do any harm to the oath, which seems illogical, but I do not wish to tinker with that part.
But when I read this part of the Law Society's document—incidentally, I note that last autumn they asked the noble and learned Lord whether he was going to do anything about it, so at least it is up to date—it rang a bell for me, because only the other day I was in the magistrates' court and later in the Crown Court, and one of my witnesses refused to take the oath. He did so on religious grounds rather than on the grounds that he had no religious belief. But it caused a slight flurry. It caused him a good deal of embarrassment. It certainly made me wonder what was going on. It bears out, therefore, what the Law Society have found by the consultation among their membership; that is, that what usually happens is that, if somebody is not quite sure whether or not they would like to take the oath and they have to make a definite pronouncement why they do not want to take the oath, they just forget all about it and take the oath, anyway. Therefore, it devalues the effect of the oath and nobody really takes the thing as seriously as they should.
I am not going into the much more difficult question of whether we should have an oath any more at all, and whether this is any form of safeguard for telling the truth. I am certainly not going into the question of whether changes in the oath should he accompanied by changes in the law on perjury because that is a very wide matter which the Law Commission are looking into; but this is an apt occasion to raise this small point. It is only going to make it easier for people to take the oath if they wish or to affirm if that is nearer to their ordinary method of pronouncing upon the truthfulness of what they intend to say.
I prefer that if people find the oath meaningless, then they should find it easy to affirm rather than profane the oath by taking it when they simply do not mean it at all. That is what my Amendment is intended to achieve, because all it would do is to give people the straight option, without giving any reason, to affirm rather than to take the oath. So it is a small matter but it seems to me a sensible one, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will look upon it in a friendly way.
Lord GARDINER: At some time perhaps the noble Viscount would tell us to which religious belief he is referring. In Section I of the Oaths Act 1888, the words "religious belief" occur twice. The Amendment does not make it clear which is meant.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: That is because I had to do this in a very great hurry, and I apologise. I am referring to the passage that says,
"… unless it is contrary to your religious belief or you have no religious belief".
I wish to leave out both of those provisions and therefore leave it as an absolutely straight alternative. As usual, it seems I have got the drafting wrong but I hope that it has not misled the noble and learned Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I must confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment but I do not know that I would dismiss it as "a small matter". There is a great deal of feeling about this. The suggestion for dealing with it has been expressed in its most extreme form by a proposal that the witness's oath should be replaced entirely by a form of affirmation and that he should not take the oath at all on the Bible or the Testament. But it is the case that the requirement for taking the oath has been with us for many centuries and what I am not sure about is how great a consensus exists among the public at large for getting rid of it. I am not at all sure that the majority of opinion would support getting rid of it. I know that is not the point to which the Amendment immediately refers, but that is one of the problems that have been raised in this connection.
It is very interesting, and perhaps the noble Viscount will bear with me for a

497
moment while I deal with that part of the issue which is sometimes raised in this connection. The Magistrates' Association in 1968 voted by 140 to 130 votes in favour of getting rid of the oath altogether and having affirmation instead. That is an interesting fact. I do not know what the view would be today; but even in the limited form covered by the noble Viscount's Amendment, which I think he has already indicated was suggested by the Law Society in 1970 as an interim measure, designed then to pave the way for full abolition—which he is not advocating—the proposal raises social questions, and of course it touches only one aspect.
Can we really legislate only on the witness's oath without also touching on the juror's oath, and possibly the oath on taking office in a certain context? It is very interesting that when a Life Peer is admitted to your Lordships' House there is simply an oath or an affirmation, without explanation as to the use of the alternative method. So I think this Amendment goes a little wider than the mere question of the witness's oath. We are not concerned at the moment with the drafting aspect, although if your Lordships were disposed to press on with this it would clearly need redrafting, and I would urge that it should be withheld for that reason. Of course, I say that without criticism of the noble Viscount.
The Committee are now considering a Bill making a series of technical improvements in the administration of justice and, frankly, I do not feel happy about the Committee deciding this matter without a full debate and, if I may say so, a larger attendance in which all shades of opinion can be represented, before we can properly proceed with what I consider to be a significant change in the law. I am certainly willing to consider the matter further with my colleagues in the Government to see whether we can get a sound and representative view of public opinion on this matter; but I confess that as at this moment of time, although the Amendment has my full sympathy, I should not be happy if we were to proceed with it today without being sure of the ground upon which we stand as regards public expectation and public experience.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I should like, if I may, to say that
498
I entirely support what the noble and learned Lord has said. The result of a vote taken by the Magistrates' Association in a way rather depends on what part of the country the magistrates came from. I very well remember—although I have not been on the Newcastle-on-Tyne bench for quite a long time—that practically all the witnesses there expected to take the oath. We had a very good bench, and an excellent clerk, and very often the people coming in who would take an oath had already discussed it in the court precincts but not actually in the chamber where the magistrates were sitting. So although there were people who wanted only to affirm, I do not really think that people in Newcastle, if they had to come to the court, would do other than expect to take an oath.
Once again, I feel like saying that quite often in my part of the world we have quite different views from those held in the South and other parts of the country. I would gladly agree that this question should be put off; and then I should really like to know that, when the consultations take place, they take place in all parts of the country because there are very, very different views held on many matters in my part of the world as compared with London. If all the views come from London, I would not pay much attention to them. I like to know that my part of the world has been consulted, because hardly anybody there ever came to court who did not realise at once that they had to take an oath. So I am very grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said and I hope that he will be whole-heartedly supported by Members of this Chamber.
Lord GARDINER: I am sorry there is not a larger Committee to determine this question but, if I rightly understand the effect of the Amendment, it does not abolish the oath at all.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Hear, hear!
Lord GARDINER: All this Amendment does is to enable people to do what they can do now: choose whether to take the oath or to affirm; but they will not have to give any specific reason for it. That is all it does. In other words, it would

499
put them on the same plane as Peers, who also are perfectly free when they are sworn in either to take the oath or to affirm. They do not have to give any reason, and I do not know that they are any less serious or that they are any the worse for that, or that witnesses generally would be in any different position.
This question sometimes gives rise to a little trouble, or it can do. I remember a case in which a demonstrator was charged with a breach of the peace. When the police had cautioned him and said: "You can't go any further than this", he was alleged to have turned round and waved to those behind him and said: "Come on!" That, he entirely disputed and a number of witnesses were called to say that he never did anything of the kind. Then they were asked: "Were you watching him all the time? He may have done this when you were looking somewhere else." There was one man, obviously his key witness, who was next to him the entire time and must have heard him if he had said it. He had long hair and I am not sure whether he was not wearing jeans. The case came before Mr. Seaton of the London Sessions. The man said he wanted to affirm, and so Mr. Seaton said, "Don't you believe in the Bible?"—to which, not unnaturally, the man said, "What part of the Bible?" Then they got into a very long theological argument, and after Mr. Seaton had said, "I can't think how you ever got into Cambridge", he told him to stand down and so his evidence was never heard.
I was not in this great case, but only on appeal, when I had little difficulty in satisfying a Divisional Court that my client's conviction could not stand, because he had been deprived of his opportunity to call a witness. As they said, the only proper question that a judge can ask under the Act is, "Do you wish to affirm, because to take an oath would be contrary to your religious belief, or because you have no religious belief?" This can cause difficulties and I should be in favour of the Amendment. But it is a pity that we do not have a larger House to express an opinion about it.
Lord HALE: If my noble and learned friend says that we shall be able to discuss this matter at a later stage, may I ask whether he is giving an undertaking that
500
something will be put on the Order Paper which will permit it to be discussed, without an Amendment? I have seen this Marshalled List only since I came into the House—it may be my fault; I do not think it is. We are in difficulty over documents and this is typewritten.
When I glanced at the Amendment, I remembered that 1882 was the year of Mr. Gladstone's Administration, after the Midlothian campaign, when Parliament was being concerned. It also appears that this is the termination of what followed, because Mr. Gladstone recorded in his diary his remarkable appointment again as Prime Minister, after he had long resigned the leadership of the Liberal Party. He also wrote that he saw the intervention of Divine providence on his behalf in this matter. As Mr. G. W. E. Russell, one of his supporters and friends, has recorded, within four minutes of Mr. Gladstone appearing in the House the newly elected Member for Northampton, Mr. Bradlaugh, walked to the Table and commenced an argument over oath and affirmation which occupied the best part of several Sessions, and resulted in the greatest possible uproar. The reports of those debates will produce for my noble and learned friend a variety of opinions about the importance of the oath, which will make most instructive reading, and enable him to consider again the implications of this matter.
There was another case raised in the reminiscences of a New York lawyer engaged in the trial of a Tong, where there were 25 Chinese witnesses. The first Chinese witness demanded to take the oath over the newly-severed head of a chicken, and by the end of the second day they found that they had run out of chickens and the case had to be adjourned until the rest of the Tong were able to take their oaths.
My information is now out of date and I do not know the elaborate provisions of the oath, but they provide an interesting literary subject and it may be that there are matters connected with them which the House could consider on the Report stage. As I understand the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I entirely sympathise with it, but I do not think anyone wants to press the matter at this moment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My recollection is that Parliament has dealt with the question of saucers and chickens by the Oaths Act 1961. Therefore, this is no longer a cause for adjournments, and the case which the noble Lord, Lord Hale, mentioned must have been before that date. I am grateful for the interest which has been shown in this Amendment, and for the support that I have received. To start with, I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was inquiring into my own religious beliefs, but now that it is only a matter of drafting I can easily apologise for that. It is interesting that this seems to be the first time that this matter has been discussed in Parliament. Therefore, it certainly would not be my wish to try to draw it to any kind of conclusion today, and I shall in a moment beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The only point that concerns me is that if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would like a rather wider debate about the matter, I entirely agree with him and would not wish, upon the basis of a comparatively short discussion this afternoon, to enter into a change in the law which is bound to raise feelings, in one way or the other, in a number of people. How does he suggest we might draw in the public, so that they might discuss it? I do not know how many of them read our Official Report, still less how many will persevere with the Committee stage of this Bill. But if he has any suggestions I should be glad to fall in with them, and perhaps he can think of some method of doing it. Otherwise, I am afraid that the matter is likely to drop and we shall miss the opportunity to make a small but worth while Amendment. Has the noble and learned Lord any ideas?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no precise idea worked out. I should have thought that this was a problem, as this noble House has expressed some interest in the matter, for Ministers to pursue and seek to gauge opinion in whatever way they can. I am afraid that I have not followed it through with any precision. I am very willing that we should return to it at Report stage, if only to enable me to elucidate that direct question in the meantime.
I confess that my sympathies are with the Amendment, and I am afraid that
502
my speech may have not clarified the fact that it is an Amendment that seeks not to abolish the oath, but to eliminate the embarrassment which has been so graphically illustrated by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner in that perfectly shocking story which, as he was apparently counsel in the case, inevitably ended to the satisfaction of the appellant.
But I am very willing to look at the matter again at the Report stage. An Amendment which would eliminate the drafting difficulty could be prepared. There are two references to "religious belief" in Section 1 of the Oaths Act and if it were simply amended to read
"every person shall be permitted to make a solemn affirmation instead of taking the oath",
we could then discuss it, without the embarrassment of the religious convictions of any of us being called in question. Finally, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having brought this matter forward, and I hope that we shall be able to proceed in that way.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I will take the advice of those who have drafted this correctly for me. It is obviously much better to have it set out in that way, than to do it by reference. Unless anything very strange happens, I will put it down for another try at Report stage in order to enable a number of other people to take part. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Citation etc.]:
4.49 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 18, line 19, at end insert ("section 24;").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to add Clause 24 to the list of clauses which by virtue of subsection (4) of Clause 27 will come into force one month after Royal Assent. I can say, by way of comfort to noble Lords who will be concerned with further business, that most of the remaining Amendments are of a highly technical character. Therefore, it may be that we shall not encroach upon

503
their patience too much in the remaining Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 18, line 21, leave out ("Subject to subsection (4) above, this Act") and insert ("The provisions of this Act, except section 26 above, this section and the sections mentioned in subsection (4) above,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment ensures that Clauses 26 and 27, containing the formal parts of the Act, will come into force immediately on Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Lord GARDINER: I hope I shall not be in any way embarrassing my noble and learned friend if I ask him whether he has any rough idea of when those sections, which are not coming into force a month after the Bill receives Royal Assent, will come into force. I think I am right in saying that this applies to Clauses 3, 12, 13, 15(1), 15(3), 17(1), 17(2), 17(3), 17(5), 18, 19, 22 and 23. My belief is that of recent years this practice has very steadily increased. Speaking as an ex-Minister, administratively it is extremely convenient. It means that you can take plenty of time; you do not have to bring a particular section into force until you have all the machinery available. In many cases there is a very good reason for it, and it is very good practice. On the other hand, it very much increases the power of the Executive over that of Parliament.
To take one quite recent example, three or four years ago the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and I, and others, persuaded this House—and the other House was similarly persuaded—that a highway is divisible into two. In law there is the carriageway and there is the footway. The carriageways are for vehicles and the footways for pedestrians. We were saying that the quite recent habit of many motorists, because they cannot find somewhere to park on the carriageway, of parking their motor cars on the pavement could be very dangerous to the infirm and particularly to the blind and old people, who very often have to step out into the road to get round the cars. They cannot go along the footway because it is blocked by vehicles. Parliament accepted that argument and said that
504
each local authority was to have a list—because in country districts it may be perfectly all right—of the places where motorists must not park their motorcars on the pavement.
This was three to four years ago, but because there was the provision that sections could be brought into force at any time the Minister liked, the Minister has never liked. It gives the Minister power to sweep away something which Parliament with some care has passed, wants done and believes that it has made law; but it is never done at all because the Minister does not like it or—as in this case, I believe—because the local authority said that it would be a bother. This is a pretty high proportion, is it not, of all the clauses in the Bill? We have no idea at all when they are going to come into force.
In one of the current week's legal papers there is an article on how difficult it is for solicitors and others to find out what parts of an Act are in force and what parts of an Act are not in force. Therefore, without wishing to complain in any way, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend could give us a very rough idea—assuming that he really does intend to make such an order in respect of all these other sections—of whether he has it in mind to make an order in respect of them in, say, three months' time, or whether we are to anticipate a series of commencement orders, which, as I have said, create a little difficulty for practising lawyers.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I cannot resist joining the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in his remarks about bringing Acts of Parliament into force at different times. I do not know about it either administratively or executively, but from the point of view of the practitioner it is a nightmare. The other day I had to look up whether a certain Statute, or certain parts of it, had come into force. With some difficulty I found the Commencement No. 4 Order, and, timed about 18 months before that, I eventually discovered the Commencement No. I Order. To this day I cannot find the Commencement Nos. 2 and 3 Orders, and I do not know whether there is a Commencement No. 5 Order. How one is supposed to tell clients whether

505
important provisions are or are not law, I do not know; and that is even after looking up all the places to which fairly well-informed lawyers normally resort. This is something which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has rightly put his finger on as being an increasing menace to a proper knowledge of the law.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I sympathise again with the speeches which have just been made, but the difficulty we are in is that, except for these two clauses, the provisions of the Bill require rules to be laid. While naturally we shall try to combine in one rule as many of the provisions as can be happily wedded together in one, and shall do so as soon as is practicable, I am afraid that I cannot give a time estimate. However, I am very anxious that these changes, which will improve the administration of justice in the special ways we are indicating, should take place as soon as possible. I can give that assurance to my noble and learned friend. This is part of the price one pays for deciding to legislate by exercise of a rule-making power. Of course, it has the great benefit of flexibility and of meeting unexpected situations without one having to go through the log-jam of passing a special Act of Parliament to deal with the situation. A rule-making power has its advantage in that way, as I think will be readily recognised. All I can say is that I shall do my best to ensure that the rules are introduced as soon as may be.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.57 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 18, line 33, leave out ("18") and insert ("(Membership of Rule Committees)").
The noble and learned Lord said: The new clause "Membership of Rule Committees", which is to be inserted after Clause 18 by Amendment No. 5, applies only to England and Wales. The effect of the Amendment is to include this clause among those listed in subsection (7) of Clause 27 which extend to England and Wales only. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 13 to 17:
Page 18, line 36, leave out ("above so far as it relates") and insert ("and (4) above so far as they relate").
Page 19, line 3, leave out ("above so far as it relates") and insert ("and (4) above so far as they relate")
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)")
Page 19, line 11, after ("extends") insert ("only")
Page 19, line 13, leave out subsection (11).
The noble and learned Lord said: With permission, I ask for leave to move Amendments Nos. 13 to 17 en bloc. They are technical drafting Amendments to subsections (7), (8) and (9) of Clause 27 which do not affect the substance of the Bill in any way. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Legal aid, advice and assistance]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 20, line 32, leave out ("that") and insert ("such conduct on the part").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment makes a small grammatical improvement to the new section which paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 substitutes for Section 12 of the Legal Aid Act 1974. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 21, line 36, leave out ("the conduct") and insert ("such conduct on the part").
The noble and learned Lord said: This does the same for Scotland as the previous Amendment. It improves the grammar of the new provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of enactments relating to determination of expenses et cetera]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 23, line 26, after ("words") insert ("the").
The noble and learned Lord said: Again, this is an Amendment simply to improve the grammar of paragraph 13(1)(a)

507
of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, as amended by paragraph 6(a) of Schedule 2 to the Bill, by removing the definite article which would be otiose in the new context. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 24, leave out lines 3 to 11 and insert—
("(a) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5):—
"(5A) Allowances payable under this section shall be paid at rates determined by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service."; and
(b) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (7)(a):—
"(a) for prescribing the forms to be used and the particulars to be provided for the purpose of claiming payment of allowances;".
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is, first, to improve the drafting of paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 and to qualify the words, "determined by the Secretary of State" with the words, "with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service". This Amendment reflects the usual practice of requiring Treasury agreement for new rates of allowances. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 2, as amended, shall be the second Schedule to the Bill?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I wish to ask one short question on this Schedule. So far as the scales of costs to be paid out of public funds under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act are concerned, at the moment the solicitors—and I can quite see that they have a very special interest in this—are represented on the Rules Committee which determines the schedules of costs, and in future it is proposed to do this by administrative action only. Can the noble and learned Lord say a word about what safeguards there will be; whether there will be consultation and what chances the solicitors have of having their view put into effect by the administrative machinery rather than the the present machinery?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I apprehend that there will be consultation, but I
508
should like to look into this point and communicate with the noble Viscount in regard to it. I cannot think that we shall proceed without the usual consultation.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Maintenance Orders]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 27, line 1, leave out from ("words") to end of line 4 and insert ("from "to" in the first place where it occurs to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words:—

"(a) to the prescribed officer of the court by which the order was made, and

(b) to the prescribed officer of any court in which it is registered under Part I of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958.

(3A) On receipt of a notice under subsection (3) above—

(a) any such officer as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection shall cause particulars of the notice to be registered in his court in the prescribed manner; and

(b) any such officer as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection shall cause particulars of the notice to be registered in his court in the prescribed manner and shall cancel the registration of the order".")

The noble and learned Lord said: Schedule 3 to the Bill contains a number of Amendments to the 1950 and 1958 Maintenance Orders Acts which would make it easier for a woman in Scotland or Northern Ireland to enforce her maintenance order in England and Wales. Under this scheme an order can be registered, for example, in the High Court in England under the 1950 Act and re-registered under the 1958 Act in a magistrates' court. When the registration of the order in the High Court is cancelled, machinery must be provided for the cancellation of the re-registration in the magistrates' court. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide the necessary machinery by requiring the court in which a registration is cancelled to inform any other court in which the order has been re-registered, whereupon the re-registration is cancelled also. It is very difficult to understand. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 27, line 26, after ("separation") insert ("and aliment").
The noble and learned Lord said: Reference is made in line 26 to "an action for separation" but the reference should be to "an action for separation and aliment", which is the description of the Scottish action for separation and maintenance. This Amendment makes the necessary correction. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 27, line 34. after ("enforced") insert ("orders").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment makes a purely grammatical correction by inserting the word "orders" where it has been omitted after the word "enforced" in line 34. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 32 en bloc.
Page 33, leave out lines 8 and 9.
Page 33, line 17, at end insert—

("1975 c.20

District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975

In section 17(1), the words "at the prescribed rates" and "at the prescribed rate".")

Page 33, leave out line 46.
Page 35, line 22, column 3, at beginning insert—

("in section 99(4), the words "being members of the General Council of the Bar."")

Page 35, line 27, at end insert—

("18&19 Geo. 5 c. 26

Administration of Justice Act 1928

Section 15")

Page 35 leave out lines 40 to 42.
Page 36, line 15, at end insert—

"1972 c. 67

Companies (Floating Charges and Receivers) (Scotland) Act 1972

Section 15(4)")

Page 36, line 17, at end insert—

("1973 c. 18

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

In section 50, the words "being members of the General Council of the Bar."")

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 25 to 32 form a series of necessary but technical Amendments which merely tidy up the repeal schedule and are largely consequential on earlier Amendments. With the leave of the Committee I beg to move Amendments 25 to 32 en bloc, with a willingness to explain any one of them if desired by noble Lords. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Maybray-King): The Amendments will be placed in a different order from that which is on the Marshalled List. After Amendment No. 27 there will follow Amendment No. 30, then No. 28, then 31, then 29 and then 32. That alteration is purely technical.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

CONTROL OF FOOD PREMISES (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.7 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is intended to update the law in Scotland so far as that law concerns hygiene in food shops and similar establishments. The Act concerned is the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 and regulations under that Act empower local authority food inspectors to ban any business which is carried out where they believe insanitary conditions are prevalent. There is a problem in implementing any measure which is ordered by the food inspectors and of course it is the age-old problem of the length of time which is involved in the necessary legal provisions.
In the cases concerning us, there is a major risk to public health and I believe that for that reason the Bill seeks to empower the courts to close that business.

511
At the moment the owner may be prosecuted, he may be able to pay a fine and then he can continue what could be—and probably in most cases is—a most profitable and lucrative business. The power of closure already exists in England and Wales for such premises; that is, empowered under the Food Premises Act of 1976 and we are now seeking to amend the law in Scotland so as to come into line with the higher standards of food hygiene.
The controls which are proposed in the Bill would empower the Procurator Fiscal to issue a closure order prohibiting any food activities, any preparation of food, selling and processing of such food, until such time as the local authorities are satisfied that any danger to health has been removed. An interim closure order is permitted to be issued where a prosecution is pending or is indeed in progress. I hope the House will bear with me if I go through the clauses of the Bill as briefly as I can.
Clause 1 deals with the issue of a closure order, who may issue it, how it can be done, the time limits for closing the premises, and, when the danger to health has, one hopes, ultimately been removed, for the order to be rescinded. Clause 2 gives power to the Procurator Fiscal to issue an interim closure order. As with a closure order, there remains the period of notice to be given before the order can take effect, which is seven days. Again this particular clause gives the grounds for closure and the measures to be taken in order to lift the order.
Clause 3 covers the important area of appeals, by both the Procurator Fiscal and, of course, the owner of the premises or the stall or the vehicle. The appeal lies to the High Court in the case of a closure order but to the sheriff principal where we have an interim closure order; and, of course, the rights of the aggrieved owner of premises are safeguarded further in the Bill. I think it would be fair to your Lordships to point out that there is a strong possibility that the appeals procedure as outlined in this clause may not, as we see it, achieve what the appeals procedure seeks to achieve. Therefore, we may require an amendment at a later stage in the Bill. I refer to this in passing.
Clause 4 of the Bill sets out the penalties for a breach of an order, be it a closure
512
order or an interim closure order, and indeed the persons to whom those penalties shall apply. Clause 5 deals with the procedures involved in serving notices of orders. Clause 6 contains the relevant definitions and the references to the appropriate authorities who are to implement the provisions of the Bill. Clause 7 extends the Bill's provisions to what I should like to call floating premises; in other words, it is intended that it shall apply to ships. Clause 8 is the short title.
My Lords, I hope I have not wearied the House, because I deem it courteous to give a brief explanation of the clauses as we go through the Bill this afternoon. In general, the Bill has the support of a number of very important bodies. It has the support of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Institute of Environmental Health, and, of course, the Scottish Food Hygiene Council. What is even more welcome is that the Government have given their valuable support to implement this measure. For this I am most grateful, and indeed I am equally grateful for the expert advice I have received from all quarters. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Lyell.)
5.12 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing this Bill. I am glad to confirm what the noble Lord said, that the Government support this Bill warmly. It is a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by the honourable Member for Ayr. It appears to us to be a useful and uncontroversial measure, and it should close a loophole in the law. The Bill follows closely the provisions of the Control of Food Premises Act 1976, which applies in England and Wales. It seeks to remedy weaknesses in the powers given to courts in Scotland under the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 and the associated Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations. As the noble Lord has said, it would enable the court to prohibit the operator of a food business from carrying on his business at premises which the court, on hearing evidence from local authority officers and the owner, is satisfied are insanitary. At present the

513
position is not satisfactory in that such businesses can continue to function with a serious risk to public health during the full legal proceedings leading to a conviction for contravention of the Food Hygiene Regulations.
As the noble Lord has said, the Bill had wide support in Scotland from local authorities, the Scottish Food Hygiene Council, food trades, and consumer and other interests. Generally, the Government feel that the effect of the Bill would be wholly good, as it would give support to local enforcement authorities in their efforts to ensure that food premises are up to standard, and it could be expected that the powers would be used sparingly and sensibly. As I said, the Bill has the full support of the Government. It had a trouble-free passage in another place. We hope that your Lordships will give it your support, so that it may have an equally speedy and free passage through this House and be brought into law in time for the summer.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INSURANCE BROKERS (REGISTRATION) BILL
5.15 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill which is fairly simple and I think mainly non-controversial. It is to provide for registration of insurance brokers; it is to provide regulation of their professional standards; and it is, above all, to protect the public on the rare occasions when a broker undertakes something which might be called wrongdoing. All the four insurance bodies concerned with broking—and they make up something like 90 per cent. of the market, with an annual turnover of £4,000 million in 1975—support this Bill. Incidentally, I would add that the net foreign exchange earnings from this vast sum was in 1975 £452 million. This contribution for the whole industry, of which broking produces the dominant part, is the largest contribution of invisible earnings for the United Kingdom. So it is a very worthwhile industry and it has had remarkable success on a world basis in the last decade.
514
The Bill passed through the House of Commons, where it was sponsored by Mr. John Page, the honourable Member for Harrow West, and there it had the support of the Opposition Front Bench, it had the support of the Government Front Bench; there was a Liberal name on the original Bill, and a Scot. Nat. working on the Committee who also gave it support. So it is right and fair to say that it had all-Party support and Scottish National support as well.
Your Lordships might ask, why some regulation? Following an initiative by the Tory Government in 1973, in May 1975 the present Government requested the insurance broking industry to work out a scheme for self-regulation, as an alternative—and this is the point—to an imposed Government licensing scheme. I think many would prefer the self-regulating scheme rather than the latter. This scheme is designed to protect the public, and it is open to all types of insurance brokers, from the largest, with more than 4,000 employees, to the many small firms with just one person. There have been immense pains taken during its passage through the House of Commons and by those concerned with the drafting to ensure that the very small traders are catered for and are protected. Two out of the four bodies which make up the BIBA (British Insurance Brokers' Association) look after the wellbeing of small firms—they represent the small firms. Of the 1,868 firms within those two bodies 742 are run by a single trader. If you include also the firms with two or three people the number is over 1,000 out of the 1,800.
I would say that in terms of representation on the Council half the votes go to the two bodies representing the small firms, so the small firms' interest is well looked after by those two bodies. Equally, the Registration Council seems to be broadly representative; 12 people are nominated by the BIBA, and five nominated by the Secretary of State, and these have to include a lawyer and an accountant. Perhaps the Minister, when he replies, or at some stage during the passage of the Bill, will say whether the Government have given further thought to a consumers' representative on the Registration Council.
Meticulous care has also been taken so as not to exclude any person who has the necessary experience of broking.

515
Indeed, a special provision has been included so that an applicant cannot be prevented from trading under the description of "insurance broker" for two years after the Royal Assent is given to this Bill. This format is similar to that which has been in existence for several decades for solicitors. Solicitors have professional indemnity cover; under the Bill there is the same requirement. They have an annual levy for a compensation or guarantee fund; the same applies here. They have certain accounting rules; the same applies here. They have a self-regulating disciplinary committee; the same sort of motif is followed in this Bill. Therefore, I commend this sensible measure to the House, and I hope that it will be given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Orr-Ewing.)
5.21 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, first, may I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, on introducing this Bill today after its successful passage which he has described, through another place in the hands of Mr. John Page. Noble Lords would wish to know that although the Government did not inspire the Bill, they have welcomed and supported it through its various stages and we are convinced of its merits and readily commend it to the House. As the noble Lord said, it is supported by the British Insurance Brokers' Association and, moreover, in another place the Bill was widely welcomed, receiving active support on all sides.
The Government fully recognise the vital role played by the British insurance industry as a whole in our economy—not least its contribution to our invisible earnings. The Government are therefore concerned that the reputation of the industry, and of the brokers who play such an important part in its smooth functioning, should be enhanced. One aim of this Bill is to improve the status and professionalism of insurance brokers, and this the Government welcome. The whole area of intermediaries is one where there have been substantial developments over the last couple of years—developments for which much credit is due to both the Government and the brokers themselves.
516
It was my right honourable friend Mr. Peter Shore (who was then Secretary of State for Trade) who, in 1975, took the initiative in asking the four brokers' organisations to look at the problem of setting up standards for insurance broking. This gave the impetus to the four organisations to join together in the British Insurance Brokers' Council, which is now the Association—a step which the Government welcomed. This same initiative of the Government led to the drawing up of the Council's very constructive proposals last year; and this in turn has already produced two further developments. The Government produced their Consultative Paper on Insurance Intermediaries and we have the Bill that we are debating this evening.
The Government are not only concerned to maintain the health of the insurance industry, but also wish to give better protection to the policyholder. In this respect the present Bill is very much in line with Government thinking. In recent years the insurance companies legislation has been used progressively to tighten up supervision of companies and raise the standards of selling. Consumer protection is particularly important in insurance. For the man in the street insurance is a very difficult and rather unglamorous commodity; yet it is often vital to his welfare and can cost him a great deal of money. It is thus important that he should be persuaded to buy it and that what he is persuaded to buy is what he really needs.
This faces us with a dilemma. On the one hand, it is clearly desirable that a salesman should be familiar with what he is selling and, as insurance is so complicated and large sums of money are often at stake, this points to the insurance salesman having a certain minimum of training and experience as well as integrity. On the other hand, because insurance is essential to the citizen of today to enable him to protect himself and his family from the risks of everyday life, it is also important not to limit unduly the number of insurance sales outlets. We must be cautious in introducing controls therefore, otherwise the ordinary citizens may not buy the insurance cover which he ought in his own interests to have.
That is why the Government favour the step by step approach put forward in their

517
Consultative Paper and reflected in the provisions of the Bill. The Government's reaction to the proposals of the British Insurance Brokers' Council were set out in paragraph 11 of the Government's Consultative Paper, which states:
"The Government thinks that these proposals can provide the basis for a practicable and effective scheme of self-regulation, but the details need further debate and elaboration, and it is hoped that publication of the [brokers' consultative] document will stimulate this. The Government accordingly invites comment on the document's proposals … Full account will be taken of the comments received before the Government endorses any particular scheme".
The present Bill was introduced very shortly after the Government issued their Consultative Paper. I should like to point out that our commitment to genuine consultations and our support for immediate legislation are not in compatible. As paragraph 13 of the Paper makes clear, the Government support for legislation on this subject has throughout been conditional on their restrictive provisions coming into force only after public consultation has been completed and the results taken into account.
Comments were called for by the end of March and I am glad to say that a large number of organisations and individuals have taken advantage of this invitation. In so far as they related to the regulation of brokers, the comments that we received fell into two groups. First, there were many comments on the regulation of insurance brokers that will have to be taken into account when considering the detailed rules made by the Council but which are not relevant to the Bill itself. For example, comments came from people who are concerned about the possible cost of registration, about the amount of working capital that will be required of registered brokers, and about the level of professional indemnity insurance that will be called for. But the Bill does not lay down any specific requirements in these areas; it simply provides for the Council to make rules after it has been set up. These rules will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State, and I can assure the House that before he gives his approval he will wish to satisfy himself that the Council has taken proper account of this sort of comment, and particularly of the legitimate interest of the small man in carrying on his business without the imposition of unreasonable burdens.
518
Secondly, there were comments concerning the provisions of the Bill itself. The Government have considered these carefully and in so far we have been able to do so, we have taken account of them in the Amendments already made to the Bill in another place. More generally, we were gratified to note that very few of those who wrote expressed complete opposition to the regulation of brokers. A large majority of comments accepted the case for some measure of regulation and for it to be done by the brokers themselves rather than by a scheme imposed from outside. Most of those who wrote were generally content with the framework provided in the Bill, subject sometimes to criticism of details and to the drafting of appropriate rules under the powers provided. Noble Lords will have seen that much is left to rules to be made under the Bill by the Registration Council. There will of course be ample safeguards built into this approach since the rules drawn up by the Council will have to be approved first by the Secretary of State, and then by Parliament.
There are several important matters on which the Government will want to satisfy themselves in considering the detailed implementation of the provisions of the Bill; for example, the code of conduct under Clause 10 will be of central importance. The first step towards protecting the policyholder, in the Goverment's view, must be to create a clear distinction between the two kinds of people who sell insurance. I mean, on the one hand those who are engaged by a particular company to sell that company's policies—that is what may be termed the "insurance agent"—and on the other, those who aim to meet the public's need for impartial, expert help in choosing what they need from all the different policies on offer. That is what is meant by "insurance broker".
In order to bring about this distinction, what is needed is to establish the insurance broker in the public mind as someone in whose expertise and integrity they may have full confidence. The Bill, in Clause 22, provides that in due course the name "insurance broker" will be reserved for those registered under the scheme. The Government's Consultative Paper accepts the case for this. If the public is to be able to make the necessary distinction easily then the registered brokers must

519
have a name to set them apart from others. There may be some who may dispute the need for any regulation at all, on the grounds that there is little at present wrong with insurance broking, or, that if there is something wrong the cure is worse than the disease. The Government do not accept this view. At present ordinary people, in buying insurance through intermediaries, often do not know where they stand. Virtually anyone can open an office and call himself an insurance broker, or adviser or consultant. At the worst a man who calls himself an insurance broker may in fact know little about insurance; he may have had no business experience; he may have no financial backing, no proper accounting procedures for handling his client's money; he may be intent on earning quick commission by pushing the policies of a particular insurance company without regard to his client's needs. But the man-in-the-street with an insurance problem has no way of distinguishing such a person from the experienced, sound and independent broker he is really looking for. This Bill will enable him to make that distinction.
Moreover, if a policyholder today has a cause of complaint against a broker who happens not to be a member of one of the established brokers' organisations, there is nowhere he can go for redress—except to the courts, and that may entail considerable delay and expense. If there is a body with which all insurance brokers must be registered, and if, as the Bill envisages, there must be a procedure for dealing with complaints, it becomes much easier for the policyholder with a legitimate complaint to have it satisfactorily dealt with.
Again, those who handle other people's money on trust should be under some form of supervision. This principle is already accepted in respect of credit intermediaries under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It has been accepted for over a century in respect of insurance companies. There can be no reason to deny the same principle in the case of brokers who receive insurance premiums from policyholders and who sometimes handle money due to those policyholders by way of claims or benefits. The policyholder has a right to expect certain standards of honesty and sound management from all
520
who handle his money, and to be protected from the results of incompetence, fraud or insolvency if they occur.
My Lords, may I sum up. The Government have been encouraged by the discussions on the Bill during the last three months, both inside and outside Parliament. The Bill, as has been said, has been widely welcomed. It provides an adaptable piece of machinery for the effective regulation of brokers by a council composed largely of their own representatives but subject in certain respects to the safeguards of Government and Parliamentary approval. As I have indicated, the Bill is consistent with Government policy. It is sound and sensible in itself. It is drafted in a flexible and realistic way to deal with a complex situation and to allow for future developments. I should therefore like again to congratulate the Promoters of the Bill, and the noble Lord himself this afternoon, and to commend it to the House for a Second Reading.
5.36 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest, for I am a director of the life and pensions subsidiary company of a firm of Lloyd's brokers. I have in fact been involved in insurance broking in the life and pensions field for over 18 years, and occupied in life insurance and pensions business, both broking, and before that with two life offices for 26 years. Like the noble Lord, Lord Oram, I want to express support for the Bill, the Second Reading of which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, this afternoon.
In recent years we have seen the regulation of insurance companies by the Insurance Companies Act 1974. We have seen safeguards and a safety net established for the policyholder in the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, an Act which embraces insurance brokers as well as insurance companies. But, as has already been pointed out to your Lordships, the position with regard to intermediaries has remained unregulated and unsatisfactory. In particular, the term "insurance broker", implying that the user of that description chooses freely from the market when giving his client advice, is open to anyone to use regardless of qualification, experience, character or financial stability.

521
There is a great need, in the words of the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill,
"to establish a system of registration of insurance brokers so as to ensure that, for the protection of the public, the competence and conduct of practising insurance brokers are of a sufficiently high standard and that their financial resources are adequate".
In other words, there is a need for insurance broking to be put on a professional basis. I am glad that it is going to be possible to do this by self-regulation. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the principle of self-regulation.
As we have been told, the Bill is founded on proposals put forward by the British Insurance Brokers Council, now the British Insurance Brokers Association, which is composed of four bodies of insurance brokers: the Lloyds Insurance Brokers Association; the Corporation of Insurance Brokers; the Association of Insurance Brokers; and the Federation of Insurance Brokers. As the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, pointed out, the last two are particularly significant, for they include many small brokers. The smaller insurance brokers have an important role of their own. Often they are prepared to handle risks which the bigger brokers think are too small for them to deal with, and in that respect the smaller broker can give a vital personal service. We must see that any financial burden placed on them in the Bill is not excessive, but all the signs are that they fully support the attitude of the four associations in the British Insurance Brokers' Association.
It has been argued that in introducing this measure of registration we are creating the possibility of the danger of a closed shop, but I do not think that is correct. Registration will be open to all who are able to qualify and any who are refused registration will have recourse to the appeal procedure to the High Court. And those who do not qualify may still remain in business, but they must not call themselves insurance brokers. Although they can carry on as agents for particular companies, and no doubt as agents for several companies, perhaps the position is just a little more complicated that it might have appeared from what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said, in that one can have somebody continuing in business
522
once this legislation is established who is acting as an agent for a number of companies and not for one. However, he must not use the title "insurance broker".
Indeed, as I understand it the Government recognise that something needs to be done to deal with the position of agents, and I believe it is their view that agents should be dealt with through the companies which appoint them. It may be necessary to have some generally agreed rules for companies in dealing with their agents so that all companies will apply some rules, although the remaining rules which each company has may be such as suit their own particular needs. Those who use the term "insurance broker" will be qualified within the terms of the Bill, by experience or by academic qualification or by both, and it may be desirable although, as I understand it, this is not provided for in the Bill—to phase in a requirement for all new applicants for registration after a certain date, and perhaps under a certain age, to have an academic qualification such as the Associateship of the Chartered Insurance Institution.
However, all registered insurance brokers will be subject to the regulations designed to ensure financial solvency and stability, governed by the degree of professional discipline provided for in the Bill and guided by a code of conduct. I feel that that code of conduct will have to deal with, among other things, the question of doorstep selling. I am aware that that is dealt with in other legislation but, in so far as it is something in which some brokers take part, it will have to he covered very carefully in the code of conduct. Similarly, sales campaigns will have to come within the purview of the code; the degree to which policies of a particular company should be promoted in such campaigns will need consideration, along with the whole question of advertising and the content of advertisements.
There is no definition of "insurance broker" in the Bill. The British Insurance Brokers' Association has accepted the definition in the EEC Directive in which insurance brokers are described as:
"… persons who, acting with complete freedom as to their choice of undertaking, bring together with a view to the insurance or reinsurance of risks persons seeking insurance or reinsurance, and insurance or reinsurance undertakings, carry

523
out work preparatory to the conclusion of contracts of insurance or reinsurance, and, where appropriate, assist in the administration and performance of such contracts, in particular in the event of claim".
That is a good definition. It speaks of persons acting with complete freedom as to their choice of undertaking, but it does not say on what they would base their choice; it does not say that their object should be to get the best terms possible for their clients. With that addition, I think the definition is excellent. I am sure that it is in the spirit of that revised definition that the Bill has been drawn up, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading today.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I wish at the outset to congratulate my noble friend on the succinct and yet comprehensive way in which he introduced the Bill. It is a measure which will have important consequences and at the same time it is not without its difficulties, as can be gauged from the fact that, besides its Second Reading in the other place, the Bill occupied a Standing Committee for no less than three sittings and required two further appearances on Report before it finally gained its Third Reading. I should declare an interest, albeit an indirect one, in that I am a director of a composite insurance company. Although the Bill does not directly affect insurance companies, insurance companies are vitally affected by insurance brokers and therefore in turn they will be indirectly affected by the measure.
Although, as I have said it is a complex and technical Bill, it is nevertheless a Private Member's Bill and I suppose that in order to commend it to the House the sponsors should, in strict circumstances, satisfy your Lordships of two matters: first, that there is need for the Bill and, secondly, that its provisions go some way to fulfilling that need. So far as the need or justification is concerned, it is relevant to reflect that this measure is one more law which will, I presume, go on to an already overloaded Statute Book. It will provide one more set of regulations in a commercial activity which is the personification of initiative, enterprise and—as I look at the noble Lord, Lord Oram, dare I say it?—private enterprise.
524
This is certainly a consumers' Bill and one sometimes has the feeling that Parliament has swung from being perhaps far from heedful of the consumer interest to an almost over-solicitous desire to protect the citizen from his fellow. Nevertheless, the Government earlier this year produced a White Paper on insurance intermediaries, as they are called, and that term includes brokers. In Part IV of the Annexe to that White Paper the areas of concern were spelt out and for me at any rate provided conclusive argument that some form of regulation of brokers is essential.
Perhaps there are three facets to the argument which particularly struck me. First, a contract of insurance is usually technical and frequently complex. At the same time, while the broker will be an expert or at any rate sound like one, the individual who employs him or seeks his advice most certainly will not. In the result, it is difficult for the individual in such circumstances to assess not only the quality but indeed the honesty of the broker and the services he provides. Still more, importantly, is it difficult to assess the value of his advice. Secondly, even if the broker is doing his honest best, one is struck by the fact that a mistake or miscalculation on his part may have severe and indeed calamitous effects on the clients. Thirdly, financial failure by the broker, whether by fraud or honesty, may cause loss to the client who, at the moment at any rate, may be unable to recover his money. It is in the light of the White Paper and the recommendations that the Bill comes before your Lordships' House.
I am delighted that the regulation proposed is self-regulation from within and not regulation imposed by Statute from without. I must say that my opinion of the Government goes up a trifle at the fact that the industry itself will have the task of setting up the machinery and thereafter running it. Rather to my surprise, the Government seem to be agreeable to that course, which is at variance with other attitudes which the Government frequently adopt towards the regulation of private enterprise.
Nevertheless, there are still some areas of concern, some of which were ventilated by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. The Bill is limited in scope, in that it makes no

525
attempt to deal with other intermediaries such as agents. As I understand the position, insurance agents are an entirely different breed and will continue to trade and sell insurance although they will, in effect, be disbarred from calling themselves brokers unless they qualify for registration. Equally, brokers who are struck off or who fail to have themselves registered can continue to trade but with a different label. If the new arrangements are to have much impact or, indeed, useful effect, the public must be educated so that it knows the meaning of the term "insurance broker" and what standards and safeguards it implies.
On the other side of the coin, it would be unfortunate if the term "agent" came to be used in a second-rate or derogatory sense, because there are many agents—for instance, with insurance companies—who have high standards of integrity and expertise and who give an excellent service to the public. The line between the broker and the insurance agent is inevitably ill-defined and I suppose that, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, the answer will eventually be to have some form of further legislation. The difficulties of even the definition of the word "agent" are profound, still more so when one reflects where his legal liability or legal responsibility will lie.
Turning to the provisions of the Bill, I am not sure how far the criticisms by Richard Milner in the Sunday Times yesterday are justified. It may be a matter that my noble friend may care to pronounce upon when he replies to the debate. As I see it, if the Council refuses to register a person because it is not satisfied as to his character and suitability under Clause 3(2)(a), there is a right of appeal to the court. The Council would have to justify its decision, but I hope that my noble friend will confirm that the clause is meaningful and not a charade as was made out in the Sunday Times. To me at any rate, it seems that, if the Council fails to give its reasons for refusal of an application for registration, the subsequent appeal will almost inevitably succeed.
The matter of the consumer interest came up in the other place. A suggestion was made that there should be written into the provisions of the Bill the fact that the Secretary of State should, as it
526
were, nominate officially designated consumer interests to be members of the Council. Maybe that is a matter for the Committee stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. I see the noble Lord, Lord Oram, nodding. I should have thought that in view of the Parliamentary timetable and the fact that the Bill has had a very thorough airing in the other place, it would scarcely be necessary for it to have a Committee stage at all. However, there will no doubt be one or two small points which will need clearing up. Subject to that, I believe that I am right in saying that all quarters of the House welcome the Bill, and certainly we on these Benches hope that it will have a fair passage.
5.55 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I rise to congratulate my honourable friend the Member for Harrow, West for having piloted this Bill through another place, not, as has been mentioned, without rather more difficulties than a Private Member's Bill normally encounters. I must declare a small interest, in that, since 1948, I have spent most of my working life in Lloyd's, both broking and underwriting, although Lloyd's, because it is a corporation, is not directly covered by the Bill. Nevertheless, I join with others in welcoming the Bill, if only to convince those who are still sceptical about the insurance industry that the industry itself is prepared to put its house further in order where necessary.
I believe that one of the most important aspects of the Bill is the provision of adequate working capital. That is absolutely vital, particularly for the smaller insurance companies, for there have been cases—and they are widely known—where a claim has not been met through lack of assets to pay the claim. Of course, the role of the broker is all important because it is upon him or, on occasions, her, that the client, the consumer, the policyholder or whatever description one likes to use, depends. It is therefore essential that, at a time when the insurance industry is contributing considerable sums of money to invisible exports—something like £400 million last year, of which nearly 50 per cent. came from Lloyd's of London—the insurance broker should be

527
regarded as somebody who can be completely trusted. In my experience, the vast majority of brokers are so regarded.
I believe that one of the problems of the Bill will undoubtedly be the way in which the disciplinary committee will work, since this is a self-regulating Bill. However, I believe that, as has been said, with three long Sittings in Standing Committee in another place, together with quite a long Report stage and a Third Reading, these points have been adequately covered. To those who say that this is another example of consumer protection being taken too far, I would say this: insurance, wherever it is placed, is one of the most vital assets that a person has in his or her working life, whether it be on a house, a motor car or anything else. It is therefore essential that the insurance companies have the highest possible standards. In this country there is little doubt that the vast majority have these very high standards and this Bill can be warmly commended as adding to the value of those standards for the community.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it would appear that the noble Lord concerned with the next Bill is not yet in the Chamber—I understand that he is now entering the Chamber, and that he will be with us shortly. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has missed his chance to speak again on the previous Bill.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, the list of speakers states that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, is to speak again and that I am to speak immediately after that, so having consulted my advisers I came back as quickly as possible. I apologise if I insulted the House by leaving my place during that period.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL
6 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, first I must apologise for being, as I think we say in Scotland, "furth" of the Chamber when the Bill was called, but I beg to move that
528
the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill was sponsored in another place by the honourable Member for Warwick and Leamington, and there it had the full support of the Government. I believe that at the outset we should congratulate the honourable Member for Warwick and Leamington in having brought forward the Bill, and I should like to thank the Government, on his behalf, for the valuable help that they have given to him, and for their help to me, throughout the passage of the Bill to the present time, and I look forward to similar assistance being given in your Lordships' House to the Bill, which I believe commands widespread support.
It is a Bill entirely concerned with protecting the quality of our environment, or at least preventing its deterioration, and it seeks to achieve this by making some necessary and, we believe, urgent changes in our planning legislation, particularly in relation to the enforcement of various planning controls. This aspect of planning control has been of growing concern and there are several reasons why there is pressure to make the changes proposed in the Bill. These changes follow the lines recommended in Mr. G. Dobry's Report on the Review of the Development Control System.
Noble Lords will be aware that while planning permission is required for the carrying out of the development of land, it is not an offence to do so without planning permission, and there are many good reasons why it should remain so. There are areas of fact and areas of degree, and legal points which all of us need to go into very thoroughly, and these points must be resolved before a conclusion can be reached as to whether activities on land are lawful or not, and if these activities are not lawful, whether they have become established and are therefore immune from any action to do with enforcement. In addition to this, the enforcement procedure, quite rightly, has to have regard to the various interests in land, and for this reason it has to make certain that anyone having such an interest is aware of an allegation of a breach of planning control. It has to provide an appeal procedure, and also for an appeal to the High Court on points of law, and a period for compliance after the enforcement notice takes effect. The necessity for this cumbersome and

529
often time-consuming procedure is apparent, but it has the disadvantage, if one could call it that, of allowing, in all but the circumstances I shall come to in a moment, the breach of planning control to continue throughout these proceedings, however blatant, unneighbourly, unsightly and annoying is the breach. The exception is where the breach of control involves building or engineering operations. Here local planning authorities, who are at present our custodians in these matters, have been able since 1969 to serve a stop notice prohibiting the continuation of the work beyond a short period of time. But in any other circumstances the whole procedure has to run its course before there is any power to restrain the activity in planning interests.
It seems that recent experience has shown that the major concern, and the main problem, relates to unauthorised uses of land which cause nuisance to neighbours and can also give rise to traffic and other major problems. It seems that unscrupulous operators continue to have nothing to lose in instituting various uses of land, particularly where the use requires little capital outlay, and these unscrupulous operators may do so in the knowledge that the time-scale of enforcement makes their activities profitable at the expense of the local environment. With some of the uses which cause most trouble to local planning authorities, if the operators' appeal should fail, they simply move on to another site and they carry on as before, without having any special or indeed any, regard to the effect their activities can have on the locality. I do not think that I should elaborate on this problem because noble Lords will he aware of the problem and the necessity to be able to curb what are unauthorised, and we find offensive, activities, quickly and, we hope, effectively.
It might be fair to say that the local authority associations and other bodies concerned with, or interested in, planning control matters, who have taken the opportunity of studying the proposals now enshrined in it, generally support the principles of the Bill. We ought to consider what the Bill proposes. First, subject to certain exceptions, it extends the power to serve stop notices so that they can be applied to activities which are, or form part of, a use of land in breach of planning control. The stop notice can be, and is, served on a person known to have
530
an interest in the land, or to be engaged in the activities prohibited by the notice. In addition, the authority can, where they have served a stop notice, also display what is called a site notice. This gives details of the stop notice. As a result of this, any person served with the stop notice, and where a site notice is displayed, any person who knows of the stop notice, is liable to prosecution for contravention of its requirements. Use of a building as a dwelling-house, or use of land for stationing a caravan occupied as a person's only or main residence, are excepted from the stop notice procedure. I believe that that is entirely reasonable, and in line with current thinking. In addition, the stop notice action must be taken within 12 months of the commencement of the activity unless it is connected with building or engineering operations.
As a result of the extension of the stop notice procedure to include uses of land, the Bill makes minor changes in the compensation provisions to enable occupiers, as well as those having an interest in the land, to be compensated for any loss attributable to the prohibition in the stop notice where the enforcement notice action fails on legal grounds. Finally, the Bill extends the powers of local authorities to require specified information from the owner or the occupier of the land about the uses to which the premises are put. This is frequently peculiarly in the possession of such people.
The proposals in this Bill will strengthen, we hope, the existing procedures which have proved over the years to lack the necessary flexibility and the speed to enable unauthorised uses which cause suffering, disturbance, discomfort and nuisance to neighbours, to be brought quickly under control. We hope that the Bill will enable local planning authorities to cope with the problems which have emerged in the last few years, yet at the same time provide that they must exercise great caution in using these powers—the stop notices, the site notices—because otherwise they could find themselves faced with fairly heavy compensation claims—indeed, I understand that they often find themselves faced with fairly heavy compensation claims. This is the balance struck by the provisions, and it is this which will, we hope, discourage abuse of the new powers. I hope that the

531
Bill will receive support from everywhere in your Lordships' House, as it did in another place, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Lyell.)
6.10 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for the way he has introduced this Bill, and for explaining in such clear and succinct terms the nature and objectives of this measure. As the noble Lord has indicated, the Bill extends the existing rules governing the enforcement of planning control. The planning rules play an extremely important part in maintaining the quality of our environment, but they can work only if the way the rules are applied has popular support. The encouraging and significant thing about this Bill is that it is one of those rare measures which stems from pressure from the grass roots to give authorities more power; and it is in response to this pressure that the Government are giving unqualified support to the Bill, and have made available the expertise of officials at the Department of the Environment in assisting its progress.
I do not think it is any secret to anyone, not even to those not very well versed in our planning laws, that problems have arisen in all sorts of areas due to delays and also due to certain anomalies; and this Bill, although it is a fairly modest measure, goes some way towards dealing with one of those anomalies. It is therefore both non-partisan and also, I believe, non-controversial, since the principles of the Bill are supported by the local authority associations and other responsible bodies interested in matters of planning. Moreover, it has one further blessing which the House will undoubtedly appreciate and note, I am sure, with pleasure: it is short, and an example of a Bill whose effectiveness and desirability is inversely proportional to the amount of paper it consumes.
This Bill has only five pages, but it will at one admirable stroke enable local planning authorities to take emergency
532
action to control blatant abuses of planning control—and it is these blatant abuses which have caused so much trouble and have built up to great mountains of trouble in the past. In many instances, these unauthorised activities cause very severe problems to other peøple living or working in the area, and the concern of these people is the time which elapses between the commencement of the activities and their being brought under control. This is the real crux of the problem.
In considering the Bill's proposals, my colleagues and I were very anxious that the rights of individuals were adequately protected, and we believe that this has been done in the Bill. For instance, we considered suggestions that the extended power to serve stop notices should be confined to a prescribed list of uses and activities, but the diverse range of cases showed clearly that that approach would not serve the purpose because an activity causing no problem in one location could nevertheless cause very serious problems in another. Then there was the question of compensation. The compensation provisions will make local authorities think very carefully before using stop notices, but they will be free to use them without fear of compensation if they are sure there have been breaches of planning control since 1963.
We therefore came to the conclusion that the right balance had been achieved and that overall the provisions in the Bill, limited though they are, are to be welcomed as a means of meeting a particular, urgent problem which has been coming rapidly to the fore as people generally are taking more interest in their environment. Therefore, I strongly commend to your Lordships this desirable piece of legislation, which I hope will soon become law.
6.14 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, it is sometimes a little discouraging to address a House as thin as this House is tonight—it might almost be described as emaciated, might it not?—but let me say that I am not in any way discouraged by that thought because my purpose in a few minutes this evening is to address myself particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who has sponsored this Bill, and to the

533
noble Baroness, who has given it her blessing. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I am afraid that in one respect this Bill is controversial, and I shall try to explain why.
Before I come to the text of the Bill, may I make two preliminary observations. One of the complaints which is very commonly heard these days, not only in this House but elsewhere, and indeed in the country, is that, whatever may be the merits and virtues of the legislation which is laid before us from time to time, there is a great surfeit of it, and that we are being asked to consider a far larger amount of legislation than it is within the capacity of Parliament to deal with properly. That is one complaint which is very common these days, as everybody will know. The other one, of course, is even more general a complaint; that is, that in this complex society of ours we find ourselves in a situation where the individual is set about with a forest of restrictive controls and regulations through which he very often finds his way only with great difficulty, and where, in many cases, the benefits of the regulations and the restrictions are not immediately apparent, to put it mildly.
I mention those two matters of complaint, which are a commonplace in our society today, partly because whenever sentiments of that kind are expressed in this House, and indeed in the other place, they are usually most vociferously acclaimed and supported from the Tory Benches, and I hope that that consideration will induce my Tory friends, if I have any—will induce, at any rate, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—to agree with me that a Bill which does those two things, which offends against those two sentiments (that is, which proposes to put yet another chapter on the Statute Book and which intends to impose further restrictions upon the rights of certain individuals), is a Bill which, at any rate, ought to be given considerable scrutiny before it passes through this House.
Let me say, my Lords, that I am not opposed to the general principles which are incorporated in this Bill. I understand two things very well. I understand, first of all, that Section 90 of the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act is defective, and I understand, I think correctly, why it is defective. The fact of the matter is
534
that under our planning laws "development" can mean one of two things. First, it can mean what is called in the 1971 Act "operational activities", which can be roughly translated to mean bricks and mortar, or the demolition of bricks and mortar. Secondly, under our planning laws "development" can also mean something rather different, of course. It can mean that development is assumed to take place where there is a change of user of premises or land; and under the general development order there are laid down all the different ways in which you may require planning permission because you are intending to make some change from the existing user.
I understand, therefore, that one of the reasons for this Bill is that under Section 90 of the 1971 Act you could use the stop order procedure only in the case of the bricks and mortar operations. If a person is engaged in development which consists simply of a change of user of the premises, then the stop notice procedure is not available to the planning authority. They have to have resort to the procedure of the enforcement notice and, as has been rightly said, that very often involves long delays and the damage may well be done to the environment or to the neighbourhood before the matter can be brought to a hearing at the appeal. I understand and support the importance of making a change in that regulation.
May I say further that I fully understand, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said, that this Bill very largely follows the recommendations of Mr. Dobry in his report. It would be right to say, so far as I can judge, that the Bill entirely follows his views, with one qualification. It is the qualification to which I will come back in a moment; because Mr. Dobry, in his chapter about enforcement, came to the general conclusion that the stop notice procedure ought to be extended to change of use development as compared with operational activities. He went on in his recommendation to say this:
"There is to my mind the overriding need to have an effective means of bringing offensive activities to a halt without having to wait for the months or years while appeal procedures are completed, particularly since the potential profits from the activity may encourage the developer to drag out the appeal process as long as possible".
I entirely agree with that, but the way in which that sentence differs from this

535
Bill is this. When you turn to Clause 1 of the Bill, it provides this:
"Where the local planning authority have served an enforcement notice in respect of any land, then,"—
and I leave out the immaterial words—
"they may at any time before the notice takes effect serve a further notice (in this Act referred to as a 'stop notice') …prohibiting the carrying out on the land, or on any part of it specified in the stop notice, of any activity"—
and I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the word "offensive" used by Mr. Dobry is omitted—
"so specified which is, or is included in, a matter alleged by the enforcement notice to constitute a breach of planning control".
That is the point at which it seems to me this Bill has departed from what Mr. Dobry had in mind. Perhaps I may say this. I entirely agree that there must be cases of a change of user which involve an activity which is offensive in the sense of being injurious to the neighbourhood, the environment or the people who live in the neighbourhood. Clearly there must be cases of that kind. Offensive activities are not confined to operational activities. Equally clearly—and I do not think this can he argued about—there must be many cases where there has been a change of user in premises where the activity which is then engendered is not offensive to anybody, or is only minimally offensive to anybody.
I suppose the leading example is where a person is living in a house as his home and then, perhaps, decides to venture out into some kind of small business. In the early days of establishing his business (which may be to the benefit of the local community) he uses part of his premises as an office or a place to receive clients or the like; and, at a certain stage, his change of user will amount, inevitably, to a development for which he will require planning permission. That must be the case. There will be many cases of that kind where there is a change of user (and it does not injure anybody) where it would be perfectly reasonable to allow the present law to continue; that is to say, to allow the planning authority, if they were so minded, to issue an enforcement notice and let the propriety of this activity he considered in due course on an appeal. No harm will be done to anybody unless the activity is offensive.
536
Under this Bill, since any activity which constitutes a change of user can be prohibited by a stop notice issued by the planning authority, the activity of such a person as I have described—however innocuous it may be; and even if the people living in the locality do not even know it is happening, so inoffensive is it—can be brought to an abrupt halt at 28 days' notice by the issue of a stop notice. Consider the possibilities of oppression which arise from that proposal! Supposing, as I have suggested, a man is establishing himself in business and is possibly performing some service which is of value to the local community and which they welcome, there is nothing whatever to stop the planning authority, if they are so minded or so advised, issuing a stop notice which will bring ruination on his little business and may mean that all his capital investment and plans are put at nought, quite unnecessarily, when nobody has been damaged.
It will be said that he can be compensated, perhaps, in the end. At the end of the procedure, it may be that he will be entitled to some form of compensation. But what compensation is it to a man to be told, "We have ruined your business and stopped you from engaging in a perfectly lawful exercise; but at the end of the day you may be entitled, if you can prove your case, to some kind of compensation"? It is no compensation at all.
There is an analogy here concerning the practice at the courts with regard to injunctions. As everybody knows, when a person complains that he is being injured in some way by the activities of his neighbour or anybody else, then, when he complains, if he complains, that his rights have been invaded or his privacy or his property or person interfered with improperly, he can take a civil action and go to the courts and say that he wants this case to be heard, but meanwhile, "I want this activity, this invasion of my rights, to be brought to an end and I am seeking an interim injunction".
When he does that, what are the principles which the courts apply? What the courts do is to say that the remedy of an interim injunction is not a remedy of right but a remedy at the discretion of the court. Before the court decides whether to grant the interim injunction, they have to apply

537
their minds to a number of questions, two of which are these. They must ask themselves, first: "Supposing this complainant's rights have been invaded, if we fail to give an injunction to stop the alleged invasion, will he be sufficiently compensated in damages if he can prove his case at the end of the day? "If they conclude, "Yes, he can be adequately compensated in damages or by some other relief", they will refuse the injunction. Similarly, they consider what would be the effect upon the person against whom the complaint is made if they grant an injunction stopping him from doing what he is doing. Will that have serious consequences for him? Will it involve him in great financial loss and the like?
That is what happens in a court of law. But if under this Bill the planning authorities are satisfied merely that there has been a technical breach of planning law and control, they can, without further ado, issue their injunction to the alleged offender and bring his business and operation summarily to a halt. They have not got to ask themselves: "What damage is this going to do to this man if we enjoin him against continuing with this activity?" They have not got to consider that at all, nor even whether this activity is offensive or harmful to anybody.
It may be said, and no doubt will be said, "You do not have to worry. Admittedly, we are giving these enormous and arbitrary powers to the planning authorities; but the planning authorities are made up of very reasonable people and we can rely on them to exercise their discretion in a compassionate and humane manner". There are two answers to that: one is a particular argument and the other is a more general argument. The particular argument is this. A planning authority, when it is confronted with an alleged breach of planning control, may often act in ignorance of the full facts or by inadvertence. They may not know to what extent, if at all, the activity which they are asked to stop is offensive to anybody. They may have no idea of the consequences of issuing a stop notice upon the person against whom it is issued. They may have little opportunity of ascertaining these facts for themselves, however well disposed they may be.
The more general and much more important argument is that it never well-
538
becomes a Government or indeed the Promoters of a Private Member's Bill to say: "Yes, we are admittedly vesting in an authority wide powers which can be abused, which can be oppressive, which can be capricious; but you have not to worry because they are all responsible people". I suggest that the proper approach should always be this: if you feel obliged to pass into the hands of any authority, at whatever level, powers which can be used oppressively, then, my Lords, what you ought to do is to seek every possible safeguard and write those safeguards into the Act in order to prevent, so far as you can, these powers being—
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt. I did not want to spoil his flow of argument, because he was following a logical line. Although it is a Private Member's Bill, it has the support of the Government and it is only fair that I should intervene. I accept that Dobry, in his report, referred to bringing offensive activities to a stop; but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who is well aware and well versed in these matters, knows how very difficult it is to define offensiveness in one place where it would not be offensive in another.
The noble Lord said that he saw the need for a provision of this sort in our planning law and I appreciate the motivation behind what he is suggesting; but it would mean, first, that there would be even more delay; the local planning authorities would be even more tentative about doing anything about it; the magistrates would have to decide on the question of offensiveness, and the Secretary of State would also have to do that. It seems that he is nullifying trying to promote any further progress in this area of the law.
If the agreed developer has the opportunity of showing on appeal against an enforcement notice that the authority were mistaken, and if a stop notice was served in connection with it, he will be compensated if they were wrong in law and he suffered loss through his prohibition. So he has a comeback. How otherwise, my Lords, do you find this balance between the local planning authority being able to stop some of these things which I know the noble Lord agrees are wrong, and, at the same time, trying to get this very delicate balance of a person's

539
rights? In any case, the notice can only affect an activity which started in the past 12 months. The noble Lord gave the impression—although I do not think he meant to do so—that this was something which would affect something which had been going on for many years.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, that is a rather lengthly intervention, but I am only too pleased that the noble Baroness has intervened at that length because it enables me to deal with one or two of the points which she raised. The first point was one which I was about to advance when she intervened. I do not disagree that there is a technical difficulty in deciding how one defines what is an offensive activity. Obviously, there is a difficulty in that. I was going to suggest that between now and the Committee stage of the Bill some consideration might be given by those of us who are interested as to what form of words might be adopted to meet the object which, in spite of what the noble Baroness has said, is the object we all have in mind. I am not trying by the amendment of this Bill to make it easier for the individual to engage in offensive activities—far from it. I am anxious that all offensive activities, if they are offensive and injurious to their neighbours, should be caught by the stop notice procedure.
I am anxious that activities which are not offensive to anybody, or so minimally offensive as to be unimportant, should not have the stop notice oppressively used against them, but that one should fall back upon the ordinary enforcement notice procedure which has been with us for so many years. I am not asking for a relaxation; it would be very odd if I were to be asking for a relaxation on people who injured the environment. I am asking for nothing of the sort. I hope that between now and the next stage there may be come consultation between the noble Lord, with the assistance of the noble Baroness, in order that we can see whether some form of words can be devised which may be written into the Bill to avoid the oppressiveness of which it is capable as it is now drawn.
There are a number of ways in which this may be done. May I cast about by way of catching a "fish" one suggestion as to the form that the necessary clause
540
might take. Would it not be perfectly practicable, and in accord with some previous legislation, to provide this. If a planning authority were confronted with what they regard as a breach of planning control, and they were minded to have resort to the stop notice procedure, before adopting that procedure and issuing a stop notice they should be under a statutory requirement to have regard to two factors: one is the extent to which the activity is indeed, if at all, offensive; secondly, that they should have due regard, after making such inquiries as they thought fit, to the consequences to the individual against whom the stop notice is to be made.
On the matter of compensation, the noble Baroness is not right. If you stop a man's business in its tracks, or suppose you do not come across his little business until he has been operating for two or three years and then you discover that he has made a change of user to his home, if you put a stop notice in then and smash his business up, it is no answer to say, "If you go on and appeal against the enforcement notice, eventually you may be entitled to some compensation". Nothing can compensate him for it.
These are Committee points, and I am sorry that I have kept the House for so long. I say this in a friendly spirit: I hope the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be prepared to discuss this matter with me and anybody else who shares my concerns before we reach the next stage, in order that we may see whether we can agree upon a formula to meet a requirement upon which we all agree.
6.40 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I would hesitate—I almost said to intervene—to wind up in such lengthy and erudite proceedings between the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Baroness. I should like to take the easy part of my remarks first and thank the noble Baroness for her kind welcome of the Bill and also to thank her, her colleagues and advisers for the help my colleagues and I have received.
May I attempt to answer some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. He started by complaining of a surfeit of legislation. Many of us in this House and also in another place are

541
certainly with hint on that particular score; but I believe that the object of this Bill is not just to add—I think the noble Lord's words were "another chapter", although that is possibly how it may appear ultimately in a bound volume in the Library. I believe that the object of this Bill is to refine and see that the existing law, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, can be more adequately and efficiently enforced.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, complained of a "thicket of regulations". To some extent I would also go along with him there. I am a relative novice in this aspect of planning, and when one takes this Bill and compares it with the Town and Country Planning Act, one realises that we are in more than a thicket: we are in a forest. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that we must do our best to keep legislation as simple as possible to understand. The noble Lord gave a particular example of how the Bill, he believes, can and will affect the liberty of the small businessman. While I think we should all like to see the small businessman supported, what concerns us, as sponsors of the Bill, is licence. I believe that eminent and learned members of the legal profession, such as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will be able to help me over "liberty" and "licence", but from my preliminary studies I understand there is a fairly wide gulf between the two. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, continued to define "development" and I took the point that a 1971 stop notice does apply to what he calls "operational activities" and also to what he calls "bricks and mortar".
I think we would all agree that the enforcement order under the existing Act can become lengthy and cumbersome, but the noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred to the Dobry recommendations as they refer to the Bill. I believe that anyone who studied the recommendations of Mr. George Dobry would find that the Bill enshrines two recommendations: I believe they appeared in chapter 12, No. 8 and chapter 12, No. 9. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, quoted from the recommendation concerning stop notices in chapter 12.8. I would ask him if he would look higher in that same paragraph, because there he will find this comment:
"I do not see this as a valid objection in principle, although it may mean that authorities
542
will always be less willing to serve stop notices in respect of uses for fear of attracting a compensation claim".
I believe that is of considerable relevance when we are considering this particular recommendation. However, we shall be able to go further into the matter at a later stage, and perhaps before the next stage.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, if the noble Lord would permit me, may I just read the whole of that paragraph, if it is not too tedious? Mr. Dobry says:
"Stop notice procedure should be extended to change of use".
Then he went on:
"The reason generally given for restricting the application of stop notices to operational development is that there is often much greater difficulty in finding out whether a material change of use has taken place"
It was in that connection that he went on to say:
"I do not see this as a valid objection in principle, although it may mean that the authorities will always be less willing to serve stop notices in respect of uses for fear of attracting a compensation claim".
I do not dissent from that in ally way at all. I wholly approve of the provisions in this Bill which will allow the planning authorities to get further information so that they know what they are doing in the case of an alleged change of use. I am all in favour of that, and I have no quarrel with Mr. Dobry about it.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, at least we are beginning to get on to the same field in that we are considering the whole of that paragraph. I think it is valuable that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has realised that we must consider the whole of that paragraph in the recommendations. However, I think we would all agree that any offensive action must always mean different things to different people in different areas. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, addressed the major part of his remarks to the problems of small businessmen. I think he agrees that often great benefit to the whole community arises from their activities. But what about the neighbours?
I should like to give one example of a case where there might well be a need for one of those giant machines which go by the name of "sludge-gulper". If a particular "sludge-gulper" was operating in

543
a certain area of a community but was later parked further away, perhaps in a residential area, it might well cause grave disturbance to the occupants of that residential area. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Foot, would not agree that they, too, should have a valid claim to make an objection and that the planning authority might be right in putting a stop notice on parking or minor operations. Indeed, the business would be of considerable value to the community elsewhere; but that is the kind of example that I had in mind. However, I do not think we shall argue out this matter tonight. We can settled the details away from your Lordships' House and before the next stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, wished us to take note of oppressive stop notices. I can see quite easily there could be examples of where an oppressive stop notice would mean, as he put it, the ruination and destruction of a business. But I must say I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Foot, would be at one with me in thinking that there are reasonable provisions in the Bill whereby an aggrieved individual whose business is, or is likely to be, ruined, can obtain compensation. I will refer to this question of compensation later.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, also mentioned that an injunction could be raised by the defender in such a claim. The court, I agree, would have to ask whether the innocent victim—in this case the small businessman—might be inadequately compensated. But I think it is asking a great deal of the court to see what would be adequate compensation 12 months, 15 months or 24 months hence. It is very difficult for a court to decide whether or not an injunction should be granted, based on what compensation might be given in 24 months' time. I think that is just a little hard on the court.
I would agree that the court must consider offensive uses to third parties, but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Foot, would agree and appreciate that in practice the fear of compensation at present acts as a major brake to many local planning authorities as regards their issuing of stop notices, and that many of the complaints which have led to support for this Bill have emanated from persons
544
who are aggrieved by the fear of local planning authorities in use of the existing regulations. I believe that certainly those aggrieved individuals have a reasonable right to representation and reasonable right to expect something to be put into the legislation. I agree that it may not be perfect and that we should negotiate further with any other interested parties in this field. But I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was in danger of going a little too far about his innocent victim, and I wondered just how small and how innocent his activities might be.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, it may be entirely my fault, but the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has entirely misunderstood me upon this point. I am in favour of that fear which might lurk in the minds of planning authorities when they are considering enforcement procedures, being removed as far as possible. That is why I am all in favour of the provisions of the Bill, by which planning authorities can make themselves better informed about the consequences and the possibility of compensation, if they issue an enforcement notice or a stop notice. I am anxious to remove these fears. I do not want to rely upon them in any way.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is misunderstanding me as well as I him, in that the point I seek to make is that the fear of compensation is already a reasonable brake upon the present stop notice. That is being found in practice by local planning authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, ended his remarks by asking what were the objects of this Bill. They are not the inadvertent, the unwilling or the involuntary destruction of anybody's business or livelihood. I would say that if a business or livelihood results in unreasonable disturbance to other persons and other interests, which is what I mean by "offensive", then the Bill is well founded and deserves support. We have spent a considerable amount of time on this Bill, but I am grateful to all those who have spoken, and am grateful, also, for the amount of detail which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has put into his argument.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FARRIERS (REGISTRATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
6.52 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Newall.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title, citation and commencement]:
Lord NEWALL Lord NEWALL moved the following Amendment:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment results from discussions between the Registration Council and the Home Office. It brings forward by six months the date at which the descriptions "farrier" and "shoesmith" become reserved to registered men. This should accelerate applications for registration, which in turn should advance by six months the date at which it will be reasonable for the Home Secretary to review the number and distribution of farriers as revealed by the state of the register at that time. He should then be in a position to decide, in the light of the review, what date can be appointed to bring Section 16 into force and in what areas, as Section 19 of the 1975 Act provides. Assuming that the amended Bill reaches the Statute Book at the end of July 1977, farriers will then have until the end of January 1978 to decide whether to register or to stop using the restricted descriptions. Those who decide to register will secure registration for the whole of 1978, instead of for part only of the year, as would be the case if the Amendment were not made. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The Government are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for moving this Amendment.
546
He indicated that he would do so on 9th May, and the Government commend this Amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

  CIVIL SERVANTS: EMPLOYMENT AFTER RETIREMENT
  CIVIL SERVANTS: EMPLOYMENT AFTER RETIREMENT