Sitting of 6 March 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Preamble
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Conservators of Epping Forest to grant to the Secretary of State interests or rights in land for road purposes it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in reinstating certain lands which form part of the subject matter of the said grant on completion of the purpose for which they are temporarily occupied by the Secretary of State;

(b) in laying out and providing a new cricket ground and pavilion and other conveniences for the Epping Foresters Cricket Club;

(c) in reimbursing the Conservators such proportion of the costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred and properly paid by them in connection with the preparation, obtaining and passing of the said Act as is attributable to the provisions of that Act relating to the said grant; and

(d) in indemnifying the Conservators against actions, costs, claims and demands brought or made against or incurred by the Conservators which are caused by or arise out of the said grant and which are not attributable to the wrongful act, neglect or default of the Conservators or their contractors, agents, workmen or servants.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Retirement Age
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the inequalities in pension ages between men and women.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): Following the publication of our discussion document "A Happier Old Age", we have received a number of representations and comments on the question of pension age. These are being considered, but at present no clear consensus is emerging as to the most suitable way of dealing with the matter.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the inequality in pension ages between men and women makes a mockery of the sex discrimination legislation? Will he use his considerable influence to ensure that in the Labour Party manifesto for the next general election there is a firm commitment to reduce the pensionable age of men to 60?
    Mr. Orme: I think that perhaps my hon. Friend has as much influence as I in regard to the manifesto. The question of equalisation was, and is, one of the choices which we put into the document. I appreciate the pressure for a reduction in retirement age. However, before we can come to any decision the Government need to examine all possibilities exhaustively.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is not the real answer to introduce flexibility into retirement ages for both men and women so that each has the opportunity to retire at any age between, for example, 60 and 70, with proportionately reduced or increased pension entitlement? Is it not a fact that the Government have no real indication of how many men would wish to retire before 65, or how many women would wish to go on working after 60? Would not the Government's best contribution be to embark upon a study so that we could have more to work on in future?
    Mr. Orme: I agree with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) that equalisation is one aspect that we must study very carefully. We have done some work on this, and some of the views that are coming in to the Department, both on equalisation and flexibility, are options which the Government must consider.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Was not my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) absolutely correct when he suggested that the present situation is in conflict with sex equality legislation? Does it not also apply to the different treatment of widows and widowers? Has the Department any firm plans to combat the situation?
    Mr. Orme: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is one of the aspects that the Equal Opportunities Commission dealt with in regard to equalisation. But my hon. Friend will understand that other organisations—not least the TUC—are much opposed to the proposal as it is at present.
    Mrs. Chalker: Will the Minister accept how sorry we are not to see the Secretary of State in his place today? We all wish him a speedy recovery. What further discussions have the Government had on the EEC directive on equalisation of pension ages, and how do current Government plans fit in with the implementation dates that are set in that directive?
    Mr. Orme: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments in regard to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We all hope to see him back very soon. As to the EEC directive, as the hon. Lady knows, there is a period of six years for the phasing in of certain aspects of this document. Obviously during that period we shall have to take into account the question of retirement age.

    Nurses (Pay)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the hourly rate for a night nurse on a hospital ward and her pay for one week of night duty.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr Ronald Moyle): Nurses' hourly rates are enhanced by one-quarter for night duty and one-half for work done on Sundays and public holidays. Night duty on a general
    1070
    ward by a registered nurse as a staff nurse, at the maximum of the staff nurse scale, attracts hourly rates of £2·03 Monday to Saturday, and £2·43 Sunday and public holidays. Pay at these rates for one week of night duty, 40 hours in four shifts which includes a Sunday or public holiday, would total £85·20.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that the staff nurse wages he has mentioned are deplorable? Does not this show that the nurses are not just a special case but an exceptional case, in which unsocial hours and a number of other things should be taken into consideration?
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be at the Cabinet meeting on Thursday, will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State be there? If so, will he press the nurses' case? Time is of the essence. The year that has been lost should now be made up and the phasing of any settlement should start in April and August of this year and not April and August of next year.
    Mr. Moyle: My hon. Friend should have noticed that there is a question on the Order Paper about nurses' pay in general. I think that I ought to reserve my answer until them. However, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend will be at the Cabinet meeting on Thursday in order to deal with any matters affecting my Department.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: There is a matter which does arise out of that. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that of all the many claimes for special consideration that there have been in recent weeks, the one that commands a vast amount of public support and sympathy is that of the nurses? Is he aware that figures that he has just given show that many hospital porters and some kitchen staff who are on strike are receiving more money than nurses who are not on strike and who have said that they never will strike? How can he possibly justify that?
    Mr. Moyle: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for further public expenditure for the NHS. I draw his attention to the fact that there is a later question on the Order Paper dealing with nurses' pay as opposed to enhancements for special work. I shall deal with the question of the nurses' pay claim then.
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Service when he expects to announce the Government decision on the 1978 pay award to nurses.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement regarding nurses' pay.
    Mr. Moyle: Yesterday, we saw representatives of the management and staff sides of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council, when my right hon. Friend informed them of the Government's decisions on nurses' pay. For the April 1979 settlement, the proposal is for an increase of 9 per cent. on the pay bill. In addition, we have proposed a comparability study, with results to be implemented in two equal stages, in August 1979 and April 1980, with an advance payment of £1 a week from April 1979 for all staff working 35 hours a week or more, to be offset against the first stage comparability payments.
    We had an exploratory discussion and agreed to meet again on Friday with a view to reaching an agreement with the Whitley Council.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the nurses are showing commendable restraint, unlike some other health workers, in refusing to strike? Will the Government recognise that by publicly appreciating it? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a basis for a successful settlement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—exists in negotiating with the nurses firm guarantees on pay in return for a no-strike agreement? If he does so agree, will he use that process of negotiation?
    Mr. Moyle: I am grateful for the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has given me to refer to the nurses' vote to oppose strike action. I much appreciate that decision. It is upon the ability of the nurses to carry out their role that the maintenance of the Health Service depends in times of trouble. We are not asking for a no-strike guarantee from the nurses. We are offering a guarantee of their position in relationship to society from the present forward. The comparability study may be taken up by the Standing Commission on Public Service Pay for suceeding years as well as the present.
    Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nurses, like other low-paid workers in the National Health Service, can hardly be accused of fanning the flames of inflation? However, it appears that some the adjustments that may be made for them will not be as good as adjustments that have been made for those in the industrial sector. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of the nurses in our hospitals—a role that touches almost every family in the land—deserves generous treatment? Will he ensure that on Friday there is an improvement in the offer in the immediate term and that that may be added to later when the other part of the agreement comes into force?
    Mr. Moyle: I cannot make any promises about the immediate offer. I agree that the nurses deserve generous treatment. I understand that they claim that they have fallen behind other groups over the past two or three years. If they accept the main part of the Government's offer, their problems will be substantially solved. Contrary to what happened in 1970 and 1975, they will be protected from falling back again.
    Mr. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to guarantee to the nurses that their determination not to strike, which has won terrific public respect, will receive greater cash recognition than the claims made by other groups who have used the strike weapon? Has not the time come for him to disprove the widespread belief that militancy pays?
    Mr. Moyle: We have offered the nurses a large part of what they are asking for. Their case is that they have fallen behind. If they accept the comparability study, their position will be restored. That will apply for the current year and their position in society will be held in relationship with that of other groups from this year forward.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of those who support incomes policy, such as myself, do so on the understanding that it is a basic concept that the lower paid and those in special categories should receive priority when discussions are taking place? Apart from those in the police force and the Armed Forces, do not the nurses come into the special category?

    1073
    Does he accept that if he made concessions at this stage, and not for next year or the year after, the public would believe not that we were breaking the incomes policy but that we were merely giving the nurses that to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Moyle: I should stress that the Government's incomes policy makes provision for special categories and for the lower-paid. We firmly believe that the nurses fall within the special category. That is why we have made this offer to them. I believe that this will lead substantially to what they want.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has studiously avoided answering the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the comparability of the offers made to the nurses and to the ancillary workers? Will not his commendation of the nurses' refusal to strike sound very hollow when it is apparent that they have been given exactly the same offer in spite of their undertaking not to strike that has been given to unions, some of which have been doing their damnedest to smash up the Health Service?
    Mr. Moyle: If the right hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to study the offer, he will see that we are proceeding to the nurses' comparability study as quickly as is humanly possible. After all, we are ensuring that the first phase of the staging payments will come into operation after a mere three or four months' work by the standing commission. In practice, that is about as fast as it can work.

    Termination of Pregnancy (Day Care Facilities)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress he has made with setting up day care clinics for early termination of pregnancy.
    Mr. Moyle: In planning guidelines issued in March last year, health authorities were asked to review National Health Service provision for women seeking termination of pregnancy, and in particular to develop day care facilities. This was followed up at the end of the
    1074
    year with a request to each regional health authority for details of existing day care abortion facilities and plans to establish new facilities over the next three years. When this information is complete, my Department will consider what further discussions with health authorities would be appropriate. The position regarding day care abortion treatment in private nursing homes was set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) on 29 January.
    Mrs. Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that full reply. Is he aware that the latest statistics indicate that 50 per cent. of women receiving legal abortions under the Act still have to find the resources and the money to go into the private sector? Is he aware that in the West Midlands we still have the lowest figure of terminations carried out on the NHS, and that this is a matter of very great concern throughout the region? Will he please give special attention to this area?
    Mr. Moyle: I can confirm that I shall give special attention to the West Midlands area. Indeed, my officials have been in touch with the regional health authority with a view to taking action in the exercise that I described. I regret that I have to confirm that about 50 per cent. of abortions are at present taking place outside the NHS. As the desire for more abortions on the NHS was the one issue which united the Standing Committee that considered the Bill of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) about two years ago, it is obviously an issue upon which the House is united and we shall do our best to meet it.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what steps he has taken to point out to women the serious psychological and physical results of an abortion wherever, or by whatever method, it may be undertaken?
    Mr. Moyle: That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the doctor who is advising the woman concerned.

    Birmingham Area Health Authority
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends next to meet the chairman of Birmingham area health authority.
    Mr. Moyle: I expect to see him on Thursday during my visit to South-East Staffordshire and North Birmingham. May I say that that answer was written before my right hon. Friend went into hospital, and it is not to be taken as gospel truth.
    Mr. MacKay: When the Minister meets Mr. John Bettinson, will he discuss with him ways of reducing the five-year waiting list for non-emergency, but nevertheless essential, operations in the East Birmingham hospital? Is he satisfied that Birmingham, as the second largest city in the country, with a large and increasing catchment area, is getting its fair share of funds allocated by his Department for the NHS?
    Mr. Moyle: Allocations to the Birmingham area health authority take place on the Resource Allocation Working Party formula, which is the same for the whole of the country. In addition to the provision which I indicated in my answer to the hon. Gentleman on 30 January was being instituted in Birmingham, I am pleased to be able to tell him that detailed planning will shortly commence for the development of the so-called "carcase block" at Queen Elizabeth hospital to provide facilities for renal dialysis, transplants, radiotherapy and cardiac surgery. Of course, the proposal will be subject to approval in the context of the strategic plans of the health authorities concerned.
    Dr. Vaughan: Does the Minister really support the proposals to encourage Dutch nurses to come to this country to fill vacancies in the West Midlands and Birmingham area when the shortage of nurses is largely due to the cut-back in training that was instituted by the Government and the inflexible methods of part-time nursing?
    Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. In fact, in the first nine months of this year the recruitment for nurse training was substantially in excess of the numbers recruited for nurse training in the equivalent nine months of the preceding year. Therefore, I do not think that the question arises.

    Retirement Pensions
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be
    1076
    the administrative cost of making a cash payment to all pensioners to cover the annual amount by which the November 1978 pension increase falls short of the increase in average earnings.
    Mr. Orme: The administrative cost of making a single payment of the same amount to all pensioners would be about £3 million, but such a payment could not be varied to cover each individual case. The Government think it more appropriate to take the shortfall into account, together with the general economic prospects, when the time comes to decide the new rates of benefit which will take effect from next November.
    Mr. Ovenden: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that answer? Does he not accept that some action should be taken to recompense pensioners for the lower than justified pension increase that they received in November due to the miscalculations of his Department? Does he accept that the higher than expected increase in earnings has boosted the national insurance funds and that some way ought to be found to return this money to national insurance beneficiaries?
    Mr. Orme: I take my hon. Friend's point. As I have already said, the Government will take this into account when we look at the next uprating. I should like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that because earnings were higher than prices—by 3·3 per cent. last year—pensioners received an increase in real terms.
    Mr. Marten: Would it not save a certain amount of Government expenditure if pension increases were made at the same time as the Budget so that the new pension rate could equate almost exactly with the new tax allowances in the Budget? Would not that save a lot of work for the tax inspector and the collector of taxes?
    Mr. Orme: That sounds an attractive idea, but the administrative problems would be immense. We have now moved to a November uprating. We need about five to six months' forecast because of the tremendous amount of work that has to be done in making adjustments to the pensions. We are dealing with over 9 million pensioners, and it is a very big task indeed.
    Mr. Madden: Bearing in mind the large heating bills that many pensioners are facing this winter and, indeed, the increase in television licence fees, would not my right hon. Friend accept that pensioners are owed about £20 and that a lump sum payment of that order would be extremely useful to many pensioners in meeting these bills?
    Mr. Orme: I accept what my hon. Friend says. But if we were to make a lump sum payment, some people would get more than they were entitled to and some would get less. It would be a very difficult operation. The safest way to deal with this would be for the Government to take into account in the uprating. I emphasise that the pensioners have not lost this year. In fact, they have gained quite substantially.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does not everything that the right hon. Gentleman said indicate that he is conceding that once again, for the second time in three years, the Government have missed the target that they set themselves in the 1975 Act? Was the Secretary of State correctly reported when, in "Pensioners' Voice", he was reported as saying that there was a statutory requirement to take these things into account but no statutory requirement to get it right? Does not that strike the right hon. Gentleman as a rather cynical approach to this statutory obligation?
    Mr. Orme: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the forecast which my right hon. Friend made last summer is the best that is available. There is no statutory obligation, as a recent court case proved, to carry that out. Obviously a Government would want to take this into account. The right hon. Gentleman reminded me about the 1975 Act. In that Act, this Government put the uprating of pensions in line with either earnings or prices. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's party will stick to that if, unfortunately, it came into office.
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he can now announce arrangements for retirement pensions to be paid on request direct into pensioners' bank accounts.
    Mr. Orme: The findings of a joint working party of representatives of the
    1078
    banks and my Department are being studied and I will make an announcement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Jessel: As such an arrangement would save 40 per cent. of retirement pensioners with bank accounts from going out to collect their pensions in bad weather, and as there would be a considerable saving to public funds, why do not the Government get on with it? It is now 18 months since I raised the matter with the Minister. What is the reason for the delay?
    Mr. Orme: I am expecting a report by the end of the month. There is a great deal of work to be done. As I have said, we are dealing with nearly 9 million pensioners. I am much in favour of the principle, and the introduction of such an arrangement would cover child benefit as well as retirement pensions. There are certain snags and administrative problems to be overcome, but I hope to make some progress in the near future.

    Geriatric Care
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has to allocate a higher proportion of available resources to geriatric care, whether provided at home or in hospitals or through other community provision.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): In the planning guidelines issued to health and local authorities, I have asked them to give high priority to the improvement of geriatric and other services for the elderly, including domiciliary and residential provision. As indicated in the recently published public expenditure White Paper, further developments in services for the elderly will continue to be a high priority in the use of any additional funds which become available to the NHS.
    Mr. Latham: As, thank God, our people are living longer and are healthier, is it not plain that there will be a tremendous strain on resources over the next 20 years? Have the Government undertaken any long-term planning—not the public expenditure White Paper projections but long-term planning—on the future level of resources over that period merely to maintain existing standards, let alone increase them?
    Mr. Morris: The elderly population has increased, is increasing and will continue to increase. My Department's overall planning norm of 10 geriatric beds per 1,000 persons aged 65 years or over is being reviewed in the light of changes in demography and patterns of service. We are treating the subject extremely seriously. We are not merely sloganising about community care for the elderly. On the contrary, we put our money where our principles lie. For example, the amount of National Health Service resources set aside for the joint financing scheme increased from £8 million in 1976–77 to £21 million in 1977–78 and £34·5 million this year.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very often when a person goes into a geriatric ward there is the feeling "Abandon hope all ye who enter here"? Is he aware of the wonderful work that is being done in geriatric re-habilitation? Will he please allocate resources to allow the elderly who go into geriatric wards to be given the opportunity to get out of them? Will he please give that top priority?
    Mr. Morris: There are many competing priorities. I agree that geriatric re-habitation is extremely important. I shall take carefully into account all that my hon. Friend has said. I know that he agrees that community care for the elderly is also extremely important.
    Mrs. Chalker: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps now to stimulate an increased amount of attention by voluntary bodies to help those families who care for their own elderly in the community? Will he persuade local authorities to organise relief care to a greater extent than is now possible for those families that spend so much of their time looking after their elderly but who cannot do so for 52 weeks a year?
    Mr. Morris: I keep closely in touch with voluntary organisations. I am especially concerned to do so with a view to improving care for the elderly. The Government's introduction of the invalid care allowance has done much to help those who are looking after elderly and disabled relatives. I shall take very much into account the point that the hon Lady makes about local authorities.

    Young Persons (Subsequent Offences)
    Mr. Whitneyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage of cases where those made subject to a care order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 subsequently commit offences which in the case of an adult would be punishable by imprisonment.
    Mr. Moyle: I regret this information is not available.
    Mr. Whitney: Does not the Minister agree that his answer shows the urgent need for a great deal more information on this subject to be made available to the House and to the public? Does he not also agree that such information as we do possess suggests strongly that there is an urgent need, in the interests of the public, society and young people themselves, for the Government to turn their backs on the outdated, trendy, psychological theories of the 1960s and seek an amendment of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 on the lines frequently proposed on this side of the House?
    Mr. Moyle: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman feels that there is an urgent need for information, since he is therefore proposing substantial legislative action on the basis of not having information. I would have thought that a very foolish action. I do not agree that the 1969 Act is outdated. In so far as we have statistics relating to its performance, it seems to have had more effect on the level of juvenile crime than the system which preceded it.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend resist the introduction of the ill-founded, punitive measures frequently proposed by the Conservatives? Does he recognise that many of the ill-founded criticisms of the 1969 Act have their origin in the fact that successive Governments of both parties have failed to provide the resources so that the spirit and the intention of that Act can be properly implemented? Will he give an assurance that sufficient resources will be provided, particularly to enable more care to be taken of children within the community?
    Mr. Moyle: I agree that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) in his Private Member's

    1081
    Bill should be resisted. In fact, I did so the other Friday with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and others. On the question of resources, we are taking fairly substantial action to ensure that there is more secure accommodation. By 1980, we should have approximately 350 places. We are also retaining borstal for girls and boys aged 15 and over and detention centres for boys aged 14 or over. The Criminal Law Act 1977, by raising levels of fines which can be imposed on juveniles and providing means of enforcing payments, in some cases through parents, has also helped. Special requirements can be inserted into supervision orders, and sanctions can be imposed if they are not observed. The Department has increased the number of places available for junior attendance sentences—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the length of answers is getting most unfair.
    Mr. Hodgson: Will the Minister bear in mind that the victims of these offences also have their rights? In the light of his admission that there is a grave shortage of secure accommodation, does he not think that it is an error of judgment for the Government to press on with the implementation of the transitional provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act at this time?
    Mr. Moyle: We are consulting local authorities on that point. We will reach our conclusion as a result of those consultations.

    National Health Service (Industrial Relations)
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the current state of industrial relations in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the current state of industrial relations in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the latest state of industrial relations in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Moyle: I assume that these questions relate to the current industrial action by ancillary workers and ambulance men in the National Health Service. Balloting is still taking place by members of the unions concerned but the outcome should be known before the end of this week. I greatly regret the fact that Health Service workers feel it necessary to take industrial action which inevitably threatens the welfare of the patients. Services in all regions have been affected, some more seriously than others. I wish to pay tribute to the efforts and devotion of the vast majority of staff—managers, doctors, nurses and others—who have succeeded in maintaining services to patients and the community at large in the face of very great difficulties.
    Mr. Spicer: Does the Minister accept that industrial relations within the Health Service reached a new low yesterday when members of NUPE announced that they would take control of the number of blood donors who supply blood to London hospitals? Will not even this Government take a lead on this matter?
    Mr. Moyle: This matter was settled locally. The unions and management have agreed to meet all emergency requirements. They have also agreed machinery for continuous monitoring of the effect. I am sure that if these matters are left to local solutions, local solutions will be achieved.
    Mr. Roberts: In view of the nurses' humane decision not to strike, does the Minister think that it is fair to make them much the same offer as he has made to the ancillary workers who have done their best to disrupt the Service?
    Mr. Moyle: In the interests of brevity, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I have already given on this subject.
    Mr. Adley: In view of the role of the Government as employer within the Health Service, does not the Minister think that there is a direct conflict of interest in the right hon. Gentleman being Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security and also a sponsored member of NUPE? Would there not have been an uproar in this House if the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) had sought to remain as Secretary of State for Trade while becoming chairman

    1083
    of a merchant bank? Should not the Minister make up his mind which job he wants and get rid of one of them?
    Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Ministers are not employers in the National Health Service. Health authorities are employers in the National Health Service. On the question of sponsorship, my connections with the National Union of Public Employees and my membership of the Government put me in a unique position to understand both sides of this dispute. I would not wish to change it.
    Mr. John Ellis: Does not the Minister agree that industrial relations in the National Health Service and in the public sector generally would be improved if we could revert to the old system whereby the level of wage settlements was decided in any one year, with this sector following on behind. That system was broken by Selwyn Lloyd. It would do a lot to help the nurses and all public service workers if we returned to that principle, backdated if necessary.
    Mr. Moyle: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a provision in the agreement recently reached between the Government and the Trades Union Congress. There is much to be said for it.
    Mr. Litterick: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that present negotiations in the Health Service with nurses and other employees are difficult and delicately poised? Will he have a word with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and advise him that the statement that he made yesterday expressing bleeding-hearted sympathy for the unfortunate speculators in gilt-edged securities, who recently made a killing, is both offensive and damaging to these negotiations?
    Mr. Moyle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will note the remarks made by my hon. Friend.
    Dr. Vaughan: Does the Minister realise that his answer over the blocking of blood supplies was completely unsatisfactory? This kind of industrial action is uncivilised and inhuman. Will he say what action he proposes to take to ensure that it does not occur again?
    Mr. Moyle: We shall monitor all these arrangements and we shall make sure that
    1084
    the inadequate service to the public caused by such actions is drawn to the attention of those concerned. The experience throughout the industrial action has been that, when that is done, there is a speedy restoration of an essential service.

    Motability
    Mrs. Chalkerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will report on the progress of the Motability scheme.
    Mr. Newtonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will report on the progress of the Motability scheme.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Motability was established as an independent and voluntary organisation, but with Government support, a little over a year ago. Since then it has made considerable progress, particularly with the introduction of its scheme for the leasing of cars on favourable terms to disabled people with the mobility allowance. Motability also hopes, before long, to introduce a hire-purchase scheme that will be of further help to beneficiaries of the allowance.
    Mrs. Chalker: Will the Minister take note of the RSVP scheme and report to the House as soon as he can on the question of an alternative vehicle? Will he, further, let the House know what the Government intend to do about the removal of vehicle excise duty and the consequent need for an uprating of the mobility allowance to compensate?
    Mr. Morris: "RSVP" stands for replacement specialised vehicle project. I am aware of the campaign which the organisation has recently launched, and I shall be keeping in close touch with it.
    The problem about any quest for a single replacement specialised vehicle is the assumption that disabled people are standard people. There is no identikit disabled person. It may be that we need to encourage a great many projects in this field. I take fully into account the point made about the uprating of the mobility allowance. We shall have in mind all that the hon. Lady has said.
    Mr. Newton: Does the Minister agree that there really is continuing very great anxiety about whether the mobility allowance in conjunction with the Motability

    1085
    scheme will allow people who had Invacars to replace those vehicles at all? Has he given any thought to the problem of the double value added tax charge, on the vehicle and the lease, which is one of the points of concern, and has he made any representations to the Chancellor about this?
    Mr. Morris: The point about VAT is very much a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point that the hon. Gentleman has made will be noted.
    I must point out that the mobility allowance has represented a tremendous advance for disabled people. Even at the current level of the allowance, by next year we shall have put about £75 million a year in the hands of beneficiaries to spend with Motability if they so wish. We shall try to build on our achievements as soon as we can.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister study the Salamander car for the disabled and their wheelchairs? It will be coming on the roads this spring. Is he aware that six of these cars per week, specially designed by Manchester polytechnic and financed by Salford council, will be provided for local residents? However, as there are 25,000 eligible disabled people throughout the country, will the Government interest themselves in the vital question of providing mobility for the disabled?
    Mr. Morris: In Britain there are some 3½ million people who are disabled in one form or another. I am taking a very keen interest in this prototype. My officials have given direct advice to the development team. In addition, the project has benefited from public funds. I shall be continuing to take the closest possible interest in developments.

    Drugs (Evaluation)
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for evaluating old and new drugs.
    Mr. Moyle: I shall maintain and, subject to the availability of resources, seek to develop the existing systems for evaluating new and old drugs, in which the expert advisory committees set up under section 4 of the Medicines Act play an invaluable part.
    Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some people in the drug industry want to adopt a double standard for testing drugs for those people with rare diseases? Will he, therefore, categorically reject double standards of drug testing for people with rare diseases and promise that the Government will intervene if the drug industry threatens to withdraw from providing special drugs for the treatment of rare diseases?
    Mr. Moyle: I am sure that I am against double standards on any occasion. I shall certainly draw the attention of the Medicines Commission and the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, and their associated committees, to the point that my hon. Friend makes.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will be grateful to him for seeking to get a code of practice on post-product licensed clinical trials in general practice, where many drug companies have been seeking to promote their drugs through trials rather than actually doing scientific work to evaluate them? What will he do in the interim, as some companies are still using bogus trials, and deluding general practitioners into participating in them, when such trials have no scientific merit and are simply designed to promote the drug?
    Mr. Moyle: I hope that the interim will not be sufficiently long to require major action, because the Committee on the Safety of Medicines is currently reviewing the situation and is hoping to report this summer, when we shall be in a position to take action.

    LUXEMBOURG
    Mr. Dykesasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to Luxembourg.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to visit Luxembourg.
    Mr. Dykes: Is the Prime Minister aware that I really intend to ask a question about the EEC and not about a subject beginning with "D"?
    Now that the differences between Germany and France, and this country, on agricultural policy payments appear to

    1087
    be being resolved and the European monetary system looks set fair to start fairly soon, will the Prime Minister now reconsider the Government's decision not to join the EMS, and join forthwith?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that differences between France and Germany on this issue can be resolved, so that the decision that was taken at the last European Council can be implemented. But I hope that no attempt will be made to resolve those difficulties in a way which would worsen Britain's position in relation to agricultural product prices. We must insist, for our part, that agricultural prices should not be increased to the point where surpluses continue to mount or, indeed, are maintained.
    Mr. David Steel: Has the Prime Minister noted that the Prime Minister of Luxembourg intends to hold a general election in his country on the same day as the direct elections to the European Assembly? Without putting any thoughts into the right hon. Gentleman's mind, may I ask whether that does not remind him that we have yet to discuss in this House the regulations for the conduct of those elections? In view of the debacle of the referendum, is it not wise that we should do so earlier rather than later?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that some indication of when we shall be discussing these matters may be given, perhaps in the Business Statement that will come on Thursday.
    As regards M. Thorn's other proposals, I am quite sure that I shall be as successful as M. Thorn has been in these matters in previous years, and I expect to be here as long as he has been where he is.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that the British people are crying out for a leader—[Interruption.]—who, unlike the Leader of the Opposition with her European party, will stand up against the wiles and the wishes of the Common Market? Is he aware that it is now costing every man, woman and child in Britain £20 per year to be a member of this very expensive club? He would do well in an election campaign to campaign against the Common Market, especially against the recent decision to introduce the tachograph in Britain, which will mean raising prices for the people of this
    1088
    country and everyone else who has to buy things from the Common Market.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has derived a considerable amount of his information about the cost of the Common Market from figures that I have myself given. He need be in no doubt that we shall continue to press this matter. However, that is a far different thing, in view of the decision of this country, from saying that we intend to leave the Common Market. The Government have no proposals to do that. Indeed, the best way in which we can ensure that there is a prosperous and free Europe is to work with the other countries in Europe in order to ensure that.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 March.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I met the Japanese import promotion mission. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. Spicer: Later on in the day, when the Prime Minister comes round to thinking about the votes that took place in Scotland and Wales in the referendum last week, will he bear in mind that the people of the country are now anxiously awaiting the announcement of the date on which the repeal orders to the Scotland and Wales Acts will be introduced? Will he assure the House that there will be no unnecessary delays?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I am aware that there is a responsibility laid upon the Government and upon the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales to bring forward these orders. They will, of course, do so.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend find the opportunity today to convey appreciation to the Soviet Union for its restraint and responsibility during the conflict between China and Vietnam?
    The Prime Minister: I have noted that in view of the Soviet Union's support of Vietnam Mr. Brezhnev's statements on this matter have been restrained. I am

    1089
    very glad—and I am sure that the whole House is glad—that the Soviet Union has been restrained on this matter. I have no doubt that this will lead China more easily to withdraw from Vietnam, and, I hope, Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia.
    Mrs. Thatcher: May I press the Prime Minister a little further on his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer)? Since the Prime Minister accepts that the Government have a duty under the Scotland and Wales Acts to lay draft orders, will he say whether those will be laid and the House given the time to debate them and to reach a decision upon them before the end of the month?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give an answer at present—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because the Government have not yet considered the dates for discussion of these matters. But when we have done so of course the right hon. Lady will be informed.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister accepts that he must lay the draft orders and that there is a strict duty upon him to do so. Will he go ahead with that fairly quickly and then we can properly raise with the Lord President the matter of when it should be debated?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that. There have been some suggestions that the Government might seek not to lay the orders, but, of course, that is not true. The Government will lay them. How far and when we should discuss these matters is a matter for further consideration by the Government. I understand that the Opposition also wish to consider the matter further. I think that we both need some time.
    I suggest to the House seriously that, although the 40 per cent. requirement that Parliament inserted was not achieved, the House in its consideration of these matters should take care not to offend the 1¼ million people—a majority—who voted in favour.
    There is a serious constitutional issue if we want to keep both Scotland and the United Kingdom united. That is why I think that we should all have a little time for reflection.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend report to the House when he expects the institutional arrangements envisaged in the agreement between the Government and the trade unions to come into being?
    The Prime Minister: I am making progress on the proposals for a standing commission on the subject of comparability between the various groupings in the community, especially in the public service, but not only in the public service. I am making progress with Ministers and in consultation with the TUC and the CBI. In spite of the slight derision from some Opposition Members, I hope that we shall be able to make rapid progress in setting up such an institution.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the fact that a Scottish Assembly was the Goverment's manifesto commitment in 1974 and that there was a clear "Yes" majority in the referendum on 1 March, will the Prime Minister say whether he will call upon his own supporters in the Government to back their own policy?
    The Prime Minister: The Government have a very good record in the sense that we have, despite great difficulties in the House, pursued this matter for over two years. We have certainly fulfilled the commitments that we gave to the people of Scotland. But I am not to be tempted any further today on what will happen after a period of reflection.

    TUC AND CBI
    Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister when last he met the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.
    The Prime Minister: I meet representatives of the TUC and CBI from time to time at the National Economic Development Council and on other occasions. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
    Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree, notwithstanding the recent industrial disputes which involved only 1 per cent. of the entire industrial working force, that the working people, via their trade unions, have made a massive contribution to the fight against inflation? Does he agree that this is still the primary

    1091
    threat to the country on which the Government must concentrate? Will the Prime Minister therefore urge the CBI to take a lesson from the trade union movement and the working people and to make its contribution through prices to the fight against inflation?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that the attitude taken by organised workers in the country in relation to their pay and earnings in the last three years has assisted us materially in reducing inflation from heights which were undermining the fabric of many institutions to the present level. That is why the Government have taken a firm line, so far as they can in a democratic society, on the question of pay for the present year.
    On the attitude that is taken by the employers, I must tell my hon. Friend that the nationalised industries have as good a record as anybody in holding prices. Their price increases have been below those of a number of firms in private industry. They have made an important contribution in that way.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, before he next meets the CBI or the TUC, give instructions that no further public funds are to be expended on providing facilities for the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies?
    The Prime Minister: I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to look into that matter. I should have thought that at the moment it would automatically follow that not much money would be spent on either of those projects.
    Mr. Loyden: When my right hon. Friend next meets the CBI and the TUC will he discuss with them the rationalisation of United Kingdom-based industries which appear to be cutting off their excess capacity in areas of high unemployment such as the North-West and in particular Merseyside? Is he aware that on a number of occasions recently United Kingdom-based firms have rationalised in areas of high unemployment and that industries are closing down at an unacceptable rate?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly, companies are closing down or making workers redundant when there is no demand, when they are not proving to be competitive or are not able to supply the goods that other countries require. That is happening. Therefore, the task of Government is twofold, as I see it. First, we must try to ease that transition by means of protecting employment for a period of time and by ensuring that there are good redundancy payments. Secondly, we must ensure that new technologies and new jobs are introduced. That is why the Government have put so much money behind the National Enterprise Board, the new microprocessing work and in other directions.
    Mr. Adley: Why is it considered to be right and proper for the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) to give up his Government position when he accepts a job in the City and yet not right, necessary or relevant for the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), for example, to give up his sponsorship of NUPE while retaining his job in the Government? Is there not—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what that has to do with the TUC or the CBI.
    Mr. Adley: It is strictly relevant to the TUC—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not related to the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: When the Prime Minister meets his friends at the TUC council, will he tell them on behalf of all hon. Members that stopping blood donors from giving blood and preventing patients from receiving it is repugnant to all civilised people in the country?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security has answered questions on this matter this afternoon and I prefer to leave that to him. It is not good practice or principle for the Prime Minister to intervene and express opinions on such matters where a Minister has already given an answer.
    Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully ask that you reconsider your ruling? I was raising a question relating to hon. Members who

    1093
    are sponsored by TUC-affiliated unions or companies and other organisations that may be members of the CBI. I understand that the Prime Minister may not want to answer the question, but it was perfectly proper and in order.
    Mr. Speaker: It was not, in my judgment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Michael Foot): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the Supply day on Thursday.
The subject for debate chosen by the Opposition will be the working of the Employment Protection Acts, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Independent Broadcasting Authority to incur expenditure in equipping itself to transmit television broadcasts on the fourth channel. The Bill will enable the Authority to apply any of the current surpluses on its appropriate reserves up to a total of £10 million. It will also enable the Authority to borrow from the Government, if it should need to do so, up to a total of £18 million.
  In the White Paper on broadcasting the Government indicated their agreement with the Annan committee that in order to keep the cost to a minimum and to avoid unnecessary delay the IBA should be responsible for engineering the fourth channel and for transmitting the fourth channel service. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with this. As envisaged in the White Paper, we began immediate discussions with the IBA about the engineering work for the fourth channel. The Authority indicated that whilst it wished to proceed urgently it did not consider that it had adequate statutory powers to do so under the existing legislation. I, of course, have accepted this view and hence have introduced this Bill to make the necessary statutory provision.
  I should like to make it clear at once that the purpose of this Bill—to enable the Authority to incur expenditure on engineering the fourth channel—is quite independent of the service ultimately to be transmitted over it. Whatever authority eventually provides and supervises the television service on the fourth channel, the preliminary engineering work needs to be done and to be started quickly.
  The White Paper on broadcasting stated the Government's intention to establish an Open Broadcasting Authority to provide the service on the fourth channel. The establishment of that Authority will be dealt with in major
  1102
  broadcasting legislation which will be introduced later. This Bill does not anticipate that legislation, and, indeed, if any other arrangements should be made for the provision of the service, the engineering work which flows from this Bill will be equally appropriate.
  I know that many hon. Members have a special interest in what will happen in Wales. The Government have indicated their intention to introduce the fourth channel in Wales, giving priority to a service in the Welsh language, in the autumn of 1982. To achieve this it is essential that work on engineering the service should start as soon as possible. The IBA has already indicated that it will give priority to engineering the fourth channel in Wales.
  In the short term, however, we intend that there should be an increase in Welsh language programmes. The television licence fee increases that I announced last November took account of the cost of additional BBC Welsh language programmes, and the BBC has indicated its intention to provide these additional programmes by next autumn. HTV Wales, the independent television programme contractor, has also announced its intention to increase the amount of its Welsh language children's programmes. Thus, both the BBC and independent television are going to contribute to more programmes in the Welsh language in the Welsh language in the near future.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the engineering of the transmitters take until 1982, or will it be completed earlier?
  Mr. Rees: It will be finished by the autumn of 1982. It is a long job. That is why I thought that we should have the Bill. Irrespective of the Welsh problem, and whatever is decided ultimately, there is no disagreement between us that we want the fourth channel. Therefore, it is not jumping the gun on what the formal programme will be.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Some of us are anxious about this matter. Will the Minister dispel our fears? Those of us who are anxious that the ITV should not get the fourth channel will feel that by engineering the service it will establish a position from which it will be difficult to shift it. Will the Minister give us an assurance on that point?
  Mr. Rees: I can give an assurance. What we said in the White Paper, following the Annan report, which was eminently sensible, was that the IBA had the know-how to do the engineering. It makes good sense for it to do the work. It would not have been wise for the OBA to do that.
  It was our idea, when the Bill came forward, that the IBA should also do the transmission work. I am sure that that is right. I am not pre-empting the decision. The fact that the IBA is doing this agrees with our original intention in the White Paper.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Secretary of State in a position to say how many extra hours will be given to Welsh programmes on BBC and ITV in the next three years?
  Mr. Rees: I am speaking out of the top of my head. It is about two hours a day. May I check on that? My hon. Friend will mention it when he makes his winding-up speech.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I apologise for interrupting, but these points are important. The Minister mentioned that further important legislation would be introduced. Will he say when that important legislation, establishing the OBA, is likely to be introduced? What will be the effect if, by any chance, it is not introduced?
  Mr. Rees: The straight answer to that is that this is a long Bill. We know the political situation in the House. There is no point in my disguising that. Very shortly, in any event, I must do something about the charter of the BBC. That is a separate issue. We may discuss wider issues on that occasion. The Government's view is clear. Just as I said quite properly to the Opposition that I am not trying to pre-empt the situation, in no way am I weakening the resolve of the Government on the matter of the OBA, which I believe is the right way forward. However, the timing of the Bill these days is not just a matter of having a Bill ready. There are other considerations to take into account.
  Mr. George Reid: Does the Home Secretary agree that there are many remote parts of Scotland where people can receive
  1104
  only one channel? I refer to communities of 500 people. Surely, amid all this engineering work, priority should be given to engineering decent services for those people as well.
  Mr. Rees: I am sympathetic to that aspect both in Scotland and other places. This will be engineering for the fourth channel. I see the point that if money is to be spent on this, the BBC and the IBA should consider the existing channels. I shall ask my hon. Friend to make inquiries on that point. I do not think that the two matters are linked. However, I take the point. I shall see what information we can give at the end of the debate.
  May I say one word more on the subject of the Welsh language? It is clear—I speak as an expatriate Welshman—that just as there are people who want he Welsh language channel—I agree with that, for the culture of Wales—there are equally large numbers of people in South Wales and in South-East Wales in particular who do not want Welsh language channels. Indeed, this proposal will help in that respect.
  I remind the House that in the longer term our proposals envisage a Welsh Language Television Council, which will consist of representatives of BBC Wales, the Welsh independent television contractor, the IBA and the OBA. Since, under our proposals, the OBA will be responsible for the fourth channel as a whole, we propose that one member of that Authority should be appointed to be chairman of the council. If the fourth channel as a whole is brought into operation in any other way—which is the Opposition's proposal—it would be necessary to reconsider how to arrange the Welsh programming, but as much as I should not want it that way I have no doubt that the necessary arrangements could be made. I stress once again that nothing in this Bill—which is directed to the engineering and financing of the fourth channel—will in any way prejudice the eventual constitutional matters which the House will determine when we bring foward our major broadcasting bill.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: As the money for the setting up of the transmitting facilities will come from the IBA, can the Minister give any

  1105
  assurance that it will get the money back?
  Mr. Rees: I am coming to that section. It is a fair enough question. Indeed, the next heading deals with the cost of engineering the fourth channel. The question was well timed. We estimate that the total cost of engineering the fourth channel throughout the United Kingdom to cover just over 99 per cent. of the population will be about £28 million. The Bill accordingly provides for the full cost to be met. The importance of the Bill, however, lies in enabling the IBA to make a start, as I have said, and to incur a relatively modest part of this expenditure in the near future.
  The reserve funds presently available to the IBA are sufficient to meet this initial cost and, indeed, a good deal more. The borrowing powers provided in the Bill would be necessary only at a later stage. In any event, the Authority has indicated that it will not need to use the borrowing powers in the financial year 1979–80.
  The Bill empowers the IBA to engineer the fourth channel. Before the Authority commits its resources to that project, it obviously wants to be clear about the financial arrangements. I have already referred to the Bill's flexibility with regard to the service to be transmitted. I have said that nothing in the Bill will prejudice an eventual decision about the OBA or the IBA to run the fourth channel. If, as the Government firmly intend, the OBA is set up, the IBA must be able to charge the OBA for the money that it has expended and for interest and depreciation. This could be done by way of an annual rental or by way of capital repayments.
  It would be inappropriate at this stage to attempt to determine the method of repayment in detail. The exact terms would be a matter for discussion between the IBA, the Government and the OBA at the relevant time. This is a financial consideration that the Government will take into account when the structure of the new broadcasting authority is being determined, and the Government will wish to honour their obligation to the IBA on fair terms.
  If, at the end of the day, Parliament did not authorise the use by any organisation
  1106
  of the facilities being provided, the House would need to reconsider what means should then be adopted for the repayment to the IBA of the money that it has expended under the Bill. The Authority has, quite rightly, made clear that it could not properly proceed to incur expenditure under the Bill without an explicit assurance that in these unlikely—I hope—circumstances, the Government would come to Parliament to seek to ensure the means of repayment to the Authority of the money that it has expended. I am glad to give this assurance. The Opposition might like to do exactly the same.
  In short, although it has not been necessary to include in the Bill specific provisions about the later reimbursement to the IBA of the money that it expends under the Bill, the matter has been discussed with it. The Government fully recognise that the Authority must be satisfied about its ability to secure repayment before proceeding with the development of the fourth channel. I expect that the assurances that I have given, together with discussions that we shall be having with it about details, will so satisfy the Authority. I also make clear that what I have said about expenditure by the Authority from its own resources would apply to any expenditure from any loans that it might receive from the Exchequer under the Bill.
  I turn now to the detailed contents of the Bill. Clause 1 is concerned mainly with enabling the IBA to incur expenditure in providing the necessary transmitting equipment, but it also provides for the construction of certain necessary associated premises. The clause ensures that the continuing programme of expenditure upon which the Authority will embark under the Bill will not be inhibited by the fact that, under present legislation, the functions of the Authority cease on 31 December 1981. Subsequent legislation will deal with the extension of the Authority's function in due course. Although the Government do not intend that the Authority will provide—as distinct from transmit—the service, the clause does not specifically exclude this possibility. I think that that is right, bearing in mind that the basic Bill has not gone through the House.
  Mr, Phillip Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend say why clause

  1107
  I takes that view and the first paragraph of the explanatory and financial memorandum specifically precludes the IBA from providing a service?
  Mr. Rees: At the moment, no decision has been taken on that. That is the basic point, and that is for further legislation. In no way am I trying in the Bill to pre-empt the position that the House has not yet decided whether it should be the OBA or the IBA. I think that answers my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. Michael English: It is havering.
  Mr. Rees: In no way am I havering on this. The Government's view is that the OBA shall do the programming and the IBA the transmission. That is what was in the White Paper originally. There is no havering on it. I hope that my hon. Friend will not impute anything in that respect, because that is fundamentally wrong, and there is no need for him to put it in that way.
  Mr. English: Would my right hon. Friend care to put it to the House of Commons?
  Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend seems to think that he has a pre-emptive right to speak on every occasion. There are occations on which other people wish to speak.
  Clause 2 deals with the method of financing the proposed expenditure by the IBA on the fourth channel in two ways. It enables the Authority to apply any of its current surpluses on its television account reserves, up to a total limit of £10 million. It also enables the Authority to borrow up to a total limit of £18 million from the Government for the same purpose. These figures meet the anticipated total expenditure of £28 million. The extent of the Authority's commitment from its own resources has been set at a level that will still leave an adequate balance in its reserves to cover its existing television service.
  The clause also deals with the arrangements for the repayment to the Government by the IBA of borrowed money and the payment of interest. These arrangements are in accordance with normal procedures.
  Clause 3, as with other broadcasting legislation, applies the Bill to Northern Ireland and enables it to be applied to
  1108
  the Isle of Man and to any of the Channel Islands. It is intended that the fourth channel will ultimately have similar coverage to the existing BBC and ITV services.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify a point concerning the £18 million? Is that figure at 1978–79 prices, or is it at the prices ruling at the time when the Annan committee reported?
  Mr. Rees: It is related to 1978–79.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State say how long the delay will be before the fourth channel is available in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Rees: It would be exactly the same as in any other part of the United Kingdom. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there would be no difference in that respect. He may be aware of other problems but I am not aware of any. There is no intention to differentiate in this respect.
  I commend this modest Bill to the House. The only reason why I have brought it forward is that when I published the White Paper we had thought that the IBA could do the engineering without any further legislation. On subsequent legal advice, which I accept, the view of the IBA is that it could not do it without a Bill of this nature. That is the only reason for the Bill coming forward at this moment.
  4.17 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: This Bill is the first harbinger of spring. It is a snowdrop of a Bill. It is, after all, five years since Lord Annan was resurrected by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). Annan reported in 1977 and we had a debate in this House in the summer of 1977. Since then we have been obliged to wait and wait for the White Paper, which was finally published in the summer of 1978 and is still to be debated by this House. Since then we have been waiting for a 64-clause broadcasting Bill, but of that there is neither sight nor sound, nor will there be this side of a general election.
  The future of broadcasting has been frozen by the Government. We know now that, were the Labour Party to be returned to power at an election later this year,

  1109
  we would be offered the Open Broadcasting Authority for the fourth channel. But were the Conservative Party to be returned the fourth channel would be awarded to the IBA along the lines of its submission relating to ITV2. This mini-Bill allows the IBA to start work on the engineering necessary for a fourth channel, although, as the Home Secretary said, we shall have to wait upon the result of the next election before we know of what kind that fourth channel is to be.
  Were the Bill to be passed, it would enable the IBA to equip itself with the installations and services needed to provide a fourth channel, and to spend money on such equipment or to borrow money for the purpose. As we have seen, it may spend up to £10 million from its reserves, and it may borrow up to £18 million from the funds of the public for that purpose. The Bill estimates that the IBA would need a maximum increase of 60 in staff.
  The Opposition have no quarrel with these provisions. They will enable whomsoever is elected this year to get the fourth channel quickly on the air—and not before time. We Conservatives want a fourth channel and we believe it should carry minority programmes—not minority programmes of the educational, improving or experimental sort favoured, for example, by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), the father of the OBA. We have no wish to see an Islamic republic declared on the fourth channel. We want the programmes to appeal to a wide range of people, regarding the channel as one of a series of equal choices. We favour ITV2 because the relationship between the two ITV channels would be similar to the relationship between BBC1 and BBC2. We believe that ITV can finance and launch the new channel more economically than can any other new proprietor.
  Mr. Michael Morris: My hon. Friend said that the relationship would be the same. Does he mean that the two channels would be in the same ownership?
  Mr. Critchley: Yes, indeed they would, because the existing companies would be able to extend their services from ITV1 into ITV2 and, therefore, we would have equality of broadcasting between the two major broadcasting institutions.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend saying that there are no other companies that could put togther a viable service of independent television? Is he aware that there are many people who believe that they could put forward programmes, not identical to those of the present ITV but extremely viable? At the very least, as the party that believes in competition, the Conservative Party should keep an open mind on this before going into the general election.
  Mr. Critchley: We certainly believe in competition, but we do not worship it. The question whether any new company might be introduced is for the IBA to decide and not for the House of Commons.
  Mr. English: Why not?
  Mr. Critchley: In making up our minds, we Conservatives have taken into account two fundamental matters. We do not want a third broadcasting authority, although the OBA would be an authority in name only because it would be dependent upon the moneys that it would have to get from the Government. Secondly, we do not favour any solution that would be a burden upon the Revenue.
  It is worth examining briefly how the OBA might be financed because, without any doubt, this is the weakest part of the OBA suggestion. Whereas ITV2, at 1978 figures, would cost between £40 million and £50 million, the OBA would cost between £60 and £70 million, and we should ask how this money will be raised. First, it will be raised out of the Revenue. Socialism, or so Mr. Aneurin Bevan used to say, is the language of priorities. Is the hon. Member for Derby, North really prepared to go to the PLP to argue that his pet scheme is more worthy of Exchequer funds than is any other? Respected as he no doubt is on the Labour Benches, I feel that he would get a short answer were he to try to do so. But then it could be that, not being a Socialist, I am not a good judge of how the PLP would react. But the Revenue would pay its whack.
  Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) knows enough about the history of this recommendation to know that the idea of the OBA was not just my idea or that of the chairman

  1111
  but also of the former vice-chairman of the Conservative Party and the former head of the Conservative research department.
  Mr. Critchley: I have a great admiration for Mrs. Sara Morrison, as I have for all the Morrisons in the Conservative Party. But the hon. Member for Derby, North is certainly father of the OBA, and Mr. Anthony Smith is conceivably the other father of that arrangement. We are not here to debate the antecedents of the OBA, but the hon. Gentleman has played a large part in foisting that unfortunate idea on an unwilling Home Secretary and a reluctant Civil Service.
  The Revenue, clearly, would pay its whack. Over and above the contribution of the Revenue we are now told that moneys would be raised by sponsorship, block advertising and spot advertising. I do not know what the Fabian Society makes of that. Sponsors will not sponsor unless the audiences are large enough. Block advertising went out years ago with those awful magazine television programmes, while spot advertising, were that to be successful, would start the battle of the rating between OBA, BBC and ITV. Would that raise the standard that we would like to see?
  The OBA is an abortion. It has been foisted upon an unwilling Home Secretary. There is already a conflict between the royalists of the Independent Society of British Advertisers, that is, the advertisers, who would strive to turn the OBA into a fully competitive fourth channel, and the roundheads of the Fabian Society to whom the smaller and more unrepresentative the audience the better. One or the other of these strange bedfellows is bound to be disappointed.
  ITV2 would cost the Revenue nothing. Indeed, the Revenue would gain. ITV2 would give scope for the regional and smaller ITV companies. On its programme planning board to be overseen by the IBA would sit representatives of the independent producers and educational interests. The major companies, which at the moment contribute more than half of the programmes of ITV1, would make a contribution smaller than that to the second channel. The regional companies should make a contribution at least half as much again to the second channel as they do to the first. Eventually, say 15 per cent. of ITV2 would
  1112
  be devoted to educational programmes, and there would be room for the independents. ITV2 is much the best of the three choices.
  Mr. John Cronin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am enjoying the speech of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), but I am puzzled about its relevance to the Bill.
  Mr. Critchley: ITV2 is much the best of the three choices. It is the cheapest. It would be able to cater for minority programmes and would avoid the twin horrors of the ISBA solution, which would Americanise our television, and the OBA, which would institutionalise—
  Mr. Clement Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think the House heard your reply.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Willingly I will give a reply. By tradition, Second Reading debates are allowed to go fairly wide.
  Mr. Critchley: It would avoid the twin horrors of the ISBA solution, which would Americanise our television, and the OBA, which would institutionalise ennui by showing programmes few would watch and all of us would be obliged to pay for.
  The Home Secretary has had much on his mind recently, but he should pay more attention to the problems of broadcasting. This little Bill is welcome, but one swallow does not make a summer. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a White Paper published last summer has yet to be debated in Parliament, the 64-clause broadcasting Bill has got lost somewhere in the Home Office, and no indication has yet been given as to when the Home Secretary will apply for a supplementary Royal charter for the BBC, an institution that for electoral advantage he is driving still further into debt. Will the Home Secretary start watching Mr. Harry Worth and stop acting like him?
  4.28 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: We have all listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). It was difficult to understand its strict relevance to the Bill. No doubt he felt that he was contributing

  1113
  to the deliberations of the House in a useful way. I would be the last seriously to criticise him, particularly as we have a wide debate on these occasions.
  I propose to confine myself strictly to the purpose of the Bill, which is to empower the Independent Broadcasting Authority to equip itself for transmitting a television broadcasting service additional to the present services. I stand here on the side of the angels, and on the side of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. What prompts me to do this is that in the East Midlands—and my constituency is in the East Midlands—there is considerable dissatisfaction with the service provided by ATV. I am sure that the East Midlands area is not unique in this respect and that there are many areas in the United Kingdom—more localised areas—which are dissatisfied with the productions of regional television organisations.
  We should analyse this dissatisfaction. Mostly it is expressed by councillors, local authorities, leaders of public opinion and even right hon. and hon. Members. If one analyses the objections, they seem largely based on the fact that there is not sufficiently localised coverage of news and current affairs. This certainly is so in the East Midlands and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) agrees with me on this. We want to ensure that this kind of grievance is put right.
  However, there are other considerations and there has been considerable debate in the Midlands generally and in the East Midlands particularly. These debates culminated in a public meeting in my constituency last Friday. Three possibilities were put to the meeting: first, to leave things entirely alone; secondly, to split up the East Midlands; and, thirdly, drastically to reform ATV's coverage. I suggest that these three alternatives probably apply to other independent broadcasting corporations, and the House should consider this.
  The first consideration is that there is much more to television than news, news coverage and current affairs. There are entertainment, drama, sports coverage, religion and education.
  Mr. Freud: The hon. Member is not sticking strictly to the Bill.
  Mr. Cronin: I am glad that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has drawn my attention to the importance of sticking strictly to the Bill, because the importance of changing transmitting facilities so as to cover these points is the whole purpose of my speech.
  It seems to me important that the regional organisations should produce much better programmes of a more localised nature, and that involves changing the transmitting facilities. It also involves the question of boundaries.
  At the meeting in my constituency the general feeling was in favour of the third possibility—that of improving the performance of ATV. I am sure that if one takes the question nationally this would probably be the answer rather than splitting up the television regions. I should have thought that there was some danger in any independent television region giving way too easily to localised political pressures. That could produce fragmentation of the whole of independent television, which I am sure would have a deleterious effect on the quality of performance. Independent television is competing with the BBC, and if it was further fragmented its competition would be greatly impaired.
  One thing which is absolutely certain is that in terms of resources—not merely financial, but human—it is important that television should be broadly based. I suggest, therefore, that there is no real need for splitting up the large regions of independent television but that there is a case for greatly improving their performance in order to satisfy more localised areas. The way to do this is clearly by building up more substations—in other words, improving transmitting facilities.
  ATV has already started a news and information centre in Nottingham, but this has been only partially operative on account of trade union difficulties. Many right hon. and hon. Members are probably familiar with the feeling that is created by trade union difficulties at present. I should have thought that there was a very good case for demand being met by substations which can give localised coverage of news and current affairs in the various parts of the region.
  A new innovation which probably makes this even more desirable is electronic news gathering—ENG. This again

  1115
  would be a tremendous help in improving transmissions, although at present ENG is also beset by trade union difficulties.
  I suggest that it is important that ATV in the Midlands—it represents quite a large part of transmission in Great Britain, because it stretches from Oxford to Nottingham—should introduce a system of changed relay transmitters, particularly in the East Midlands, with direct links to substations and with ENG units giving the news and current affairs.
  I shall truncate my speech, because I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. It is most important that there should be no fragmentation of the large regions. They need resources, both financial and human, on a massive scale. Any improvements that can be made in terms of satisfying the aspirations of small areas—and I regard my own constituency as a small area—could most easily be achieved by substations giving localised news. At the same time, I suggest that to have a really effective news and television service, in terms of the splendid television coverage that can be obtained, the answer is to have large regions and to ensure that those large regions, while looking after the aspirations of local areas, have the financial and human resources to maintain television of the highest standard.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Freud: The Home Secretary said that this was a modest Bill, and I do not think that any one will dissent from that. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) called it a snowdrop of a Bill, which is perhaps a more picturesque description of it. However, it is quite clear that its immediate object is of a fairly technical nature, because it is designed to clear the way for preliminary work on the transmitters that will be needed for the fourth channel.
  I remind the House that the initial antagonism to the whole concept of the fourth channel—whether it was engendered on a too parental basis by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) or whether it was the strong heart of the Conservative Party line for ITV2—and certainly the main objection of many people, including some of my constituents, was "Let us get the existing
  1116
  three channels right before we spend money and time on having a fourth."
  In many ways I think that people will not welcome the expenditure of £28 million to do preparatory work for a fourth channel which may be allocated to one or other authority. It seems to me that the normal practice in Westminster, as elsewhere, is to take a decision and then approve the means of carrying it out. What the Bill seeks to do is the reverse. The Bill is carrying out exploratory engineering work prior to taking any decision.
  I listened with great care to what the Home Secretary said, and I know that he has given outline consent to this work, but, irrespective of what is done with the £28 million over the next three years, it is essential that all the options remain open. For example, if there is to be an OBA, we do not yet know whether it will be centralised or decentralised.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I want to make it clear that this is not exploratory engineering work. It is the engineering work for a fourth channel, whoever should provide the channel.
  Mr. John Ellis: I speak as someone who was on the Select Committee and who has come to listen to the debate. Surely someone must undertake this engineering work. Everyone is agreed that there will be another channel whether it is under the auspices of the OBA, IBA or BBC. The engineering work must be done. Anyone who knows something of this matter cannot but agree that those organisations have the technical expertise to undertake this work. It has been done before, and I believe it is a fair point that must be taken into consideration.
  Mr. Freud: I totally accept the intervention of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). Every television set has four channel buttons, so for heaven's sake let us one day be able to press them and get something out of them. But, if it is to take three or four years to have transmitters that are roughly ready for the fourth channel, can we not also look at some of the misery that is caused by poor transmission in many of the regions? Is that really so far removed from the work that has been done for what will be the fourth channel? In

  1117
  my own constituency, Radios 2 and 3, which appear to have been allocated to Albania, are exceedingly unsatisfactory. We have thought of moving to Tirana, where presumably we shall get what we used to get for Radio 3 with very much more volume and clarity.
  I ask the Home Secretary about this massive sum of money. I say "massive" because a few weeks ago, when I introduced the Official Information Bill and estimated that it would cost £4¼ million, the right hon. Gentleman said "Not from my budget will this money come", as if £4¼ million was a great fortune. But today he is giving away £28 million.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that Radio Albania, as heard through BBC Radio 2 and 3, is not confined to his part of England. It can also be heard, albeit very roughly, in Sussex.
  Mr. Freud: I am glad that we have so much in common. I shall detain the House no longer, except to say that although I am pleased to have had the Home Secretary's assurance, this seems to be a cart-before-the-horse situation. I think that the beast would like to know roughly in what direction he will be pushed.
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I am glad to find that, as always, the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) was able to give the House one piece of information. I am delighted to hear that the awful noise that we hear coming from BBC Radio 1 is in the Albanian language. That has cleared up a mystery, and obviously there is now some empirical research to back up the hon. Gentleman's argument. I have never been able to understand Radio 1 since its inception.
  On a more serious note, I have never been able to understand the unconscionable delay that there has been in implementing the proposals of the committee on the future of broadcasting. It is two years to the week since the Annan committee reported. We are today implementing one of the 174 recommendations—if my memory serves me correctly, it is recommendation 100. There are 173 to go. At the pace of one recommendation every two years, there will be quite a
  1118
  long time to go before we bring about even a modest change in the broadcasting system.
  I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. In saying that, I must enter the caveat that I do not think it goes far enough. It goes along the appropriate road on its own. No one suggests that any other organisation than the IBA, which has the transmitters and the skills, is prepared to do it and has already introduced a good deal of the preliminary engineering works, should be responsible for this task. But I would take a better earnest of the Government's intentions in this matter if we were to have some clearer indication than my right hon. Friend has yet given about the timing of the introduction of the big Bill—the OBA Bill—to which in a sense this Bill is an appendix. The appendix before the body, like the cart before the horse, is an unwieldy way of carrying through legislation.
  In fact, we ought now to hear where the main Bill will come from. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) referred to it as a 64-clause Bill. He may be more privileged than I am in knowing what is in it. During this debate I hope to hear that the Bill exists, because its state of readiness or gestation—whoever fathered and mothered it—really conditions the kind and warmth of welcome that we should give to this subsidiary Bill concerned with the engineering works.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman must realise that in this Parliament there is not much opportunity of getting a 64-clause Bill through. In any case, the decision that he is asking to be made had best wait until we know which Government will make it.
  Mr. Whitehead: Obviously, the longer time goes on, the more force there will be in that argument. That stands to reason. This Parliament can run only until the end of the summer. That is one reason why I personally regret that this Bill was not introduced in the previous year.
  However, there is still time for a great deal to happen in the course of this Parliament. For example, there is time to discuss, and perhaps vote on, the recommendations of the Procedure Committee with regard to our own affairs. There is certainly time for us to consider, give a Second Reading to, and hear the

  1119
  arguments for and the voice of Parliament concerning the committee of inquiry recommendations, as well as the Government's proposals in the White Paper, on the important matter of the fourth channel. I want to see that sooner rather than later.
  Since the hon. Member for Aldershot was judged to be within the rules of order, perhaps I shall be permitted to make a brief reply to some of his elegant witticisms. I have heard them before, but I do not intend to make the same reply to them that I have made on previous occasions. At any rate, one can vary the riposte.
  When the hon. Gentleman says, as he did today, that this is a kind of kooky scheme, which by some weird accident happens to have carried the committee of inquiry unanimously, has cleared the Cabinet, has come before us in the White Paper and will lead to a sort of Islamic republic of broadcasting, there speaks the unreconstructed, immovable Pahlevi on the Opposition Front Bench. If only the hon. Gentleman would look behind him, as Mohammed Reza Shah should perhaps have done as well, he will see how many of his hon. Friends are reluctant to follow this long march into the last ditch which he seems to be inflicting on his party.
  A number of members of the committee were distinguished Conservatives. There were a former Member of this House, Sir Marcus Worsley, a distinguished industrialist, Mr. Parkes, a former vice-chairman of the party, Mrs. Morrison, and a former Conservative candidate and director of the Conservative research centre, Mr. Goldman. They all signed these recommendations. Need I go on? Were all those people bamboozled by the Islamic republicans? I very much doubt it.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: In that case, how many apart from himself—the honourable Ayatollah—were experienced in the television industry?
  Mr. Whitehead: Quite a number were in one way or another. That is something that distinguished this committee from its predecessor.
  Mr. Mitchell: Two.
  Mr. Whitehead: No, there were more than that. Sir Marcus Worsley himself had been a distinguished BBC Radio producer, although that was rather before my time in the days when the BBC enjoyed a monopoly. I shall come on to the virtues and disadvantages of monopoly in a moment.
  The position of my hon. Friend is well known and understood. We know that if these proposals had been discussed in the House, the Opposition could have counted on one extra vote—that of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend is, or was, associated with ITV. He sees a lot of opportunities in ITV and would like to give all of this to ITV. Borrowing the words of Geoffrey Chaucer, I would say to him
  " Let Austin have his swink to him reserved ".
  He can go on swinking away for ITV as long as he wishes, but every other member of the Labour Party would like to see a new departure. The reason why we have misgivings about this Bill is that we see the road left open for a departure in the old direction rather than in the new one.
  In further and final reply to the hon. Member for Aldershot on the remarks that he chose to make about this Bill, I would just say that a number of other people have come out in support of the OBA, for reasons that I think further strengthen my argument that the OBA Bill—if we may call it that—should have accompanied this Bill today.
  During a speech that the hon. Member last made at the recent conference—a speech that we have heard yet again to-day—the first person who challenged him from the floor was a life-long member of the Conservative Party, Miss Revel Guest, who runs an independent film company. She argued—as do most of the independent film people—that the OBA was the right choice to make.
  Like myself, I do not think that the hon. Member was able to stay until the end; we both had to leave. Had we stayed, we would have heard the advertisers come out in favour, together with the sponsors, saying that perhaps in the first year of operation of the OBA it would be possible to put about £8·5 million into the system by sponsorship

  1121
  alone. I shall not go on; if I were to do so, I think it would be beyond the rules of order. I merely say that we have sufficient evidence of support for practical and profitable reasons, and for reasons of principle, I believe, within the country and in what are broadly speaking called Conservative circles, for the notion of the OBA, for it not to be a purely political argument between Left and Right, as the hon. Member seeks to make it. It is quite different.
  When I think that we are entrusting one half of the duopoly with the engineering works of what ought to be a new service, it does slightly concern me that we have not further limited the degree to which it might be responsible for the provision of that service, other than what is said in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. In other words, we are making too many nervous gestures towards the Opposition's present declared intention of bringing in an ITV2.
  A great many people have said—as the hon. Member has said and, no doubt, my hon. Friend, the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will say if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that the fourth channel button is there to be used, that it has to be the cheapest and most practical choice, and that really that should mean ITV. This Bill will be seen by them as a means of giving the IBA the opportunity of doing the groundwork for what they always intended to be ITV2. Such people depress me rather when they use the kind of examples that we heard at the conference which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot and I attended the other day. When speaking for the association of the companies—ITCA—Mr. Brown, from Scottish Television, said that it would be much more economic to do it in this way. He said that a fourth channel would be operated more economically by ITV than
  " by a new body artificially created to fulfil a broadcasting role of which it has not had previous experience."
  What was the then ITA, when it first came in, but a broadcasting body that had no previous experience in the field?
  One of the great tragedies of broadcasting in this country is how little those who control the real estate of broadcasting
  1122
  are prepared to allow other people into the act. That is the problem. That is why we do not get genuine broadcasting pluralism in this country. That is what I think is wrong. Recently, I had to look at the fourth volume of the "History of Broadcasting in Britain" by Lord Briggs. In it he outlines all the plans that the BBC put forward to try to stop the monopoly being broken by ITV in the early 'fifties. There was only one thing wrong with all those plans: there were six of them, and every one entailed the BBC's retaining the monopoly in some way or another—at one remove, perhaps, but keeping the monopoly.
  Those arguments were shot down with contempt, quite rightly, by the Government of the day. It was right to break the monopoly, and I think it is right to break the duopoly now. If we are therefore going on to a system in which there will really be three broadcasting organisations, as I believe we are, we should also say to the IBA that it is not merely being asked to do this engineering work for a fourth channel with which it will have nothing thereafter to do, but it is being asked to do it as part of the contribution that, quite properly, independent television should make to the coming of the new service.
  Simultaneously we should say to the IBA—and here I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin)—that there are many opportunities for creative innovation, an increase of competition and a better grass roots service within the ITV franchises themselves.
  As we are discussing engineering works here in this Bill, I presume it is in order to say, referring back again to the parent Act of 1973, that we shall have to discuss—it may be relevant to discuss it in Committee—the degree to which re-engineering will be necessary if the IBA, in proper time, is to introduce, as I think it should, changes in the franchise areas before the next round of contracts. I am very strongly in favour of having a separation of the present ATV area in the Midlands, where I live, to give the East Midlands area a genuine regional service of its own in addition to the service put out by ATV for the West Midlands and for a vast area around the West Midlands.
  Mr. John Ellis: The case that my hon. Friend makes out is a very compelling one. It would be a tragedy, would he not agree, if we just stuck another broadcasting facility on the existing transmitters that would produce more of the same thing? Would that not be the danger, whether it was the BBC, the IBA or anything that is more of the same thing?
  On the engineering side, it is necessary, does he not agree, that they have some regard to that when they do this work so that there is maximum opportunity to change districts and areas, to make them bigger or smaller, in any way that is required?
  Mr. Whitehead: I absolutely agree. It has been said that the local regions in broadcasting terms were invented by engineers in this country. To some degree, engineers still dictate what is practicable.
  If we are talking about the East Midlands—and we have an almost exclusively East Midlands contingent in the House at this moment—I think that we can say that the major re-engineering would have to be done to the Nottinghamshire transmitter. That in itself would probably not be enough for the kind of East Midlands region of which I am thinking.
  My hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that one wants to keep transmitter engineering as flexible and versatile as possible, in order to allow a number of options. These options are not simply a question of the OBA if the Labour Party stay in or of ITV2 if the Conservatives get in; they are options about local service and variations within the region, on which surely we can all agree. We can say to the IBA in this matter "For heaven's sake be courageous, give us variety, and you will have a lead from Parliament in these matters, a clear indication of what people in the regions concerned would like."
  There is a clear indication, too, from the last time round. I see that the hon. Gentleman who is a director of Granada Television is here; the division of the Granada area into Granada and Yorkshire certainly did not damage Granada, I think, and it gave more competition and variety within the network system of ITV. We should like to see that done again—not of course down to
  1124
  the level of the absolute minimum, but in those regions where a proper local service could be given.
  I would like to end on this note. It is 10 years now since I and many other people have been working for changes in broadcasting that would lead to a greater pluralisation. My children, my friends and everyone else ask me what I have been doing in those 10 years. We had a 10-year reunion the other day of an organisation called the 76 Group, which was set up to campaign for an inquiry into broadcasting, to report in 1976. We got the inquiry, and it reported only one year late. Ten years later all of those people met, a little sadder, perhaps a little wiser, and asked themselves the question: "What do you think has happened? What have you done in that time?" We did not ask for any revolutionary changes. We said that we would go through the "consensus" way; we would call for committees of inquiry; we would argue and persuade the committee of inquiry and obtain our unanimous verdict from it and bring the matter before Parliament; we would have it debated in the public arena and then it would be passed into legislation.
  As I said to my right hon. Friend today, it would be an absolute tragedy if this Parliament were to come to an end without the Bill being brought forward. We know the disadvantages that he has in the Home Office; we know that some of the people there do not like it; there are all kinds of reasons—it is perfectly true; my hon. Friend need not shake his head—and we know what are those disadvantages. We do not need anybody to argue for the disadvantages. The disadvantages argue for themselves.
  Whatever happens at the end of the debate and during the present Parliament, one of the ways in which the Home Office will be judged during my right hon. Friend's tenure is the degree of willingness that it has shown to embrace the modest changes—organic reform rather than revolutionary change—brought forward by the committee of inquiry and endorsed in the White Paper. When the Government spokesman replies, I want to hear it stated that the Bill will pass through Committee concurrently with an announcement of the date when

  1125
  the OBA Bill is to be brought before the House. That is the least that the Government can do.
  5.1 p.m.
  Mr. Jim Lester: I am happy to take up some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) as I agree with so much of what he has suggested for East Midlands television. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman made the correct analysis but drew the wrong conclusion. I fail to see what help it would be for a major television company to establish additional studios similar to the unused one at Nottingham to further the interests of the region.
  We all welcome new technology. However, that will be brought about only through the operation of a new company that is established on the basis of setting new standards of genuine technological competition.
  I welcome the proposals in the Bill as far as they go. Apart from establishing the fourth channel, the engineering money could be wisely used at the same time to take into account the East Midlands. I am sure that the Home Secretary will hear many more voices this afternoon to that effect. The 33 East Midlands Members on both sides of the House are overwhelmingly in favour of establishing a new franchise that reflects the needs of the area. That concept is supported by all the district councils in the region and the county councils. I am sure that in the forthcoming exercise to be undertaken by the IBA of public participation in the new franchises there will be discovered overwhelming grass roots support.
  Both the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) have listened carefully to representations made by hon. Members. The essential criteria that need to be established have so far been met. Social cohesion is the first criterion. East Midlands and West Midlands Members know very well that the East Midlands stands on its own as a region. The second criterion is the financial consideration. It is already established that an East Midlands television company would be viable in that sense.
  1126
  The real difficulty—it was made clear at the public meeting called by the BBC—is the technical problem. Without wasting the time of the House reiterating the details of transmitters covering the East Midlands, I tell the Home Secretary forcefully, in support of what other hon. Members have said, that wisdom suggests that planning provision should be made, along with other IBA procedures, provided that all other criteria are satisfied in the establishment of East Midlands television, to use part of the £28 million to ensure that the technical issue will not be produced at the end to frustrate the genuine will of the people of the East Midlands.
  I shall welcome assurances on the issues to which I have referred and I hope that they will be borne in mind by the IBA and throughout the Bill's passage in Committee.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I welcome the Bill, although it may be the cart before the horse. It is the first positive step after months of delay. I do not blame the Government for the long delay, I blame the Annan committee. The committee—this applies especially to its representative who is a Member of this place—seems to have taken up an idea that is attractive to a small number of intellectually motivated men. I say "intellectually motivated" because they certainly were not practically motivated men. Surely it is not practical to erect a beautiful theoretical concept that is about as useful and as comprehensible as the Chaucerian quote with which I was belaboured by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), to my bemused incomprehension.
  The Annan committee erected the road block of the Open Broadcasting Authority. That has effectively blocked all progress towards not only the fourth channel but the fifth and sixth channels that we should have. That is what we should be talking about in this channel-starved country.
  The Annan committee has stopped progress in that direction, to the harm of an industry that desperately needs expansion and the boost that would come from a new channel that would be an opening for new ideas and new talent. That

  1127
  is the boost which ITV provided in the 1950s, which BBC2 provided in the early 1960s and which the reshuffling of the contracts provided in the late 1960s. That boost has not been provided in the 1970s.
  The Annan committee has blocked progress, to the harm of the viewer. The viewer is not getting a wider choice. He is not getting the leaven to the stale mix of programmes consisting of endless repeats and repetition of the same safe formula with which the viewer is now belaboured as I am belaboured with Chaucerian quotations.
  My welcome for the Bill would be pure and unalloyed if it were not for the weasel words "to transmit" rather than "to provide" a fourth channel. Progress has been speeded, but as long as that premise remains it is progress down a dead-end street towards the OBA.
  The basic motive behind the OBA is a good one. It is an attempt to bring diversity and variation to British television. However, the unfortunate fact is that in taking up the idea of the OBA the Annan committee has latched on to an alien concept of publishing that has no place in the experience of the television industry. We do not achieve pluralism in one channel. Pluralism in one channel is about as likely as Socialism in one country. We achieve pluralism through a diversity of channels and not by creating a dustbin channel into which anything can be shoved ad lib that is not related to the preceding or following programmes in any way. Pluralism will not be achieved by using another channel as a relegation hole for a diversity of programmes that should be spread over a series of channels.
  The Annan committee and the White Paper on broadcasting put the OBA in an impossible position. It has been designated specifically as a channel that will be used to appeal to minority tastes. That is its designation in the White Paper. However, it will be dependent on advertising. That means that it will have to compete for audiences with the two popular channels; that means that it will have to reduce itself to their level and their sorts of programme to achieve the mass audience that the advertisers will need, or it will have to be a ghetto channel, a fretwork
  1128
  network, with a smaller audience than BBC2.
  The BBC2 audience seems to average about 8 per cent. of the viewing public. That is its audience after 15 years of cross-promotion on BBC1, the popular channel. BBC1 attempts to recruit viewers for BBC2. If the OBA is to be a minority channel and is to be on its own, its position is bound to be even worse than that of BBC2, which has the advantage of cross-promotion. If it has an audience that is smaller than that of BBC2, it will not be attractive to advertisers. That means that it will be dependent on public money.
  The criticism is realistic. There will be a continuous chorus of complaints about public money being used to fund an inherently profitable medium to provide programmes for minority tastes. That in turn will make the Government more niggardly than they should be and television deserves. That will handicap the OBA, the fourth channel, from the start.
  Mr. Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend aware that no one has ever suggested that the OBA should be a channel on which only minority programmes will qualify to be shown? He is trying to persuade the House that either the programmes will be too popular or that they will not be popular enough. Has he ever heard of programme controllers who strike a balance between the two extremes?
  Mr. Mitchell: The fourth channel will either have to compete by broadcasting popular programmes or become a minority channel. If it is to be a minority channel, its position will be even weaker than that of BBC2 as it will not have the advantage of complementary programmes and cross-promotion. The only way to provide a real choice and an escape from the ghetto is complementary programming and genuine choice, namely, channels providing programmes that are different.
  The real challenge of television is not the provision of minority programmes appealing to minority tastes. That is the easiest part of television. It might be expensive, but it is easy to do. The challenge is to take minority subjects for minority tastes, perhaps, and make them appealing and interesting to a wider audience. To undertake that task it is necessary to fulfil certain requirements. It

  1129
  is necessary to have a popular channel with a reasonable amount of audience loyalty to that channel. Secondly, one needs producers with a populist flair for making subjects interesting but not trivial. A ghetto Open Broadcasting Authority seems to have neither of those two advantages.
  A further argument for the OBA is that independent production houses will be stimulated. "Let a hundred production houses blossom" is a slogan with which I have every sympathy. But there are not many independent production houses and it will probably take a long time for them to develop contacts with the fourth channel. The need now is to provide a new outlet for the talent, enthusiasm and ability in the existing production companies. This is the more pressing need. Ideas grow and develop from continuous progress of production and not in abstract isolation in an independent production house. One programme idea flows from another and from continuous work within a production company.
  Finally, it comes from regional roots—from companies which are based in the regions and drawing strength from those regions. All too often, companies are run from London and manned by people who see their first job as getting back to London as quickly as possible. The companies must be those serving the regions and genuinely rooted in the regions, which is how the idea of independent television started and still has a long way to go towards its fulfilment. The need is for regions that are manageable which a company can serve and where it can take roots. For instance, ATV seems too large at the moment, as the assembly of East Midlands MPs, who seem to be dominating the debate, have pointed out. Delenda est ATV is not my concern because I have not the same vested commercial interest in this operation as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North.
  Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that he had not the same vested interest. So far as I know, no Member representing the East Midlands, either Labour or Conservative, has any vested interest whatever
  1130
  in the desire to create a separate television service for that region.
  Mr. Mitchell: I withdraw the allegation of the vested commercial interest.
  Mr. Whitehead: Would my hon. Friend accept that I have no interest in any consortium in the Midlands or anywhere else, and never have had?
  Mr. Mitchell: Certainly, I would accept that.
  The point is that the splitting of ATV is one example of the creation of regions that can be served by companies genuinely and firmly rooted in those regions which will provide lively centres of ideas outside London. This is one of my dominant interests in the debate. The Annan committee does not seem to have taken sufficient cognisance of this "outside London" dimension. The only effective production houses on any scale of any ability outside London are regional ITV companies which need to fulfil the regional commitment of ITV but can provide the nucleus for expansion.
  Setting up a fourth channel is bound to mean drawing up a set of fine balances. There is a need to be complementary to ITV but not to be dominated by the moguls of the production companies. There is a need to be independent but not to be publicly financed or a pale imitation of the BBC or ITV.
  That points to either a channel controlled by the IBA or by an authority twinned with the IBA and either drawing up its programme schedule in consultation with the IBA or submitting it to the IBA. This is the only way we can secure the advantage of complementary programming and promotion by another channel that will build up the audience and provide diversity for the ITV audience. It would be a channel in which the companies would sell advertising which gives them a vested interest in the success of the channel but also financed by the levy on ITV out of which the companies secure rebates for programmes produced for the fourth channel. In other words, there will be an incentive to produce for the fourth channel and an incentive to push the fourth channel in the regions. There will be an incentive to make it complementary and functioning genuinely with ITV.
  I hope that the opportunity provided—it is the only justification for the delay

  1131
  that has occurred—will be taken to think along these directions as the scheme is developed. Otherwise, the provision that we are making today for a transmitter framework for the fourth channel will be largely unnecessary because of the smallness of the audience for which that channel will be catering.
  If the OBA scheme proceeds as outlined in the White Paper, it should only do so with the proviso that occurred over devolution, requiring an Order in Council unless that fourth channel gets 40 per cent. of the potential audience and proves that it is an effective, attractive channel which will gain and provide for the needs of a large audience.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) described this as a cart-before-the-horse Bill. I believe that it is rather a case of finding the cart and then having to place wheels under it and finding a horse to drag it.
  The IBA told the working party on the Welsh television fourth channel project published simultaneously with the White Paper that it could, if authorised, go ahead immediately with the construction of transmitters required for the fourth channel service. It is a matter for some regret that neither the Home Office nor the legal advisers to the IBA seem to have found out in time that our debate today and this mini-Bill would be required before they could carry out the commitment in paragraph 7.14 of the report of that working party. The report states in paragraph 7.15:
  " The IBA tells us that it has sufficient staft to carry out the necessary fourth channel construction programme in Wales in much the same order as the existing HTV Wales UHF service was provided without any detrimental effect to the continuation of the engineering work mentioned in the previous paragraph."
  That referred to increasing the amount of coverage available in the rest of Wales on the UHF service.
  I wish that we had received earlier indication from the IBA's legal advisers that the Bill would be required. This is a piece of broadcasting legislation which was first not required. When it emerged that it was required, it seems to have become the only broadcasting Bill that is likely to emerge from this Government. The proposal for the fourth
  1132
  television channel in Wales to be allocated mainly to Welsh language television programmes was incorporated in the report of the Crawford committee which reported on broadcasting coverage in the United Kingdom in November 1974.
  One of my first activities as an MP was giving evidence to that committee. The committee reported that the service for Wales should start as soon as possible and that the decision should be taken for Wales ahead of the implementation of the fourth channel in the rest of the United Kingdom. That position was accepted by the then Home Secretary. Roy Jenkins, but no action was taken. According to the Government, it was because there were financial constraints on public expenditure at that time.
  It seems that we have made very little progress on that original acceptance by the Government of the Crawford committee recommendations on the fourth channel in Wales. We have since then had working parties. There was originally the Siberry working party and then the Annan committee report and Littler working party. We also have the Government's own White Paper.
  I should like to refer to what the Home Secretary, in the absence of progress on the fourth channel proposals, said about the interim expansion in Welsh language children's programmes. I should like to compliment him on the progress that he has been able to make over the use of licence fee money by the BBC for this purpose and also on the discussions that have taken place between his Department, the BBC and the IBA and, indirectly, the commercial company, HTV, operating in Wales, about the increase in programmes for children. This is the only development that I can welcome in the context of these proposals.
  We are now entering a situation in which the commitment for Wales is once again in danger of disappearing. Whereas that commitment had priority in the original view of the Crawford committee and in the subsequent view accepted by the Government, that priority is now disappearing. The proposal for the fourth channel in Wales as a Welsh language channel is under severe threat because of the Government's failure to legislate on the OBA concept. It is quite clear that, without the framework of the OBA

  1133
  for the whole of Britain, the concept of a national service for Wales giving priority to Welsh language broadcasting on the fourth channel is threatened.
  In paragraph 66 and succeeding paragraphs of the White Paper on broadcasting the Government dealt with the Welsh language service. It is significant that no reference at all was made to this service when the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) spoke on the subject today, despite the reference by the Home Secretary. I look forward to some response to what I have to say now from the Conservative spokesman who winds up the debate for the Opposition, because the House and the country of Wales have a right to know how the Conservative Party would, if elected to Government, implement the policy of the fourth channel in Wales.
  In paragraph 68 of the White Paper the Government made it clear that the scheme of the fourth channel in Wales under the OBA would be a national service for Wales, to which the three broadcasting organisations could contribute. That is severely threatened by the ITV2 proposal. Looking at the discussion in the report of the working party on the Welsh television fourth channel project, chaired by Mrs. Littler, we see discussion at length on what the report describes as
  " Option 2—the implications for Wales of an ITV2-type service on the fourth channel in the United Kingdom ".
  This was a joint working party, with membership from the Home Office, the Welsh Office and the broadcasting authorities. The conclusions of the working party, at paragraph 6.23 of the report, are these:
  " We judge that such a situation "—
  an ITV2-type service for the whole of the United Kingdom—
  " would have serious implications for the BBC Wales and HTV Wales joint Welsh language programme service."
  The report makes it clear that if there were an ITV2 service for the whole of the United Kingdom it would not be possible to move ahead with the kind of national Welsh language priority service which the fourth channel should be, according to the Crawford, Annan and subsequent recommendations.
  1134
  Therefore, it seems clear that the cooperation which could have emerged under an OBA system between the BBC and the present or a future contractor for ITV in Wales cannot find any place in an ITV2 system. We have already had references from the hon. Member for Aldershot about minority audiences not being a burden on the Revenue. With all due respect, I say to him that the Government have already made a commitment in the broadcasting White Paper and through the working party—carefully studied concerning funding—that there has to be either a grant-in-aid from the Government or some alternative form of public funding through the OBA buying Welsh language programmes from an existing or future independent contractor in Wales and BBC Wales in order to ensure that there is cross-funding for what would be a minority audience of some 500,000 Welsh speakers as a potential audience for that channel.
  The funding for Welsh language programmes must come from public expenditure. It cannot come from advertising because, except for public service advertising, there is no such commercial advertising on HTV Wales in the Welsh language, and it is not conceivable that there would be massive advertising revenue accruing with an audience of 500,000.
  Therefore, I think that we have a right to know how the Conservative Opposition intend to honour any commitment that has been made about the extension of Welsh language programmes and to know whether there will be any clear statement from the Conservative Opposition tonight of their intentions concerning the fourth television channel in Wales.
  As regards the separation of languages in broadcasting in Wales, the problem has very deep implications for the way in which the media in Wales are organised. I do not want to go into a long and detailed explanation, which would be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the result of the recent referendum which took place in Wales, but certainly one of the factors in the referendum must have been the fact that at least 30 per cent. of the estimated number of viewers of television in Wales view from transmitters based outside Wales. As a result, in no way could they participate in the general referendum debate. That might

  1135
  appear to be a benefit or a disbenefit, but certainly the way in which the Welsh television media are organised means that at present some 30 per cent. of potential viewers of Welsh programmes turn their aerials towards transmitters outside Wales.
  Therefore, the creation of a separate Welsh language television channel would enable the present slots which are filled by Welsh language programmes on the existing ITV and BBC channels to be filled by English language programmes generated for a Welsh audience and providing a Welsh cultural content as contrasted with a Welsh language and cultural content, thereby enabling us to speak to ourselves in a far more adequate and fair way.
  The Conservative Party must grasp this problem. However, from the contributions that we have heard so far this evening it appears to me that the Conservatives have entirely failed to do that. The hon. Member for Aldershot, or one of his hon. Friends, should seek the immediate assistance of the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) in trying to formulate some kind of reply as to what the Conservative Party intends to do.
  I have been unable so far to provoke any interventions from the hon. Member for Aldershot. Therefore, I move rapidly on to refer to one particular issue which concerns me as we look to the future of television provision in Wales. That is the abysmal failure of the broadcasting authorities and, indeed, the education authorities in Wales to mount any kind of training programme for the expansion of Welsh language television. It was estimated in the original Siberry working party report that the expanded service on the fourth channel in Wales would require some 400 additional staff with wide-ranging technical skills. But it seems clear from correspondence, which has been published, between Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg—the Welsh Language Society's mass media group—and the BBC and HTV that there has been no move towards internal training programmes in Cardiff by either HTV or BBC to cope with the obvious need to expand the numbers that will be employed with the required skills on the fourth channel.
  The delay that we have experienced since 1974 in implementing the Government's
  1136
  commitment has led to the cynical view among broadcasters in Wales and among administrators in both broadcasting organisations that there is no point in preparing for the fourth channel in Welsh language programmes because it appears that such a channel is not likely to go ahead in any event. The delay has, therefore, demoralised broadcasters in the Principality. They are no longer able to look forward to development. The delay has created deepening frustration.
  I speak as one who has tried to play some constructive part in this whole broadcasting debate over the last five years. I have to warn the House that if the Government do not honour their commitment there will be—however regrettable it may be from the point of view of those who seek democratic constitutional changes in politics—an increase in activism by Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, which is committed to the establishment of this fourth channel and some of whose members have been involved in various forms of illegal activity in constituencies within and outside Wales. At the moment two leading members of the society, Wynford James and Rhodri Williams, are imprisoned in Swansea for a conspiracy offence connected with interference with broadcasting installations.
  It seems that there is a necessity for the Government as well as the Opposition to understand the motives of the people in Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, who resort to illegal forms of direct acting against broadcasting property because they are frustrated at the continual delay in implementing Government commitments. It is one thing to argue with a Government who refuse to meet a demand or refuse to change a policy. It is something else to have to argue with a Government who accept a policy but will not implement it.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: It will be abundantly clear that the reason for this Bill, which will make provision to get the engineering done early, is the impossibility of the IBA doing it. There is nothing here or in the Bill which has not yet been introduced which reneges on any commitment. In no way can the activities of members of the Welsh Language Society be accepted in this House—I am not referring to cases which are sub judice—as justification for what they are doing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman

  1137
  is not doing that, because if their motives are prompted by what they see as commitments being broken they are wrong. One of the things that emerged last week was the bitterness that has arisen as a result of the activities of the Welsh Language Society.
  Mr. Thomas: The Home Secretary refers to bitterness. That bitterness exists when a minority is unable to obtain what it sees as its rights. In this case the right of communication is involved and the political system is not prepared to concede those rights.
  Mr. English: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that viewers often feel that they are suffering from vested interests which dominate them? The hon. Gentleman's case involves the cause of the Welsh language. That is not so in the East Midlands. There we are dominated by programmes from Thames Valley or Birmingham.
  Mr. Thomas: I agree with that entirely, and the regionalisation of the reflection of cultural identity, and the cultural pluralism, referred to by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), is the whole basis of my argument. People in various cultural regions should have the opportunity to communicate with one another without interference. In Wales, this means the provision in the Welsh language for the half million of us who speak Welsh as a first language and who want to be part of a lively popular mass culture in that language. We want those who speak English as a first and only language to have a popular Welsh culture disseminated to them through the medium of English. That can be achieved only if and when the commitment on the fourth television channel goes ahead in Wales, so that we can have both services, with resources devoted to both.
  All the frustration and bitterness which have been created in Wales arise from a failure of the political system in this place. That failure is compounded by the official Opposition in their lack of a statement so far. The failure of the system in this place is a failure to meet the legitimate demands of both cultural groups in Wales. I would not, in this place or outside it, defend the use in this context of illegal tactics to achieve policy changes, but it would be a foolish and
  1138
  blind Administration which did not recognise the motive behind the actions of Cymdeithas Yr Iaith Gymraeg. The motive is to ensure control of the media in Wales by the two cultural groups there.
  I hope that the assurances given by the Home Secretary mean that there is to be no reneging and no moving back. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Home Secretary, since I have discussed these issues with him at great length over the last three years. But it appears increasingly in Wales that commitments made to us are not being honoured because of a failure by the Government to organise their own policies in the context of the United Kingdom.
  Policies for Wales which were supposed to have priority over the rest of the United Kingdom in the original commitment by the Government then became part of the overall post-Annan framework for the United Kingdom. It now appears that the famous 64-clause Bill for the United Kingdom organisation of broadcasting is not to be produced in this Session, or it is certainly not to be enacted in this Session.
  That means therefore that the commitment for Wales will be lost with the failure to enact a policy for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is not surprising, because throughout the history of Welsh politics commitments made to Wales have been lost in this House because of a failure in radicalism on the part of successive Labour Governments. It is a matter of bitter regret to me that the Home Secretary and the Government have not been able to produce a United Kingdom framework that will enable the fourth channel project in Wales to go ahead.
  It is equally and abysmally clear that the Conservative Opposition have no proposals for Wales whatever. Therefore we shall have to consider the failures of the Labour Government and balance them alongside the absence of policies from the Conservative Opposition when we decide in any future event how we may have to vote in the House.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to make a brief contribution because I am concerned that this apparently trivial piece of legislation should be introduced at this

  1139
  time. There seems to be no real reason for it and I wonder how it happened. I should be interested if my right hon. Friend would explain it. Perhaps the Secretary of State took the initiative and said, one day, when he arrived at the Home Office, "We should innovate and we must get this legislation through". Or perhaps it was a minute prepared by a civil servant who suggested that this initiative should be taken. I do not take the view that civil servants are neutral and isolated. I take the view that they are a tightly knit group of politically motivated people.
  It is possible that they decided that this was a facility which should be passed in the last few months of a Labour Government. We are bound to have an election some time this year and perhaps they felt that they should, as a safeguard, have this bit of legislation on the statute book. Otherwise, it simply does not make sense, because there are a number of things about the major broadcasting legislation which we would like to examine. This should be done in conjunction with this legislation and not in isolation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that this Bill does not exclude the possibility of the IBA transmitting a service. Of course it does not.
  If by some fluke the Conservatives win the general election—and it would be a fluke—they have made it clear that they will hand over this fourth channel to ITV2. They will increase the power of the existing companies. Since that is the case, and since this legislation amends the 1973 Act, we should examine what type of control the IBA has exercised in the years between the passage of the Act and today. There seems to be a little too much cosy consensus that the IBA is doing a first-rate job. That simply is not correct.
  What startles me is that the merchants on the Conservative Benches who are always calling for a greater emphasis on law and order do not follow closely the 1973 Independent Broadcasting Authority Act. I refer to schedule 2 to the Act, "Rules as to Advertisements". One of the reasons why I should like the major legislation to be introduced is, as the White Paper suggests in paragraph 21, that the OBA would be subject to the same advertising rules. This House ought
  1140
  to have a very close look at these advertising rules. We said, in "Labour's Programme 1973":
  " In television, the dependence of the independent companies upon advertising revenue has tended to be the enemy of innovation, or of programmes for minority tastes and has encouraged those made according to safe formulae. Through the fight for ratings, the same influence has been extended to the BBC ".
  We said, therefore, that the influence of advertising shaped the position. What has the IBA done? Schedule 2(3) to the 1973 Act states:
  " The amount of time given to advertising in the programmes shall not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of information, education and entertainment."
  I wonder whether the IBA has exercised tight control over that aspect. I wonder whether it has given sufficient attention to schedule 2(4), which states:
  " Advertisements shall not be inserted otherwise than at the beginning or end of the programme or in natural breaks therein."
  The controversy about natural breaks seems to have died down. Natural breaks are part of the routine and yet programmes which were deliberately designed to be shown continuously are broken night after night on ITV.
  The controlling body, the IBA, is to be given additional powers in this Bill, although it has shown itself to be incapable of applying existing legislation. I refer to the showing of feature films or plays on ITV. Those plays and films were never designed, except in one or two isolated cases, to be shown with breaks.
  When breaks occurred in feature films we used to shout "Put a penny in the gas". Films are designed to be shown continuously. The writers, directors and producers make a great effort to produce a worthwhile film. What happens when such films are shown by the IBA? I do not know who selects the natural breaks, but most feature films are torn to shreds by so-called natural breaks and the intrusion of advertising. That means that feature films—some of which are puerile but others of which are important artistic efforts—are subjugated to the commercial needs of advertiisng.
  Mr. Michael Morris rose—
  Mr. Cryer: I shall give way to the hon. Member, who has an advertising interest.
  Mr. Morris: I declare an interest as a director of an advertising agency. Does not the hon. Member take on board the point that was made by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others that the best television is that which is produced for that medium? The hon. Member seems to be saying that the television medium should lay itself before the cinema medium and that films that are made for the cinemas should be transmitted automatically on to television. Surely what the IBA and commercial contractors have done is to produce films and plays which are geared to the television medium with the natural breaks built in.
  Mr. Cryer: Plays can be written to be produced in 15 or 20 minutes, so that an advertisement can be inserted. That argument has certain legitimacy. However, television companies want to show feature films. Many people want to see them. But the people who made those films did not know that they would be chopped up by advertisements. The parallel would be if Pearl and Dean suddenly shot on to the screen 30 seconds or a minute of advertising in the middle of a cinema programme. That would produce an outcry from the auditorium.
  Occasionally films are made with a built-in intermission, but such films are extraordinary. The general rule is that feature films are shown in an uninterrupted fashion. When election results are being announced, ITV deems that that is too important a programme to be chopped up and subordinated to commercial considerations. Normally, commercial breaks do not interrupt such programmes. I say that the IBA should exercise its judgment more on the type of programmes which are transmitted and the licence that is given to the independent companies to chop up programmes because of commercial considerations alone.
  There is much to be said about aesthetic merits, but the legislation does not involve a judgment of the artistic merit of a film or play. A play that is transmitted on television should be transmitted as the author and producer wish it, and not at the behest of the commercial manager or television contractor. The legislation states that:
  " Advertisements shall not be inserted otherwise than at the beginning or the end of the programme or in natural breaks therein."
  1142
  One can envisage that authors will now write allowing for breaks for advertisements. For example, a modern-day Shakespeare would write a play allowing for natural breaks for television advertising. That would be a prostitution of artistic merit to the needs of commerce.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I declare an interest as a member of the Independent Broadcasting Authority's general advisory council. I can assure the hon. Member that the IBA pays careful attention to the question of natural breaks in the movies to which he has referred. There is no evidence whatsoever that any section of the public shares the hon. Member's outrage at advertisements shown during some old and valuable movies.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member has two arguments. First, he says that the IBA shows concern. That is not translated on to the screens, because commercials are shown in the middle of feature films. Secondly, the hon. Member says that nobody else shares my outrage. I do not know whether he has evidence of that assertion. I do not suppose that hon. Members eagerly seek round to see whether the law is being administered properly and gather evidence of concern before they raise a matter in Parliament. On that basis we should raise only those subjects which have been measured by opinion polls.
  I believe that my attitude is shared by others. If we are to pass legislation the provisions of which are to be administered by an organisation, we should ensure that that organisation is making a good job of applying that legislation. From the evidence that I have observed, the IBA is not making a good job of applying Schedule 2, which is crucial because it forms the whole basis of ITV.
  I do not wish to assist in the process of handing over the fourth channel to the IBA. I am not satisfied with the IBA. I do not wish it to have the fourth channel. I do not know why we are oiling the wheels towards that end. I do not know why this Bill is being taken in isolation from the other Bill. If the other Bill incorporates the financing of the OBA, we should examine Schedule 2 even more closely.
  Mr. Critchley: The hon. Member is suggesting that the Bill will make our life

  1143
  easier. Is he prepared to concede the result of the general election already?
  Mr. Cryer: I am not prepared to concede the result of the election. I am saying that this legislation should be accompanied by the other 64-clause Bill. I see no reason why that should not happen. I do not wish things to be taken in isolation. I do not concede that there will be a Tory victory. I believe that when the election comes there will be a Labour victory. I see no reason for the Bill now, when it should be accompanied by the other legislation.
  Finally, I quote again from "Labour's Programme for 1973". We said that
  " Our aim must be to devise a structure that will allow much greater variety and genuine freedom in communications. It must lay emphasis on the business of communicating rather than on that of making profits; on freedom from Government control and censorship; on freedom for new people and publications to enter into the industry and not be immediately defeated by high fixed costs or the semi-monopolistic behaviour of competitors; and on the need for greater freedom for those working within the media both to express their views and to share in the decision-making process."
  That is a fair ideal, which reflects the common sense and decency of the Labour Party. The OBA goes some way towards measuring up to that ideal. I fail to see why we cannot look at that legislation and why we are taking this in isolation. It leaves the lingering suspicions that an unnecessary initiative has been taken and that if there is any difficulty at the election the path is eased. In any case, there is no argument for taking the two Bills in isolation. We want to see the colour and character of the legislation before giving more power to the IBA.
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: The conjecture of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) about the next election is as far from the mark as his concern about the influence of advertising on television programming. The Annan report gave advertising a clean bill of health in its lack of effect on television programming. That is borne out by every opinion poll on attitudes to advertising, particularly advertising on television.
  The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the importance of the fourth channel in Welsh. Perhaps the House is inclined to attach too much
  1144
  importance to that aspect of the Bill. He was talking of minority groups, yet we are discussing funding for broadcasting which is not essentially designed for minority groups. If it were, it would be called "narrowcasting".
  Only last week we saw the lack of inclination of many people in Wales to think
  "Welshly". At lunchtime today I learned that the Leader of Plaid Cymru in Cardiff takes pride in having his television aerial tuned to Bristol. It should be considered whether this driving impetus to create more Welsh programming represents a widespread need in Wales.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) referred to the results of the referendum as Welsh people deciding not to think "Welshly". If he had paid attention to the campaign, he would know that the opponents of the Welsh Assembly were in favour of some form of devolution. It was nothing to do with the cultural, ethnic or national identity of Wales. It was a decision based only on one set of political proposals. Secondly, linguistic minorities are in difficulty when one considers their demands, particularly if they are bilingual, as 80 per cent. of the Welsh people are. Because we can understand English language programmes, we should not be denied the means of mass communication of popular culture in our language.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) has made one speech. We must allow the orginal speaker to resume.
  Mr. Rathbone: I ask your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in measuring the time that I speak.
  The Home Secretary referred to the Welsh Broadcasting Council. Will he ensure that the various geographic areas in Wales are represented according to population when that council is established? There are different attitudes to Wales and Welshness between Southern and Northern Wales.
  On the Bill as a whole, I should like to know what allowance for inflation there is in the money that is being voted to build the transmitters. If no allowance is made, how will the IBA be recompensed for the additional financial burden? Secondly, has the Minister ensured that the IBA has had competitive bids? If not

  1145
  has the Minister approached other organisations, such as the BBC, to see whether it could have put up the broadcasting facilities more cheaply? There are many organisations at home and abroad that can provide the technical facilities that the Bill is designed to finance. What is the costing basis for choosing the IBA?
  I share the concern of other hon. Members about the method of repayment being imprecise. I hope that the IBA will be the end user of the facilities. But, if not, it is not written into the Bill that the end user will work to a repayment formula over a specific period. If that is not agreed, we are putting at risk the amount of finance that the IBA might be able to make available for the programming of the fourth channel. That money will be absorbed by the continued borrowing from or repayments to the Government.
  The Government have not given a specific assurance within the Bill on repayment to the IBA of costs incurred should the House decide eventually against a fourth channel. The Home Secretary may assure us that a future Government will repay, but that assurance should be written into the Bill, and that should be considered in Committee.
  I have two questions on the technicalities of the facilities. Like the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), I also hope that the transmission facilities will be built on a basis which will allow new regions to be drawn or subsections of regions to be identified. I hope that the facilities which the IBA will build with the money that we are voting tonight will not draw too circumscribed a regional delineation for some future date. We are all aware that the Government have a slow pregnancy for the broadcasting future. Whether they will give birth in this Parliament, we do not know, but if that question of the future of broadcasting in this country is to be left in the air it will be sad to see too precise lines drawn on the facilities.
  What estimates has the Minister obtained from the IBA about the growth of cable television? Inevitably, that could have a direct influence on the establishment of the facilities for which we are voting money today. It could be argued hypothetically that if cable television were to grow as fast as some people think it
  1146
  will these facilities would not be needed. The same projections could be applied to satellite broadcasting.
  On the question of timing, like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) I welcome this "little snowdrop Bill" as he described it, but if the Government had made up their mind and carried through the House plans for the future of broadcasting the Bill would not have been necessary. Perhaps this is another sad example of the Government shilly-shallying.
  Many hon. Members have pointed out that there are other matters of importance which the House has yet to decide, such as the future of the BBC and the nature of TV4. We are voting these moneys today without having the opportunity to debate what these facilities will be used for. In this Bill the Government have, however, shown an ability to look to the future and plan ahead. It is all the sadder that they seem to be incapable of looking to the future of other broadcasting media, such as radio. It is frustrating that they have not given the go-ahead for 90 local radio stations rather than nine.
  When will we see the Government's plans for submission to the world conference on broadcasting this autumn? Unless we know them and have an opportunity to debate them, any debate on any broadcasting matter is nonsense.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. George Reid: I want to swim a little against the tide of this debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken the view today that the sooner the fourth channel is set up the better. We have heard speeches from the Opposition Benches in support of ITV2 and from the Government Benches in support of the OBA. I suggest that what we need at this time is not more broadcasting, but better quality broadcasting. In the country's present parlous financial situation, if we rush into ITV2 we shall see a falling-off in the quality of British broadcasting. After all, British broadcasting is one of the few things that these nations which share these islands do well together.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), in describing this "little snowdrop Bill", produced an advertising man's dream. He gave us a prospectus that

  1147
  we have seen made out so many times before in licence applications—more culture, more art, more opera, more of this or that. But so often in the past we have found that that dream has faded quickly. In my view, if ITV2 were set up it would lead to great scheduling pressure on the BBC and its quality would drop off as well.
  Certainly the OBA has my support. I share the disappointment of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that all we have today is a little Bill standing on its own. I would have preferred the Labour Party to have the courage of its convictions and put forward a general plan for British broadcasting, but, as the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) said, so often the trouble with the Labour Party is that its radicalism fades with the opportunity.
  I wish to speak specifically about two aspects of quality. The first concerns the remote areas of the United Kingdom and the second concerns the ITV and BBC channels that now exist.
  Those of us who come from more remote parts of these islands are bound to take the view that the need for broadcasting is almost in inverse proportion to population size. In North Wales and the islands of Scotland people can be cut off for weeks on end and their only form of entertainment, relaxation, information and contact with the outside world is through the box. Yet, it is a sad fact of life that in these very areas people are paying the same licence fee to the BBC as everyone else, but many of them receive only BBC1. That is manifestly unfair, and there is a case for dropping the licence fee or reducing it in these areas.
  If we are talking today about £28 million being used to engineer a fourth channel, I would like some guarantees from the Home Office about the amount of money that will be spent on remote communities. Many of these communities are small—they have only 400 or 500 people—but the people there should have some guarantee that they will get more than one channel when the rest of the country has three or four.
  Throughout the debate we have heard about the impact of regionalism in the East Midlands. That is also true in the distinctive nations of Scotland and Wales. This is not a day for too many referendum
  1148
  stories, but certainly in part of the constituency of the Leader of the Liberal Party—Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles—I was astonished last week to find that people could not get a referendum report from a Scottish station. They had to take it from an English station, and naturally all they got was peripheral news. The effect of that is to deny people their Scottishness. That situation obtains as well in parts of Ayrshire where signals are received not from Scottish stations but from Northern Ireland. Those people have a diet of Ulster news, and that can have serious repercussions in parts of West Scotland. I believe that money should be spent in these areas to give everyone the same basic three services before we start thinking about a fourth.
  Let me defend BBC Scotland, because I think that it has created a national service. Certainly, Grampian Television has. Perhaps more could have been done with STV in extending the signal into the West Highlands. I certainly do not want to see the fat cats of commercial television getting fatter, on a large advertising and population basis, and not living up to the responsibility of providing a decent service to the peripheral areas.
  The hon. Member for Merioneth spoke about the Welsh language. I congratulate him and share his hopes and ambitions. It is my belief that any violence done to a language by its negation is a violence done to the people and their very identity. If English Members do not understand that, they do not understand the case for Welsh broadcasting. I welcome the Home Secretary's statement that the first engineering done by the IBA will be in North Wales.
  I turn to the Gaelic-speaking areas of Scotland. I admit that the numbers are very much smaller—only about 80,000. But there is still the same basic need to provide these people with a radio and television service in their own language, and certainly to provide a service for children. I am sorry that Scotland is a very poor second or third cousin to Wales in terms of providing Gaelic broadcasting services. BBC Scotland has promised a tiny radio station for Stornoway. I suspect that the capital costs will be in the region of £40,000 to £50,000—a minuscule sum. The station will provide a daily Gaelic news. It has been promised, but I am not sure when it will materialise.

  1149
  That is the sort of priority for a bilingual area which should come before the extention of four channels to the large metropolitan areas.
  It is significant that on devolution day the ex-controller of BBC Scotland, Alastair Hetherington, who contributed so much to the Assembly debate, read the weather on Radio Highland—he is responsible for Gaelic broadcasting there. Perhaps that is a symptom of what happens to media devolutionists—they are exiled to a "Scots Siberia". However, in all seriousness, there is a case for a bigger helping hand to Gaelic broadcasting.
  Mr. Rathbone: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Home Office were prepared to offer the opportunity to independent radio to provide the sort of service to which he has referred, that service could be provided quickly, at no cost to the taxpayer and without drawing on the funds provided for in the Bill?
  Mr. Reid: That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the linguistic case. Gaelic-speaking people are scattered throughout a large area; they do not shop in the same way as others—sometimes there is no shop for them. Therefore, there is no overriding need for an advertiser to fund commercial radio. It would not be possible in the West Highlands of Scotland. If it is done at all, it must be done with Treasury aid or a hypothecation of revenues from elsewhere in the ITV system.
  Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that the notion of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that there is no cost involved in commercial television or radio is not true? The cost might be less obvious, but it is a cost in the price of goods and services that are advertised.
  Mr. Reid: I accept that. The housewife pays at the end of the day. We all pay—through the tins of food that we buy for our cats, dogs, families and ourselves.
  However, I should like to make a few brief points specifically in relation to Scots broadcasting. The hon. Member for Aldershot made great play of how ITV2 would strengthen broadcasting from the regions. He said that there would be a
  1150
  large regional input to ITV2. We covered this ground when we discussed and allowed the extension of television hours. The big five networks had to take something for the "Tom Tiddlers" around the fringes, so there were "tartan ceilidhs" in the middle of the afternoon from Scotland and soap operas for elsewhere in the country.
  Soon after I moved from Granada to STV, we sold a small Scottish soap opera to ATV. The only words of the noble Lord when he bought the series were "It is not in Gaelic, is it?" That showed no understanding. In other words, Scotland had to have something slotted into the network, but there was no commitment to the quality of that "peripheral" from the big boys. It was simply more pabulum for the masses. I suspect that that would also be the case with ITV2.
  The terrain of Scotland is difficult for the broadcaster. Signals do not run in the same way as mountains, lochs and valleys. The population and the advertising base are small and, therefore, it is difficult to have a Scottish networking company at the moment. The population falls 2 million short of that covered by Yorkshire Television. The controller therefore has the difficult job of trying to programme across the board, to be all things to all men and to satisfy every specific interest group, be it Gaeldom, the Scots Kirk, the Roman Catholic Church, football and so on. In that way, everything is done poorly. I have made too many films in places such as Shetland, once with Granada and twice with STV, not to know the truth of that. With the regional company, cash and facility limits meant that filming took place when the fog cut down visibility to a few feet. With the large networking companies, filming takes place when the fog lifts.
  In order to strengthen the regional companies in Scotland, it is necessary to have one Scottish networking company. I do not suggest the takeover of Grampian by STV but, perhaps, a federal and new management structure. That would strengthen the creativity and from that stronger base there could be a greater contribution to the existing network. That is Labour policy too.
  If ITV2 were filled with regional contributions, there would be more of the same type of programme, more repeats

  1151
  and fillers, and more strain would be placed on those working in the provincial centres.
  There is a delicate balance at the moment between BBC and ITV. The programme scheduler is probably more important than the programme maker. ITV delicately balances its programmes to draw audiences away from BBC1, and vice versa. However, we do have a high standard of broadcasting because that game cannot be played by ITV against both BBC channels. There is a unique 50–50 viewing mix in the United Kingdom between one ITV channel and the two BBC channels.
  If, in the fullness of time, it is a question of taking a decision, my money would go on the OBA.
  I believe that it is right that we should have a new channel run by a publisher and not by a programme maker. That channel should be opened to the people, and the independent programme maker, in terms of access programmes from housing estates, from co-operatives and from the factory floor. There should be soap operas about a shop steward—rather than about attractive, middle-class people from Hampstead.
  That should be the way ahead for the future. At the moment we should consider whether we need not more broadcasting in quantity but more brodcasting in quality.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Ellis: Most speakers in the debate have vested interests of one kind of another which they have declared. Some hon. Members run advertising agencies, some own stations and some have made films. In order to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) from getting restive, let me say that he falls, with a few of us, into the lilywhite category—those who have some knowledge, but are mainly concerned, as viewers, that we should get programmes of good quality.
  I am a member of the Select Committee that deals with nationalised industries and, therefore, the IBA. I was brought up as a primitive Methodist and I am reminded of the Methodist practice that when one spoke, one should have a text. I do not often use that maxim. However, from what I have heard of the debate so
  1152
  far, there is a text that would suit it very well, because on all the various stances the debate might be summed up as "Our discontent comes by comparison. Were better states unseen, each man would like his own".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley questioned whether there should be solely commercial vested interests or non-commercial services. That is a whole area which is yet to be discussed.
  I sat up in my seat when I heard the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) say "Cable television and satellites". However, he swiftly left the topic. I should like to return to it. The Bill is about the provision of transmitting equipment for new television broadcasting. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the sectional interest—the Welsh and Gaelic languages. He said that broadcasting is hindered by the mountains and terrain of some regions. If satellites are launched and the transmitters are in outer space, half the world can be covered. Then Welsh and Gaelic could be received in Patagonia.
  In earlier days, Private Bills brought in such things as the advent of the railways. I have said before that Brunei spent half his time in the House arguing. We have heard from hon. Members with vested interests, but I should like to have heard from the engineers. An engineer could explain to the House the widening boundaries that are just around the corner or, in some cases, coming into existence. We need the flair for realising the potential, but the amount of equipment that can be provided cannot exceed the budget of £18 million.
  We have not even examined the potential of cable television, yet it is already being superseded. It is feared in the United States that people will buy their own dishes—to focus on a signal—and nobody will know that they have them. Therefore, they will receive free transmissions. Unless all dishes are to be registered, the mind boggles at that possibility. But it is being discussed. We see major sporting events, such as the Olympic Games, being broadcast by satellite. The signal is beamed from the satellite to a central point and on to transmitters all over the country.
  I am told that it is technically feasible for everyone to have his own dish, to

  1153
  point it at the satellite and to choose the programmes that he wishes to see. That equipment is being developed. Hon. Members may smile, but those who look back on the debate in 10 or 15 years' time may find that much of what I am forecasting will be in existence.
  I hope that our engineers will not be unduly constrained. Many important decisions about which areas were to be served by which channels were decided solely because there was a hill in a particular area. The area served was the area that the signal could reach—regardless of whether the programmes were of interest to the communities involved. That is why my colleagues in the East Midlands around Nottingham are so concerned about how the fourth channel will operate. I hope that the dishes for the new channel will not necessarily be attached to existing towers. Certainly, existing towers should be used if they serve a need, but I hope that there will be more versatility.
  Cine and audio recording equipment is now fairly cheap and is certainly within the reach of groups of individuals who wish to produce their own films. A cultural group in, for example, Scunthorpe may wish to produce a film and, even if the people of Grimsby do not wish to see it, it would be possible to show it in Scunthorpe. These are all potential developments which the House needs to consider.
  In all our debates on broadcasting, and I have listened to many, we have arguments about Conservative and Socialist ideology. Our political views are important, but it is vital that all hon. Members should realise that unless we are careful the technological development of the medium may end up dictating events to us.
  That has already happened in Canada. The Canadians passed legislation imposing constraints on what could be broadcast on television. They were attempting to encourage the arts and so on in their country in an attempt to establish a national identity. Those constraints have been swept away by the United States with its great wealth. The Canadians made the technical mistake of not taking into account the potential of cable television. Cable systems took a large part
  1154
  of the Canadian audience and the American television stations put transmitters on the border so that the Canadians could receive their programmes.
  We are playing for bigger stakes. We are entering the age of the satellite, and viewers will be able to receive many more channels. Soon it will not be a case of having to watch only BBC, ITV or any other programme originating in this country. It will be technically possible to see a plethora of what the world has to offer and to tune into the channels that suit our needs best. I hope that that sort of consideration will be borne in mind.
  The Bill is a small measure and involves only £18 million of expenditure, much of it for the duplication, rightly or wrongly, of existing services. However, there is a boundary to the debate that we have not yet crossed. My language has been extravagant and I may have presented my vision of the future in a way that some hon. Members consider absurd, but if those who read the report of our debate and the few hon. Members who are here to listen to it feel that I have made valid points—even though they may not go all the way with me—I hope that I have done a service to the House and to those who will study our debate.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Morris: I am sure that all hon. Members would echo what the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) said about the danger of the strength of the television medium dictating events.
  I shall be brief. I wish to address myself to one point, namely, that, on the supposition that the fourth channel is to be a commercial channel, certain dimensions should be spelt out. I am inevitably addressing myself as much to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) as to the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate.
  I can think of nothing worse than the fourth channel going to an existing contractor. That idea is abhorrent to me. I have declared an interest as the director of two advertising agencies, and I speak as a consumer because my job is to advise the advertisers who put their trust in the skills of my companies on how to spend their resources.

  1155
  I believe in free competition, and we do not have any degree of competition in television. The television companies are in a monopoly position. They have ransomed the advertisers, particularly in the past two or three years, to the detriment of advertising, and particularly to the detriment of small companies, those that are starting up and new products that are being launched. They have much to answer for, and I do not support the idea of the fourth channel going to any of the existing ITV companies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot should also bear in mind that our economy is not yet so bankrupt that there is no money available in the market to finance new contractors. There is plenty of money available for consortia to be set up on a competitive basis to take up new franchises. I join the pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), the hon. Members for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others that we should not fall into the trap of having existing boundaries as the boundaries for ITV2.
  I have reservations about the East Midlands station as conceived by hon. Members representing Nottingham. My concept is founded on a South Midlands basis, as there is a greater affinity between Northampton, Bedfordshire and the northern regions of Buckinghamshire than there is between the far areas of Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. Let us ask those in authority to look at the varying possibilities of boundaries. We now have new Euro-constituencies. Northamptonshire is basically linked with Buckinghamshire. Perhaps that area should be looked at. There are people who look to the various registrar-generals' regions, marketing regions and Euro-regions. However, the message is that we do not wish to be tied to the boundaries that now exist.
  If we are thinking of ITV2 outside the existing companies, we should think about the role of the charities and some of the minority interests of a commercial nature. Here I perhaps speak with greater knowledge. We do this with the boundaries of housing and planning policy. We say to certain local authorities and dictate to people that there should be low-cost housing in a region, a certain density in one area and a certain density in another. There is nothing
  1156
  to prevent Parliament or the IBA from saying to a commercial organisation "We expect you, within the time dimensions available, to make time available for charities and religious interests. You must alter the rate per second or per half minute for advertising." That is not a difficult calculation. It is simple and straightforward.
  We must remember that the present ITV contractors have a vested interest in ITV2. They have held the existing commercial interests to ransom. We shall do a great disservice to competition policy, to consumer durable goods and to service interests if we adopt the "attractive" proposition which the existing companies are putting forward. I warn my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot that, inviting as it appears, we should not bite on this proposition. We should look at it cautiously. Engineering does not help the situation. I ask my hon. Friend and the Government to ensure that we do not bite on this attractive cherry.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. Bryan Magee: It is a matter of great regret and, I am tempted to say, a disgrace that although it is two years since the Annan report findings were published we should get this tiddler of a Bill all by itself instead of its being part of a much larger Bill.
  It is no good anyone trying to say in its defence that the engineering must be done before the fourth channel is set up. It will take very much longer to get a body, whose task is to produce and transmit programmes, going from scratch than it will to do the engineering. And it is high time that the House had before it the legislation to set that body up.
  As a result of this two-year delay we are now in a situation where the future of television may be determined by the accidental timing of a general election. There has to be an election some time in the next eight months. The Conservative Party is publicly committed to giving the fourth channel to ITV. It is a logical possibility that the Conservative Party might win the next general election—that is acknowledged even by Government supporters. However, I do not think that a reasonable person would maintain that any perceptible section of the public would cast its votes at the next election in accordance with the

  1157
  differing television policies of the two main parties—still less their differing policies on the allocation of the fourth channel. So although the future of television will go one way or the other, the decision will not have been made on the merits of the case.
  I was especially disappointed that the Home Secretary, in opening the debate, went out of his way to say twice that this Bill in no way pre-empted the decision about the fourth channel and did not ensure that the fourth channel would go to an Open Broadcasting Authority. We should have before us a Bill that does ensure that.
  The issue about the fourth channel is not whether the independent television companies should have access to it. If an Open Broadcasting Authority were set up in accordance with the Annan recommendations, everyone who knows anything about the television scene would agree that the great bulk of the programmes to be shown on such a channel would be almost bound to originate with the independent programme-making companies. They form the largest pool of programme-making talent, experience and facilities that exist outside the BBC, which already has its own two channels. So they will have their outlet anyway. What is at issue is whether the fourth channel shall also be available to programme makers other than the independent television companies and, a related issue, whether that channel shall be controlled by those companies.
  I am strongly of the opinion that the Annan recommendation was right and that the fourth channel should not be controlled by the commercial companies although the commercial companies should have access to it. I therefore call upon the Government to bring forward as soon as possible legislation embodying those recommendations.
  There may, as I say, be seven or eight months before a general election. They are likely to be months in which the Government will almost be looking for legislation to put before the House—certainly we do not have a log jam of urgent Bills awaiting consideration. After two years of delay despite the Government's commitment to Annan, and given the fact that the next election could set the whole development of television on
  1158
  a wrong path, I should like to see the Government bring in legislation based on Annan and get it passed before the next general election. They have the time.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Michael English: May I apologise? I hope that hon. Members will not all cheer at once, but I am losing my voice.
  There can be no question that the Independent Broadcasting Authority is inefficient. There may be some question whether it is actually, in the strict sense of the word, corrupt.
  May I prove the point about its inefficiency? The current annual report and accounts of the Authority cover the years 1976–77. The document, which has an introduction by the chairman, was submitted to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and her letter doing so is dated 7 March 1978. Those accounts are for the period to 31 March 1977.
  I used to work for a multinational company whose instructions to its subsidiaries were that they should submit their accounts within one month to the holding company. The holding company consolidated those accounts within one further month. They were audited, dealt with and published within three months from the year end. It will be apparent that the IBA finds this impossible. It takes nearly 12 months for the IBA to do the same thing.
  The interesting point is that today is 6 March. If the IBA does exactly the same thing for last year's accounts, we shall get those accounts tomorrow, the day after this Second Reading debate. I have reason to believe that that is exactly what will occur, and that is why I make a suggestion of corruption. I cannot conceive that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—I am sure that she was not aware of the circumstances—will wish to have the Second Reading of this Bill before we, as a House of Commons, are aware of the accounts of that Authority for the year long past—12 months past.
  If we look at the last published accounts, we find a fascinating and interesting story. On one revenue account, television, there is a profit of £240,000 and on another there is a deficit of £355,000—a net deficit of £115,000. I am sorry to go back two years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, as I am sure you

  1159
  realise, if the accounts are only to be published tomorrow, it is not easy to deal with the current position. This is a clear illustration of inefficiency.
  Television and radio, the media of communication, are not usually regarded as the least profitable enterprises in the United Kingdom. They are not usually regarded as methods of losing money. Farmers have been known to go bankrupt, as have builders but not many television or radio companies go bankrupt. But the Independent Broadcasting Authority manages, according to its last published revenue accounts—I do not know what the accounts will show to-morrow—to prove that it is not making money. In effect, it is subsidising private companies in radio and television which are, of course, making a profit and declaring dividends. I do not think that the average taxpayer set up the Authority in order to subsidise private enterprise in that way.
  I am all in favour of both public service and private enterprise commercial channels, but I am not in favour of the taxpayer subsidising the commercial channel when, after all, that channel should be capable of making money for itself. However, we shall not know the latest position until after the debate, unless my hon. Friend, as I hope she will, takes the point and seeks at 7 p.m. to defer the debate to a date after the IBA has shown itself capable of publishing accounts that should have been available a long time ago.
  The IBA is yet another quango that is frightened of using the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit its accounts. It uses a private firm—Coopers and Lybrand. It is a very efficient firm, so efficient that it qualifies the accounts of the IBA, remarking on the use of historic costs. We all know of the arguments that various nationalised industries have been having with the Treasury. Some of them have wished to depreciate their assets, allowing for inflation; some of them have not. The loss in the case of the IBA, to which I have been referring, occurs even in spite of the fact that it chooses only the lowest method of depreciation and does not use any method of depreciation that allows for inflation.
  My hon. Friends and some Opposition Members have already made the point
  1160
  that in the East Midlands we have not a separate television service. Every county council and nearly all the district councils in the area have supported their Members of Parliament in asking for this. We hope that before this Bill is passed, if possible, the Independent Broadcasting Authority, despite its own inefficiencies, will remedy at least one of them by providing a separate television service to the East Midlands, which is one of the economic planning regions of this country.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Critchley: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the House has been united this afternoon by a feeling that the cart has been put before the horse. Clearly, in an ideal world, we should have decided long ago what should occupy the fourth channel, before starting on the engineering works, but since when has politics been a rational activity?
  I have a word of warning for the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I understand on good authority that Lord Grade is considering making a film of his life. If the hon. Member wishes to succeed where "Jesus of Nazareth" failed, he must be more circumspect in his criticisms of ATV.
  It is, I believe, basically a matter for the IBA and not for this House to decide how the franchises within television should be allocated. There are three posibilities. First, a new region might be carved out of the Midlands. Secondly, we could stay as we are. Thirdly, an opt-out system, which would allow ATV to broadcast some programmes in the East Midlands for the East Midlands only, might be a solution to the dilemma. Perhaps there is enough money in the kitty, in terms of the Bill, to allow some engineering work to begin, to enable such an opt-out system to work.
  I understand that ATV has just opened a film studio in Nottingham. It has been delayed by a six-month long industrial dispute. I understand that it will be used for film, and film only.
  Mr. English: It is described as a studio. Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me, as a representative of the city, that it is in fact an office, described as a studio, with no electronics in it?
  Mr. Critchley: The hon. Member will no doubt be able to argue that point with

  1161
  ATV. I have not visited that establishment, therefore I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any more help.
  Concerning the matter of the Welsh broadcasts, here again I am in great difficulty. There are not many Welsh members of the Conservative Party. I represent a Hampshire seat, but I am a Shropshire lad. Nevertheless, I understand that under the ITV2 proposals there would be an annually reviewed grant from all the programme companies, which would be used to pay for independently produced programmes, including those in the Welsh language. This would presumably mean that a relatively small proportion of the fourth channel would be devoted to Welsh language broadcasts. How large a proportion it would be I am not qualified to say, and I hesitate at this late hour to get into that argument.
  We welcome this mini-Bill. It will enable the next Government to introduce ITV2 and, by so doing, to enrich the broadcasting in this country.
  6.48 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): At times during the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have had a slight sense of dèjá vu when I have heard the Annan speeches from the faithful, repeated sometimes for the third time, although the jokes have varied slightly. We have had the opportunity of hearing the Opposition's policy, albeit in one sentence, for a Welsh language television service. That was a great event, and we should like to hear more about it in the future.
  My right hon. Friend said quite clearly that the Bill has limited objectives, but nevertheless extremely important, necessary and urgent objectives. The first of these is to enable the Independent Broadcasting Authority to engineer the fourth channel throughout the United Kingdom. This is not an exploratory or preparatory exercise, as the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said. It is an essential exercise. It is essential work, irrespective of whatever authority eventually provides and supervises the programmes transmitted on the fourth channel.
  The concern felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) may not have had as much basis as he
  1162
  believed because, whatever happens in the future, the engineering work is essential. The Bill is concerned only—I repeat only—with the engineering and its associated finance. It leaves all the future options entirely open.
  Mr. English: Why?
  Dr. Summerskill: Because the engineering—
  Mr. Magee: Does not my hon. Friend understand that it is the very fact that she is making this point and stressing it that is causing us disquiet? It is the fact that the Government are proceeding as if future options are and should remain open instead of pursuing their declared policies that worries us.
  Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate that. It is urgent, because the second objective, which we expect to be achieved by authorising the engineering work to commence without delay, is to enable the new Welsh language television service to come into operation on the fourth channel in Wales in the autumn of 1982, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about six times and as I shall be saying a few more times to impress it on the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). That is one important reason.
  I realise that there is concern among several hon. Members about major legislation. They have referred to the legislation which will be necessary to implement the Government's proposals in the White Paper. I wish to make absolutely clear that it is the Government's firm intention to proceed with those proposals. I accept that there is a problem about parliamentary time, but we are in no way going back on our proposals, and we shall inform the House of our intentions. In this connection, as I indicated on 29 January, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends in the near future to apply for a supplemental Royal charter to extend the life of the BBC.
  In the short time available I should like to deal with a few specific matters. As the hon. Member for Isle of Ely has left the Chamber, I will reply to the same point raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid). The engineering of the fourth channel will not interrupt the programme for the engineering of the existing channels. The Government's main concern

  1163
  is that the UHF coverage of the existing services should be extended to the whole country as soon as practicable. The broadcasting authorities are concentrating on bringing UHF television as quickly as possible to all communities down to a population of about 500. This programme could not be further accelerated even if the fourth channel were not engineered.
  The hon. Member for Merioneth referred to Welsh programmes. In the report of the working party on the Welsh television fourth channel project the BBC indicated that it might be able to provide about two and a half hours extra a week for about nine months of the year, and HTV Wales envisaged about one and a half hours a week extra. It is for the broadcasting organisations to determine how far they will be able to realise these aims but, as my right hon. Friend said, both the BBC and HTV Wales have indicated their intention of providing more Welsh language programmes. The Bill will bring in the programmes in the autumn of 1982 with the intention of introducing a Welsh language service of about 20 hours a week covering 90 per cent. of the population of Wales. I hope that the hon. Member for Merioneth will recognise that the steps the Government are taking in the Bill provide ample assurance of their firm commitment to the Welsh language television project.
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) asked many questions, several of which I will deal with. If I leave any out perhaps he will write to me. The Welsh Language Television Council will consist of representatives of the broadcasting organisations—OBA, BBC and IBA—and Welsh independent television contractors. It will not be a representative body. The estimated cost of £28 million, as my right hon. Friend said, is at 1978–79 prices. We did not think it would be right to seek from the House greater financial provision at this stage than can be properly estimated at the moment.
  The IBA is skilled in engineering matters and I have confidence in its estimates. The Annan committee recommended unanimously, and the Government agreed, that the IBA is the appropriate authority to undertake the engineering of the fourth channel. The world administrative radio conference will establish the
  1164
  framework for all uses of the frequency spectrum for perhaps the next 20 years. The United Kingdom's proposals are not yet finalised, but they will provide all the flexibility that the matters which we are discussing today will require.
  Several questions have been asked about the content of the fourth channel. We believe that a unique opportunity will be missed if that channel is not used to widen the choice available to viewers and to explore new dimensions in broadcasting. The OBA proposals are ambitious, but we believe that they are workable. This belief has been confirmed by the comments we have received on the White Paper, in particular from producers and advertisers. We have said that the fourth channel should be used for programmes that say something new in new ways. It will be for the OBA, when it is set up, to find out what is available and what can be produced once the opportunity is there. It has become clear that there are a good number of experienced people outside the existing broadcasting organisations who are looking forward to the opportunity of producing programmes for the new service.
  Many hon. Members referred to the East Midlands. Although it is not strictly connected with the Bill, there seems to be concern about this. The area is at present part of the larger Midlands franchise area serviced by the ATV company based in Birmingham. The responsibility for determining the franchise areas and for awarding the contracts for the provision of television programmes rests with the IBA. The IBA issued a statement last month about its intentions as to the granting of television contracts from 1982 onwards. The arrangements involve a substantial measure of public participation designed to help the Authority to decide which applicants for contracts, whether existing programme companies or new groups, should be offered franchises. I am sure that the Authority will take notice of what has been said in this debate. It will be holding public meetings and hearings, and individuals and representatives of organisations will have an opportunity to submit written comments to it.
  The present Midlands area is a large one—indeed, it has the largest potential audience of any of the ITV companies outside London. The proposal to remove

  1165
  from this area the East Midlands area would involve hiving off Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, and perhaps also the reallocation of Lincolnshire from the franchise areas served by Yorkshire Television and Anglia Television. Such a group would include upwards of the 3 million people, so the adjustment of franchise areas is not straightforward and must receive the most careful consideration before decisions can be taken. I am sure that the House will recognise that in reviewing its franchise arrangements the IBA must ensure the overall financial and technical viability of ITV.
  Mr. English: It is making a loss already. Why should it not go on making a loss?
  Dr. Summerskill: I conclude by stressing that the Bill is necessary to set up the engineering system for the fourth channel, and it is urgent for the purpose of introducing a Welsh language service on that channel. I realise the impatience of hon. Members concerning further legislation, but it is essential to give the Bill a Second Reading today.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 25.

  Division No. 84]

  AYES

  [7.0 p.m.

  Anderson, Donald

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Magee, Bryan

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Arnold, Tom

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Ashton, Joe

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mather, Carol

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Forrester, John

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Freud, Clement

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Bates, Alf

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Molloy, William

  Bean, R. E.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Monro, Hector

  Beith, A. J.

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Bendall, Vivian

  Golding, John

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Biffen, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gourlay, Harry

  Morton, George

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Blaker, Peter

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Noble, Mike

  Boardman, H.

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Oakes, Gordon

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hannant, John

  Ovenden, John

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hooley, Frank

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Horam, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Pardoe, John

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Park, George

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Parker, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Cartwright, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Hunter, Adam

  Perry, Ernest

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Radice, Giles

  Coleman, Donald

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  James, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cowans, Harry

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Reid, George

  Craigen, Jim(Maryhill)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rhodes James, R.

  Critchley, Julian

  John, Brynmor

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Crouch, David

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Kerr, Russell

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dempsey, James

  Lambie, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dewar, Donald

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sandelson, Neville

  Dolg, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Silvester, Fred

  Dunn, James A.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sims, Roger

  Dunnett, Jack

  McCrindle, Robert

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Dykes, Hugh

  McElhone, Frank

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Eadie, Alex

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Snape, Peter

  Ellis, John (Brig & Scun)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Evans, John (Newton)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Eyre, Reginald

  McNalr-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Stoddart, David

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Stott, Roger

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Watkins, David

  Woodall, Alec

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Woof Robert

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Weetch, Ken

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Thompson, George

  Wellbeloved, James

  Younger, Hon George

  Tilley,John

  Wells, John

  Tinn, James

  Welsh, Andrew

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Urwin, T. W.

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Waddington, David

  White, James (Pollok)

  Mr. Thomas Cox.

  NOES

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Madden, Max

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Flannery, Martin

  Mikardo, Ian

  Whitlock, William

  Grocott, Bruce

  Newens, Stanley

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parry, Robert

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rooker, J. W.

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Litterick, Tom

  Selby, Harry

  Mr. Michael English.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. John Evans.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The Question is, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".
  Hon. Members: Aye.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, "No".
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Clear the Lobby.
  Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Excluding Ministers and Whips and members of the Shadow Cabinet, only three hon. Members out of 44 in the East Midlands voted for the Bill, out of 203 hon. Members who did so. To put it on the Floor of the House at this stage—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Be that as it may, it is not a matter for the Chair and in any event we are on a Division. The Question is, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Hon. Members: Aye.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it.
  Committee tomorrow.

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I must apologise to the House for moving the motion with a faintly piratical appearance. In the heady days of the recess I came into collision with a tree which did damage to me. In the interests of the tree I should say that it acted in self-defence after I had done damage to it, and in the interests of part II of the Bill I should say that I was not in a car at the time it occurred.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Was the tree in Epping Forest?
  Mr. Brooke: All hon. Members have received copies of the statement on behalf of the promoters in support of this Second Reading, but in case any hon. Member has not brought his statement with him I shall take the liberty of reminding the House of the principal purposes of the Bill, which is promoted by the Corporation of London in my constituency.
  The first purpose is
  " to authorise the Corporation as Conservators of Epping Forest to grant to the Secretary of State for Transport the lands, and rights in lands, he requires for the construction of a part of the M25 London Orbital Motorway authorised under the Highways Acts 1959 to 1971;"
  and, secondly,
  " to provide for the moving of Billingsgate Market from its present site at Lower Thames Street in the City to a new site at North Quay, West India and Millwall Docks, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets."
  There are ancillary clauses in Part IV entitled "Miscellaneous and General", to which I shall refer separately.
  With a Bill of this sort the normal procedure would be, in the classic manner of a storyteller, to begin at the beginning and go on to the end, but with the indulgence of the House I propose to modify that procedure. I remember being taught in my youth that the difference between the words "perverse" and "preposterous" went back to their Latin origins. I shall certainly be perverse, but
  1170
  I shall also be preposterous in taking the end first and coming back to the beginning.
  I do so because the majority of the interest in this Bill—both inside the House and outside—relates to part II, which is concerned with Epping Forest. It would seem to me for the convenience of the House if I take that part last so that it is fresh in the minds of hon. Members when we get down to the debate.
  Let me first deal with parts III and IV. On part III, I cannot improve upon the language used by the promoters of the Bill, who said in their statement:
  " For many years the Corporation have been considering the reaccommodation of Billingsgate Market to provide the facilities now required for this important fish market and to avoid the present necessity for the use of roads and lanes adjoining the existing market as parking and trading areas. This is necessitated both by the age and state of the present Market buildings and by the need for the continuation of the main southern traffic route along the line of Lower and Upper Thames Street. Plans for the reaccommodation of the Market on its present site, for which powers were conferred by the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1973, have proved impracticable on grounds of cost but an acceptable site is now available at the West India Dock in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. In agreement with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the traders in the Market the Corporation accordingly now seek powers in Part III of the Bill to move the Market to this new site.
  Provision is included in Part III of the Bill for the reaccommodation of existing Market traders at the new site and for making available facilities for the licensed porters employed at the existing Market. The Bill also provides for the constitution of a new Billingsgate Market Consultative Advisory Committee, including representatives of the traders and workers in the Market."
  It might be helpful if I add a word or two of my own. First, the move of Billingsgate market is the outcome of long negotiations with the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the London borough of Tower Hamlets and the trade. It is welcomed as a useful contribution to the rehabilitation of dockland.
  Secondly, the reference to the trade that I have just made implies, and indeed embraces, full consultation not only with the traders but with the market porters, who are in agreement with the move.
  Thirdly, I should like to scotch a red herring—if I may be allowed that phrase—relating to archaeology. The Council

  1171
  for British Archaeology got wind of the Bill, but if I may draw on the atmosphere of Billingsgate, whose lost smell will be my one regret about these clauses—since the maritime smell that brought the sea right into the heart of the City is to disappear in due course as a result of the Bill—the Billingsgate smell interfered with the archaeologists' scent. They wrote to several hon. Members before they reached the hon. Member who was perhaps closest to the Bill. Their fears have been entirely allayed on learning that the land and property at Billingsgate is not the subject of a separate commercial development.
  Of course, the City has an outstanding reputation in relation to archaeology. Here I must declare an interest, not as an archaeologist but as an ancient historian very much manqué. The City maintains the largest field archaeology unit in the country, attached to the Museum of London, and it attaches great importance to interpreting the planning laws to allow maximum archaeological investigation of any site uncovered in the course of development. The irony of the Council for British Archaeology's apprehensions about the Bill, which were expressed to several Members, is that unless the measure is passed Billingsgate, which it rightly says is an important and rich archaeological site, will not be uncovered at all.
  Reference to the archaeological unit of the Museum of London brings me happily to part IV of the Bill, because clause 18 relates to admission charges to the Museum of London. Again, I quote from a statement by the promoters:
  " The Bill includes in Part IV miscellaneous provisions to confer on the Board of Governors of the Museum of London powers to make charges for admission similar to those available at other public museums; to enable the Corporation to develop as a place of public resort the parts of Tower Bridge (including the existing high level footbridges) which are not required for highway purposes; provision for the letting of stalls in Spitalfields Market; and an increase of the maximum penalties for offences in streets and other thoroughfares under section 35 of the City of London Police Act 1839."
  There may be some unhappiness in certain parts of the House about clause 18 relating to museum charges. I shall not make a rod for my own back by seeking to suggest what that unhappiness might be, but let me say at this juncture that the board of governors has already
  1172
  recorded that there is no intention to use this power other than for special occasions, as other national museums do from time to time.
  The provision in clause 19 relating to Tower bridge is supported by the London tourist bord and will provide a first-class attraction for tourists, while the remaining miscellaneous provisions are designed solely to bring the legislation concerned up to date.
  That brings me to part II of the Bill, relating to Epping Forest. Here I shall err on the side of fullness so that the subject may be adequately ventilated.
  Epping Forest, which is the remnant of the ancient Royal Forest of Waltham, comprises about nine square miles of diversified woodland and open land, extending from Wanstead Flats in the south to Epping in the north. It is vested in the Corporation of London as the conservator of Epping Forest under the Epping Forest Act 1878 and is regulated and managed by it through the Epping Forest and open spaces committee, which includes four verderers elected by the commoners of the forest.
  Part II of the Bill is required to enable the Corporation to make available to the Secretary of State for Transport the interests which he requires in some 14½ acres of land at the northern end of the forest for the construction of the length of the M25 motorway between the A10 and the M11 and so to give effect to terms now agreed with the Department for the grant of those interests in forest land. In the view of the Corporation, these terms and the manner of construction of that part of the motorway affecting the forest now intended by the Departmen are as advantageous to forest interests as could reasonably be expected.
  Because some of the opposition, or potential opposition, to the Bill is in pursuit of conservationist interests, it may be to the advantage of the House if I were to sketch some of the historical background which gave rise to the City of London becoming responsible for Epping Forest in a parliamentary saga of a century ago, with what have been highly beneficial conservationist consequences.
  At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were, as now, about 6,000 acres of land in Epping Forest. By 1870,

  1173
  however, there remained only some 3,000 acres as the result of enclosures, some of them illegal, of the open waste. By that time the importance of preserving as much as possible of the forest as an open space close to the expanding metropolis of London became apparent, and prevention of encroachment on the forest became the subject of much controversy.
  In February 1870 a resolution was passed in the Commons praying that steps should be taken to preserve Epping Forest as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. In the same Session a Bill was introduced by the Government of the day for this purpose. That Bill proposed the preservation as open space of only some 1,000 acres, and it failed to pass. On 20 April 1871 a further motion was carried in the Commons that measures be taken to preserve as an open space all those parts of Epping Forest which had not been enclosed by the assent of the Crown or by legal authority.
  The Corporation of London then resolved to take steps itself to resist encroachments on the forest and, basing its claims on its rights as commoner in respect of its ownership of Ilford cemetery, it instituted a suit in Chancery against the lords of the manor. In 1874, after protracted and costly litigation the Corporation succeeded in obtaining a decree of the court to the effect that the owners and occupiers of land in the forest were entitled to rights in common over the whole of the waste lands.
  In the meantime, under an Act passed in 1871 commissioners had been appointed to report on the possibility of preserving the forest as an open space for the public, but when they presented their final report in 1877 they recommended a scheme whereby land already unlawfully enclosed should remain enclosed unless repurchased at its full market value.
  The Corporation successfully resisted those proposals, and when the Epping Forest Act 1878 was passed it provided that lands enclosed since 1851 should be thrown open and all questions as to the extent of the lands and as to the compensation payable and other matters should be determined by a named arbitrator acting with special powers.
  1174
  Before the passing of the Act of 1878 the Corporation had been actively engaged in the purchase of land in the forest by negotiation. Under that Act it accepted full responsibility for the payment of all compensation in accordance with the arbitrator's decisions.
  Since the passing of the Act it has from time to time expended considerable sums in the acquisition of further lands to add to the forest. In addition, the Corporation bears the annual expenses incurred in the management of the forest now running at about £370,000 per year.
  Because it is germane to this debate, it may also be helpful if I remind the House of section 7 of the Epping Forest Act 1878. That says:
  " (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Conservators shall at all times keep Epping Forest uninclosed and unbuilt on, as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public: and they shall by all lawful means, prevent, resist, and abate all future inclosures, encroachments, and buildings, and all attempts to inclose, encroach, or build on any part thereof, or to appropriate or use the same, or the soil, timber, or roads thereof, or any part thereof, for any purpose inconsistent with the objects of this Act.
  (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Conservators shall not sell, demise, or otherwise alienate any part of the Forest, or concur in any sale, demise, or other alienation thereof, or of any part thereof.
  (3) The Conservators shall at all times as far as possible preserve the natural aspect of the Forest ".
  Then it goes into various details relating to care of the woodlands and of ancient earthworks.
  Section 9 further declares that the public shall have the right to use Epping Forest as an open space for recreation and enjoyment.
  Under Section 33—and I feel obliged to refer again to this because it comes on to the reference to roads—general powers are conferred upon the Corporation for the management of the forest, but these powers fall to be construed in the light of the primary duty set out in section 7. These general powers include, in section 33(1)(iv), a power to maintain and make roads, footpaths and ways, to dedicate roads to the public subject to the law of highways, to afford facilities and grant rights of way for access to enclosures.
  Section 33(1)(xiii) also includes—this is relevant as well—power to set apart parts

  1175
  of the forest for the use of the inhabitants to play cricket and other sports, to lay out and maintain cricket grounds and grounds for other sports, and to enter into agreements and confer special privileges on particular clubs.
  That covers the legislative background within which the City Corporation has to discharge its trusteeship. Because some of the hon. Members who are present are here for the "ecology" of the evening, I shall also say a word about the woodland management practice. I shall shorten this by saying that two-thirds of the area of the forest is woodland and one-third grassland, interspersed with blocks of woodland, the greater part of the woodland being in the northern half of the forest.
  In pursuance of its duty to preserve the natural aspect, the management of the woodlands has been based on a system of natural regeneration, and anything which suggests plantation management has been avoided. Therefore, in the northern part of the forest, that is the area closest to the line of the M25, the woodlands comprise the largest block of hardwoods in the United Kingdom.
  Obviously, there have been occasions in the past when there has been a need for road improvements relating to the forest. It would be wrong for the debate to take place without my acknowledging and referring to that background. The A11 runs through the forest from north to south. Many other roads of all classes divide and loosen the structure of the forest, especially in the southern part.
  From time to time the Corporation is faced with demands for the use of forest land by public services. It endeavours to accommodate these claims by the grant of wayleaves subject to suitable safeguards, but demands for highway improvements give rise to special problems.
  Since the passing of the 1878 Act the Corporation has dedicated for highway purposes forest lands extending to about 101 acres, which include the formal dedication of strips of land that have come to be used as part of the highways that traverse the forest. The loss of these scattered strips from the open forest has been more than made good by the addition to the forest during this period of about 275 acres. In addition, the Corporation
  1176
  has made dedication of forest land for highway purposes subject to conditions. That is also germane to the Bill. For example, on agreeing to the dedication of lands for addition to minor roads radiating from the High Beech area, the Corporation made it a condition that the roads should not be used by larger vehicles. That condition was accepted by the Ministry of Transport and a weight restriction was imposed on the roads in or about 1966.
  In 1967 proposals were made by the Ministry of Transport for re-routing the North Circular Road at Walthamstow for a distance of about 860 yards across Walthamstow Forest, affecting some 14 acres of forest land. The Corporation sought to have the road built in a tunnel but was informed that that was impracticable within the context of the local road strategy. On that occasion the Corporation decided that its powers for dedication under the 1878 Act did not permit its agreement to the dedication of land for the road. As the only land available as exchange land for addition to the forest area was some allotment gardens for which compulsory powers of acquisition were required, the proposals were submitted to and approved by Parliament in the Epping Forest (Waterworks Corner) Act 1968.
  On subsequent occasions proposals have been put to the Corporation for highway improvements at important junctions involving severance of substantial areas of forest land and the creation of isolated areas of forest. In refusing its consent the Corporation has informed the highway authorities that for major road improvements of the sort proposed it would be necessary to apply to Parliament for leave to vary the provisions of the 1878 Act. That again brings us to the debate.
  It is possibly coincidental that subsequently such proposals have either been abandoned or modified to reduce the demands on forest lands to such an extent as to enable the Corporation to consider the exercise of its powers to dedicate the land. I mention that to illustrate that the City as a conservator has been an effective conservationist in defending the forest against interference and damaging depredation on transport grounds.

  1177
  That brings me, by a logical train of narrative, and perhaps to the relief of the House, to the orbital motorway. Since the late 1960s the Corporation has actively been concerned with the possibility of routing the M25 orbital motorway, formerly called the M16 motorway, across Epping Forest. Before that it was concerned with the proposals for ringway 3. In February 1967 the Corporation represented to the Ministry of Transport that the intersection of the M11 with any intended ring road should be sited at a point which would not necessitate the routing of the ring road across the forest. Subsequently, proposals were made for a route across the forest and the Corporation urged that, if that were necessary, the road should be tunnelled under the forest.
  In 1970 the Department, as it had by then become, produced a plan showing five possible routes for the orbital motorway across forest land, the northernmost being at Bell Common. The Corporation determined that all the routes except the northernmost would be totally unacceptable and that although it would object to all the routes it might be prepared to modify the objection if it were found practicable to place the northernmost route in tunnel.
  There followed a number of meetings with the Department and with other interested parties. The Corporation was informed that no route further north to avoid the forest land altogether was practicable, and it has therefore been concerned to secure that the route chosen should be one that would do the least damage to forest amenities.
  The Corporation has throughout urged the Department in the strongest terms to construct the road in tunnel through the forest, preferably by a bored tunnel, but, failing that, by the cut-and-cover method. In its view that is the minimum requirement for safeguarding the forest environment so far as practicable in the face of these developments. The Corporation has also been concerned to ensure that there was no intersection with the A11 which would have the effect of increasing traffic flows on roads in the forest. It has also been consulted upon the nature of construction of the proposed route at Copped Hall Green.
  1178
  I pause at this juncture of the narrative to allow myself a brief comment on the deer in the forest, which played a large part in the public inquiry on the M25. The deer are affected by the proposed bridge at Copped Hall Green. Even my brief experience in the House has taught me that there is sometimes more concern in the House for animals than for people. In commenting on the deer, we are exceedingly lucky in having available to us the work of Dr. and Mrs. Donald Chapman. Dr. Chapman is a research chemist who was born and brought up on the edge of the forest. Mrs. Chapman is a zoologist. Both individually and together they are the authors of a series of monographs on fallow deer in general and fallow deer in Essex in particular.
  It will probably come as no surprise to the House that the number of deer in the forest, which fell dangerously low by the 1860s before the City took over the forest in 1878, rose steadily after 1878. It is true that in recent years they have tended to congregate more in the wild in the private land to the north of the forest, which provides an ideal habitat for them. However, they are still to be found in the forest. Indeed, the City, at its own expense, has purchased 80 acres at the edge of the forest to create a deer sanctuary for about 160 deer.
  Crucial to the Bill are facilities for the deer to cross under the motorway. Dr. Chapman provided evidence for the inquiry on what the arrangements should be for the deer to go about their lawful occasions. Deer, like elephants, are creatures of habit over their routes. The arrangements that have been made exceed those that he specified. Similar arrangements have been made in the plans for smaller mammals such as badgers.
  At the time of the inquiry into the route of this section of the M25, the Department proposed that only 200 metres of the motorway from Epping Road should be buried, that being in its view a length sufficient to preserve the physical continuity of forest land. Together with many other objectors, the Corporation appeared at the inquiry and urged that the proposed tunnel should extend across the full 450 metres of forest land between Epping Road and Theydon Road notwithstanding the additional cost, then estimated at a further £2·5 million.

  1179
  In his report on the inquiry the inspector, Mr. Clinch, reported that in his opinion the Department had chosen the best point for the road to cross the forest but that the restriction of the tunnel to 200 metres would cause severe environmental intrusion on forest land. In their decision letter, the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment stated that they considered the issue whether to extend the tunnel to be finely balanced but that having regard to the special nature of the Epping Forest land they accepted the inspector's recommendation to extend the tunnel to Theydon Road.
  Part of the forest land affected by the proposed motorway at Bell Common is laid out as a cricket ground used by the Epping Foresters cricket club under licence granted by the Corporation under the Epping Forest Act 1878. The proposals for the motorway have been discussed between the Department, the cricket club and the Corporation, and it has been agreed that, on the completion of the motorway in tunnel at that point, the cricket ground will be reinstated and the pavilion rebuilt on land adjoining. During the construction period of about two years it has been agreed that the cricket club will be a wandering team and that the Department will pay it compensation.
  In summarising part II of the Bill I shall go briefly over the clauses before commending the Bill to the House. The clauses in part II have been agreed between the Corporation and the Department. The provisions set in italics involve a charge on public moneys and require a money resolution, which was taken this afternoon.
  Clause 3 provides the appropriate definitions. As defined in the clause, "the roadworks" means the length of the M25 orbital motorway authorised by the M25 motorway—A10 to M11 section—and Connecting Roads Scheme 1978, Statutory Instrument No. 330, referred to in the preamble to the Bill.
  Clause 4 requires the Corporation to grant to the Secretary of State the freehold in 3·647 hectares—9 acres—including isolated strips required for the motorway which are of no importance to the forest and the area at Mill Plain which, on completion of the tunnel, is to be dedicated for public use in conjunction with adjoining forest land and rights of
  1180
  temporary occupation, drainage rights and rights of access in 2·229 hectares—5½ acres. That is the area of Bell Common relating to the tunnel, which will then be restored.
  In the case of lands required for temporary occupation, the Secretary of State will be required to reinstate the lands on completion of the purpose for which they are required and restore them to the forest. Where drainage rights are required, the public use of the lands would continue subject to those rights.
  Clause 5 requires the Secretary of State to grant to the Corporation in exchange an area of land not less than the total area affected, namely, 5·876 hectares—14½ acres. These exchange lands have not yet been identified and the Corporation would wish that time should be allowed to find the most suitable land. Under the clause the Corporation, as the guardian of the forest, would have to be satisfied about the suitability of the exchange lands subject to the right of the Secretary of State to refer the matter to arbitration under Clause 9.
  Clause 6 declares the Secretary of State's expressed intention to construct the motorway across Mill Plain, where the cricket ground is situated, in cut-and-cover tunnel and to dedicate the surface to public use.
  Clause 7 makes provision for the protection of the Epping Foresters cricket club. The clause has been agreed with the club.
  Clause 8 provides an indemnity to the Corporation in respect of costs and claims arising, and clause 9 makes provision for arbitration of disputes between the Secretary of State and the Corporation.
  I hope that I have not wearied the House by dealing with these matters at excessive length. All hon. Members have been subjected to communications about the Bill from outside the House. It seemed in the interests of the House that what lay behind the Bill should be fully covered. With those words, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.42 p.m.
  Miss Jo Richardson: My objection to this Bill—this is the reason why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) tabled a blocking motion—is confined to part of the Bill, as I am sure most people will realise.

  1181
  It is confined to that part of the Bill which refers to the erosion into Epping Forest required by the Department for the purposes of its special new road and connecting roads forming part of the M25. I am sure that most of the Bill is long overdue, although a question arose in my mind when I read about the museum charges. I am not convinced by the remarks of the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) that we need not be worried because it is not intended that this part of the Bill should be used. If the City of London is not intending to use this provision, why put it in the Bill? Perhaps, at some stage, an hon. Member will enlighten me on that matter.
  I hope that the House will not consider me discourteous if I am not present for the whole of the debate. I arranged some time ago to meet 60 constituents upstairs in a Committee Room, and I feel that I cannot let them down. I hope that the House will not feel that this shows any discourtesy or any lack of interest in the Bill. I had the impression during the speech of the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South that he was not intending to give away parts of Epping Forest but was anxious to preserve them. He gave an excellent and interesting run-down of the history of Epping Forest and showed how well the City of London has conserved the forest, beating off robber barons from right and left. We now have a robber baron in the guise of the Department of Transport wanting to lay its hands on yet another little bit of the forest which is so dear to the hearts of so many people.
  It is because I have a dual interest in Epping Forest that I rise to speak in this debate. Part of my interest is a personal one. I know the forest fairly well. I was born in the North-East but my mother was born in Essex and I went to school in Southend. Most of my teenage years were spent in that area. I know some of its beauty spots very well. I am deeply concerned over the latest evidence, in general terms, that we are using cement and concrete to cover up some of the nicer parts of our countryside. This interest occurred long before my association with my constituency. But my constituency is very relevant to the argument.
  1182
  Barking is a built-up set of estates, and my constituents rely on using other parts of Essex at the weekend to take a picnic with their children or to spend time in a caravan. Epping Forest is very much an integral part of those pastimes. Many of my constituents object to the idea of a motorway going through even a small part of the forest that they like so much. It is an amenity that they have enjoyed for generations. If there is any alternative, even at this late hour, which avoids cutting into Epping Forest, it ought to be pursued in general environmental interests and in the interests of people who have used the forest for a long time and want to continue to use it in its existing form.
  I oppose giving this Bill a Second Reading on the nod. I feel that there should be more parliamentary scrutiny than simply allowing it to go through without any objection at 2.30 p.m. I am glad to see that so many hon. Members, many with an interest in this part of the country, have remained to take part in, or to listen to, this debate. It is important that this sort of matter should not go through the House without hon. Members giving it as much parliamentary scrutiny as possible.
  I am not opposed to the M25 project in principle. There are arguments for and against it. On balance, the economic, social and environmental consequences of its construction, affecting London and the green belt in the South-East, will be good and will fulfil the claims of reduced traffic in inner London. It will make that part of our area much pleasanter without, I hope, causing too much harm to other areas through which it will be constructed. Many conflicting views have been put forward over the years, not only from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that there are differing views on the Opposition side as on this side of the House about the use or desirability of an orbital road and claims made for what it will do. I am not an expert. I have often found myself confused by two arguments which are totally different, both claiming advantages.
  We are not really discussing the pros and cons of the orbital road except its effects on Epping Forest and the damage that would be caused to that part of the countryside. I do not want to detain the

  1183
  House by arguing that the M25 is itself necessarily bad. In terms of this Bill, it would be a pity to divert attention from the specific point made in part II. If this road is to run through the areas of Epping Forest described by the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South, which are listed in the Bill and available in the Private Bill Office and shown on maps, it will surely do great damage to the environment. It is not simply that a great wide motorway will be at least partially touching this lovely forest.
  Many of us have driven along motorways and know the pollution damage caused by them. We know about the noise, the dust and the general unsightly appearance of a concrete strip running through a beautiful part of the countryside. It is not merely a question of the size of the motorway. I believe that the pollution that it would cause would probably be worse than any other damage that it might produce.
  The forest is a place of peaceful enjoyment and historic value to people in this part of the world. A great road going through bits of it—although it has been said "It is only a little bit here, and then it winds round and it is a little bit there"—with noise and fumes, would spoil that kind of peaceful beauty and ruin the glade-like appearance. I know many little bits around the area that we are discussing which I am sure would be destroyed, even if they themselves were not built on for the motorway. The very fact that they would be so near a big motorway would ruin them.
  It is no good saying, as we can in regard to other things, "Let us try it. Let us see the value of the motorway. Perhaps it will be so great that we ought to put other things on one side and agree to have it in the interests of progress and of convenience for people, and so on." Once one has built a motorway and chopped up even a small part of the forest, there is no going back. There is no saying, 10 years on, after it has been built, "We made a mistake. It is hardly ever used. It is rather ugly, so let us go back and have the nice peaceful land that we had before." It is a one-off matter and for ever. It is something over which we must take the greatest care before we proceed.
  1184
  As the hon. Member has said, the Epping Forest Act 1878 put specific responsibilities on the conservators. The hon. Member quoted from the Act, and I should like to repeat a few of the words that he quoted, which led me to think that he would support them. Section 7 of the Act provides that the conservators shall
  " keep Epping Forest uninclosed and unbuilt on, as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public; and they shall by all lawful means, prevent, resist, and abate all future inclosures, encroachments".
  That is what Epping Forest is all about. I hand it to the City of London, as the conservators, that it has done its job excellently.
  The hon. Member mentioned section 7(3) of the Act:
  " The Conservators shall at all times as far as possible preserve the natural aspect of the Forest ".
  How can that kind of undertaking in particular be guaranteed if we let this legislation go through and do not protest and ask the Department to find another way of achieving its objective?
  I know that the conservators are to be given under the Bill other lands in lieu of what will be taken away from Epping Forest by the Secretary of State. That really will not compensate for the ruin of the natural aspect of those parts which are to be taken away and which people have become used to.
  Even at this late stage, I beg the House to reconsider this part of the Bill. I believe that the Bill will go to an Opposed Bill Committee. I hope that that Committee will give very great thought to this aspect. I hope that the House will take it from me, and from other hon. Members too, I am sure, that there is a great wealth and strength of opinion outside the House, particularly in the areas surrounding those areas concerned. I remind the House that at the time of the public inquiry in 1974–75 a petition containing 21,000 signatures was presented objecting to the proposal. I am absolutely certain that the number has not only remained at 21,000 at least but has grown.
  Last Sunday morning, on the radio, I heard Lord Olivier speak very movingly on "The Week's Good Cause" on behalf of the Council for the Protection of Rural

  1185
  England. Because I have always been a devoted fan of that brilliant actor, I listened very carefully to what he had to say. Knowing that this Bill would be coming before the House today, I realised then how much it is in the interests of all of us in this country to preserve every little bit that we have as far as possible as it is now, rather than allow great concrete strips to be driven through our countryside. I hope that this bit of rural England, in Essex, will remain as it is.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on the lucid and persuasive manner with which he opened the debate. It is right that there should be a debate, and it is entirely proper that the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) should refuse the City of London the opportunity of having this Bill on the nod. We are indebted to her and to those who have insisted that we should have a proper Second Reading debate.
  The hon. Lady and I are united, at least, in this: we love Epping Forest. Therefore, it was not without heart-searching and misgiving that I decided, at length, that as Member of Parliament for Epping Forest I would give my support to the Bill, including part II.
  Of course there is opposition to part II within my constituency—for example, from the Upshire Village Preservation Society, which has petitioned against the Bill. While I have decided to support the Bill, I am full of admiration for the strenuous and intelligent campaign waged over the years by that society. It speaks for a number of my constituents in Upshire itself, High Beech, Epping, They-don Bois, Chigwell, Chigwell Row, Loughton and Buckhurst Hill, and of course it speaks for others well outside the Epping Forest constituency and outside the county of Essex.
  The hon. Member for Barking said that she is not against the M25. However, I think that we have reached a point at which it is difficult not to be against the M25 and, at the same time, to be against part II of the Bill.
  1186
  If the hon. Lady is eager to meet some constituents and is keeping them waiting, I shall not be in the least offended if she leaves the Chamber, although I shall be delighted if she remains to hear what I have to say. I should not be in the least put out if she wishes to join her constituents.
  However many people may have signed the petition to which the hon. Lady referred, my impression—I have taken some trouble to make inquiries—is that in Epping and elsewhere there is widespread and numerically larger support for a measure which is seen as a necessary step towards the completion of the M25, from which they hope for relief from the congestion of town streets and country roads by heavy traffic.
  I confirmed this morning with the chief executive and clerk of the Epping Forest district council that the council favours the Bill. We are all looking forward to hearing the Minister. I believe that he will have something to say about how damage to the forest and its surroundings is to be minimised. We have heard something of this from my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South. He has quite rightly not forgotten either the deer or the Epping Foresters cricket club. Clause 6, about the tunnel to be constructed by cut-and-cover on Bell Common, is of special importance, and I know that that will be noted by hon. Members.
  I received a letter today from a lady in Buckhurst Hill who is opposed to the Bill but who favours the scheme put forward by Mr. Barry Fineberg in the Architects' Journal of 13 December 1978. She acknowledges that
  " The Department of the Environment has made great concessions to the forest in the final plans for the motorway ".
  She says that she is grateful for that. She is at the same time anxious that Mr. Fineberg's scheme should proceed. So, indeed, are the petitioners against the Bill. The lady is concerned—as is the hon. Member for Barking—lest the motorway cuts the forest from the open countryside and thus obstructs the natural movement of wild life.
  My hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South referred to the proposed deer crossing. I trust that we shall hear more about that from the Minister.

  1187
  Like my constituent earlier I was attracted by the alternative northerly route for the motorway through the Lea valley, which would have made it unnecessary for the forest to be touched. That alternative is not before us. If it ever was a starter, it is not now. I want to be practical. The Government, having held their public inquiry and having published their route and made modifications, should now adhere to their decision. I speak without authority but I think that the Government's Conservative successor will also adhere to the decision. Despite what the hon. Member for Barking said, I do not think that an alternative exists, unless we say that this road should not be completed.
  It is preferable for the 5·87 hectares—let us call it 9 acres—to be made over to the Secretary of State for Transport in the way provided for in the Bill, rather than the Government being left to proceed in ways that might be less acceptable. It is not clear from what the hon. Lady said whether she is aware that the Government will be required to find, in exchange, land for the forest that is equally advantageous. I take that to mean a plot that is satisfactory to the conservators of the forest.
  It is important to note that the conservators are promoting this Bill. They would not be doing so had they not, in their wisdom and zeal for the forest, thought it proper to promote it. My hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South gave an admirable historical outline. Last year the City of London completed a century of vigilant and efficient stewardship, performed with the City's cash and at no charge to any taxpayer or ratepayer.
  I marked the occasion of the centenary of the Epping Forest Act by tabling an early-day motion thanking the verderers and all concerned for maintaining the forest for the use and enjoyment of all the people and for posterity. Because of the devotion that the conservators have shown I am encouraged in my support of the Bill, since it provides the best course in the circumstances in which we now stand.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. Bryan Magee: Although the proposed M25 does not go through any part of the London borough of
  1188
  Waltham Forest, which contains my constituency, we are one of the Epping Forest boroughs and therefore we are deeply concerned with the future of the forest as a whole.
  So I have discussed this Bill, so ably moved by the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), with appropriate members of my local authority; and they have raised no objection to it. The negative way I put that is significant. Many of us decided reluctantly not to oppose the Bill. For there is a high price to be paid. I am one of those Londoners who has enjoyed the facilities of Epping Forest from earliest childhood. I literally cannot remember a time before I was being taken there by my parents. So I know from my own experience the enormous enrichment that the forest brings, and has always brought, to the people of London.
  I have tramped the course that the M25 is to take over Epping Forest to see what will be lost. It cost me a beat of the heart to see what will have to go. But, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said, we have to choose between this Bill and not having the M25. We cannot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) hoped we could, have it both ways. We have either to accept the Bill and its implications or reject the M25. It is no good asking if another way can be found. Years have been spent looking for another way, and no other practicable way is available.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman knows that not only am I from his borough but that I am from the northern part and therefore closer to the forest. I sat for four years as the Member for Epping Forest during earlier stages when we were looking for another route. Even then, when there was a greater possibility of finding other routes, I was reluctantly forced to the same conclusion as he has now reached. There was not another route then, let alone now.
  Mr. Magee: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) for reinforcing my argument. His point also illustrates the fact that Members on both sides of the House are supporting this Bill, though I suspect they also do so reluctantly.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that the present proposals should be carefully scrutinised to see whether, even though they are put into effect, it might be possible to improve them further? Does he also agree that, because of his desire to conserve the forest, the House should ask that that be done?
  Mr. Magee: I am entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend about that. We take the view that we do in the London borough of Waltham Forest partly because of the lack of alternatives, partly because there have been really intelligent and assiduous attempts to mitigate the damage by the cut-and-cover construction, partly because of the excellent record of the City of London in maintaining the forest, and partly because we have considerable confidence in the conservators to see that the thing is done properly.
  But, having said that, everyone concerned with this scheme must take full account of the feelings and arguments of the people who oppose it. It would be quite wrong if they thought they could say, after this debate: "Right, now we have got our permission—to hell with the opposition." There are genuinely strong reasons, and even stronger emotions, against the proposals, and these must be taken into account.
  I want to single out one for consideration. It is the question of precedent. I know that to argue against something on the grounds that it sets a bad precedent is often a lazy or fraudulent way of arguing, but it is not in this case.
  Epping Forest is a limited and unique piece of open country. It would be terrible if, on the ground of one particular need, a bit was snipped off here, and on the ground of some other need a bit was snipped off there. That process might be supported each time by good arguments but the cumulative result would be disastrous.
  So although, reluctantly, I support the the Bill, I could not accept it as a precedent for anything. I shall say "No" in the future if anyone in the House cites this Bill as a precedent for cutting back the forest still further.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. John Wells: I shall confine my remarks to part III of the
  1190
  Bill. I also wish to put the Kentish view in this Essex debate. The M25 forms a complete circle. We must have it. I am particularly pleased to see the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) in the Chamber, because he and I know how rotten the South Circular Road is. We also know that, comparatively, the North Circular Road is a good road.
  Unless the M25 is made into a perfect orbital road to carry the traffic that wishes to avoid the centre of London, we in Kent, with people coming from and going to the Channel ports and even to the gateway of the Channel tunnel—if that is built—will suffer. There is a great national need.
  Those of us who live in other parts of the country appreciate the thoughtful words and personal sacrifice on behalf of constituents that have been made by hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. They have spoken with thought and concern. I share their concern but I wish to emphasise the national aspect.
  I can give a word of comfort from personal knowledge, from many miles away, to those who are worried about the well-being of the deer. I own part of the top of the Whiteball tunnel on the Western Region of British Rail. By that surface route across the railway the deer cross from the Quantock Hills to the Blackdown Hills, in Somerset. If there were no tunnel, the deer would not have made that crossing since the railway was built in the 1840s. I can assure people who are fond of deer that a tunnel, provided that it is long enough, can protect deer. The Minister was wise to agree to the longer tunnel. Such a tunnel will provide a sure passage for deer.
  I turn to the part of the Bill that interests me most. Hon. Members will know about my long-standing interest in market matters. I am glad that adequate provision is being made for a move of Billingsgate market to a new site. I am delighted that some of the errors that crept in when we were dealing with the Covent Garden move will not apply in this case. I am particularly glad to see clause 15, which allows for the Billingsgate market consultative advisory committee. Such a committee was established as an afterthought for the Covent Garden scheme and it has proved beneficial. I am glad that the City Corporation has learned wisdom. I am also

  1191
  glad that the market porters are being fully considered. Clause 14 deals adequately with that matter.
  It is important to note that in clause 15, although the City, which is the present market authority, will be represented on the consultative and advisory committee, it will not have the controlling voice. That is important. If a consultative committee truly is to represent all the interests, the market authority should not be the boss-man. I look forward to the consultative committee working well.
  I turn to clause 20. I am an occasional buyer and a rare seller at Spitalfields market and I should declare a remote interest. I am glad that the clause will enable the Corporation to extend the security of tenure of traders in that market. This can be only good.
  Hon. Members have paid tribute to the excellence of the City Corporation as conservators of Epping Forest. I also pay tribute to the excellent work of the City Corporation, which is appreciated by all those who work in the markets. The volume of goods that goes through the City markets might be declining, but it is essential that there shoud be a great price-setting market for every commodity. The City of London provides this in its markets. Spitalfields, Smithfield and Billingsgate markets enable the City to be at the heart of national price-setting for all the main commodities that people eat.
  I commend the Bill to the House. I hope that those who are critical of part of the Bill will not vote against it but will allow it to go to Committee, where their anxieties can be scrutinised.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: The reason for my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) and I objecting to the Bill going through on the nod is our deep concern about the transfer of land which now forms part of Epping Forest to the Secretary of State for Transport for the construction of the M25 motorway.
  Unlike some hon. Members, I cannot say that my reservations about the proposals have been removed. Epping Forest is a famous recreation area which has long been enjoyed not only by the residents of West Essex but by people from East London and further afield. The
  1192
  forest contains numerous historic sites. It has a unique natural life. It is an area of great beauty.
  Last year we celebrated the centenary of the 1878 Epping Forest Act by which our predecessors ensured the preservation of this area of common land for the use of the public. That Act was not achieved without a great struggle. Of course, the Corporation of London, the Buxton family and other leading figures in the Victorian period played an honourable part. The movement was, however, also supported by many ordinary working people, amongst whom a humble Loughton man, Thomas Willingale, and his family must take pride of place. He initiated the resistance to the lord of the manor of Loughton who wished to enclose the forest before the Corporation was involved, ultimately hoping to dispose of it for speculative purposes. It was a long and hard struggle. Had it not triumphed, and had not our predecessors, many of whom were humble folk, taken part, Epping Forest would long ago have disappeared under concrete, bricks and mortar.
  Those who resisted enclosures and speculators 100 years ago were not always seen as progressives. History shows that many regarded the forest as a nuisance. It harboured undesirable people and sometimes provided refuge for gipsies. Those wishing to protect and preserve the forest were seen as obstructors standing in the way of progress. When we resist the proposal this evening, we may equally be seen as obstructionist. But if there are not people who are prepared to resist encroachment on that part of our heritage, it will ultimately disappear. It is our duty to question pertinently and carefully every proposal that is put forward for encroachment, and history can judge whether we are obstructionist.
  Today the pressure is not from private speculators who have lost out. It is not even from those who are pressing for building land. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) will remember that just after the Second World War West Ham council was anxious to acquire part of Wanstead Flats for a housing estate. At a time when there was a great housing need, many would have seen that as a priority. But some 35 years later we can see that it would have been a mistake.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: As my hon. Friend knows, I was in the House at that time. Then, as now, the most successful opponent was the City Corporation, which has so well preserved Epping Forest. The City of London and the City conservators have always fought and are still fighting to preserve the forest.
  Mr. Newens: I entirely agree. My political position would not be regarded as close to that of many members of the Corporation. My praise for the conservators can therefore be regarded as objective. I pay tribute to them. Many who participate in conserving Epping Forest have a great sense of public duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West also expressed views on the issue that may not have been popular among his constituents just after the war.
  The pressure today is not from the same sources as in the past but from other public authorities, and it is principally for roads. West Essex, of which Epping Forest forms part, has not been ungenerous in the provision of land over the past 30 or 40 years for other purposes. Not only have GLC estates been built, but so has Harlow new town, which I represent. There has also been the aerodrome at North Weald. That served an important purpose during the war. A little further to the north, proposals are being mooted again for the possible use of a large tract of land for the third London airport at Stansted, to which I am opposed. Land has been provided for the M11 through West Essex. Surely, in these circumstances we should look very carefully at proposals to take still more land from this area.
  As the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) pointed out, the forest consists of 6,000 acres of woodland and plain stretching from Wanstead to Thornwood. It is 12 miles long but comparatively narrow. After the 1968 Act it was cut across at Waterworks Corner at Walthamstow. The M25 proposal involves a new and equally savage cut further to the north. This would not merely remove a certain acreage of land but would change much of the environment in that part of the forest. It would change it both visually and in terms of noise. In addition, it
  1194
  would cut across some adjacent open land which has certain scenic value and which should not be discounted.
  I am pleased with the proposal to make a cutting and tunnel for part of the motorway. This represents an improvement on some of the earlier proposals, but I still believe that areas adjacent to the forest where the motorway is planned will be disfigured by bridges and high-level roads and the interchange at Copped Hall Green.
  I am deeply concerned about the effect on Upshire. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who represents that village, has already commented that Upshire Village Preservation Society has been particularly active on this issue. Upshire is a very beautiful village, and it would be appalling if a high-level road and a bridge were constructed there disfiguring that area.
  This matter must be looked at again. I hope that the Committee will provide an opportunity to do that. A number of hon. Members have commented on the wild life that exists in the forest. It still exists, but it has been affected considerably by development over the years. Much of the original deer population which I remember as a boy has now departed despite the efforts, which we all praise, of the Corporation and other interested people.
  In addition, the forest in its present state also represents a haven for wild life from some surrounding areas—areas which are being constantly developed for housing. Even where these have remained in agricultural use they have frequently been stripped of hedges and trees and polluted by pesticides and chemicals. Nowadays it is difficult to find ponds with tadpoles, frogs and many of the fish that could be found in West Essex when I was a boy. However, they have survived to some extent in the forest. If hon. Members wish Epping Forest to survive—as I believe they all do—they should be concerned about the effect that a motorway will have on the forest environment.
  The proposed M25 will cut right across the forest. Certain proposals have been made to enable some of the wild life to travel from the north to the south and back again. Those proposals should be re-examined carefully, because I suspect that some of the wild life uses the land at the side of the forest. The plans should

  1195
  be reviewed and studied carefully before they are implemented and, possibly, constitute a great new desecration of Epping Forest.
  Those of us who oppose the present development and are deeply concerned about it should not be dismissed as eccentrics. Among our number are not only residents in the area but the Friends of the Earth and many who live miles away and know the forest from their visits to it.
  Epping Forest is part of our heritage and we have a duty to protect it for the enjoyment of generations to come. I am an East Londoner and my ancestors lived in East London for generations before me. They have visited Epping Forest, even in the memory of my family, for more than 100 years.
  In a debate in 1968 I stated that the forest could eventually die the death of a thousand cuts. I believe that the forest will not stand many more cuts such as that proposed in the Bill. I recognise that there must be some lateral road communications across West Essex, but the present proposals are not satisfactory. Therefore, I hope that there is still time for further reconsideration in order to avoid the undesirable consequence of further spoliation of this beautiful part of the country. That may be achieved in Committee and, for that reason, I shall not oppose the Second Reading.
  However, some of my hon. Friends, including those who are not present, are agreed that, unless guarantees are given on the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking and myself, we shall feel it our duty to continue to put up such resistance as is possible to prevent the further passage of the Bill.
  Clause 18 refers to provisions for charges on admission to museums. I have visited the excellent new museum created by the Corporation of the City of London. It provides a tremendous opportunity to learn about the past of London. I should be sad if charges were imposed which would, inevitably, deter many who should know more about the history of our great capital city.
  Mr. Wells: I understand that the charges are intended to enable the Corporation to set up special exhibitions at which admission would obviously have to be by ticket only. The ordinary facilities of the museum are excellent, but the
  1196
  imposition of charges is intended to enable the Corporation to take a further step forward.
  Mr. Newens: I accept that that is the objective, but I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind what happened to a previous proposal that was implemented at national level with the support of Conservative Members. I hope that we will not support the introduction of charges for all visitors except on very special occasions. Even then, I hope that charges can be avoided wherever possible.
  I am unhappy that I have to express so many reservations about the Bill, but no one with pride in, or affection for, our countryside can view with equanimity its further desecration, and it is, therefore, necessary for hon. Members to express any reservations that they may have.
  Epping Forest is a unique stretch of countryside and no one can maintain that the proposals in the Bill will not damage it. If our generation fails to stand firm against its continuing erosion we shall deserve the condemnation of those who come after us.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Like most other hon. Members who have spoken so far, I intend to concentrate on the part of the Bill dealing with Epping Forest and the M25.
  Although my constituents are somewhat removed from Epping Forest, they, like most other residents of Essex and East London, very much enjoy the pleasures of the forest and wish that no steps should be taken to reduce that enjoyment materially. However, they are passionately in favour of the M25 going ahead because there are many substantial traffic problems in the areas around Brentwood and Ongar that can be removed only by the completion of the M25.
  This is not a debate on the merits or otherwise of the M25, but it is within the rules of order for me to say that the motorway, one section of which we are discussing, was first mooted as long ago as 1944. Since then, there have been several changes of name, changes of route and changes of Government, to the point where my constituents feel that any change of heart by this or any future Government in pressing forward with the M25 would be totally unacceptable. They

  1197
  also feel that any attempt to obstruct the reasonable progress of the construction of the M25 should be equally opposed.
  There can be hardly any other major capital city that does not have an orbital route around its extremities. We are to be criticised for still having, after successive Governments of both parties, an incomplete road structure around the capital.
  The advantages of the M25, if they need restating, are surely that in terms of commerce, trade and the recreation of the people on whose behalf we have been speaking there must be greater facility to move from point to point around the capital.
  I want to concentrate on ecological and environmental factors relating to part of my constituency which will continue to suffer until the M25 is completed. I refer to villages along the A128 trunk road, which were previously peaceful havens but which now live in the midst of ever-growing, heavy traffic on a road which was never constructed to take it.
  I endorse the argument that it is desirable for people to escape to the recreational spaces of Epping Forest. My constituents would also do so. In concentrating on the need for the Epping Forest open spaces to continue to be available for people of Essex and East London, I hope that an occasional thought will be given to the people in the villages in my constituency whose lives have been made a living hell as a result of the juggernauts trundling along the A128. I sincerely plead with the House not to hold up the progress of this Bill this evening.
  The stretch of the M25 to which the Bill refers lies between the A10 and the M11. Therefore, it is far removed from the immediate area of my constituency. Until the M25 is complete and forms a true orbital road around the capital city of the United Kingdom, there will be inadequate communications around London. I do not believe that the M25 can or should be viewed in sections relative to the constituency interests of Members of Parliament. That is why I believe that the section between the A10 and the M11 must proceed in the same way
  1198
  as all the other sections more immediately adjacent to my constituency.
  I echo something that was said by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). I thought that she approached this matter in a reasonable manner. She is entitled, as is the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), to require that the House should consider it necessary to proceed with this Bill. I believe that in having given the opportunity to the House to debate the various points a service has been rendered to the interests of the progress of the M25 motorway.
  I was concerned when the hon. Lady finished her speech by asking a question. She asked whether there was no alternative, even at this late hour, whether we could reconsider, and whether we had to cut into Epping Forest in the way proposed. That concerned me greatly. If that were thought to be a reason for further delay, for further investigation and for reopening those areas which, heaven knows, have been given a great deal of attention over the past years, it would be a retrograde step.
  The hon. Member for Harlow seemed to open up and fight old battles which many of us thought had been given maximum opportunity for investigation in the past. Many of us feel that it is only after maximum public investigation that we are able and required to bring a Bill before the House. Although I commend those concerned for having brought this motion before the House to enable us to pause and think whether it is the right course to adopt, I would greatly regret any suggestion that obstruction and delay were synonymous with their action.
  Mr. Newens: Does the hon. Member agree that if further consideration of these proposals could diminish the amount of environmental damage that is undoubtedly being caused, that would be desirable? Is it not worth while delaying the process a little in order that that greater good can be achieved?
  Mr. McCrindle: Of course it is desirable to minimise any environmental damage, if that can be done without delaying the progress of the M25, but I repeat that the processes have been gone through exhaustively and that every conceivable opportunity has been given to

  1199
  objectors. Every opportunity has been given to finding an alternative way that would minimise environmental damage. My fear about yielding to the hon. Gentleman's implied course of action is that it could be another way of delaying for a considerable period the progress of this motorway.
  The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he hoped that he and those who thought like him would not be dismissed as eccentrics. I would not for a moment dismiss the hon. Gentleman as an eccentric, but I recognise that he fights a tough battle. He is perfectly entitled to fight that tough battle, inasmuch as he is bringing to the attention of the House this evening the difficulties and, indeed, the dangers which are involved with the passage of the Bill. He is perfectly entitled also to hope that in Committee the Bill will be exhaustively explored. I hope that I have persuaded the House, however, that what the hon. Gentleman would not be entitled to do would be to delay the progress of the M25, because that would be to the detriment of my constituents and, indirectly, to the detriment of his.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Arnold Shaw: From time to time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Londoners have the opportunity of speaking on subjects that are of interest to them. I think that the House will agree that this opportunity is one that has come very readily to our ears, in that it deals with a number of subjects that are quite fascinating to London and to London Members. Nevertheless, the nub of the Bill is obviously the question that has taken up the time of most of the speakers so far—the land for which the Department of Transport has asked in order to complete a part of the M25.
  This brings a certain apprehension to those of us who have that love for the forest which has been expressed by so many Members this evening. We are indebted to those Members, for by their objection in the first place we have been able to have this Second Reading debate.
  I believe that the House has gained by having the debate. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) in hoping that when the subject is debated in Committee there will yet be a possibility of doing something to improve
  1200
  the position. Nevertheless, having said that, I am here, in a way, in order to pay a debt to the City of London for what it has done in preserving Epping Forest.
  As a boy I spent a good deal of my time in the forest—half-days and days, whenever I had the opportunity—so that I could enjoy the amenities there. We have already been told, and we know, that until the Epping Forest Act 1878 a great deal of the land had been eroded. It is quite true to say that there were pioneers who did much to bring to the attention of the public the need to save the forest. In the ultimate it has been the City of London and its conservators who have managed to conserve the forest for us.
  There is a dilemma here between conservation and the provision of roads and traffic management. From the experience that we have had of the work of the conservators of the City of London, we can put a certain amount of confidence in them to get the best out of the situation that it is possible to obtain. I believe that the M25 should be built, for the reasons that have become apparent from the debate. It is essential to keep heavy traffic out of the highways and byways of the villages in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and also in my constituency, where heavy vehicles percolate through roads that were not made for them. All that could be obviated by the building of the orbital road.
  It is necessary to compromise between the necessity for conservation and the provision of roads. A long time has been spent in negotiation between the City conservators and the Department of Transport, and a scheme has been produced that is broadly acceptable. It is to be hoped that as a result of the debate and the examination of the Bill in Committee improvements will be achieved.
  There is one personal observation that I should like to make on the Bill. It concerns the moving of Billingsgate market from its present site to Tower Hamlets. In the first instance this will be for the benefit of the redevelopment of the dock area, but, apart from that, as one who uses the Lower Thames Road which passes through the market, I should be very pleased for the market

  1201
  to be replaced by an imaginative scheme possibly based on the Monument and the rebuilding of the road that is such a trial to my car. That is something we have to look forward to. I trust that the Bill will get a Second Reading, as I am sure it will.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Vivian Bendall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on the excellent way in which he presented the Bill. I also add my congratulations to hon. Members who had certain reservations about it. The great virtue of the House of Commons is that we are able to debate sensibly issues that concern us and our constituents. I should not like the countryside to be destroyed just for the sake of the destruction of the countryside.
  We have to look at the problems that face Londoners. In my constituency juggernauts and heavy traffic cause tremendous environmental problems. An immense number of juggernauts pass through the two constituencies of Ilford, North and Ilford, South, affecting the environment of the people who live in the area. That is because there is no orbital road around London. There should be a proper road system and structure to enable goods to be taken to the ports, so that our economy may be improved.
  I believe that the most important part of the whole road network is the orbital road round London. The South Circular Road is just a series of roads linked together. We know that a tremendous amount of juggernaut traffic is coming from the industrial areas of the Midlands to the southern parts of the country. Therefore, it is vital for the economy of the whole country that we have the M25 circular road built around London.
  If we are to have a motorway structure which comes into London—the M23, the M11 and other motorways, most of which come to the edge of the conurbation—it is vital that there is an orbital system to take the heavy traffic round the city and disperse it, rather than having it go through the centre as at present.
  I believe that the M25 is vital to the environment of the inner city areas. We know that it is important to restructure
  1202
  and redevelop dockland and the inner city areas. If that is so, and if we are to give a better quality of life to the people living in inner London, it is vital that the M25 be constructed.
  I have made the points that I wanted to make tonight, and I thank the House for its indulgence. I hope that the Bill goes through to Committee and that we shall eventually see it on the statute book.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I, too, should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) for the admirable way in which he has introduced the Bill. Naturally, he was speaking on behalf of the promoters of the City of London, and as I have done so before I want to pay tribute to them also. As has been said, for 100 years they have given excellent service along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) mentioned. He may well have been right that 100 years ago, when the battle started, different individuals were then active, but for the last 100 years the City of London has carried on that battle.
  I have not been here for the whole of that time but I have been involved for the past 34 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow was quite right when he mentioned the battle that went on when, had it not been for the City of London, there would now have been tower blocks on Wanstead Flats. Originally the excuse was that there should be houses. We had to fight, and the City of London led that fight. If it had not done so, houses would have led to tower blocks, tower blocks to schools, and schools to shops and there would be no Wanstead Flats as we know them today. Thank God that the City of London did its job and did it well. We worked together on it. I also pay tribute to the City of London for the excellent way in which it keeps West Ham park. It does an excellent job.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), rightly say that we have to put up a fight to see that no liberty is taken with Epping Forest. But let us not lose the trees for the shadow, or the substance for the shadow. It is not the City of London that needs to be

  1203
  checked or castigated; it is the Department of Transport. Not one word has been said about watching the Department of Transport, but that is what needs to be watched. It is the Department that makes pledges, gives promises and breaks them. The Department of Transport said that we would not have tachographs, whatever the EEC said, yet immediately it ran away and said "We will have tachographs now, reluctantly."
  My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and Barking have initiated this debate. I am glad that they have done so, because we have got to work with the City of London. We may say that we do not really want the road, but we do, and although we are reluctant, because it will cause damage, we want the road without too much damage. If we find the Department of Transport reneging or taking any action, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow said I shall join him in saying that we should keep a check on the Department of Transport to keep it in order.
  I do not trust the Department of Transport. By its actions over the years it has not proved that it has the best interests of the people at heart. The City of London has proved this. It has done so for 100 years, and certainly to my personal knowledge for the past 34 years.
  I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow smiling. Like him, I have gone along to many Ministers, ministerial advisers and local government officers. I have never found any of them so accommodating or helpful as the City of London authority and its officers. They have not put themselves out in the way that the City of London's officials have. When I have problems or difficulties over Wanstead Flats, West Ham park or Epping Forest, I know that I get better treatment from the authority's officials than I do from ministerial Departments.
  Mr. McCrindle: I was just about to reflect that it must be a historic occasion when the hon. Gentleman in the same sentences praises the City of London and criticises the Department of Transport and a Labour Government.
  Mr. Lewis: Had the hon. Gentleman been here long enough he would know that I have done this for 34 years, irrespective of what Government are in
  1204
  power. That does not matter to me. If something is wrong, and if a Minister or his Department is wrong, I could not care less which Government are in power. The hon. Gentleman should know by now that I have said this on many occasions. I must have seen 3,000 or 4,000 Ministers of all parties pass through the House, but I can count on the fingers of two hands Ministers of either party who were good, in that they did what they wanted to do and were not dictated to by civil servants. The problem is that we do not have Ministers who are strong enough to stand up to Civil Service advisers.
  When I go to the City of London, I meet its officers, its Court of Common Council men and its various councillors. I know that they stand up to such people. But I have not seen that happen in this House. Therefore, it is not a question of party; it is the old question of "White-hall knows best". I do not believe that Whitehall knows best.
  That is why I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. If Ministers transgress, I know that the City of London will try to stop them from doing so. I am sure that the City of London will do its best to look after the interests of the forest and its users. I am sure that the City of London would welcome the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and Barking, as I am sure it welcomes this debate.
  Do not let us forget that the City of London has proved that it can be trusted and that it has fought. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has had the opportunity of going on one of the City's trips around the forest.
  Mr. Newens: Yes.
  Mr. Lewis: Then he knows as well as I do that the City of London has done an excellent job. If there is to be any transgression, I have no fear at all about the City of London. We know that it is promoting the Bill, but in fact it is doing so at the behest of the Department of Transport. It is the Department that we must watch. I shall be with my hon. Friend, on the barricades if need be, fighting whatever Minister may be in office. If we win the next election, as everyone says we shall, it will be a Minister of my own party against whom I shall be

  1205
  fighting. If that prognostication is wrong, and a Minister of a different party is in office, I shall still be there.
  I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Barking and Harlow for giving us the chance of debating the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friends' desire and objective that there will be no further transgression is supported, and if they need help and support I shall be with them.
  9.4 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who made an interesting and wide-ranging speech, that one of the merits of proceeding in the way that we are tonight is that if at any future stage—God forbid—there were any further transgression on Epping Forest, such a parliamentary procedure would have to be gone through again, and my hon. Friends would again have an opportunity of making their speeches.
  I see a broad beam across the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. I am anticipating what he may say on a future occasion. But at least the safeguards are there, which is an important factor in this situation.
  I am also glad that through the efforts of my hon. Friends, as well as Conservative Members, we have had a constructive debate. I am glad of the opportunity to debate the M25 London orbital route, and also the particular problems of this part of the orbital route.
  The hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who introduced the Bill most ably, explained why the City is involved. It may be helpful if I explain why the Government are committed to building the M25, and why and to what extent land in the forest is affected. I hope that I shall also be able to explain how we view the considerable concern of my hon. Friends, as well as the strong views of those in the affected area, about what must be regarded as part of our national heritage—Epping Forest—which is a beautiful stretch of countryside and, clearly, a most important local amenity.
  To begin with the basic situation on the M25, I should like to repeat points that I have already made to the House in
  1206
  previous debates on the reasons for this particular project.
  As I explained in the Adjournment debate on 2 November, broadly this road serves three main functions: first, it will provide a way round Greater London for through traffic, particularly traffic to and from the East Coast, the Channel ports and the Tilbury docks. It will also link Heathrow and Gatwick and provide a route from those airports to the M1 and the M4.
  Secondly, it will act as a general distributor, linking the radial routes that carry traffic in and out of London. Drivers will be able to reach places in London or find the most convenient access road without crossing the centre or using existing inadequate orbital routes.
  Thirdly, it will also bring substantial local relief to many congested roads on the outskirts of London.
  In the course of this debate, as in other debates on the same subject, hon. Members have stressed the importance of the road and the relief it will bring to many of their constituents. The M25 has the highest priority in our road building programme. Although only 23 miles have been built out of a total length of 120 miles, a further 16 miles is under construction and planning is well advanced on a further 45 miles. Only about a quarter of the route remains to be settled. I expect that all except the north-west sector will be finished by the end of 1983, and the whole road will be completed in 1985.
  The north-east quadrant of the motorway, which includes the section through Epping Forest, will play a significant role in taking traffic from the M1 and the A1 to Tilbury and the Channel ports. It should also benefit more local traffic moving around this north-east sector of London. Without this section, increasing volumes of heavy traffic would continue to use routes through London and its suburbs or, alternatively, through rural Essex and Hertfordshire, using totally unsuitable roads and causing increasing delays for both through and local traffic. That would be undesirable environmentally and would also lead to increased danger to pedestrians and motorists alike.
  The transfer of this obstructive traffic to this purpose-built road will lead to substantial environmental benefits in the

  1207
  London suburbs and also—and this has been much commented upon, most noticeably by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) recently—in the towns and villages of Essex and Hertfordshire. The proposed route for the north-eastern sector from the A10 and Bulls Cross to the A12 near Brentwood was published in 1973. Over 1,500 objections were received and a public inquiry was held at Epping between December 1974 and July 1975. The inquiry lasted for 89 days. At the time it was the longest inquiry ever held. I do not think that it can reasonably be claimed that the inspector failed to give objectors a chance to put their views forward.
  The inspector reported in May 1976. He took into account the Department's forecast of the number of vehicles likely to use the road, the environmental effects and the effects on agriculture, green belt land and the forest. He declared himself satisfied that the road was needed and that the environmental disbenefits it would bring would be more than offset by the environmental benefits enjoyed by the wider community. The report is no less than 922 pages long. I recognise that the length of the inquiry or the bulk of the report is not by itself conclusive evidence that nothing was overlooked. However, I hope that hon. Members will accept that in this instance there are reliable indicators of the careful and thorough way in which all the relevant factors were considered by the inspector. In the end the inspector recommended that the line orders should be made as drafted, subject to some alterations.
  After further careful consideration by the Departments of Transport and Environment the decision of my right hon. Friends was given in a letter dated 28 September 1977 and the orders were made on 1 March 1978. Since then we have been going ahead with the remaining statutory procedures. A public inquiry into the draft compulsory purchase orders for the section to the west of the forest from the River Lea to the A121 will open on 20 March, and the inquiry into the draft orders from the A121 to the M11 will probably open in May or June. The last section cannot be built unless we are able to use the land that is the subject of part II. My right hon. Friends
  1208
  will not make any decisions on the order until Parliament has completed its consideration of the Bill.
  I turn to the effects on the forest. As the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South said, the conservators' main aim, which I share, has been to minimise the impact on the forest. The most direct route, and hence the cheapest and most convenient for motorists, would take the road through a broad part of the forest. A route further to the north than the current scheme, avoiding the forest altogether, would have been longer and would have taken more land, property and houses. The route that was proposed by the Department and approved by the inspector is thus a compromise. It passes through the northern tip of the forest. It touches forest land at four points, and with the exception of Bell Common these are all roadside verges.
  At the two principal crossings the motorway will be carried on bridges over the verges so that riders and walkers will be able virtually to follow their present paths. At Bell Common the road passes through about 500 yards of the forest. The Department had originally proposed that the road should be constructed in a cut-and-cover tunnel for about half that length to preserve the continuity of forest land. However, the inspector supported the proposal put forward by the conservators that the whole length should be in a tunnel at an extra cost of about £2½ million at 1974 prices. The Secretary of State accepted that recommendation.
  After construction of the road the land will be returned to its current use. The current use is the cricket pitch. Clause 7 will lay on the Department responsibility to provide the cricket club with facilities
  " not less advantageous to the members…than the cricket ground, pavilion and conveniences now available to them ".
  That is a fairly strong commitment. I do not know how lavish the provision will be but I think that the words I have quoted are suitable.
  The overall extent of the forest is about 6,000 acres. The Bill will enable the City to transfer to the Department 14½ acres of that 6,000 acres. Once the road has been built, 11½ acres of the 14½ acres will be open to the public, Moreover, my Department intends to buy 14½ acres to

  1209
  give to the City in exchange for what is transferred, so the size of the forest will not be changed. Indeed, the area open to the public will be increased. I would like to refer to the question of delay, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). He made the point that it may be right to delay things in the wider interests of ensuring that one finds the best possible solution to this conflict between the need for a road which would be environmentally beneficial but also the environmental need to protect the forest and this special part of London. I would like to put some points to him.
  Any broad alternative, most recently the River Lea proposal put forward by a number of individuals, would probably take at least a year to consider in depth. There would, therefore, be a delay of at least a year in any solution. If we were to embark on an alernative, this whole project would be set back at least a decade. It would take that long to work out any alternative to what is now proposed to the point where it was feasible to build the road.
  I would like my hon. Friend to consider the problems of simply delaying this part of the road. As a number of speakers have pointed out, other sections of the road are proceeding. Indeed, other sections of the M25 have been completed. If this section was not built, there would be a gap in the orbital road and traffic would flow from the sections that were built into this gap. The situation in that area would not merely be as bad as it is today. It could well be considerably worse.
  Apart from the speeches made in this debate by the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar and for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who declared clearly what he felt was the balance of the argument, I have also had representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) and for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), who cannot participate in this debate—although they would have liked to do so—because they are members of the Government. They have been concerned about the possibility of delay in this section of the road because of the reasons—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is not true that the hon. Members whom the Minister has mentioned cannot participate in the debate. They choose not to do so. They could if they wanted. There is nothing to stop them. Any member of the Government can speak.
  Mr. Horam: I defer to my hon. Friend, given the length of time that he has been an hon. Member of this House, on the question of the traditions of the House. He may well be right. I thought it was worth making that point simply to indicate the real problems which even a short delay in this section of the road could cause in other parts of London.
  Mr. Newens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that, recognising, as I hope I made clear in my speech, the need for lateral road communications in this area, it is still vital that those roads are not constructed in a manner which destroys or seriously damages the environment? I am grateful that he mentioned certain areas. The areas at Copthall Green and Upshire have to be looked at again. Does my hon. Friend agree that, even in the time available, we have to go over these matters carefully together with the representations of hon. Members who have spoken in favour of proceeding with the road?
  Mr. Horam: I take my hon. Friend's point that there should be proper consideration of the environmental points, including those that he and other hon. Members have made during this prolonged debate. In so far as the statutory procedures allow, certainly the Committee stage will be a proper place to consider those points.
  I also say to my hon. Friend that as a matter of general policy he will know that, certainly since my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport and I have been in charge of affairs at the Department of Transport—nothwithstanding the comments of my hon. Friend, whose memory goes back much further than that—we have tried more comprehensively to take into account the environmental problems of road building. I have tried to show—I think that my hon. Friend has given me credit for it—what we have tried to do

  1211
  in this particular case to meet the very clear problems which we recognise.
  Finally, therefore, the Government really cannot say too much about the importance of the M25. If the road is to avoid the built-up areas of London there is no alternative but to cross the surrounding countryside, including this small stretch of Epping Forest. I regret that as much as other hon. Members. We have gone to great lengths to protect the amenities of the forest, but it is not simply a question of weighing the environmental loss against wider benefits. Failure to complete this road would leave unsolved acute problems of congestion, noise, pollution and danger which would far outweigh its adverse effects. That is why I feel that the majority—indeed, almost everyone—who have spoken in this debate have come down, certainly on balance, on the side of this project.
  I quite understand why the City Corporation feels that it is necessary to obtain parliamentary authority to enable this road to run through the forest. Indeed, it provides the sort of guarantees to which some of my hon. Friends have referred, and I am grateful to the Corporation for bringing forward this part of the Bill.
  I must make clear that the orbital route is urgently needed, and the Government therefore regard it as vital that the Bill should proceed. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and for Barking (Miss Richardson), in particular, will recognise that we have tried our hardest to minimise that clear environmental effects which the project will impose, that we have tried to take full account of the feelings and the arguments of those who have opposed this particular scheme at various stages, and that, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee), while we, as Ministers, have come to the conclusion that we have, we have also come to it very reluctantly, in view of the conflicts between transport considerations and environmental considerations which are posed very acutely in this sort of area.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise that we, too, welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter as fully, frankly and openly as possible, but in the light of the general balance of the argument we should give the Bill a Second Reading so that it can proceed to the Committee stage, where sensible
  1212
  discussion of details can go forward, but, at the end of the day, there should be no delay in this project.
  Mr. Wells: I am disappointed that the Minister said nothing about the great advantages of the clearway that will come outside Billingsgate market when the inevitable market congestion is removed. He is, after all, a Minister of Transport. We did not expect him to say anything about the details of the market, but there are many transport implications in other clauses. The hon. Gentleman said nothing about the furious driving referred to in clause 21.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on the way in which he introduced it.
  Many people will regret the passing of Billingsgate. It is part of the City, as Smithfield still is, and it brings a piquant flavour to that part of the world as one drives through, although, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) made clear, there is a certain amount of road congestion. The removal of Billingsgate will leave Fishmongers' Hall, that magnificent building, isolated from its original purpose but I am sure that it will be possible to make journeys from the new Billingsgate to the old Fishmongers' Hall. The move is clearly demonstrated as necessary for a variety of reasons.
  As everybody in the debate has said, Epping Forest is a unique place for those who were brought up in that part of the world, for those who drive through it and for those who read about it. If there is any threat of filching pieces of Epping Forest, it is right that the decision should be taken in this House and only after full examination and debate. It is also clear that there is a general feeling that the M25 is a top priority road, certainly for London. The Bill makes it clear that there will be no loss of land to Epping Forest.
  There are worries on both sides of the House about some aspect of the road. Hon. Members ask whether it is really necessary for the road to go through Epping Forest. Such worries will be examined in Committee. It would be quite

  1213
  wrong, as most Members have said, if the House were not to give the Bill a Second Reading and allow that examination to take place in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked specifically about the M25. I see no reason why the next Government should change the decision to treat the M25 as a top priority road. The report of the inspector is a valuable one, and the fact that the Government have accepted his view that much more of the road should be built in tunnel was one of the points which the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) rightly welcomed in a speech showing concern for what has happened.
  I make brief reference to clause 21. It is a most interesting clause which seems strangely out of place in this Bill. The provision was last changed in 1967. Then it was possible to drive furiously through the City of London committing various offences in thoroughfares, including the discharging of firearms. The maximum penalty for that until 1967 was a fine of £2. In 1967 it became £20 and, presumably on the advice of the Commissioner of the City of London Police, it is now proposed to increase it to £50.
  One would have thought that that was a very small charge to pay for discharging firearms or driving furiously. Perhaps if one drove furiously and discharged firearms there might still be a fine of only £50. However, I am sure that there is a good reason for its being in the Bill although my hon. Friend did not tell us about it when he introduced the measure.
  The Minister was clear, as he always is when explaining road problems. He showed the environmental advantages, on balance, of allowing the Bill to proceed and of allowing the exchange of land so that the road can be built and go into cut-and-cover for the longest possible distance. I was sorry that he did not tell us more—as he was asked to do from both sides of the House—about the deer tracks, which seem to follow on from the elephant trails about which my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South spoke. We shall have to assume that the deer will be able to cross the tunnel when it is filled in.
  1214
  This has been a useful debate. Well-deserved tributes have been paid from all sides to the City Corporation for its enlightened stewardship of Epping Forest. Most of us would praise the Corporation for its enlightened stewardship of all that goes on within the square mile.
  I hope that the Bill will emerge from Committee swiftly. I trust that the Committee will examine the issues which cause genuine concern to Members on both sides of the House. I hope, too, that the Bill will complete all its stages and allow the road to be built to provide a vital link for all who work and live in London.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for being allowed, by the leave of the House, to reply to the debate. Those who wish to revise the procedures of the House sometimes question whether Private Bills have a proper place in our procedures. Today's debate wholly vindicates the principle of having such Bills debated in this way. I join other hon. Members in thanking the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) for objecting in such a way that we could have the debate, which has been useful and valuable.
  I thank all my hon. Friends for supporting the Bill, and all hon. Members for their contributions to an excellent debate. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) said that this was a London occasion. It was kind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) to come in at the end of the debate to listen to the closing speeches.
  The centrepiece of the debate has been Epping Forest and the City's trusteeship of it. I hope that I used factual rather than evaluative language in talking of the past century. It has been warming to hear the tributes paid to the City for its stewardship of the forest in the last 100 years. I refer in particular to the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) in an intervention and in his speech. Tributes have been paid in which I take incidental personal pride on behalf of the City. Like Lysias, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and I were

  1215
  nursed on the self-same hill—in Hampstead. Therefore, from the background of Hampstead Heath I can judge the way in which Epping Forest is administered. I do so with admiration.
  The hon. Member for Barking spoke about the problem of giving away land. I am not sure that it is fully recognised that the Department of Transport is to have 14 acres available to Epping Forest, which will have an incidental virtue. It is land which will probably come in one piece instead of in four different packets, which will be less of a cumulative loss.
  As I prepared for the debate, I was reminded of Lord Slim's remark that the British Army is always fated to fight its battles at the junctions of two or more maps. Similar complications arose in this case.
  The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) spoke of having tramped the route in order to see what had happened. Perhaps I am a more urban animal. I believe that one should see a city on one's feet but my inspection of the route was by car. By that one could see that except for Bell Common the three other areas of the forest were strips of land which lined outlying parts of the forest, rather than total incursions into the forest.
  The hon. Member for Harlow made a powerful speech, with which many hon. Members will agree, on the necessity for vigilance to prevent the erosion of the richness of our heritage. Such defences are important.
  Returning to the deer, he was concerned that they were using the land on the edge of the forest. That is so. In the 1966 census 61 deer were found in the area to the north and only four to seven were seen by the verderers during that day in the forest. The critical factor is whether they can cross over to use the forest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) lent admirable support about the M25 on behalf of their constituents. There has been a thorough-going
  1216
  debate on the effect of the M25 by hon. Members who know the area well.
  There were other references to Billingsgate market. I am grateful for the welcome given by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) not only to the City's stewardship of the market but to its action. The hon. Member for Ilford, South, who spoke with lyricism on Epping Forest, also welcomed the developments at Billingsgate.
  There is obviously a problem over charges at the Museum of London. As the hon. Member for Harlow said, the museum has done an outstanding job and has won a major European prize. There is a mild problem of response through the Bill. The promoters of the Bill are not exactly the same as the governors of the museum, and consultation is needed with the governors to respond to the criticisms. In Committee we should be able to find accommodation and a compromise solution to remove the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Harlow.
  Finally, I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State and to the Department of Transport for the manner in which the arrangements have been carried out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead said, the Minister's comments at the end of the debate were lucid.
  In closing, I return to the cricket ground reference and the phrase quoted by the Under-Secretary of State, that the arrangements when Bell Common is returned to the cricketers are to be no less advantageous to members than the cricket ground pavilion and conveniences now available. I saw the ground earlier in the year when there was snow on the wicket. Painted on the pavilion was the phrase "George Davis rules, OK". I hope that the damage done to Bell Common in building the tunnel will be less than the damage to the Headingley wicket in the name of George Davis. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this most worthwhile debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

  INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer power on the Independent Broadcasting Authority to equip themselves to transmit a television broadcasting service additional to those of the British Broadcasting Corporation and to that provided by the Authority under the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of advances to the Authority for the purpose of enabling the Authority to equip themselves to transmit any such additional service; and

  (b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to be so paid by virtue of that Act;

  but the aggregate amount outstanding by way of the principal in respect of any such advances shall not at any time exceed £18 million.—[Mr. Graham.]

  LAND REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second reading read.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Graham.]

  NEW HEBRIDES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
  9.39 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: I do not intend to delay the House for long. I am anxious to pursue an interest that developed while I was occupying a similar position to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, when I had the opportunity to visit the islands of the New Hebrides in the Pacific. The House will be aware that the New Hebrides is a condominium under the control of France and Britain. I carried out this visit with a French Minister. Certain assurances were given in good faith by myself on behalf of the British Government and by the French about the road to independence that would be followed by the people of the New Hebrides.
  1218
  Looking at history before and since then, it would be true to say that no colonial people seeking independence from a governing Power have had more difficulty than the people of the New Hebrides. I have already mentioned the essence of their difficulties. They are unique in the annals of decolonisation. The New Hebrides condominium is administered by two countries—Britain and France.
  The contemporary history of the New Hebrides is not very happy and feelings of suspicion and mistrust among the people are profound. That is why I am raising the matter tonight. I hope and believe that my hon. Friend will give me the assurances that I seek.
  I do not believe that it is too late for the British Government to retrieve the situation and to move peaceably towards independence for the New Hebrides. Undoubtedly, mistakes have been made on both sides but much of the misunderstanding that has arisen has had as its genesis the marked failure of the British and French Governments fully to appreciate the importance which the people of the New Hebrides attach to their land. The whole question of land is the basis of their society. The Pacific peoples regard land as fundamentally bound up with their existence. They regard the Western concept of land as a commodity as wrong and completely immoral.
  The British have been in the Pacific for more than a century and history shows that we have consistently failed to grasp this situation. The whole Banaban question and the relationship with the Ocean Islands demonstrates this misunderstanding about land. It was Britain's insensitivity to the deeply held principles on land and the attitudes and opinions which flow from that concept which originally provoked the lack of confidence in British and French intentions on independence. For example, the Independence Party, or VP—I met its representatives in 1965—achieved a majority of votes cast in the condominium's first election. Such was the lack of confidence in future independence and doubt that it would ever take place that that party's representatives refused to take their seats, declared a system of UDI and set up a provisional Government.
  Last June, following the appointment of a one-time policeman, Mr. George Kalsakau, as Chief Minister, the VP, as

  1219
  the majority party, participated in the electoral reform conference. Under Mr. Kalsakau's chairmanship, agreement was reached for a timetable for independence, the timetable needs to be spelt out and reasserted.
  The VP abandoned its UDI at that time as an act of faith and was prepared to follow the road to independence. However, the Assembly rejected that, despite the promises that were made. That decision was upheld by the British and French Governments. I am not sure of the reasons for that, and I hope that the Minister will elaborate upon them. That decision has sown the seeds of distrust and suspicion among the people of the New Hebrides.
  At the time that I visited the islands, the people believed that they would be moving rapidly towards independence. I had no idea then that in 1979 I would still be asking what had happened to the commitments that I was authorised to give.
  Following more talks, a Government of national unity has been formed. The Independence Party, the VP, is participating in that Government. Assuming that events have been misinterpreted, the British Government should show that they will not allow the vested interests of various people and bodies in the condominium to frustrate the move to independence. Many in the New Hebrides fear that that will take place. The Government should give every assistance to the pre-independence Government to regain land for the people, much of which was obtained by devious methods. Britain should do all that it can to impress its will with regard to independence and the acquisition of land from the French.
  The British Government should provide a timetable and a date for independence for the New Hebrides. The people are not undecided about independence—the decision has been made. If the belief in the integrity of the British Government is to be retrieved, we must act as I have suggested to ensure that the islands move rapidly towards independence.
  9.47 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for allowing me a moment or two in the debate. It is to be welcomed that,
  1220
  after many years of dithering and delay, there is general agreement between the British and French Governments to move rapidly towards independence for the New Hebrides. I regret that, although this will be the last British dependency in the Pacific, the French intend to retain New Caledonia and French Polynesia as autonomous or dependent territories in one form or another and that therefore the whole of the Pacific will not become independent when the New Hebrides gains independence.
  I should like to add my tributes to the efforts of the Vanuaaku Party. It has struggled over many years to make possible independence and its efforts mean that independence will be gained some years before it would otherwise have been possible.
  I should like to make a few points about independence that I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify.
  All the newly independent countries in the Pacific—the Gilbert Islands, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands—have real economic problems and I hope that the economic arrangements made for the independence of the New Hebrides will enable it to become genuinely economically independent and not so dependent upon the French companies operating in New Caledonia that political independence is not a reality.
  I also hope that it has been agreed that the franchise can start at the age of 18 and that all those aged over 18 will be able to vote. That has been strongly urged by the Vanuaaku Party. It is the position in the United Kingdom and it would be hypocritcal to deny the franchise at 18 to those in the New Hebrides.
  I hope that after independence the New Hebrides will become a force for unity in the Pacific. The tragedy of Africa, the Pacific, the Caribbean and many other ex-colonial areas of the world is that they are divided on a linguistic basis, which often turns out to be a political basis as well, and the people cannot communicate with each other. There is, unhappily, a deep linguistic division between the various parties in the New Hebrides. There are more bilingual people—speaking English and French—in this group of islands, as a result of the bizarre nineteenth century political arrangements, than there are anywhere else in the Pacific. I

  1221
  hope that in terms of educational institutions and other arrangements, that situation will not be a disadvantage but will be used to serve the whole Pacific so that the New Hebrides can be a centre in which the French-speaking and English-speaking people of the area can meet and create greater unity.
  9.52 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for initiating the debate, since the House seldom has the opportunity to hear of the affairs of this small and dependent territory which enjoys unique condominium status and which is shortly to take its rightful place in the world as an independent State. It is sad that we do not spend time, even at this hour, discussing such issues. Special thanks are due to my hon. Friends the Members for Eton and Slough and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price).
  An extra tribute should be paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough for the important contribution that she made towards the achievement of self-determination while she exercised ministerial responsibility for the territory. The events that she set in train in November 1974 in meetings with the French enabled our Government and the Government of France to announce in July 1977 a joint programme designed to bring the New Hebrides to independence in 1980. My hon. Friend is right to guard that commitment jealously, and I am sure that I shall be able to confirm it to her.
  The programme called for elections to a representative Assembly during 1977 and the unification of the separate British and French administrations in the territory. My hon. Friend's concern has been that since then there have been problems that may be obstacles to the achievement of the commitments.
  Despite steady progress towards the rationalisation and unification of services, constitutional advancement was hampered throughout 1977 and most of 1978 by seemingly irreconcilable differences between the two principal political groupings in the territory. Differences of language, culture and religion created by the condominium system have polarised
  1222
  society between anglophones, who are mainly Presbyterian and Anglian, and francophones, who are mainly Roman Catholic. That only goes to underline the problems that we have been grappling with these last two years, and which I am sure my hon. Friends appreciate. The anglophones tend to support the Vanuaaku Party, which won more than 50 per cent. of the popular vote in elections in 1975 and which even now claims majority support in the country. On the other side there are a number of mainly francophone parties.
  The past two years have been characterised by efforts to bring about a reconciliation between the two opposing political groups. For a period after the elections in November 1977 the Vanuaaku Party declared a "People's Provisional Government", but the Anglo-French proposals, which were announced in Vila in August 1978, envisaged the establishment of a Government of National Unity in which the Vanuaaku Party and members of the other parties would be equally represented. The Government of National Unity would be responsible for the preparation of an independence constitution, which, after completion of a census and the preparation of electoral rolls, would be approved by referendum. Fresh elections for a fully representative Assembly would then be held, leading to independence, as planned, in 1980.
  Negotiations between the political parties indicated a cautious welcome for the proposals. Doubts about the likely effectiveness of the Government of National Unity were expressed by the Vanuaaku Party, which feared that decisions of the new Government might be overthrown by the legally constituted but predominantly francophone representative Assembly. It was, however, reassured by a joint statement that we and the French would, if necessary, take legal steps to prevent the Assembly from frustrating the will of the new Government, and in November indicated its willingness in principle to participate in a Government of National Unity.
  In December the representative Assembly cleared the way for further progress by dismissing the existing Government and appointing Father Gerard Leymang as Chief Minister charged with the task of forming the Government of

  1223
  National Unity. On 21 December, the Chief Minister announced that agreement had been reached with the VP and that a Government of National Unity, composed of five members of the francophone parties of the moderates, as they have been called, and five members of the VP, would be formed. The president of the Vanuaaku Party, Father Walter Lini, was appointed as Deputy Chief Minister.
  We therefore naturally welcome these latest developments, which clearly demonstrate the determination of the political parties to work together for the future good of the New Hebrides. This is all the more welcome because, as was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Eton and Slough and for Lewisham, West, of the legacy of deep differences of language and culture that have existed within the New Hebrides. We must help to consolidate the vital progress that the New Hebrideans have made. We must not allow ourselves to lose the ground that has now been won.
  Much remains to be done, and we and the French Government are ready to assist in any way we can. British and French Ministers meet regularly to plan the way forward: only last month my right hon. Friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts had important and constructive discussions with his French opposite number, M. Dijoud, in London. Both our Governments are determined not to allow any obstacle to frustrate our joint objective of bringing the New Hebrides to independence in 1980.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Is there a target date of 1980 which both Governments have?
  Mr. Rowlands: I hesitate to state a date, or even a month. I have only just returned from independence celebrations in the Caribbean, in respect of which dates and months were quoted which this House, through no fault of its own, was unable to meet. If we state dates, months or even days, we create unnatural expectations and, therefore, disappointments.
  The fact that the two Governments and the New Hebrideans are committed to the clear principle of independence in 1980 is a clear and unequivocal commitment. The fact of a day or month is less relevant than the fact that the principle and commitment have been made.
  1224
  I should like to answer the points that my hon. Friends raised. The first concerns the question of franchise, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West. The present franchise age is 21 and the VP party has demanded that it should be reduced to 18, as has been stated. That is now generally agreed among New Hebrideans. In 1977 the two metropolitan Governments told the VP that they had no objection to 18 as the age of franchise but that it would not be possible to make the reduction in age for the elections of that year. The general principle and the general agreement among New Hebrideans is that 18 should be the age.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  Mr. Rowlands: The Chief Minister announced in February that a committee is being set up to work out the land problem, to which my hon. Friends have referred. It is much appreciated that this is an issue of genuine concern for the New Hebrides. I believe that the spirit of conciliation that is now abroad within the New Hebrides is such that the issue can be resolved in the context of the political progress that we intend to make.
  I emphasise to my hon. Friends, who rightly brought the issue to the attention of the House, that the Government and the French Government are determined not to allow any obstacle to frustrate our joint objective of bringing the New Hebrides to independence in 1980. British and French experts will be visiting Vila later this month to assist the Government's constitutional committee in the drafting of an independence constitution. Work on a census and on the preparation of electoral rolls, under the direction of British and French advisers, is well advanced. In due course the Government will present a Command Paper to the House, setting out the constitutional provisions agreed in the New Hebrides and the arrangements for putting them into effect.
  Meanwhile, the process of unifying the hitherto separate Administrations continues. A New Hebrides public service has been established, and those functions

  1225
  for which the British national service has been responsible will be transferred to the new Government on 1 April. I hope that my hon. Friends will appreciate that there has been tremendous progress and a significant breakthrough in terms of political will and in practical terms within the New Hebrides in the last four years. I claim no credit for myself. I claim it for my predecessor and also for my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts.
  We shall continue to grant the New Hebrides a generous measure of aid. During 1979 and 1980, the New Hebrides
  1226
  will receive up to £6·5 million in capital aid, assistance of the order of £2 million a year for education and social services, and technical assistance.
  Britain and France are convinced that national unity is a prerequisite for independence. The New Hebrides political leaders are to be congratulated on their recent achievements, which are entirely compatible with a desire to bring the country to a united, viable and peaceful independence in the course of 1980.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Ten o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  North-East Thames Regional Health Authority
  North-East Thames Regional Health Authority
  National Health Service (Resource Allocation)
  National Health Service (Resource Allocation)
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Long-term Unemployed (Benefits)
  Long-term Unemployed (Benefits)
  Community Homes (Corporal Punishment)
  Community Homes (Corporal Punishment)
  Disablement Income Group
  Disablement Income Group
  Dawn House, Birmingham
  Dawn House, Birmingham
  Benefits (Privacy)
  Benefits (Privacy)
  Acute Hospital Beds
  Acute Hospital Beds
  Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark Area Health Authority
  Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark Area Health Authority
  Dangerous Pathogens
  Dangerous Pathogens
  Retirement Pensioners' Associations
  Retirement Pensioners' Associations
  Watford General Hospital
  Watford General Hospital
  Rural Hospitals (X-ray Facilities)
  Rural Hospitals (X-ray Facilities)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Motability
  Motability
  Pharmaceutical Services
  Pharmaceutical Services
  Airedale General Hospital (Day Care Facilities)
  Airedale General Hospital (Day Care Facilities)
  Psychiatric and Special Hospitals (Transfer of Patients)
  Psychiatric and Special Hospitals (Transfer of Patients)
  Royal College of Nursing
  Royal College of Nursing
  Mr. W. J. Gittins (Pensions Appeal Tribunal Recommendation)
  Mr. W. J. Gittins (Pensions Appeal Tribunal Recommendation)
  Dentists (Dacorum, Hertfordshire)
  Dentists (Dacorum, Hertfordshire)
  Regional Health Authorities (Productivity Schemes)
  Regional Health Authorities (Productivity Schemes)
  Health Service Unions
  Health Service Unions
  Mental Hospitals (Lancashire)
  Mental Hospitals (Lancashire)
  Social Abortions
  Social Abortions
  Surgical Waiting Lists (Sandwell)
  Surgical Waiting Lists (Sandwell)
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  National Health Service (Low-paid Workers)
  National Health Service (Low-paid Workers)
  Mobility Allowance Unit (Blackpool)
  Mobility Allowance Unit (Blackpool)
  Mr. Shukar Mohammed
  Mr. Shukar Mohammed
  King Edward Hospital, Ealing
  King Edward Hospital, Ealing
  Special Hospitals
  Special Hospitals
  Adult Training Centres (Member's Correspondence)
  Adult Training Centres (Member's Correspondence)
  Doctors (West Midlands)
  Doctors (West Midlands)
  Contact Lenses
  Contact Lenses
  Hyperactive Children
  Hyperactive Children
  Stoma Pouches
  Stoma Pouches
  Nurses (European Community Directive)
  Nurses (European Community Directive)
  Stephen Menheniott
  Stephen Menheniott
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Ambulance Service
  Ambulance Service
  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Accident and Emergency Departments
  National Insurance Contributions (Women)
  National Insurance Contributions (Women)
  CIVIL SERVICE
    Government Computer Centres
    Government Computer Centres
  DEFENCE
    Service Personnel (Vigorous Training Exercises)
    Service Personnel (Vigorous Training Exercises)
    Iran (Arms Supplies)
    Iran (Arms Supplies)
    NATO—Warsaw Pact Forces
    NATO—Warsaw Pact Forces
    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    TUC AND CBI
    TUC AND CBI
    REDDISH VALE
    REDDISH VALE
    CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
    CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
    RUGELEY
    RUGELEY
    WALES
    WALES
    COAL INDUSTRY
    COAL INDUSTRY
    CROWN SERVANTS (BUSINESS APPOINTMENTS)
    CROWN SERVANTS (BUSINESS APPOINTMENTS)
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
    Flooding (Greenford)
    Flooding (Greenford)
  ENERGY
    Conservation
    Conservation
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
    South Africa (European Community Firms)
    South Africa (European Community Firms)
    Iran
    Iran
  HOME DEPARTMENT
    Immigrants (Domicile)
    Immigrants (Domicile)
    Prison Standing Order 14/171
    Prison Standing Order 14/171
    Messrs. Ramesh, Pradip and Mukesh Patel
    Messrs. Ramesh, Pradip and Mukesh Patel
    Prisoners (Earnings)
    Prisoners (Earnings)
    Prisoners (Working Week)
    Prisoners (Working Week)
    Prisoners (Food Cost)
    Prisoners (Food Cost)
    Live Animals (Experiments)
    Live Animals (Experiments)
    Immigrants (Medical Examinations)
    Immigrants (Medical Examinations)
    Divisional Court House, Harlesden
    Divisional Court House, Harlesden
    Court House, Willesden
    Court House, Willesden
    Unification Church
    Unification Church
    European Assembly (Election)
    European Assembly (Election)
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
    Aid
    Aid
  NATIONAL FINANCE
    Nationalised Industries (Financial Targets)
    Nationalised Industries (Financial Targets)
    Child Tax Allowance and Benefit
    Child Tax Allowance and Benefit
  SCOTLAND
    Nurses (European Community Directive)
    Nurses (European Community Directive)
    Fife Health Board
    Fife Health Board
  WALES
    Green Pound
    Green Pound
  TRADE
    Mr. S. Robinson
    Mr. S. Robinson
    Mrs. Peggy Visick
    Mrs. Peggy Visick
    Imported Goods
    Imported Goods
    Import Penetration (Target Levels)
    Import Penetration (Target Levels)
    Textiles
    Textiles
    Manufactured Exports
    Manufactured Exports
    Manufactured Imports
    Manufactured Imports
  INDUSTRY
    Assisted Areas
    Assisted Areas
    Republic of Ireland (Postal Dispute)
    Republic of Ireland (Postal Dispute)
  TRANSPORT
    A17 (Bypass)
    A17 (Bypass)
    Tachographs
    Tachographs
  ENVIRONMENT
    Castor, Peterborough
    Castor, Peterborough
    Rate Support Grant
    Rate Support Grant
    Sports (Grant-aid)
    Sports (Grant-aid)
    Indoor Athletics Centre
    Indoor Athletics Centre
    Centres of Sporting Excellence
    Centres of Sporting Excellence
    Historic Buildings
    Historic Buildings
  EMPLOYMENT
    Laboratories (Health and Safety)
    Laboratories (Health and Safety)
    Tribunals and Committees of Inquiry (Recommendations)
    Tribunals and Committees of Inquiry (Recommendations)
    Trade Union Officials (Salary Increases)
    Trade Union Officials (Salary Increases)
    Ethylene Oxide
    Ethylene Oxide
    Unfair Dismissals
    Unfair Dismissals
    Liquefied Gas (Storage)
    Liquefied Gas (Storage)
    Professional and Executive Recruitment
    Professional and Executive Recruitment
    European Community
    European Community
    Young Persons
    Young Persons
    Disabled Workers
    Disabled Workers
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
    Museums (Circulating Exhibitions)
    Museums (Circulating Exhibitions)
    Iranian Students
    Iranian Students
    Cancer Research and Treatment
    Cancer Research and Treatment
    School Premises (Holiday Use)
    School Premises (Holiday Use)
    Live Animals (Research)
    Live Animals (Research)
  NORTHERN IRELAND
    Statutory Bodies (Secretary of State's Appointees)
    Statutory Bodies (Secretary of State's Appointees)
    Further Education
    Further Education
    Unemployment
    Unemployment
    Unemployment Benefit
    Unemployment Benefit
    Family Income Supplement
    Family Income Supplement
    Supplementary Benefit
    Supplementary Benefit
    Discrimination
    Discrimination
    Disabled Persons (Telephones)
    Disabled Persons (Telephones)
    Army Cadet Force
    Army Cadet Force
    Crowd Control
    Crowd Control
    Prison Officers
    Prison Officers

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

LORD PERRY OF WALTON
Sir Walter Laing Macdonald Perry, Knight, OBE, having been created Baron Perry of Walton, of Walton in the County of Buckinghamshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Boyle of Handsworth and the Baroness Lee of Asheridge.

VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY: ABOLITION
2.47 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what savings in manpower and bureaucracy are expected at the Swansea Vehicle Licensing Centre to arise from
2
the replacement of vehicle excise duty by increased petrol tax.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, the abolition of vehicle excise duty on petrol driven vehicles will save over 2,000 Civil Service posts. About 800 of these will be at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre. The financial saving will be some £20 million annually.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Can the Government tell us whether they intend proceeding with this proposal?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, consultations are going on with all the relevant bodies at the moment. When we have finished our consultations, then the necessary enactment will be put into force.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness suggest which relevant bodies are being consulted? Do they include the motoring associations?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are consulting the motorists; the trades unions representing the staff concerned; the Post Office, as they are involved because they may act as agents in the issuing of the licences; and we are consulting all the people who might be

3
affected, before we come to any firm decision on the date of implementation.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether one of the purposes of this proposition is to reduce squandermania in the matter of petrol, seeing that last year's motorists' rate of consumption was 1 million tons or nearly 6 per cent. more than in the previous year?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the question of how much petrol people use when it gets to the new price will be for the people concerned. Whether it will lead to a reduced use of petrol because the price will be higher, or whether motorists will continue to use as much, is a matter for the individuals and not for the Government.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the increased use of petrol last year was only reflecting the increased prosperity of the nation under Labour rule?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I do not think I need to answer that one.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, as motor-cars will still have to be registered, and I imagine therefore that the log book will have to go to Swansea, may I ask where the economy in manpower is coming from?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, there will be 800 jobs fewer at Swansea. There will still have to be some form of registration system because we shall still need to know which vehicles remain in use, what is the insurance position of the vehicles, information regarding their MOT tests, whether any criminal records are attached to them, and so on. There will still have to be a form of registration, but at this point of time we anticipate that the savings overall in the Swansea staff will number 800.
Lord ALLERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether, in the event of this legislation going through, it would cut out the work now done by the local councils?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I regret I did not hear the last part of the noble Lord's question.
Lord ALLERTON: My Lords, would it cut out the work done by the local councils in connection with licences?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the licensing was taken away from the county councils after the reorganisation. In many cases it is now done by local registration offices, and there will be some 1,200 fewer people employed in the local offices, apart from the 800 fewer at Swansea.

DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION SCHEME
2.51 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement upon the decision reached by the Association of European Airlines on the introduction of a common denied boarding compensation scheme throughout Europe and whether this scheme, if agreed and adopted, would cover inward and outward flights from the countries concerned.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am advised that nearly all members of the Association of European Airlines voted to accept the proposed denied boarding compensation scheme. The scheme is intended to apply to all scheduled flights between countries whose airlines are members of the Association and whose Governments approve the scheme; and on outward flights to other countries.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, after listening to that catalogue of pleasant news, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the necessary applications have been filed with the Governments concerned and that all the airlines wish to start implementation on 1st April? Can he therefore say when the British Government will be sending a reply?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, recommendations arising from the scheme are being made to a meeting of the European Directors-General of Civil Aviation on 20th and 21st March; I think action by any Government is likely to be taken after that meeting. So far as this Government are concerned, they are very anxious to proceed with the European scheme on 1st April, provided the balance of advantage is in favour of the consumer as compared with the present United Kingdom scheme.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, as there is no doubt about the latter part of the question, may I ask my noble friend whether he will ask his right honourable friend to ensure that action is taken on behalf of this Government before 1st April so that the scheme can be implemented?
Lord JACQUES: We are the least affected, my Lords; we already have a scheme and the question is whether our scheme is better than the proposed scheme. That is the only consideration that is likely to arise so far as this Government are concerned.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does my noble friend mean there is a choice between the least common denied boarding compensation or the highest common denied boarding compensation?
Lord JACQUES: First of all, my Lords, the European scheme is based on the United Kingdom scheme. The differences are relatively small and they are not in the amount of compensation, to the best of my knowledge; there are other more technical points.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, cannot my noble friend say something good about the airlines in Europe having agreed that this compensation should apply to outward and inward flights of all the airlines concerned, something for which we have been battling for over two years?
Lord JACQUES: Certainly, my Lords, this is something for which this Government have been battling for some years. It was on our initiative that we have the possibility of a European scheme; we
6
should have preferred a worldwide scheme.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, does not some of the credit belong to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think that if one goes back a little further one finds that perhaps it all belongs to her.

NHS: ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT
2.54 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: 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 how the work of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service is progressing, and when its report is likely to be issued.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, I understand that the Royal Commission on the National Health Service is making good progress with its work and expects its report to be ready within the next few months.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that not very illuminating reply. In view of the enormous amount of ground that has had to be covered by the Royal Commission since it was first appointed over three years ago, would it be possible to consider issuing an interim report dealing at least with some of the more urgent problems facing the National Health Service, such as the situation in our hospitals?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Commission expects to have its report ready in the next few months, it would seem that in the circumstances we should wait for the full report rather than attempt to do something meanwhile by way of an interim report or a small report on any particular aspect.

THE THAMES FLOOD BARRIER
2.56 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to expedite the completion of the Woolwich flood barrier.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government have recently given their support to measures designed specifically to bring forward effective completion of this important project to December 1982. They have also, jointly with the Greater London Council, appointed an advisory team to consider how progress can be further improved.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that, although the final legal responsibility for the scheme lies with the GLC, the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the capital city undoubtedly lies with Her Majesty's Government? Is he aware that it needs only a series of freak weather conditions in the North Sea combined with tides at certain times of the year to produce flooding conditions in London? Is he aware, for example, that a rise in tide of some nine inches over the existing banks would cascade 30,000 billion cubic feet of water on to London and would possibly cause £2,500 million worth of damage, with a possible loss of life? With those circumstances in mind, will he ask his right honourable friend whether the Government will take complete responsibility for the speeding up of this whole scheme?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the improvements to flood defences on the Thames carried out in 1971–72 significantly reduced the flood risk in Central London, but I agree with much of what my noble friend has said and the long-term solution lies in the completion of the Thames barrier and associated defences.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is there any way it is possible to over-emphasise the extreme importance of this
8
flood barrier, without which, I am afraid, we shall all of us here be a washout instead of just Her Majesty's Government?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not think it is possible to over-emphasise the importance of this barrier, and, in this connection, but not in anything else, I agree with the noble Viscount. My right honourable friend Mr. Silkin, whose own constituency of Deptford is in a flood danger area, has visited the site and he has had frequent consultations with the GLC, and the advisory team, which he has appointed and to which I referred in my original Answer, is starting work this week. The team and its terms of reference have been agreed with the contractor and the unions.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX BILL [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES BILL [H.L.]
3 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill consolidates, without amendments, provisions about the Director of Public Prosecutions and about consents to the institution of criminal proceedings in England and Wales. It also repeals certain obsolete enactments relating to prosecutions by the Director. The provisions about the Director which are consolidated or repealed are at present contained in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1879, the Prosecution of Offences Act 1884, and the Prosecution of Offences Act 1908. The provisions about consents to the institution of criminal proceedings are at present contained in Section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and Section 12 of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975. The latter provision extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland, but is consolidated by the Bill only for England and Wales. If the Bill is read a second time, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

COUNTRYSIDE (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Countryside (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL
3.3 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 3a.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I had expected that my noble friend Lord Amory was to say a few words about Clause 4 of the Bill which affects the local authorities. At the Committee stage I moved to delete the part of the clause which provides for penalties. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, made a reply which interested me very much, and he has kindly since sent me a full explanation of the legal position. I am convinced by the Minister's arguments, and I hope that the local authorities will now be reassured.
Some critical remarks which I made on Second Reading led to a very interesting correspondence which has made me even more doubtful as to whether we should agree to the Third Reading of the Bill. I received no letter in favour of the scheme proposed in the Bill. One letter was refreshingly blunt. I had deprecated the
10
fact that a lorry driver can in three months earn as much money as many well-known authors can earn in a year or more. A lorry driver took me up on this. He wrote to say that there was nothing unfair in the relative rates of reward. He said that his job was dirty and exhausting, and he was in charge of a lethal weapon. What chance had he of ever hearing his work praised by a friend—he underlined the word "friend"—on the BBC? Authors, he said, had quiet, clean, safe jobs, and, except for the most famous, he did not see why they should be paid any more than he was himself. There is a point there. I do not happen to agree with it, but it shows that subsidising culture is not universally popular and that any scheme which we have before us ought to be effective and worthwhile, and the cost ought to be reasonable. I am sorry that it is not so in the Bill.
The other letters were from authors who rejected the principle of the Bill; that is to say, a borrowing-based scheme. They wanted either tax reliefs on their royalties or a purchase-based scheme. The merits of those two alternatives we can leave for discussion when the White Paper is published. But I wonder how typical are these objections to the Bill as it stands. The concerned public, if asked, does not always support a bad Bill thrust upon it by a Government in political trouble. What Cabinet Ministers who sit for Welsh constituencies thought was good for Wales, the Welsh people rejected out of hand. In the campaign for the public lending right is it not likely that the Writers' Action Group played the part of the Welsh Nationalists? If we could ask 100,000 authors what they thought about the Bill, which does them so little good and which costs so much, I believe that a large majority would tell us to devise something better; and this we could do if we wished.
In a few minutes the Bill will become law because the two Front Benches are agreed to let it through. This consensus depresses me, but I console myself with the fact that better times are coming. After the Election common sense and a real regard for public expenditure will once more be in fashion.
3.7 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, before the Bill receives its Third Reading there

11
is one question that I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. At an earlier stage in our debates some of us raised the question regarding reference books which are not lent but are used, and we said that we thought that in fairness the authors of the reference books ought to be covered. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that while that would not be possible to start with, he held out hope, I think, that perhaps later a way might be found to do it. Afterwards I raised the question with him. I said that it looked to me as if under the Bill the limit would apply to books which were lent and therefore it would not be possible to cover reference books which are not lent. The noble Lord was kind enough to write to me about this and to say that that was the position, and that if reference books were to be covered later an amendment to the Act, or a new Act, would be required. I thought it might be worthwhile asking the noble Lord whether he would confirm that, so that it can be on the record.
3.9 p.m.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I do not want to drive with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, along with the lorry drivers. I, too, think that there is a point here. I do not see why lorry drivers should not be paid as much as authors; equally, I do not see why authors should not be paid as much as lorry drivers, or even managing directors. I certainly think it unfair that the vast majority should be paid less. I am not surprised that the noble Viscount should have received one or two—or perhaps several—letters of opposition to the present scheme, bearing in mind that he opposed it in his last speech.
I have received several letters, too—all favouring the scheme. Over six or seven years of actively campaigning for the Bill I have received hundreds of letters of support, and not one in opposition. Moreover, I consider that I am in a position to say that I mix with more authors than does almost anyone else in this House. I am president of the Writers' Guild of Great Britain, and therefore I declare an interest, and I am an active member of the Writers' Action Group, and I can assure the House and the noble Viscount that if one was to take a poll of
12
authors in this country, as he suggested, one would find that the overwhelming majority of them would be in favour of public lending right and of this particular scheme. It would be nothing like what happened in the devolution votes last week.
3.10 p.m.
Lord SNOW: My Lords, may I support my noble friend Lord Willis for just a few minutes. Surely we have had enough of this. These various schemes have been debated, to my certain knowledge, for the last 15 years. None of them is entirely satisfactory. The purchase scheme has elements of gross unfairness—much more than anything we have managed to concoct in this Bill. I myself have heard no single writer gravely disapproving of the present scheme: it is the best of a bad lot. When I hear that it is seriously thought that tax exemption would be tolerable to our present Chancellor or to any other Chancellor I can imagine, then I think we are going into elements of sheer fantasy. Only two days ago I was talking to an accountant who manages a great many literary estates in this country. We were totting up the rough cost of tax exemption in the case of royalties to authors in this country. The minimum would be £50 million per year: the maximum probably something like double that. The cost of this scheme —far too low, in my opinion—is £2 million. Does anyone think that that makes it even worth discussion across the Floor of this House?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by telling the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, that he is correct in his assumption. I expressed the view, which I express again, that, as this scheme develops, there should be—and I hope there will be—arrangements made to consider bringing in reference books, but it is very difficult. The problem is entirely different from anything which is in the Bill. So the noble Viscount is right in saying that this could not be done under the Bill. But this is no reason why, in due course. it should not be done.
May I next say to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that he is quite right in saying that subsidising culture is not altogether popular. I do not know

13
what that has got to do with it, because we in this House—my Government and his Government—have always stood for the fact that, popular or not, we were going to subsidise culture; and I am very proud to get up and say this here without the slightest question of anybody in my Government differing from me, and I think it very unlikely that anybody on the Front Bench opposite would differ on this point. We have one major and very important new element, which is that I see from the newspapers that the Chief Whip of the Opposition has now joined the writers' league, and we can therefore suppose that he is going to help us get this Bill through.
My Lords, it has been a long and difficult time. The Bill is not satisfactory chiefly because it does not involve enough money, in my opinion. I do not think there is anything very much wrong with it except that, but that is not a thing we can put right today. I am grateful for the support of my noble friends on both sides of me; and I hope your Lordships will now agree that this Bill should be read a third time.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
3.12 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not mind if I intervene very briefly at what I regard as a rather exciting moment. It is the custom in my profession of writing to pay a great deal of attention to what we call the credits. This campaign has been waged for 30 years, and I think I should like to place on record some credits for the people who have helped public lending right to come into law. I should like to thank my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who has always shown a very great personal interest in this problem. I should also like to thank my right honourable friend Michael Foot, who found the time and the energy, among his other duties, to push through public lending right. Then, among a host of other Members of Parliament, I should like to thank three in particular: Andrew
14
Faulds, Jo Richardson and the right honourable Hugh Jenkins, coupled, as they say, with the name of Norman St. John-Stevas, who has always helped us in this particular cause. I must also thank, of course, the present Minister for the Arts, my noble friend Lord Donaldson, for the amount of help he has given us over the years; coupled with the legions of foot soldiers in the Writers' Action Group and the Writers' Guild, who have done so much.
My Lords, as I have said, this is the culmination of 30 years of work by the authors, starting with John Brophy, who asked for the author's penny, and going on to A. P. Herbert, who helped in the campaign. This day, as I found when I looked it up in my diary, has no particular name; it is not St. Crispin's Day, or anything like that. But henceforth, my Lords, I can assure your Lordships that in the writers' calendar it will be known as "Bruffy Day". That is a combination of the names of Bridget Brophy and Maureen Duffy, the two people who have contributed most to the writers' cause and who have carried our banner. Nothing ever deterred them, nothing put them off. They made friends and enemies; but what they have achieved in justice for writers will long be remembered. I turn finally, my Lords, to my own feelings, and they can be expressed only in Shakespeare's words:
"O wonderful, wonderful and most wonderful wonderful!
And yet again wonderful, and after that, out of all whooping!"
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I cannot but be grateful for that tribute to all of us who have worked to get this through. May I, in a few very brief words, say this: I know that many of the librarians—not all, incidentally, but many of them—have been unhappy about this Bill. I have discussed it at length with them; I have tried to meet them in various ways; and they have always assured me that they would oppose the Bill until it was law, and when it was law they would do their best to operate it properly. This is what we expect in this country, and what I am absolutely certain we shall get from them.
I should like also to say that this is a Bill about authors, not about librarians; and, in so far as there are any sanctions

15
against abusing the provisions of the Bill, they are directed at authors and not at librarians. My Lords, I think enough has been said on this Bill, and I hope the House will now pass it.
On Question, Bill passed.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
3.18 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 4 [Amendment of provisions relating to earnings after retirement age]:
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
(" (4) Section 30 of the principal Act shall cease to have effect on 5th April 1984 and all references to that section in that Act or in any other enactment shall then likewise cease to have effect.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for retabling this Amendment, which was moved in Committee, to abolish the earnings rule. We did not press this Amendment then, partly because the Committee was thinly attended—it was just before the Recess—and partly because we wished to reflect on the arguments that had been put forward by those who argued an opposite view. We are convinced that the case put forward by the Conservative Party for many years, and on which I elaborated last month, is correct; and I shall be dealing with the points which were raised in Committee. Unless the Government can bring forward conclusive new evidence or concede our Amendment. we intend to divide the House.
I do not intend to go through the arguments contained in my speech of 22nd February, rebutting the Government's position. We have concluded that there is no real cost involved in abolishing the earnings rule; and this Amendment, which allows five years to elapse before abolition, will give the Government plenty of time to make the necessary arrangements. I will just confine myself to answering the two new points which were raised in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that the Government Actuary's figures on the cost of
16
abolishing the earnings rule should be taken on trust because he is an independent person. The noble Lord chided me for questioning these figures. No one is saying that the Actuary is deliberately misleading the House. That is nonsense. But to accept what he says without close examination is surely wrong. I put it to the noble Lord that the mistakes made in 1977 over the cost of abolishing the earnings rule, which the Government admitted, were made by the Actuary himself. As a result of these mistakes, the Government published a 15-page paper in 1977 and, when we queried much that was in it, we were told by a Minister in another place that the Government Actuary's Department remained firmly of the view that the estimates contained in the Government's memorandum are the most reliable possible.
However, we know from the Official Report published in October 1978 that even these figures were wrong; and we now have a third set of estimates in that report. The late Lord Platt had this to say about the Actuary when we last debated the earnings rule:
"Why must we accept the facts just because actuaries are independent of Party? If they have made a mistake, they have made a mistake. Top consultants can be wrong; we all know that".
But I am glad to say that the Actuary has now accepted most of the arguments put forward by the Conservative Party. The only remaining area of difference is the effect that the abolition of the earnings rule would have on the number of working pensioners.
This brings me to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who argued that if retired people took jobs it would lead to higher unemployment among the young. I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised this point. He was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in 1962 and, although it may seem a long time ago, he has great knowledge in this area. Of course, the world of social security has changed greatly since then. but much has remained unchanged.
This issue was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter; and I should like to make three points. First, it does not necessarily follow that a job vacated by an older worker will be taken by a young unemployed person. There are many

17
reasons for this. Sometimes, the pay is too low for a young man with a wife and child; sometimes the job requires a training which the young unemployed do not possess. Many engineering firms are complaining about the shortage of skilled labour and would benefit if older workers continued in employment. Secondly, there were some 700,000 job vacancies in the United Kingdom last month, according to official Government estimates. The figure that I gave in Committee of pensioners continuing in work represents less than 5 per cent. of that total. And, as I explained, many of them are, anyway, doing work which the young would not take on.
Thirdly, overhanging this whole question is the mistaken assumption that there is only a fixed amount of employment in the economy and that if one person, whatever his age, accepts a job then it means that someone else must lose a job. This question was tackled head-on during a BBC programme on retirement by Mr. Rogally of the Financial Times. He pointed out that there is nothing immutable about our present level of employment and he denounced such arguments as an "economic fallacy"—his words, not mine. Indeed, he could have pointed out that in West Germany there is a higher average retirement age than in Britain and yet there is a lower unemployment rate.
At a time when we have so many unfilled vacancies, can we afford to put difficulties in the way of people who are able and willing to work; and is there really any conflict over jobs between young and old people? Many jobs are better done by one and many by the other. I believe, with respect to those who take a contrary view, that this is a "red herring" since even the Government's policy is to abolish the earnings rule as soon as resources permit. The Liberal Party has consistently opposed the rule; and it is our policy to phase it out by 1984.
I hope that the House will agree to this Amendment, which passes a death sentence on the earnings rule. It would give incentive to many people with skills and long experience in every walk of life, many of whom are doing key jobs in factories, shops and offices; and, furthermore, it would encourage the pensioners
18
who have given up work to fill some of the huge number of jobs which do not attract their juniors. I beg to move.
3.26 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think it is clearly understood that the intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the retirement pensioners' earnings rule is abolished in April 1984. Noble Lords will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, spoke to a similar Amendment during the Committee stage of the Bill. The noble Lord considers that five years is an adequate time over which to abolish the earnings rule because he is of the opinion that the cost of abolition is less than that estimate set out in the Report on the Earnings Rule which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services laid before Parliament last October—when he said that it would cost between £64 million and £124 million depending upon what assumptions are made.
I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time than is necessary with a detailed consideration of costs. They have been given a pretty good run in this House: they were debated at sonic length during the passage of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in 1977, and last October we published the report to which I have referred and which closely examines the various costs. The published estimates were the most sophisticated that it has so far been possible to make. I know that the noble Lord is not prepared to accept the opinions of independent persons in this matter. He relies upon his argument, if I may say so kindly, that they have been wrong once and that, therefore. it follows that they must be wrong every time. I would not accept that, and I should be surprised if any noble Lord would accept that argument.
I think it is also patently clear that it is doubtful whether the noble Lord wants to accept arguments which may destroy his own case. This I can understand. Nevertheless, there was one point made by the noble Lord in the debate that we had at the Committee stage—and which he has touched on this afternoon, but not to any great extent—which I think invites comment. I ask your Lordships

19
to consider this because it really is important. When one begins to analyse what I want to say there is no real validity in one of the arguments that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, in respect of pensioners who would work if the retirement pension limitation, the earnings rule, was abolished. The noble Lord estimated that the cost of abolishing the earnings rule could be offset, so he said at the Committee stage, by up to £50 million a year by way of extra tax revenue resulting from pensioners who do not now work because, by taking up work with average earnings, that amount of money could be recovered by normal taxation.
The noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, mentioned a figure of some 35,000 pensioners who are not now working because they object to the earnings rule limit of £45. Remove that and, the noble Lord says, they would all go out to work and we would recover that amount that is needed, something like £50 million. Leaving aside the question of the availability of employment for these pensioners —and although I am prepared to leave it aside, let me say frankly that I do not believe it would be all that easy for them to find work which would yield that amount by way of taxation—I do not understand the noble Lord's reasons for thinking that 35,000 pensioners who at present can collect their retirement pension and still do a job, provided it does not exceed £45 a week, but who choose not to work when they could do so, would go out to work. The noble Lord says that because of the earnings rule of £45 a week, they choose quite deliberately not to go out to work. I find it very difficult to believe that if the earnings rule was abolished they would immediately take up full-time employment with average earnings—I think he used the phrase "average earnings"—which today amount to something like £95 a week. One would have thought that if they wanted to work and if work was available to them—and I doubt it—they would already be earning in the region of £45 a week.
So we are far from convinced that the alternative estimates challenging our own are based on sound evidence. It would serve no purpose of ours to put forward figures that were unnecessarily high. We too welcome low figures if they can be
20
justified. The Government remain quite satisfied that the cost of abolishing the earnings rule is formidably high, and, even if resources became available which would enable us to make some step towards the abolition of powers conferred by Clause 4, I have no doubt that the cost of the final abolition at the end of the five-year period would still be a very considerable sum.
I know your Lordships well enough to know that if I say that we have gone into this matter really carefully you will accept that. There is no great merit in asking your Lordships not to accept an Amendment it' there is a great deal of merit in the Amendment. There is a great deal of merit in the Amendment so far as it goes—and that is the principle of abolition; but not automatically at the end of five years. I was heartened—and noble Lords will expect me to have been heartened—at the support that was given in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who, as I recall, accepted the Government's estimates. He spoke, if I may be permitted to say so, with considerable experience in this field. In this particular field I for one would be prepared to accept—although we may not agree on a number of other things—whatever he chose to say. He in fact doubted whether it was good priority for expenditure to give this additional money to people over pensionable age who were fortunate enough to be able to continue in employment.
However, as I have endeavoured to make clear, all this depends on what resources are available. This Amendment takes no account of what the economic climate will be in the next five years. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, is prepared to commit a Government in five years' time. Noble Lords opposite have a very strong feeling that they might then be sitting on this side of the House. Is it wise now to commit a future Government when we really cannot see clearly what the situation is going to be?
Apart from all this, the Amendment would not effectively deal with the situation arising from abolition of the earnings rule. As I endeavoured to make clear to your Lordships in Committee, the earnings rule is part and parcel of the retirement condition which makes the pension a retirement pension. Let us pause and

21
look at that for a moment. The whole point of the retirement pension is to mark a period in one's life when one can retire. Section 27 of the Social Security Act sets it out clearly. If one does away with the earnings rule, one has to do away with the retirement condition. This means a significant structural alteration of the Acts with major consequential Amendments, because we should be changing the basic nature of the pension. In fact, while Clause 4 will enable us to reduce the age at which the earnings rule ceases to apply, thus phasing out the earnings rule, the final step of abolishing it would have to be by an amending Act because of these major consequential Amendments which would be necessary.
I ask your Lordships to think, as I know you will, of all the implications involved in this. We do not want to preserve the earnings rule for the sake of preserving it; there is no difference on any side in your Lordships' House about getting rid of the earnings rule. However, what we want to do is to do it gradually and not be committed to do it within five years regardless of what the position may be then. Notwithstanding the fact that the noble Lord has intimated that he intends to divide the House, I ask him to think again. I do not know whether I can persuade him that the Government's view of this matter is, after all, a very realistic, reasonable view; but I ask your Lordships to consider it carefully because I think that it would be unwise for this Amendment to be taken into the Bill.
3.39 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what this Amendment appears to be doing, as my noble friend says, is to pass the death sentence on the earnings rule. It often seems a surprisingly long time in real life before a death sentence is carried out; but it is very rare for a death sentence to be postponed for five years. For that reason alone, I agree with the Minister that it would be wise for us to consider very carefully whether we should accept this Amendment today.
One of the difficulties of something like the earnings rule is that it seems so deceptively simple. The Minister in his short speech has made it clear that it is in fact very complicated. I do not for a moment intend to go into all the complica-
22
tions of it, but I think I am right in saying that Section 30 of the principal Act that we are being asked to say shall cease to have effect has two separate legs, so to speak. There are in fact two earnings rules. One of them restricts the amount that a male retirement pensioner who is between the ages of 65 and 70 may earn and the amount that females between 60 and 65 may earn, without losing part or all of their retirement pension. The other restricts the amount that a retirement or invalidity pensioner's dependent wife may earn, without affecting the wife's part of the married rate of the pension. I hope I have got that right! I shall say it again: it restricts the amount that a retirement or invalidity pensioner's dependent wife may earn without affecting the wife's part of the married rate of pension. That is known as the test of dependency.
As to the latter, the report states that the Government see no possibility of its abolition, since it would not be reasonable to pay a married pensioner an increase for his dependent wife without any regard to the amount of her earnings—that is, without regard to whether in fact she was a dependant or whether or not the husband was dependent upon her. Personally, I find this a convincing argument, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that the effect of this Amendment will be to get rid of both of these legs in five year's time.
May I, for clarification, put one or two other questions to the Minister, who I am sure will be permitted to speak again at this stage of the Bill. In fact, the noble Lord has already answered a question I was going to put—namely, whether this Amendment as it stands would affect the retirement condition: that is, the condition that a person must have left his or her full-time regular employment. I agree with the Minister, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter would also agree, that whether or not this Amendment is accepted in the light of the conditions of the time—and it could of course be altered later—it would radically change the whole of the retirement side of the National Insurance scheme.
Now that the earnings limit beyond which the retirement pension is progressively reduced has reached £45 and is to be revised each year in relation to average earnings, I wonder whether the noble

23
Lord has any later information than is given in the report as to how many men and women are currently having their pensions reduced because their earnings exceed the limit. Appendix 2 of the report put the figure at 2,600 for men and 1,000 for women in April 1978. It indicated that the number had been reduced to a total for men and women of 3,600, as against 14,500 in September 1974, as the earnings limit had been progressively increased from £13 to £45. I understand that the extra cost of abolishing the earnings rule there would be between £3 million and £4 million. I do not know whether that is correct, but of course the major part of the cost would come from what is likely to be the choice of those who come up to retirement age as to whether they take the pension or defer taking it.
As I understand it, if 40 per cent. defer taking the pension, then the cost to the National Insurance Fund will be £117 million. If nobody defers taking the pension, it will be just on £200 million. If I read Section 1 of the principal Act correctly, all payments out of the Fund have to come from contributions to the Fund. Therefore, it follows so far as taxation is concerned that whatever might be the overall saving by people earning more, that additional amount would have to be found from the National Insurance Fund. It is out of the question for the Government to find that money because they already pay 18 per cent. as their contribution to the Fund. It would have to come from contributions. I do not know what the extra contributions would have to be, but it is worth considering whether for this particular purpose it would be, so to say, worth the money.
I think it is important to recall to your Lordships what the report says on this matter. As regards the cost arising directly from the abolition of the earnings rule, as distinct from that arising indirectly through deferment of taking the pension, the report says this:
"Only a very small proportion—£2 million, after allowing for tax—of the additional expenditure that would result from abolishing the earnings rule would go as additional benefit to retirement pensioners whose pensions are being reduced because of their earnings. Nearly all of it would go to those in employment with earnings in excess of —45 a week—the majority of them in employment—and to their wives. It
24
must be questioned whether additional expenditure on this group of people can be held to warrant any priority in the present economic situation when there are so many categories—the disabled, the unemployed, one-parent families—whose needs appear greater".
On the far greater expenditure that is involved in connection with those who defer retirement from employment or indeed cease working if they are self-employed, here again most of those concerned will be those in the comparatively high income brackets. They will be those who are earning £100 per week. £200 per week, or possibly even £500 a week. Those are the people who would be getting their pension in addition, although they were still capable of working. I must remind your Lordships that the whole purpose of making the pension a retirement pension was to ensure, with as much flexibility as possible, that those who are no longer capable of working full-time because of their age can, if they like, retire and, subject to the earnings rule, get their full pension at 65, although at 70 they will get their full pension whether or not they have retired.
The whole purpose of the National Insurance scheme was to ensure that when you were unemployed, sick or old and when you were not capable of working, you should have something coming in. It was in support of this that the earnings rule was established. One cannot possibly argue that after 30 years the same conditions should necessarily pertain, but what one can say is that this is a matter that would have to be looked at exceedingly carefully, from time to time, by whatever Government were in power, and I suggest to your Lordships that it was not very wise in those circumstances to say exactly what should be done five years from now.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I shall not prolong this debate. I merely want to ask my noble friend a question, so that we see the matter in its proper perspective. Is it a fact that the earnings rule, with the embargo it imposes, ceases at the age of 70 and that people over 70 can earn as much as they like without their pension being interfered with?
3.51 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, perhaps I may make a very brief comment. The Bill makes provision, as we know, for

25
ending the earnings rule. It is clear that the Government have accepted the principle, the noble Lord has said that he has accepted the principle and the Opposition Front Bench have accepted the principle. Yet some of the arguments which are being put, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, are questioning that and they want to go back into the argument about the principle itself. But if we were to do that, and to take up the points which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has raised, I think we should have to consider the fact that people who have unearned income are not in any way curtailed from taking their full pension, it' they wish to do so and are entitled to draw it.
It seems to me that there is very general agreement on the principle, and that the only thing that stops the Government from applying the principle is the question of expense. But if we take the figure that the noble Lord says is the cost and spread that over live years, and remember that £10,000 million is what is spent out of the National Insurance Fund, I wonder whether we are really saying that this is an impossible burden to place upon that Fund? I do not believe that it is. I think that it all depends on how much we want to get rid of the earnings rule and all that it implies, and some reference has been made to that. If we want to do it, we have the opportunity to do it and we could carry it over the five-year term; so my inclination is to support the Amendment.
3.53 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for the fact that business commitments prevented me from being present at the beginning of this debate. I must particularly apologise to my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench, for the fact that I did not have the pleasure and privilege of hearing his speech. But as the noble Lord the Minister has indicated, I took part in the discussion which your Lordships had in Committee, and I am bound to say that nothing that I have heard this afternoon has altered the view which I then expressed.
Briefly, there seem to me to be two objections to my noble friend's Amendment. First, there is the impact on the
26
retirement principle. Whatever your-Lordships may think of the retirement principle, it has stood the experience of 30 years of operation; and I suggest, particularly in your Lordships' House, that a rule which has stood up to that test should not be lightly thrown away. In other words, the onus of proof is on those who would establish that it now served no useful purpose. I am bound to say that I have heard nothing at the earlier stages of this Bill, or since I returned this afternoon, to suggest that that onus has been discharged.
Secondly, I take the practical point of view, which was expressed by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and which, I think, is likely to be expressed by anybody who, like him and myself, has had responsibility for the administration of these services, as to whether the payment of pensions to those who, as a matter of definition, are in full-time and reasonably well-paid work, should have a very high priority in the expenditure of funds from the National Insurance Fund. Those of us who have been responsible for these schemes know that one receives many heart-searching demands for additional payments, all over our social security scheme, from those who are in real need and who could he helped were even a few million additional pounds available. It is difficult to set against those demands—and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is in a better position than any of us today to describe them—the understandable desire of those who, having attained the age of 65 as men, or 60 as women, are lucky enough to be in good health and full-time work, to have a pension as well, ahead of all the other a priori more compelling demands that the Minister concerned has to face.
Therefore, I am sorry to say that I find it impossible to support my noble friend's Amendment. It may be that by the time we come to 1984—perhaps a rather significant Orwellian year—the country will be in so prosperous a condition that the limited number of millions of pounds involved may not be an excessive demand on the National Insurance Fund. We do not know. But I find it a little difficult to say now, in 1979, that we are so certain that that will be the position in 1984 that we ought to provide for the earnings rule automatically to end in that year. I am

27
left with at least a lingering doubt that, whoever carries out the responsibilities of the noble Lord the Minister in that year, may be quite likely to have stronger demands on merits put to him for expenditure from that Fund, rather than to pay it to supplement the good earnings of those in good work.
Therefore, I am sorry to have to tell my noble friend that I find it impossible to support him. In the light of the arguments which have been addressed to him, particularly those addressed to him with great authority by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, as well as by the Minister, I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press this Amendment to a Division. If, unhappily, he does, then I must with equal unhappiness tell him that I shall be in the Government Lobby.
3.58 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I in a very few sentences support every word that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has just said, not only because I was his Parliamentary Secretary when he was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, but because he has put forward all the most convincing arguments on this question and has done it so very clearly. I feel it extremely difficult to imagine the position of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, or whatever the title may then be, in 1984, if he should come into office and find this provision on the Statute Book and something which he has to make fresh arrangements to meet.
There is one other argument which I should like to mention, and if it was referred to when I was not in your Lordships' House I apologise. I have always understood that in the days of the Beveridge inquiries it was decided that it was a much better way of dividing the funds available for those of retiring age to give the benefit to those who were no longer able to work, rather than to spread them over a large number of people and bring into the calculations many of those who were able to earn quite substantial incomes. I have always found that argument convincing and I think that it still is. I am very sorry that I cannot support my noble friend if he should ask me to go into the Lobby, but I feel that this is a very important issue and it is one where
28
emotion very often clouds the real facts. If it comes to a Division, I hope that we think of the basic principles behind the retirement pension in this country, rather than the emotions which we know move a great many people.
4 p.m.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, I intervened briefly during the Committee stage. Nothing that I have heard today alters the view that I then expressed. First, it is undesirable to use a relatively minor Act of Parliament to alter a major Act of Parliament. I think that this is a fundamental weakness which is dividing us at this stage. It may be necessary to do it, but there are all kinds of factors to be considered. Very few occupational pensions were in existence when the Act was passed, but now they are almost universal. Also, we have the additional accruing pension as a result of the amendments to the Act. This brings other factors into a situation which is far different from that which we knew in 1948. These are the kind of things which ought to be considered, and they should not be considered briefly on an Amendment of this kind. They deserve to be properly examined.
I do not want to go into the argument as to whether or not we should abolish the earnings rule, or how we should distribute the money that is available. However, I believe that we should have a thorough examination of this matter, just as we had Beveridge to begin with. We are now considering matters which are as vital as those which came to the House of Commons from the Beveridge Commission. Although I am not advocating at this stage that there should be a Commission, it seems to me that there should be a wide-ranging examination of the situation before we contemplate a change of this kind.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think that the debate has shifted right away from the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne. We are not discussing his Amendment. We are discussing instead the entire principle of the earnings rule. If I may echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, from the Liberal Benches, both the Government, ourselves and the Liberal

29
Party are absolutely agreed on the principle that the earnings rule should go. There is no disagreement on that point. May I say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who I acknowledge has had a very great deal of experience of this matter, and also to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn—to both of whom I have listened with very great care, as is only right since they are speaking with very considerable knowledge—that they are arguing the principle of this case, to which they object. They are, of course, absolutely entitled to their opinions, but that is not the issue which is before the House, because everybody is agreed on the principle.
May I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, that when we debated this subject during the passage of a miscellaneous Bill on social security, we on this side of the House moved an Amendment to have a report on the working of the earnings rule. As a result, the whole question has been looked at. There is a report upon it, and it is upon that basis that I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and his advisers have reached their conclusions on the Amendments which they have placed before us; they are agreed that the principle of the earnings rule should go. If one looks at paragraph 4.2 on page 14 of the report, one sees that the Government remain committed to phasing out the earnings rule when resources allow. So I do not think that there is any dis-agreement on the principle, which I believe has been looked at.
When my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was a Minister in 1962, I believe that the situation in the country was very different. That was nearly 20 years ago. There are now far more retirement pensioners; people are living longer; our attitude to the elderly and to the retired has changed. Apart from the financial considerations, to which I shall turn in a minute, there are very many important social questions which deserve to be given equal weight in the argument. From my own experience in the social services, I know that thousands of elderly people are much happier if they can work and have independence than if they are simply retired, although they are capable of working but are prevented from doing so and are doing nothing. This a very important point in the argument and it should not be forgotten.
30
When we debated the problems of the retired some time ago in your Lordships' House, there was general assent from all parts that it is very important for elderly people to be allowed to retain their independence and their dignity. They are, on the whole, fitter and better as a result, provided that they choose to work. Nobody has got to do any of these things. The choice is theirs. It seems to me that it should be our job to increase the element of choice for the elderly as well as for other members of the population.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would allow me to intervene. Is she aware that under the present position, which the Amendment proposes to disturb, there is nothing whatever to prevent their freedom of choice, including earning up to £45 a week?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am absolutely aware of that point. It was as a result of activities of the Conservative Party in another place that the earnings rule now stands at £45 a week, which is highly desirable. All I am saying is that now we are discussing not the principle, because that has been agreed, but whether or not it should be abolished altogether.
If I may turn to the detailed arguments which were set out by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, he used two principal arguments against my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne. The first point that he made was that our calculations may not be accurate and that they have taken an independent point of view which we should look at. May I say that in any remarks that we make today or, indeed, on any other occasion nobody wishes to criticise the Government Actuary. We are not in a position to do so, nor would it be right to do so. What we have said, and what has been borne out by the facts, is that his figures have not proved to be accurate, as we have discussed this argument on each occasion, and that some of the basic assumptions—and they must be only assumptions—on which he has based his figures have not proved to be correct. Therefore we feel confident that we can go ahead on the basis of the calculations that we have made. We think that that is right. As I say, this is not a criticism of the Government Actuary.

31
The second argument—and it is the argument which my noble friend set out during the Committee stage at col. 1948—is this: how do we know that 35,000 pensioners would take up work and that we would get the money from the taxation of their earnings? The noble Lord did not say that we knew that that number would take up work; but what we do know from the surveys that have been made is that four out of 10 pensioners would like to work and that very many are deterred because they do not know about the £45 rule and therefore are put off. We have every reason to think that more pensioners would work were it made absolutely clear that there was no rule at all and that they could retain their pensions. This is the important point. Because it is a very confused and complicated world, people do not understand and are deterred from working. We have no reason to think that the numbers of retired people wishing to work would not increase if the earnings rule were abolished.
I believe that this has become a technical argument on timing, because all of the main Parties are agreed on the principle. We on this side of the House have taken a great interest in this matter over a number of years. In another place we pressed for the Amendments which increased the earnings rule up to £45 a week. We have committed ourselves publicly to the principle of the abolition of the earnings rule. We believe that this is right and we have no reason to doubt the figures that we have produced upon it. We believe that we have the support of thousands of people in the country, and certainly it is the wish of my right honourable friend Mr. Jenkin in another place. When he has heard the arguments, I hope very much that my noble friend will press this matter because it will give an opportunity to the other place to have a look at it. After all, this is not the end of the passage of the Bill.
In conclusion, may I say that any piece of legislation which comes before your Lordships' House is important. I do not think that we should ever be deterred from doing what we believe to be right, even if it is not the most important piece of legislation that has ever come before your Lordships' House. What is suggested here will help many people, and I believe that it is the right thing to do.
4.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is the Report stage and the rules of the House are very clear as to how often one may speak, which is once, except for the mover; but I believe that as Minister I may ask your Lordships for permission to speak again. However, I want to make it quite clear that I have no intention of trying to make another speech to convince your Lordships. It would be improper of me to take advantage of my position to do that, but I think I ought to try to answer specific questions which have been put to me as Minister. If your Lordships will allow me, I will do that and nothing more.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, raised the question of the effect. All I want to say is that Section 30 of the Social Security Act relates only to the retirement pensions earnings rule; the dependency earnings rule is in Section 45(3) of the Social Security Act, so the Amendment does not affect the dependency earnings rule. Lord Drumalbyn also asked how many pensioners are having their pensions reduced because of the earnings rule. The latest figure the Government have is the figure for 1977 which is given in the report; namely, that 5,000 pensioners are in fact affected by the earnings rule. But the figure of 5,000 has to be seen in the context of 2 million pensioners who were in the age bands, were working, and therefore affected by the earnings rule. I was asked whether the earnings rule applied to those over the age of 70. The short answer is that it applies only to those retired pensioners who are between the ages of 65 and 70.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, we have had a long debate on this subject, a great deal of which seemed to me to be not about my Amendment but about the principle whether or not the earnings rule should be abolished. I do not propose to go through what I said before, so without any further ado I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108: Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Elton, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Airedale, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Exeter, M.

Onslow, E.

Allan of Kilmahew, L.

Falkland, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Allerton, L.

Foot, L.

Polwarth, L.

Alport, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Porritt, L.

Amherst, E.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ampthill, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Amulree, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Arran, E.

Glasgow, E.

Reigate, L.

Atholl, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Romney, E.

Auckland, L.

Gray, L.

St. Davids, V.

Avon, E.

Gridley, L.

St. Helens, L.

Banks, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Belstead, L.

Sandys, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Bessborough, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Selkirk, E.

Bethell, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Birdwood, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sligo, M.

Byers, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Smith, L.

Caithness, E.

Kintore, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cathcart, E.

Long, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Clwyd, L.

Luke, L.

Swaythling, L.

Cockfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinton, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Tenby, V.

Daventry, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Teviot, L.

Davidson, V.

Melville, V.

Thurlow, L.

de Clifford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

De Freyne, L.

Mills, V.

Vernon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Molson, L.

Vickers, B.

Digby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Donegall, M.

Westbury, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Wolverton, L.

Elles, B.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pannell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Bacon, B.

Hamnett, L.

Parry, L.

Blease, L.

Henderson, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rochdale, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Brockway, L.

Hunt, L.

Segal, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shinwell, L.

Clancarty, E.

Ilchester, E.

Snow, L.

Collison, L.

Inglewood, L.

Soper, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Janner, L.

Stone, L.

David, B.

Jessel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Derwent, L.

Kinross, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Leonard, L. [Teller.]

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

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

Listowel, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Energlyn, L.

Loudoun, C.

Wells-Pestall, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

McCluskey, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mishcon, L.

White, B.

Gosford, E.

Oram, L.

Willis, L.

Greenway, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.22 p.m.
Clause 11 [Increase of official pensions]:
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 29, after ("in") insert ("subsections (1)(b), (2)(a), (3)(a) and (3)(b) for the words complete months' wherever they occur there is substituted the word 'days', and in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 3 can be taken for the purpose of the discussion in the same scope as Amendment No. 2. This may be regarded as a minor matter, even a niggling point. But my noble friend has heard rumblings on this subject on two previous occasions; firstly, when the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made reference to it in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, in column 936 of the Official Report of 8th February; then on the Committee stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Leatherland raised the matter on the Question that the clause stand part, and his comments and the Minister's reply are to be found in columns 1960–1 of the Official Report of 22nd February. What I said a moment ago about this Amendment was underlined, I think, by the concluding words of my noble friend, who, when replying to my noble friend Lord Leatherland, said:
"Although on the face of it there seems to be a point here, in practice there is nothing of any consequence at all ".—[Col. 1961.]
Well, my Lords, it is strange that on a matter which is of no consequence at all there has been so much correspondence from various organisations and public service pensioners. Before going any further, I think I had better declare that I have an interest in this Amendment, because I am on a pension which is related strictly to Civil Service conditions; so I am an injured party as well as one advocating a change.
What this Amendment tries to do is to remedy a small injustice which has occurred as a result of the harmonisation of the conditions of Civil Service and public service pensioners and State pensioners as regards pension increase and the effective dates of granting it. This harmonisation really takes place in this Bill. To that extent, it is, I think, a satisfactory ending to a very long saga of discontent about adjustment of Civil Service and public service pensions. This is, so to speak, the final tidying-up of discrepancies and difficulties both of principle and of administration which have arisen over past years.
In future the public service pensioners will have their pension increase calculated on the same basis as that of the State pensioners and it will be effective from
36
the same date, which is 12th November in each year. Hitherto the public service pensioners have, under earlier legislation, had their pension increase dating from 1st December. Under the clause—what is now Clause 11 in the Bill—the public service pensioners will have the effective date of their pension increase brought forward from 1st December to 12th November; that is three weeks earlier than they get it now.
Unfortunately, however, in making this change they come up against the treatment of broken months. Under a subsequent subsection, subsection (3) of the same Clause 11, which we find on page 8 of the Bill, it is provided that:
"Where … it is necessary to calculate the number of complete months in any period an incomplete month shall be treated as a complete month if it consists of at least 16 days".
By bringing forward the effective date of the pension increase from 1st December in 1979 to 12th November in 1979, the public service pensioners have a broken month which is less than 16 days. The result is that in 1979 they will receive eleven-twelfths of the increase for the year instead of twelve-twelfths, and this means that they will get a smaller pension increase than otherwise.
My noble friend the Minister on 22nd February said: "Ah, but they are getting it three weeks earlier, and in any case the difference here is, on average, only 5p a week, and that is a small enough margin of error in any calculation of this kind which tries to adjust pension increases to an increase in the cost of living". So he said, "There may seem to be a point here, but in practice it is of no consequence at all". The issue is: is it, or is it not, of any consequence at all?
It is true that in 1979 public service pensioners will have their pensions increased on 12th November instead of on 1st December but, as against that, they will receive eleven-twelfths of the increase instead of a full year's increase. Of course, in subsequent years this deprivation of the benefit for a full year will continue and there will be a permanent slight disadvantage. Why are they making such a fuss about this? There are two reasons.
The first is that it is claimed by the Public Service Pensioners' Council that there has

37
been no consultation with them about this particular change, and that the consultation which they did have with Ministers and officials on the original Clause 10 of the Bill was on a different version from that which appeared when the Bill was printed. The second point that is raised is that during the Committee stage in another place the Minister assured the Committee that there had been adequate consultation with the Public Service Pensioner's Council and that they were fully aware of it. On the basis of that assurance, the Members of another place in the Committee, who were disposed to sympathise with the Amendment, thought that there was no need for them to continue to support it, so they withdrew it. It is said that that was due to a misunderstanding.
There seems to be something to clear up here. Was it adequately discussed? Was it discussed in the terms in which the Bill eventually appeared? Was the Amendment withdrawn in another place on an assurance by a Minister based upon a misundertanding? Those are the questions I ask. I cannot answer them. I can only say that the representation made to me and to other noble Lords asserts that there is a sense of grievance here.
Of course, it may be in the minds of many of us that one need not be too meticulous in these matters and that fastidiousness can be carried too far; that on the whole public service pensioners are getting a pretty good deal; that their index-linked pensions are secure and that the effective date from which they will receive them is established. In my experience and in the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, all those are things that they failed to secure over many years of agitation. We went over this ground year after year. Now that we have reached the present position, the situation is satisfactory.
Yet there is this fly in the ointment. I suggest to your Lordships that, first, we should ask my noble friend the Minister to explain the points that I have raised, answer the questions that I have asked and see whether there is still something that needs to be rectified before the Bill passes its final stages in your Lordships' House. I do not think that at the end of the day it would be fair for me to ask
38
your Lordships to divide on this Amendment. I do not propose to do so. At the end of the debate on this Amendment I shall ask leave to withdraw it in order that we may consider the matter further before we reach the next stage of the Bill. If necessary, there can be consultation with those concerned to discover their ultimate feelings when my noble friend the Minister has had a greater opportunity than he had before to deploy the Government's case on Clause 11 as it now stands. However, I cannot give your Lordships any calculations as to what it means to me, because the truth of the matter is that it only dawned on me as I sat on these Benches a little while ago that I was involved in this at all. But, on reflection, I discover that I am. In those circumstances, we want to try to get the matter straight. We do not want this large number of public service pensioners to feel at the end of the day that there is just this niggling, irritating point which leads them to believe that they are receiving less than full justice.
In conclusion, I have only a sentence or two to say on administration. On 22nd January my noble friend the Minister said that this would be a late stage at which to change the basis of computation from months, which is obviously easier, to days, which is obviously more difficult; and that if they were calculating the number of days, people would need ready reckoners of a different kind from those they would need if they were calculating the number of months, especially when a month does not count unless it has at least 16 days within it. In those circumstances, there is undoubtedly some point as regards administration. However, I doubt whether that would be strongly urged against doing proper justice to the case, if justice there was found to be. Therefore, I hope that more adequate attention can be given to this matter than was possible when it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on Second Reading, and very adequately included in the clause stand part debate—which I welcomed—by my noble friend Lord Leatherland. However, at that moment, the Minister was obviously in a mood to brush the matter aside in order to proceed with the rest of the Bill. I am sure that he will thank me for giving him a further opportunity to deploy his case more fully. I beg to move.
4.38 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would agree with my noble friend that if there is a doubt in any of your Lordships' minds at any time when we are considering the passage of a Bill, it is right and proper for those doubts to be raised with a view to getting a satisfactory explanation. I do not take exception in any way to this matter being raised, as my noble friend is raising it, by using the Amendment procedure. It is quite right and proper that we should do this. Whether or not I shall succeed in satisfying him is entirely another matter; but before I proceed to try to do so, perhaps I may dispose of the question of consultation.
My understanding of the position is that the arrangement for the 1979 increase was discussed with my right honourable friend the Minister of State and the Civil Service Department in the autumn of 1977. Since that time there have been three Further meetings with officials and at all those meetings this issue has been discussed. As soon as the Bill was announced to Parliament full details of it were sent to the Public Service Pensioners' Council, and at their request a further meeting with officials took place. I think that the Government are entitled to say that the views of the Public Service Pensioners' Council were very clearly known to the Departments concerned well before the Bill was prepared and were, in fact, taken fully into account after the Bill had been prepared. I want to say that because I think it would be a mistake if your Lordships felt that there had not been consultations, when my understanding of the situation is that there have been.
We touched on this matter—and I will not put it higher than that—at the Committee stage, but perhaps it will assist noble Lords to judge this matter if I remind your Lordships once again of the background; namely, that under the existing provisions of Section 2 of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, official pensions have been increased annually in December in line with the movement of prices. Section 59 of the Pensions Act provides that official pensions shall from 1979 be increased at the same time, and by the same percentage, as the earnings-related additional component of State retirement pensions, which will also be increased in line with the movement of
40
prices. In this way, the Pensions Act integrates the two different systems of uprating State pensions and public service pensions. Clause 11 has been included in this Bill to eliminate some of the teething problems which have come to light during the preparations to put these integrated arrangements into practice.
Under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, each year was divided into two, six-month, blocks —January to June, and July to December. All those who retired in the same six-month block received the same increase. The Pensions Act, as at present drafted, both changes and improves the position by dividing the year into twelve, namely monthly blocks, so that the first increase which a pensioner would receive will now reflect far more precisely than before the date of his retirement. The new Bill also provides for rounding-up where a period after retirement falls just short of a complete number of months. But the Amendments which the noble Lord has tabled go considerably further by providing for an even greater refinement, to individual days.
As some noble Lords will know, the Public Service Pensioners' Council claim that the legislation will penalise existing pensioners because they will receive only 11 months' worth of inflation, and not 11 months and 11 days' worth in 1979, to compensate for price increases from 1st December 1978 to 12th November 1979. The Amendments before us would overcome this, I was going to say, theoretical problem, but I think the House will wish to consider whether this really is an "injustice" that merits a solution of this kind.
Although the change may seem a simple one, as I explained in Committee its effect on those who have to pay the pensions would be considerable and the amount of extra work involved would be extensive. In addition, problems arise particularly for the pensions of those who leave public service employment with a preserved pension which may come into payment as many as 30 years later. And this will affect 10,000 civil servants each year. At present, with six-monthly blocks in each year, there are two different multipliers for each of the last 30 odd years which may be applicable when a preserved pension comes into payment. With increases based on months, there will be

41
12 a year, and if these Amendments were passed there would be 365 a year. After 30 years that would mean that the clerical staff doing the work would have almost 11,000 different numbers in use instead of the 360 as the legislation now stands. The burden on them would therefore be very much heavier, and their instructions would, I think everyone would agree, have to be considerably complex. In short, the practical problems cannot be lightly dismissed and it is necessary to consider whether even more civil and public servants should be employed in order to deal with what is at most, I think it is fair to say, a minor discrepancy in the legislation, and may not be a discrepancy at all.
As officials have explained to the Council on a number of occasions, both before and after the introduction of this Bill, even if it could be accepted that prices rise uniformly over the course of the year (and I agree this is clearly not the case) index-linking to cover the missing 11 days might benefit the average pensioner by about 5p a week. The House must therefore consider whether this minor discrepancy is really sufficient to justify a major operation to re-programme the computers, and a permanent increase in the number of civil and public servants employed to pay public service pensions. Your Lordships have often, in debates in this House, argued strongly that we have already enough civil and public servants. There is no doubt at all that we should have to take on yet more staff in the Paymaster General's Office and elsewhere to be ready to deal with what may, and probably will, turn out to be a non-problem. At a time when there are so many calls on public resources is it really right to increase public expenditure to achieve so insignificant an object as this one? I am sorry to use what seem to be rather strong words, but one must take a realistic view of this matter.
Honourable Members in another place considered it, and I do not think that anyone would doubt for one moment that they considered it very carefully. They concluded that the existing arrangements in the Bill should not be changed. I think that that conclusion was the right one. Even though, so far as my noble friend is concerned, I may not have given a completely satisfactory answer, I hope he will feel that there has been a reasonable
42
explanation of the Government's action in this matter, and that it was not in an attempt to introduce what was an injustice to individuals but to try to meet a situation which was full of complexity.
4.48 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Houghton mentioned that I had raised this question on 22nd January. I have been listening today to see whether the Minister had any satisfactory reply to make to what was said on that occasion and this afternoon. I am sorry to say that I do not find that there has been a satisfactory reply. The public servants, rightly or wrongly, feel that they have a grievance. It may be more psychological than financial; it may be only a question of pence and not of hundreds of pounds, but they feel that they have this grievance. In the present unsettled state of the country and the public service, do we really want to give them an added grievance and to stir the matter up?
My noble friend has some objection to incorporating the number of days on which the pension is reckoned instead of the number of months. I do not see any great objection to using the term "days". The term "days" figures scores of times in every piece of social service legislation. If you go along to the Labour Exchange and ask for unemployment pay, days are then reckoned up just as they are in every other branch of the social services. My noble friend has spoken about the administrative difficulties. I do not think he ought to exaggerate them. We are not living in the days when civil servants sat on high stools and wielded quill pens; we are speaking in the days of computers. If a computer can settle the complicated calculations of ERNIE every month, I fail to see that the computers would be bunkered by a calculation which they have to make in respect of this matter.
We are speaking of those who had increases on 1st December 1978. On 12th November of this year they will receive eleven-twelfths of the cost of living increase from November 1978 to November 1979; this is not keeping up with the increase in the cost of living for the full period of 11 months and 11 days which will have elapsed by 12th November 1979. They will have only 11 months'

43
increase in pay, whereas the increase in the cost of living that has taken place has been that which refers to 11 months and 11 days, so there is a loss of 11 days of increase or possible increase in the cost of living index figure, and that will be perpetuated throughout the lives of the civil servants in question. What we are saying is very simple indeed; instead of stipulating in the Bill the word "months", we suggest stipulating "days", and then those civil servants will have the full and exact amount of increase due to them because of the increase in the cost of living, and they will have no grievance left. I hope the Department and the Minister will look at this again because it is not a difficult problem for them to solve.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said. The principle of the matter has been put clearly by both previous speakers, that there will be a smaller pension increase than otherwise because of the way this has been drawn up, and while it is true that this increase will come earlier and therefore give that amount of advantage to the individual concerned, nevertheless we shall end up with a lower figure than if he had been able to wait that extra month to make it 12 months from the previous increase. This will be perpetuated because the loss of 11 days' pension will mean a lower pension this year, and then the percentage increase will be on a lower pension the following year, so every year there will be a build-up of this loss of pension.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said this amounted to only 5p per week, but I suppose that was an average figure because it must depend on the amount of the individual's pension. That presumably would be the level at which it would start. Clearly, because of the acceleration, it would not remain at that level. And are we sure that in using this figure of 5p we have got at the correct average starting figure that would be involved, and have we any estimate of what it might rise to? I agree it would probably still be a fairly small figure; but it is sufficient, I should have thought, to give people a feeling of grievance. It might be well in those circumstances to look at the matter again.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation. We now have it fully on the record, and we also have the lucid comments on my noble friend's speech from my noble friend Lord Leatherland and from the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I will confine myself to saying that it seems fairly obvious that administrative considerations have triumphed over the justice of the matter because it is believed that the justice of the matter is too insignificant to justify the additional administrative costs and difficulties involved.
We must of course bear in mind that we are dealing with a large number of public service pensioners who spent their lives in meticulous calculations to remove the grievances of the public who might otherwise think they are being cheated out of 5p a week; and if enough people feel they are being cheated out of 5p a week then Government and the Civil Service apply their minds to the remedy, which is usually to give it to them even at the cost of some administrative difficulties.
I think now that it is for those directly concerned to consider the matter as it stands at the conclusion of the debate on this Amendment. If they feel, and wish to represent their feelings, that they are still at significant disadvantage, one which justifies your Lordships in trying to apply a remedy, notwithstanding the discouragement of the Government, then that can be done at a subsequent stage of the Bill. I am prepared to leave it at that and, with permission, withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not Moved.]
Clause 21 [Short title, etc.]:
4.56 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 12, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("this") in line 32 and insert ("Section 3(3) of ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together. They are both minor technical Amendments relating to the commencement of provisions concerning, respectively, mobility alowances

45
and the excusal of the reference of consolidation regulations to the Occupational Pensions Board. These Amendments have been approved by the chairman of that board, so what we are doing is with its consent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 12, line 40, leave out ("14 to 23") and insert ("14 to 20, 22, 23").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("paragraph 12") and insert ("paragraphs 3 and 12").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment the purpose of which is to ensure that the Amendment to Section 68(1) of the Social Security Act 1973, which is at paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Bill, applies, like the section itself, to Northern Ireland.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Amendment of principal Act, Pensions Act and Act of 1977]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 16, line 5, leave out ("that") and insert ("the deceased").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the reference at this point is to the deceased spouse and not to the surviving one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 18, line 6, after ("Section 17") insert ("(which is superseded by paragraphs 10 and 13 above)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I will speak to Amendment No. 9 at the same time. These are drafting Amendments to make quite minor corrections. Amendment No. 8 inserts words of explanation and Amendment No. 9 makes a correction giving a full description, as can be seen from the words of that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No.9:
Page 22, line 23, leave out ("the said Part I") and insert ("Part I of Schedule 4 to the principal Act").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PERSONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
CONFIRMATION TO SMALL ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

BANKING BILL
5.1 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I believe that, in view of the general welcome that the Bill has received, particularly in its present form, and in view also of the considerable consultation that preceded its introduction and the improvements made to it in the course of its progress through another place, I can attempt to explain the background to it quite briefly. In this country we have never had a comprehensive system of authorisation for banks and deposit-taking institutions. The primary banking sector has traditionally accepted the authority of the Bank of England, and has been supervised by the Bank on an informal, non-statutory basis. However, in more recent times —and I am thinking of the last two decades—a fringe of deposit-taking institutions grew up outside the primary banking sector. These institutions were not subject to the informal authority of the Bank or to any analogous supervision, and although the Protection of Depositors Act was passed in 1963 to provide certain safeguards for their depositors, the crisis in secondary banking some ten years later indicated that it was

47
time to review in a comprehensive basis the regulatory framework for institutions taking deposits from the public.
The Banking Bill is designed to preserve as much as possible of the flexible approach which the Bank of England has brought over the years to the supervision of the primary banking sector. In placing on the Bank the responsibility for operating the system set up by the Bill, we are taking a deliberate decision in favour of flexibility and against regimentation. This approach has been welcomed not only by those concerned in the banking industry, but in the financial Press, and more generally. Coincidentally, the European Economic Community were considering harmonising rules of banking at the time when we were reviewing our arrangements for supervision. In the event, the first EEC Directive on credit institutions, which was adopted in December, 1977, reflects a good deal of our approach. Its provisions will be implemented by the legislation now before us.
The Bill has three main Parts. First of all, it sets up a system of authorisation for deposit-taking institutions which will be administered by the Bank of England. Authorisation may take the form either of recognition as a bank, or of the granting of a licence to take deposits. In each case, statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill will have to be fulfilled. Authorisation may be withdrawn if the Bank is no longer satisfied in the course of its supervision that these criteria continue to be met. Although the criteria for recognition as a bank are much more demanding than those for a licence to take deposits, the system is designed to ensure that all institutions taking deposits from the public meet and maintain satisfactory standards of honesty and competence. Progression from the licensed to the recognised sector, as an institution builds up its reputation and develops its banking characteristics, is of course possible. The Bill allows institutions which may be aggrieved by a decision of the Bank to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is required to refer all such appeals to an indendent tribunal. I should mention also that the Bank will make an annual report to the Chancellor on the exercise of its supervisory functions, and this will be laid before Parliament.
48
The second Part of the Bill sets up the Deposit Protection Scheme. It has been argued that if the system of supervision works effectively, then all failures of supervised institutions ought to be precluded. The Government do not accept this. We hope of course that any failures will be very few and far between. The history of the British banking system encourages us in this hope, as does the long experience of the Bank of England in supervision of banks. However, any system of supervision that sought to rule out altogether the possibility of failure would be unacceptably interventionist, and would necessarily have a stifling effect on the commercial judgment of those directors and managers responsible for running the institutions. Consequently, since the very occasional failure must be contemplated, the Government believe that it would be wrong to leave the smaller depositor with no protection for his money. The scheme, while deliberately not removing all element of risk from the depositor, gives him the assurance that he will receive back 75 per cent. of the first £10,000 of his sterling deposit in the event of an insolvency. The scheme will be financed by contributions from recognised banks and licensed institutions, and consist of a small cash fund, plus a system of back-up guarantees. This should combine the flexibility to deal with any small failures from the cash fund, while keeping in reserve larger resources should the need ever arise. The Bill now provides, in response to representations, that all contributions to the scheme will be tax-deductible.
Part III has proved to be the most controversial Part of this generally welcomed Bill. Essentially, it confines the use of banking names and descriptions to institutions recognised as banks under the Bill. This policy is a natural concomitant of the two-tier system which is set up under Part I of the Bill, and which largely reflects the existing division between the primary banking sector and other deposit-taking institutions. In general, only institutions in the primary banking sector may at present have such words as "bank" in their titles. However, this policy on the use of banking names has been largely undermined by the uncontrolled use of banking descriptions such as "bankers" immediately after the name. This has given rise to much

49
confusion among the general public, and has been suggested as a contributory factor in the secondary banking crisis in 1973–74. So, far from clarifying the position, it would perpetuate the confusion if institutions which had not gained recognition as a bank under this Bill were nevertheless able to represent themselves as banks.
Some uneasiness was shown in the passage of the Bill through the other place at these provisions in Part III. Consequently, the relevant clause as it now stands differs somewhat from the clause as originally introduced. The main difference is that licensed institutions, notwithstanding the prohibition on holding themselves out to be banks or bankers, may nevertheless use the phrase "banking services" in relation to themselves, except in certain defined circumstances. The Government believe that this should meet the substance of the case put forward by licensed institutions who feared unnecessary damage to their business. However, we do not feel it possible to go further without undermining the policy itself. I should also mention that the position of foreign institutions licensed to carry on a deposit-taking business here through a branch caused some concern. It had originally been proposed that all such institutions would be allowed the use of any banking name that they had in their country of origin, providing that this was qualified in this country by an explanatory phrase. It was suggested that this gave an advantage to foreign licensed institutions over their domestic counterparts. Because of a provision in the EEC Banking Directive, it is not possible to deny EEC-based institutions the use of any banking name they may have in their country of origin. But the clause as now drafted confines this privilege to EEC institutions, and requires that their status as licensed deposit-takers should always be made clear when the name is used in this country.
The Bill has been generally welcomed, both inside Parliament and outside. I am sure that this is in no small measure due to the fact that the Bill places responsibility for administering the system of authorisation and supervision upon the Bank of England. We have every confidence in the impartiality, expertise and care which the Bank can be expected to show in administering this system, as it has
50
hitherto done in conducting its traditional supervision of banks. The Bill passed through the other place in an atmosphere of constructive co-operation. The Government accept that because of this it is a better Bill than when introduced. I commend it to the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord McCluskey.)
5.10 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, first, we are most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for such a clear exposition of the Bill. I thought also that he was particularly fair in taking the points which had been put in another place and which I think have improved the Bill. We of course believe that it can be improved still further. Next, my Lords, I must declare an interest. I am employed by the Chase Manhattan Bank, a major American bank established here and authorised for many years. So this Bill does not pose any problems for the Chase or for other United States banks in this country. Consequently, I believe that my declared interest is an advantage, as it has helped me to become better informed about the Bill and yet I can still remain completely objective.
From these Benches we welcome the concept of the Bill, especially Part I, which statutorily regulates and defines banks, although the two-tier system and some other aspects of it create some unfair situations. Although welcoming a scheme to protect depositors, we have some reservations about the implementation of the fund and the board. In Part III there are a number of points with which we shall want to take issue. Since this Bill is the first piece of major bank legislation this century, we believe it provides us with a very good opportunity to widen its scope to cover some points of banking law reform—a daunting subject for a layman to raise, especially with such a distinguished lawyer as the noble and learned Lord on the Bench opposite taking charge of the Bill.
However, looking at the Bill as a whole, the July 1978 White Paper states:
"One of the purposes of this legislation is to assure the health of the financial system generally".
That is very laudable, but does it have that effect? I think it is doubtful. Let

51
us look at the 1973–74 secondary bank crisis, to which the noble and learned Lord has already alluded. No depositor—and I stress the word "depositor" —actually lost any money. In fact, I cannot find a case in which a depositor has lost money in a British bank. I raise this matter because in another place the Minister took exception to this claim, and at Report stage said that he did not want to hear any more about it. I have to confess that I have looked into this a little more fully, and I gather that the case that he quoted as an example was rather strange. It turned out to be Gwili Farmers, a Carmarthenshire farmers' cooperative operating as corn and seed merchants—hardly, I think, a bank. It happened 15 years ago, so it was pre the 1967 Companies Act and the well-known Section 123, which has of course since been repealed. Therefore, it was not a bank, I believe, under the DTI terms; nor was it a bank under any other terms. I am sorry to take up your Lordships' time on this point, but it was raised in the other place and I think it is important. I do not think that anybody has lost any money as a depositor—and this concerns a depositor—in a bank, and certainly not a bank recognised by the Bank of England. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can come up with a better example than a farmers' co-operative.
Returning to the 1973–74 crisis, not only did no depositor lose any money but only one secondary bank actually went into liquidation. The proposed fund would not in fact have been called on. However, I accept that if Part I of this Bill had been in operation then perhaps some of the Section 123 banks which got into trouble would not have been granted licences in the first place. I accept that point. What was required, however, was a lifeboat of cruise-liner proportions. In fact, it had a displacement of no less than £1,200 million, and 80 per cent. of that was put up by the clearers. This is evidence of their strength, and that strength is very necessary. They must be strong, because a lifeboat is the surest way to protect depositors. I believe it is a much surer way than a fund which pays out only when a bank actually goes into liquidation, and then only on 75 per cent. of a maximum up to £10,000.
52
So let us look at the fund. The noble and learned Lord sounded very plausible in his explanation of this, but I am not quite clear why not less than £5 million and not more than £6 million was the sum chosen. Just to look at it in a little more detail, the latter figure—that is, the £6 million—is enough to cover 800 depositors each over £10,000; that is the maximum on a call of 75 per cent. Taking the fund with borrowings up to its maximum—that is, with the doubling and everything added in, the Bank of England's borrowing—we get up to a figure of some £300 million, which would cover 40,000 accounts of over £10,000.
I do not want to confuse the issue as between what is an account and what is a customer, because it gets extremely complicated and figures are very hard to come by, but I tried to quantify this and I found out that one clearer alone has over 20,000 accounts of over £10,000, which would be a call of £150 million. Very well; that is the first call that we talk about, which is at £140 million, give or take the odd £10 million, which could be borrowed by the Bank of England. It is estimated that the call of the smaller depositors—that is, those under the £10,000—would bring this total that I have mentioned, of £150 million, to well over £1,000 million. I make this point to show that if a clearer collapsed the whole financial system would probably collapse. As I have said, the clearers are strong, and thank goodness they are! It is therefore highly unlikely that a clearer could or would collapse.
My Lords, the point I am trying to make is that, as the clearers are going to have to pay the lion's share of covering the fund, this is a little unfair; and a point which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, will raise is that, proportionately, because the minimum has been lowered and there is a ceiling of £300,000 on the contributions, then in fact the people who are going to be hit the hardest, probably. in terms of contributions are going to be the Scottish banks—a point which might come home to the noble and learned Lord. So on this basis the safest have to pay most. I am sure the noble and learned Lord is a very careful driver, and I do not think he would be very happy if this principle was applied to his no-claim bonus.

53
The other point I should like to make is that the fund could really be a potential drain on the much more important issue of a stand-by lifeboat. However, accepting that we are going to have a fund, even if it is of somewhat doubtful value—and I say "doubtful value" because, let us hope, the regulations as carried out by the Bank of England will make any failures extremely unlikely—let us at least, at this stage, dispense with the doubling of a 0·3 per cent. of deposits call to a 0·6 per cent. I say this not to make a Party point, or anything else, but because I have tried to show that in the event of a major collapse in that sort of area we would he in the throes of a full-scale banking crisis of really mammoth proportions, and it would need a lot more than an Affirmative Order—which, after all, as your Lordships know, cannot be varied; it can only be accepted or rejected. That situation would require very full debate and, I believe, primary legislation.
Next, I should like to come on to the question of the Giro. The Giro, of course, are guaranteed by the Government and are therefore totally safe; but I have tried to show that the clearers are totally safe. Her Majesty's Government say that the Giro will make a comparable contribution to the Treasury. I do not think there is much force in that point. I think it would be much better if that contribution was paid into the fund, to reduce the overall contributions. After all, the Giro do hide their accounts within the Post Office. When I say "hide", they are part of those accounts and therefore it is harder for them to pull it out. Even so, the accounts in 1977 (under Note 13) had an auditors' qualification—something which, if it happened to a clearer, would have caused a major scandal.
What about deposits as a whole? There was an excellent article in the Economist on 18th February last year which contained a chart showing how the deposit cake was made up. Two periods, 1962 and 1977 were taken. Back in 1962, the building societies had only 20 per cent. of that cake. Now, they have 40 per cent. The clearers had 45 per cent. and they have dropped to 29 per cent. This shows the great growth that there has been in the building societies. The share of the other areas such as the Scottish banks, Giro, the Post Office Savings Bank et al
54
has in fact gone down as has that of the clearers; but other banks have gone up from 2 per cent. to 12 per cent.
The point that I am making is that the funds are there to cover 12 per cent. of the deposits, let alone the building societies. When it comes to the Building Societies, they, with their massive 40 per cent. have also a higher proportion of the smaller deposits—that is, those of people depositing under £10,000—and, therefore, although they are supervised (as the banking system will be by the Bank of England) it seems fair that they should be brought within a comparable scheme and should then compete on all fours with the clearers and the other banks. I think it is only fair to do this. Although the Government have said that the building societies are going to be encouraged to have a scheme, I think that they ought to be encouraged with a rather more cogent incentive. I believe that the incentive should be that they should have 18 months during which they are excluded (as they are at the moment) from the Bill covering deposit takers, but that, within 18 months of this Bill becoming law, they would have to come into the scheme or have a comparable scheme actually in operation and approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that 18 months is fair and that it would get things moving on that front.
That brings me to the Trustee Savings Banks. I accept the argument that they cannot come into the scheme at the moment although they would like to do so and are prepared to make a contribution when that time comes. But they will require a certain amount of Government assistance on legislation and other matters. I hope that the noble and learned Lord may come on to that when he winds up. I believe that the Government should be encouraged to get that date brought nearer rather than further away. I believe that a similar clause should be inserted which would bring us to the beginning of 1981, which is a date that the Trustees Savings Banks think is a realistic date for them to come into the scheme. Therefore I hope that this point will be accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
My Lords, while on fairness, I should like to touch on Clauses 11 and 13 which were discussed in the other place. They

55
concern appeals. At the moment appeals can be heard only by the courts on matters of law. I believe that this should be extended to matters of fact, as well.
Clause 16 covers the need for a definition of "accountants". It mentions the word "accountant" and an accountant can be anybody who calls himself an accountant; whereas only solicitors can call themselves solicitors. Although the Government criticised as being too long the definition that was put up in one Amendment—and I have sympathy with that criticism because it was too long—the definition could be brought within an Amendment based on Section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1948. When it comes to the definition of "proper accounts" this could be done with an Amendment based on a modified form of the way it appears in the Companies Act 1976.
Clause 19 comes to the question of the public interest and the widening of the Bank of England's powers in determining what is the public interest. This was debated in another place. Surely the public interest can be determined only by either Parliament or the courts, and not by a central bank. The Minister was adamant on this point; but in order to cite an example he had to go back to 1924 and to a case which involved somebody who had been trading with the enemy in the First World War. This seems a very long time to which to have to go back for an example. I should like to raise this point along with the other questions of disclosure to the Treasury and overseas central banks. I believe that we should look at this very carefully; otherwise there are real dangers in so reducing the basics of confidentiality in banking as to harm the image of London as a major financial centre.
I come now to the vexed question of Part III, Clause 36 and banking names. The noble and learned Lord has talked about this. There are several unfair aspects of this Part of the Bill. I accept that it is very difficult. Life is unfair, but in this Bill let us at least try to reduce this inherent unfairness. The noble and learned Lord talked about the EEC banks. I will not elaborate on this point, other than to say that they have an unfair advantage. The reason why I raise this unfair advantage is that the criteria by
56
which the parents are judged differs throughout the EEC. Some of those criteria are far less severe than the criteria by which banks will be judged in this country. It is something which bears consideration.
Next there is the problem of the finance houses, many of whom offer a range of banking services. I appreciate the changes that have been made to allow these companies that provide banking services to claim in law that they are banks, but they will be prohibited by law from saying that they carry out banking business. This is a long and involved subject but I hope that we can persuade the Minister at a later stage to go a little further. I have a suggestion along the lines that, if you describe these services more accurately and also in a more limited fashion, then this might be more acceptable. I would suggest that they ought to be allowed to use words on the lines of, "Licensed for limited banking services". This is something which is worth consideration.
On the question on investment banking, the Minister in another place poo-poohed this. All that I would say at this stage is that it is an accepted term in North America; we cannot ignore the outside world and the English organisations will be at a grave disadvantage if they can call themselves investment bankers only when they are describing themselves overseas; but they cannot do so here. Perhaps the answer is that, if they become licensed institutions, they might be allowed a little more leeway on this matter. I next come to the question of management companies and an absurdity whereby two of the clearers, Barclays and Lloyds, are going to be hampered in their rather imaginative developments of using management companies to be responsible for the United Kingdom banking subsidiaries of the holding companies. The clearers are going to pay the lion's share of the fund for which their customers and shareholders will receive very little; and, at the same time, they are going to have to submit to, I think, some petty regulations which will prevent them using the names that they would like to use and which insist that these management companies call themselves by rather unwieldly names like "Lloyds Bank UK Management Limited". This management company would bear the responsibility if anything

57
went wrong with Lloyds Bank United Kingdom operations so that it would be sensible (even if it is not a trading company) to call itself by the United Kingdom Bank branch name of "Lloyds Bank UK Limited". This would allow the holding company the important advantage of using the full footings of the bank when dealing overseas by being known as "Lloyds Bank Limited".
Finally—and I see I am speaking for rather longer than I intended—I should like to raise two points: this Bill gives us the opportunity of widening the banking legislation in this country. I shall have to cut my speech much shorter than I intended, but there are two Acts which ought to be brought into the Bill. I believe this can be done because the Long Title of the Bill says:
"to repeal certain enactments relating to banks and banking".
The first concerns the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I shall not go through the full argument that I wished to make; but I should like to draw attention to a particularly good piece of pleading on this subject which appeared in the Trustee Savings Bank's case which was presented to the Wilson Committee, paragraph 8.3. It speaks of the highly complex nature of the legislation, the increased costs it would involve and reduction of services. It ends:
"The resultant additional protection is in any case likely to be minimal. Above all the Act is concerned with the imposition of rigid rules in the granting of consumer credit at a time when the banking industry is trying to develop greater flexibility in the services it offers".
I believe that the removal from the Act of those recognised banks which provide a substantial part of their banking services in current account and overdraft facilities can only be beneficial by clearing away some of the problems preventing implementation of parts of the 1974 Act. After all, a third of that Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, knows because he is quoted at some length in that debate, is not yet implemented.
The other point I wanted to raise briefly is a subject on which a layman should be careful especially with as learned a noble Lord as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, sitting opposite. It is the effect of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. At a later date we should like to put down an Amendment
58
on this because the onus on the banks in this country is far greater than it is in any other EEC country. We have a different concept of conversion to any other country apart from perhaps the old ex-colonies which work from our law. I believe that we could rectify a situation which has developed whereby the fraudulent conversion of cheques now bears very heavily on the banks, far more so than it actually should do. It has crept in probably more by mistake than by intention. I hope that we can have a look at that point in some depth later. My Lords, let us hope that with a little co-operation from Her Majesty's Government we shall be able to improve this Bill still further in this House.
5.34 p.m.
Lord SEEBOHM: My Lords, after spending nearly 50 years in the business of banking, I must naturally declare my own interest in the Banking Bill. However, let me say straight away that I and my colleagues in the clearing banks on the whole welcome this Bill. My object in speaking today is to draw attention to certain aspects which in our view need amendment. I do not propose to go into great detail this evening as there will be a further opportunity in the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has mentioned most of the points that I wish to make. I shall therefore cut my speech very short; but I want to underline from the point of view of the clearing banks one or two of the matters to which the noble Lord referred.
First of all, there is no doubt that they would like to see the whole of Part II of the Bill removed. If, on the other hand, it is to be adopted, then, like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, we see no reason why the National Giro bank should be excluded just because it is Government-owned. It has been generally accepted that none of the British clearing banks is likely to fail. They are only brought in in order that a sufficient sum should be available to bail out their weaker brethren. The same argument must surely apply to the National Giro bank. In order to retain equality of competition, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, pointed out, it has been agreed by the Government that an equivalent sum should be paid not into the fund but to the Treasury. Can anything be more absurd than this, my

59
Lords? As at present envisaged in the Bill, two-thirds of the entire insurance contributions will come from the clearing banks. Surely the same rules should apply to all competitors in the same game whoever are the ultimate proprietors.
My second objection to Part II is that the building societies and the Trustee Savings Bank are excluded under Schedule 1. In so far as the building societies are concerned, it must be remembered that their deposits now considerably exceed those of the clearing banks. As they already have considerable competitive advantage over the banks in tax concessions there seems little reason why they should receive yet further benefits. In the case of the Trustee Savings Bank, the Government have agreed that they will come entirely within legislation at the appropriate stage of their development. Why should they not come in now as they are very anxious to take their place in the private sector as soon as possible? Alternatively, the whole of Part II could await the inclusion of the building societies and the Trustee Savings Bank.
Finally, on Part II, the Banks feel most strongly that the Treasury should not be given the power to increase the Bank's contributions from 0.3 per cent. to 0.6 per cent. at their discretion. This power is equivalent to increasing the sum involved at present deposit levels from £140 million to £280 million—a vast sum indeed. As the premium is expressed in percentage terms, it is, of course, inflation indexed. Surely Parliamentary scrutiny should be preserved for sums of this order.
In Part III I am sure that all will agree that the name "bank" in the title of a financial institution must be used with care. I do not however believe that it is unreasonable to allow the use of the name "bank" by a wholly-owned subsidiary of a recognised bank, and Clause 36 should certainly be amended to include wholly—owned non-trading subsidiaries. This applies at present to two of the clearing banks, as the noble Lord pointed out, but could affect more if they wished to adopt a divisional basis of management as have Barclays and Lloyds Banks. If the main object of the Act is to protect depositors, who can possibly object to such management subsidiaries, which will not be taking deposits anyway?
60
My Lords, there is one further matter to which I wish to call your attention. It is the possibility of using this Bill to correct a severe disadvantage that arises from the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It will be recalled that that Act was introduced so as to protect consumers from some of the worst aspects of those who lend money at excessive rates of interest, or with inadequate safeguards. It was never really intended to apply to ordinary bank lending on overdraft. Indeed, it has always been recognised that overdrafts represent one of the cheapest and most convenient forms of credit.
During the passage of the Consumer Credit Bill through this House in 1974, I and other noble Lords pointed out the disadvantages to consumers that would occur as a result of the legislation, almost accidentally, being drafted to cover bank overdrafts. It has in fact taken a long time for the Act to be implemented but now we are beginning to see the adverse consequences. Regulations are now about to be made in respect of advertising, and are expected before long in respect of the provision of interest rate quotations. The requirements under these regulations will involve the banks in expensive extra computer equipment and in heavy costs of employing additional staff. I am not making a special plea on behalf of the banks: the case I am making is that these regulations, so far as they apply to overdrafts, will be of no benefit at all to consumers. The additional information that will be supplied to the ordinary bank customer taking out an overdraft will not assist him in any way; but the effect will either be to put up the cost of overdrafts or to force the banks to move out of their business into personal loans. And either way the result will be that the consumer will have to pay a higher cost.
All this we predicted when the Consumer Credit Bill was under consideration in this House five years ago. At that time we were told it would not be possible to exclude the banks because no definition of a bank existed. Now, however, with the advent of the Banking Bill, that hurdle is removed. One of the main purposes of the Bill that we are discussing today is to provide a statutory definition of a recognised Bank. And, indeed, one of the criteria for recognition as a bank is that overdraft or loan facilities shall be offered

61
to members of the public. This is in Schedule 2, page 55, of the Bill.
I very much hope that when we come to the Committee stage we can agree on an Amendment which will have the effect of exempting ordinary overdraft lending from the Consumer Credit Act. It has already been mentioned in fact that in the Long Title of the Bill this is probably in order. I should make it clear that I am not suggesting that all bank lending should be exempted from the Consumer Credit Act. Personal loans and other lending on fixed terms should clearly stay within the Act, and this is accepted by the banks. It is only a question of overdrafts, where the balance outstanding and the rate of interest charged often vary from day to day, and where the application of rigid regulations designed for a completely different purpose looks like making the whole system much more difficult to operate. This is, I am sure, the most important change we can make to the Bill and it is one which will provide real benefit to something approaching 20 million consumers—many of them small businessmen and some of them perhaps even Members of your Lordships' House—who have bank accounts and may at any time need to run up an overdraft, and who wish to be able to continue to do as cheaply and as easily as at present.
5.41 p.m.
Lord POLWARTH: My Lords, I must start with an apology to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for not being in my place during his opening speech. I can only attribute my absence to an unfortunate failure of communications. I, also, must declare my interest, as a director and former Governor of the Bank of Scotland. Certainly the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, needs no information from me on the role of the Scottish clearing banks. Their origins are ancient. The Bank of Scotland, I might remind your Lordships, was constituted under an Act of the Scots Parliament, although founded by an Englishman, in 1695–one year after the Bank of England was founded, of course, by a Scotsman! The other two Scottish clearing banks as constituted today were founded in 1727 and 1836 respectively.—
Lord COBBOLD: My Lords, if I might interrupt the noble Lord, I think the
62
Englishman who founded the Bank of Scotland lasted for a little longer than the Scotsman who founded the English Bank!
Lord POLWARTH: My Lords, the noble Lord the former Governor of the Bank of England is absolutely correct. So, although we are quite a bit smaller than our English colleagues— on average some 10 per cent. of their size—we do enjoy, I think, the same confidence in the community and have been pioneers in some respects, notably in the system of finance through overdrafts and, more recently, in the introduction of computer technology in banking. Also, we have always been subject to the same degree of supervision as our English colleagues.
Subject to what I shall say later, I would say that I, and, I know, the Scottish clearing banks, broadly welcome this Bill and its intentions. If this debate appears to be somewhat dominated by bankers, I hope that will not arouse any undue suspicions because I think the first interest of both a reputable banker and his customers must be a mutual one. The relations between a bank and its customers must be based on confidence. It is in the best interests of the bank that the customer has confidence that his money will be there when he wants it, and so we welcome anything that will give him the assurance that this will be so.
All of us in banking and finance were very shaken by the events of the fringe bank crisis of 1973–74. We shall welcome anything that will prevent a recurrence of anything like that. Confidence is not important merely in the home role of the banks but also in their role overseas. I would remind your Lordships that British banks, in the last year for which figures are available (1977), brought net earnings to this country from overseas of over £250 million. The maintenance of confidence in the British banking system abroad is every bit as important as at home. The Bill also, as we have heard, ensures the meeting of our obligations in respect of the EEC in this field, and that is to be welcomed too.
I believe that Part I, which provides for control and supervision by the Bank of England, is absolutely right. The Bank of England are the right body for this purpose. They already have a close, intimate and continuing relationship with

63
the traditional banks and they know what to look out for. I would only say of my own experience that when I was Governor of our Bank, and dealing with the then Governor of the Bank of England—Sir Leslie and now the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien—it was brought home to me that there was a relationship between the Bank of England and the banks based on fairness, mutual respect and trust but with, I can assure your Lordships, no "soft touches". I have every reason to think that those relations are the same today. I think it is absolutely right that the powers of the Bank of England should be extended in the way they are in this Bill to the whole of this sector.
Turning to Part II, I would say that I have the same reservations about it as the two previous speakers and therefore I will not go into this at any great length. I would simply quote the evidence and the representations put forward by the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers:
"The Scottish banks strongly endorse the view that there should be no need for a deposit protection scheme if the supervisory and control functions of the Bank of England operate as intended. To introduce a scheme on the proposed scale can only imply doubts about the exercise of the Bank's statutory powers".
I am all for the reasonable protection of depositors but, as has been pointed out, this scheme can only operate when an institution has already come to grief. It will only cover deposits of under £10,000 in size, and then only as to 75 per cent. of their amount. We have also heard that it was not the withdrawal of these small deposits which brought down the failed fringe banks or at least brought them to the verge of failure; it was the withdrawal of the large deposits. By the time this has happened, there could indeed be monumental calls on the fund. We have been into maritime metaphor already this afternoon and so I would say that the wreck could be more like the "Titanic" than the "Hesperus" and the lifeboat would have to be of a phenomenal capacity, if indeed it could be launched at all.
There are a number of questions over this operation, and I suspect that the proposed scheme is largely cosmetic. But if, as seems clear, the Government are determined to go ahead with the Fund, there are also questions of equity in its constitution. I find it hard to believe that
64
the undoubtedly sound financial institutions whose reputations have never been called into doubt should have to contribute in the way that they do. I will not go on about the Trustee Savings Banks and the building societies. Let us hope they may be brought into the ambit of this scheme or into a similar one reasonably soon. However, I cannot leave the National Giro unmentioned. It seems a rather remarkable conjuring trick that this equivalent sum in proportion—presumably £300,000 maximum at first call: I do not know—will be spirited away into the funds of the Treasury. Somehow I doubt whether that rabbit will ever return! If there is indeed good reason why that sum should not be paid into the Fund but into the Treasury, will not the Government give an undertaking that, in the event of a call on the Fund, the Treasury will then "ante-up" its share in proportion to the other banks? I can see no valid reason why they should not at least give an undertaking to that effect.
There is one other element of inequity in relation to the Fund. This is possibly where I may part company, though I hope not seriously, with my noble friend who has just spoken, from the point of view of the English banks. This relates to the relative size of contribution and was touched on briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. In the initial call at the top end there is a cut-off or ceiling of £300,000 for any one institution. Obviously that will apply to the four London clearing banks, and I think that, at the time, it was brought in in reasonable recognition of their contention of their indubitably sound status.
At the bottom end, as we have heard, there was originally to be a minimum contribution by the smallest institutions of £5,000; I believe to recognise the risks of the smaller scale operation, perhaps partly as an entrance fee to the club to help cover administrative costs and perhaps partly to deter frivolous applications—all, I think, quite good reasons. Even at that time, the Scottish banks pointed out that on the best estimates available—and it is very difficult to work this out until the full supervision system is in operation—of the deposit base this provision, together with the upper limit of £300,000, would result in all the banks in between, the institutions between the

65
very smallest and the very biggest, paying on a percentage basis, which could result in their contribution being considerably in excess of what was fair in relation to the largest. At that time, it was thought that for the Scottish banks it might be between one-third and one-half of the comparable London clearing banks.
But that was not the end, because in another place in Committee stage strong pleas were made on behalf of the very small institutions that the £5,000 was excessive and, after a long debate, the Minister magnanimously conceded the point and agreed to reduce the minimum to £2,500 apiece. I know from experience on the other side of the House how tempting it is to concede a point to one's opponents, especially if it seems of minimal importance. It always helps to throw a dog a bone in order to keep him happy. But in this case I do not think that the Minister appreciated the consequences, because with a ceiling on the larger banks and a fixed sum to be raised, a reduction in the many minimum contributions can be made good only by an increase in the contributions by the institutions in between; in other words, the middle-sized ones. This does not include only the Scottish banks, because I think that there will be a number of others. It makes their contributions still more out of proportion to those of their larger brethren. So that in throwing a bone to the little dogs, the Minister was, in fact, taking it away from the middle-size dogs.
Although the figures are bound to be the subject of some conjecture, we were given information by the Bank of England only last week which, added to our own calculations, suggests that in the case of one Scottish bank their contribution, initially, could well be of the order of £200,000, compared with the maximum of one of the clearing banks of £300,000, and yet we are only about one-tenth of their size in deposits. This may seem something of a Committee point, but I think it is right that it should be aired now, so that the Government can look into the possible justice of our case before the next stage and endeavour to rectify it.
I shall not go into any further detail, particularly on Part III. I would simply conclude by saying that we want to see a strong and dependable banking system commanding confidence for our customers,
66
whether at home or abroad, and in this I say that there is no conflict between bankers and their depositors. Generally, we North of the Border welcome the intentions of the Bill, particularly the provisions for licensing and control, with the reservations I have already expressed about the deposit protection scheme. With those words, I strongly support the Second Reading of the Bill.
5.54 p.m.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, I feel that I, too, should declare an interest as I work in one of the clearing bank groups. It often embarrasses me in your Lordships' House that banking groups have such wide interests that there are very few subjects upon which one can speak without declaring some interest. Thus, I suppose that as a banker I should give a qualified welcome to this Bill. But my own inclinations are not to welcome it at all, for I have a secret fear that if, as one of the freest banking nations in the world, we begin to introduce legislation bit by bit, then, however slightly, our competitiveness in the world may be eroded. We should bear in mind that one of the reasons why the United Kingdom, in London, is perhaps the pre-eminent centre of the international banking world is that we have not had restrictive legislation.
Most of the American banks—and I am sure the bank of my noble friend Lord Redesdale—set up here for international business, often associated with the Euro-currency market, because of legislation back in the United States. One particular type of legislation, the interest equalisation tax, or IET, encouraged people to set up and work outside America and, logically, they came to London. It was interesting that when that tax was amended the banks did not take their business back to the United States. So that in looking at this Bill, I ask myself: Will it have any effect on our international position?
I think that at the moment there are something like 199 foreign banks with branches over here, a further 100 or so with representative offices and some 86 full partners in consortia. Every time a foreign bank wishes to set up in London, it goes and asks permission of the Bank of England. Those outside the banking world, and they included myself for many

67
years, often failed to understand the remarkably close relationship which there was between the Bank of England and every bank in London, whether British of foreign. It was a strange informal relationship with people coming together to support each other in difficulty. Almost by a process of osmosis, rules or codes were laid down which were respected the world over.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, what the Bank of England feels about this legislation as it stands. Does it support it completely as it stands? Does it look at the need for amendments? What does it feel about the need for a protection scheme? I should like to ask him, too, if he will reply to the question of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, whether anybody lost any deposits during the secondary banking crisis? It is a point that should be cleared up. I understand that they did not. We should remember that that secondary banking crisis started initially not in London but in Germany. Someone reminded me the other day that a few hundred years ago a banking crisis, or a financial crisis, took a year to blow up. Then, as communications improved, it took a matter of a day and now, since the South-East Asian markets open early in the morning, you can, within a matter of five minutes, get an idea of which way the currencies of the world will move on that day. Crises are based upon a lack of confidence. Confidence is often based upon respect for prudent banking.
I was once asked a question by a Frenchman who was coming to live over here. Unlike so many people who wish to leave the country, he thought that this was a wonderful place to be, and he brought all his money with him. He said "I should like to deposit it somewhere". We were having lunch together with an elderly and very distinguished banker, and the Frenchman asked him "Where should I deposit my money? I do not understand the banking system. What is a bank and what is not a bank? "He said" I have heard about merchant banks. Are they safe places?" The elderly banker said "Yes, many merchant banks are accepting houses, and they have the Bank of England behind them." Then the Frenchman asked "What about the clearing banks?" The banker said "Ah,
68
clearing banks are undoubted." "Then I suppose" said the Frenchman, "clearing banks stand behind the Bank of England." There are times when you have a crisis, like the lifeboat with cruise liner proportions, as my noble friend Lord Redesdale said, but, however big and terrible that crisis was, it was probably resolved—perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would confirm this—with nobody losing his deposits. Certainly, investors lost money.
We must bear in mind that, as the banking world, or the financial world, seeks deposits, there are those who will inevitably offer a higher return than others. That higher return is almost always associated with higher risk. Sometimes that risk may pay off, but, when there is a flood of money which can often come with a property boom, or a boom in other areas, that money can move in and out with frightening rapidity. It is not usually the individual, the man in the street, if I may use that phrase, who causes the crisis; it is the institutions, people doing their jobs, protecting their own employers, hedging et cetera.
We often forget, the way in which the individual is involved in the banking system. Only half of the adults in the United Kingdom have bank accounts. Others use other types of financial institutions, which they often regard as banks. This Bill could tell some people that organisations which they regard as banks are no longer banks, and with it confidence may erode. The two-tier system proposed is an invidious one. While I understand the desirability of trying to keep out—I do not mean to insult our American cousins —the cowboys and the hustlers in the financial world, it may unwillingly upset honest, respectable, highly successful bodies in the financial community which regard themselves as banks and which would take considerable exception to this. Representations have already been made to the Government.
Much has been said about Part II of the Bill, the deposit protection scheme. All I would say is that I can think of a better solution, and I am sure that many other people can, too. I hope that many Amendments will be put down relating to Part II of the Bill. Ideally, I think that Part II should be removed entirely, but I am sure that it will not be. During the

69
time that I have been in your Lordships' House I have become more and more depressed about the way in which we have legislation pushed upon us, legislation which is neither clear, nor concise, nor even fair. I feel that it is its fairness which is the most important issue of all. Our normand cousins across the water often say that all good legislation requires three phases: conceptualisation and realisation, and in between a good bit of animation. In this Bill, the animation is missing.
6.2 p.m.
Lord O'BRIEN of LOTHBURY: My Lords, although I did not put down my name on the list of speakers, I hope that I may take advantage of the convention of your Lordships' House whereby if a noble Lord feels he must speak he is allowed to do so. I do not want your Lordships to think that just because I am sitting next to my noble friend Lord Cobbold I am seeking protection, or that he will pull my jacket if I go wrong. We just happen to be sitting together. I do not want to upstage my noble friend Lord Seebohm, but I have been in banking for 52 years. He may say that for most of that time I was not a proper banker, anyway. That is a matter of opinion, of course. Certainly, for 46½ years I was in the Bank of England and was Governor between 1966 and 1973, a period which has some relevance to the legislation which we are now considering.
Since then, I have become a sort of commercial banker, for I am the director of one bank—the Saudi International Bank —and adviser to two others, Morgan Grenfell and Morgan Guaranty. I should not like to say that the great success of all those banks is entirely due to my advice, particularly in the presence of Lord Taylor of Gryfe who is a far more effective adviser to Morgan Grenfell than I am. I am also the President of the British Bankers' Association and am therefore in some sense a spokesman for over 300 of the principal banks in this market. But even though I am a kind of commercial banker now, and a representative of those banks, I cannot be expected to forget my lifetime in central banking. Therefore, I am in something of two minds in approaching this legislation.
As I say, I spent a long time in the Bank of England, and seven years as Governor,
70
when the conditions which helped to bring about this legislation were being created. I remember the Radcliffe Committee Report of 1959. In their report they showed that they were aware of the fact that, partly due to the extreme restraints which were placed upon the banking system proper from time to time as we went through successive crises, the fringe institutions were growing up. The committee decided that although that was so, it would not be right or worth while to extend control to them. Whether they would have thought the same 10 years later is perhaps open to doubt. Certainly they would not think the same now.
I am convinced that this legislation, or legislation of this kind, is absolutely imperative. It is imperative because we have to comply with our obligations to the European Economic Community. But it is not only for that reason that I think that legislation is absolutely imperative. I believe that Lord Cobbold would be only too ready to agree with me that for many generations the Bank of England were rightly proud of the very light-handed regulation with which they managed to keep the banking system of the United Kingdom under proper control. But the banking system of the United Kingdom now is very different indeed from what it was even 20 years ago, and I believe that we need a framework of legislation.
I was most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the manner in which he outlined what that legislation would be and the thought behind it: the desire for flexibility and the desire to bring about the very minimum change to the arrangements which have served us so well over so many years. It is entirely right that the Bank of England should be at the centre and should be the implementer of this legislation: the continued controller of the banking system. I think that the banking system would be very shocked indeed if that were not so.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, needs to worry about the degree of change in the method of controlling the banking system which this legislation will bring about, so long as the Bank of England is there to implement it. I believe that the philosophy which has actuated us over hundreds of years will continue and that the advantages enjoyed by banks in this market will also continue.

71
I say, therefore, that the legislation is necessary. Also I say that I do not think that it is a bad Bill. That may sound a bit grudging, but if a Bill is not bad it is beginning to be good—which is more than I would say for the Consumer Credit Act. I think that is a very bad Act, and I have great sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Seebohm said about the inclusion in it of ordinary bank lending. I, like him, very much hope that this opportunity will be taken to change that, to the great advantage of all those who use banks.
I have great sympathy, also, with those who are unhappy about the deposit protection scheme. This subject is being considered in Europe where it is thought at the present time that they should seek in the Commission to co-ordinate the separate deposit protection schemes of the individual countries. Their further thought is that those schemes should rest entirely upon guarantees, not upon cash subscriptions which I should have thought would be entirely adequate. Cash guaranteed by a leading British bank is as good as money. Also, I sympathise with the views of people who feel that others, such as the Giro Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks, should be brought in.
I do not intend, however, to go in detail into all of the objections that have been made. The Committee stage will come and then we shall have a chance to look at the Amendments and debate them in detail. For my part, I welcome the legislation and the spirit in which it is put forward. I look forward to it being administered in a way which will be satisfactory both to the authorities and to the banking system.
6.8 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if all the speeches this evening had been as welcoming as the speech of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, was modest in its recitation of his contribution to and experience of banking, I should have a much easier task both now and at the Committee stage, which will prove to be rather more interesting than I had hoped or, indeed, feared.
The Bill has received this evening a more muted welcome than I had expected from some sources, but that may simply
72
be a question of emphasis because most speakers, while extending a general welcome to the legislation, have concentrated upon its supposed defects. However, most of the points which have been taken are ones which we can properly look at and examine in detail in Committee. I need not take up your Lordships' time in going through them all at present. However, there are some which I must answer. In some ways, the most important of them, and certainly the easiest for me to answer, was that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon; namely, what is the view of the Bank of England? Does it support the Bill and the scheme? The answer to both parts of the noble Lord's question is, Yes.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about depositors losing money in the 1973–74 crisis. As a lawyer, I was always brought up never to ask a question unless I knew the answer, and it was plain from the smugness with which the question was put across this Table that the answer was well known. The 1973–74 crisis in secondary banking led, as noble Lords are well aware, to the creation of the lifeboat. The intention of this operation was to avert a crisis of confidence in the banking system. The immediate objective was to provide liquidity support to those institutions which were experiencing rapid and substantial withdrawals of deposits. In the event, a number of these companies turned out to have deeper-rooted problems of solvency, and these have been run down in an orderly fashion.
As a result of the lifeboat, however, no depositors who were not connected with the institutions lost money. So in short the answer is, none. Of course, connected depositors —and the noble Lord Redesdale, was particularly careful to phrase his question exactly —are not protected by this Bill, and they were the ones who lost in that situation. A sum of £l·2 billion was mentioned, and that indeed was the sum committed to the lifeboat at its peak, but the final losses of those who suffered losses will be very much less.
The deposit protection scheme is directed towards the same kind of depositor who was protected under the lifeboat but who did not in fact lose. It excludes from protection the directors, controllers

73
and managers of a failed company and their immediate relatives, and it gives the Deposit Protection Board discretion to exclude from protection other depositors who appear to the Board to have had responsibility for, or to have profited directly or indirectly from, the difficulties of the institution.
There are, of course, differences between the 1973–74 lifeboat operation and the present matter. In particular, we are only concerned here with what protection is required when insolvency actually occurs. I was also asked about the arbitrary size of the fund—not less than £5 million and not more than £6 million—but, of course, in a Bill one cannot just say that we will have a sum of money and when the Government pick any sum of money it is bound to be said to be arbitrary. So really in a sense one cannot avoid an arbitrary figure. What we have here is a cash fund which is small. Although I understand the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and I shall have to deal with that in due course, it does not make excessive demands upon the institutions which are called upon to contribute, particularly when one recognises that now all the contributions are—as I said in my opening speech—tax deductible. So the contributions are relatively modest. Therefore, one ends up with a cash fund which is limited in size but which should be available to deal with the relatively small failure; and indeed one hopes that with the system of supervision that is introduced by Part I of the Bill and that working, as one would expect it to work, under the supervision of the bank, that we shall not have to face any other type of crisis but that type of crisis. Accordingly, we are creating a cash fund which gives credibility to the scheme in the eyes of the public and enables these relatively small matters to be dealt with without too much difficulty.
In relation to Giro a number of noble Lords mentioned the position. It is exempt, of course, because ultimately it is responsible to Ministers and I do not think that the criticism was in relation to its exemption. But it is already subject to a system of supervision very like that which will be carried out by the bank under this Bill, and I do not think there is any suggestion that in that respect it enjoys a "soft option." The main point, however, was that it was excluded from contributing
74
to the deposit protection scheme and that was thought to be unfair. I think noble Lords recognise that there is no unfairness, in that it makes a similar contribution to the Treasury. The point is that that money which it contributes ought to be available to the fund or indeed to help to bail out someone when there is a failure. I think the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, wishes to intervene.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is most kind. The only point on that is that their contribution would then reduce the fund and therefore it would be a more equitable fund, especially covering the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, merely to give figures would not answer the point on equity, but a contribution to the initial cash fund by the Giro bank would amount to some £40,000. This would not materially reduce the contribution of the Big Four London clearers who are already contributing at their maximum of some £300,000 and clearly a contribution by Giro of that figure—which I am advised is the correct figure—would not have a very noticeable effect upon the other contributions to the whole fund, given the size of the fund that I have mentioned. But I think there is a difference here between the private investor and the role of the Giro bank. However, no doubt this is a matter which noble Lords will feel constrained to pursue at a later stage, and I see from the look of amazement on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that he does not believe my figures. I do not think I can improve upon them at the moment, but if I am wrong I shall hasten to eat humble pie on another occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned the matter of public interest and felt that only the courts and Parliament should be able to judge the public interest. Of course in certain circumstances it is right that Parliament should be the judge of the public interest, and in certain limited categories of matter no doubt the courts can make a judgment upon the public interest. But in a matter of this kind it cannot be wrong to say that the Bank, and ultimately the Treasury or the Chancellor—the Chancellor himself being answerable to Parliament for

75
his judgments—and others than the courts and Parliament, have a role to play in assessing the public interest. It arises only in a very limited matter in relation to the disclosure of information here, and if that matter is raised in Committee no doubt we can pursue it further.
The position of the Trustee Savings Banks and the building societies has been mentioned. Perhaps I may just say a word about each of them. So far as the building societies are concerned, the council of the Building Societies Association is discussing with the chief registrar the feasibility of establishing a deposit protection scheme for building societies and the terms on which it might be set up. It is expected that the building societies would agree to establish such a scheme. I do not know that it would be proper to put such a time limit on it as was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in relation to that matter, but doubtless that again can be pursued if it is raised at the Committee stage.
As your Lordships will be well aware the Trustee Savings Banks are now moving from the public to the private sector, and it is expected that within a few years they will have developed sufficiently to bring them within the supervisory system established by the Bill. At that point they will automatically become contributors to the deposit protection scheme. So that is the position with regard to them at the present time.
A small point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—small in relation to the whole Bill, although no doubt it is important for those involved. It was the case of the management subsidiaries of Lloyds and Barclays. The Bill as framed already allows for a wholly-owned subsidiary of a recognised bank to use the name of its parent bank in its own title, in two sets of circumstances: where the subsidiary is itself a deposit taker, then the Bill in Clause 36 specifically provides for the use of the parent's name and where the subsidiary is not a deposit taker, so long as its title makes plain the nature of its activities it would not come within the scope of the prohibition in the clause at all. So, for example, it can call itself "XYZ Bank Computer Services" or "XYZ Bank Management Limited", and the Government are not persuaded—
76
although of course they would listen with interest to any further representations on the matter—that there is a case for allowing for total exemption from the prohibition in the clause to a company which does not in fact carry on a banking business.
I think one can make the general point that the prohibition on the use of a banking name must extend beyond deposit-taking institutions in order to cover the case of, for example, foreign exchange bureaux, which frequently describe themselves as "banks"; in any case it would be absurd to constrain the use of banking names and descriptions in relation to licensed institutions which may provide some banking services and allow them to institutions which provide none.
Some criticism has been made of the Consumer Credit Act, and as a mere lawyer who has had to look at it I must express some sympathy with what has been said. We shall have to see what Amendments are tabled, but, on the face of it, it would appear that the Amendments which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, had in mind might not be within the Long Title. However, we must suspend judgment on that until we see what is brought forward.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for giving me notice at this stage and not expecting a reply in relation to the position of the Scottish Bankers. I think I may say in general to the point he made that one cannot construct a scheme which provides perfect justice for everyone. If one has a perfect sliding scale from the lowest to the highest, then I think the major clearing banks would complain that they were making a quite unduly large contribution towards the initial fund. So if one does place the kind of limit that the Bill does in relation to the contribution by such banks, one begins to create what the noble Lord would describe as unfairness in relation to the banks which do not quite reach the limit. Of course one can make the same point at the other end of the scale. So whenever you adjust things a little in order to satisfy one person you immediately expose another to the cold winds. So far the Government have sought to achieve, and thought they had achieved, a compromise which would be acceptable, but it may be that this matter will have to be pursued a little further.

77
Mention was made of my familiarity as a lawyer with the concept of torts. As a Scottish lawyer I have no such familiarity. The same applies to conversion, which is not known to Scottish lawyers. However, I am aware of the representations made to the Government which I understand will be pursued at Committee stage. These matters are certainly going to be considered, but we see real difficulties in giving effect to those representations as put to us in this Bill at this time. I think there are more problems that may arise than envisaged in the submission that was sent to me and other Ministers.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, particularly for making it clear what hurdles we will endeavour to cross in the Committee stage. I hope at that stage I will be able to give more satisfactory answers to the points of detail than I have been able to offer today.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ESTATE AGENTS BILL
6.22 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: 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 Wallace of Coslany.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 (Estate Agency work):
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("residential").
The noble Earl said: Those of us who have read the proceedings on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place will know that it is fair to say that the Government took some credit for introducing a Bill which had had a record of some 90 years of unfortunate lack of success. I think there have been 14 attempts to get
78
a Bill such as this through Parliament. The Government took credit because at last they had produced a Government Bill which was primarily to protect consumers' interests in relation to estate agents.
The noble Lord who is replying on behalf of the Government will understand that there is considerable disappointment, not only in this House but also within the professions—and I believe that there will eventually be disappointment among the consumers—that this Bill is really a mouse purporting to be a lion. Its protection is limited to the point of what some might be inclined to call castration. It relies heavily on future ministerial regulations which many of us feel should be written into the Bill. It includes very wide-ranging— some might say draconian—powers which the Director General of Fair Trading will have, and, perhaps worst (and here I come to the first Amendment) its protection covers only a proportion of the consumers. I believe that proportion which it does not cover have a right to expect to have protection under this Bill.
The first Amendment would widen the scope of protection from the purely residential case which the Bill at present covers to those transactions which estate agents carry out in commercial and industrial property deals. This is an Amendment which was the subject of discussion in another place, but I do not apologise for repeating the point because it is very important. The Government in another place said that it was really now too difficult to widen the scope, and indeed possibly to rewrite the Bill, to cover the commercial work of estate agents. They went on to argue that the commercial consumers were well able to look after themselves. If that is really the argument, I would suggest, with great deference to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that it is a very ill-informed argument.
There are literally hundreds and thousands of shop-owners and small businesses which will not have the protection of this Bill because there is no residential content in their premises. Up and down the country they purchase properties for their businesses. They save, they scrimp, some may say they even gamble with a lot of mortgage debts

79
round their necks, second mortgages on their houses with their banks. Their skill, as the noble Lord knows, is not in the property but in their business. They rely on the estate agent for their protection. Why should they not be protected under this Bill. Why is the house-owner singled out, after 90 years, to be the only favoured son under this Bill? Why will the commercial consumers not have the protection of the deposits provided under Clause 16? Why will they not have the protection of competency under Clause 22? And perhaps just as important, why will they not have the protection of disclosure of interest of estate agents under Clause 21?
I think there is a case for including commercial properties and premises under this Bill. I think it is a strong case and it is undoubtedly a consumer case. It is certainly a case which the professional bodies wish to see written into the Bill. So I hope that tonight the noble Lord will be able to indicate a change of mind by the Government. I would add that this Amendment does, of course, lead to a number of consequential Amendments, which the Chairman will have seen and which would, of course, reduce the length of our Committee proceedings if accepted. I beg to move.
Lord GISBOROUGH: Although the Bill has been described as a consumer protection measure, there are many cases outside the realms of residential property where protection is just as important. It has been stated that business premises will come within the terms of the Act if they contain a substantial element of residential property—for example, the high street shop with living accommodation above. However, the limitation to residential property is too restrictive in that it does not bring within control other transactions involving commercial property where protection is needed, such as the activities of business transfer agents, where there is no residential element in the property. We are not talking about ICI, we are talking about small business, about the man who buys a shop without living accommodation above. It is just as important that he should be protected as the residential owner.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: In rising to support my noble friend, I should like
80
first of all to apologise to the Committee for not being present at the Second Reading, and at the same time to declare an interest as a practising estate agent. I know that one aspect of the Government's reply to this Amendment is going to be the question of finance and public expenditure. I would ask the noble Lord who will reply for the Government what is going to be the extra cost involved if the ambit of this Bill is widened to include commercial property and business transfer agents, as the Amendment would require the Bill to do.
Lord SWINFEN: I should also like to rise to support my noble friend Lord Kinnoull on this Amendment. However, at the same time I must declare an interest as I too am an estate agent. As drafted, the Bill provides protection for commercial property when combined with residential property, but in modern planning practice more and more commercial and industrial property is divorced from residential property. The small business man needs the protection of this Bill whereas the large conglomerate, such as ICI, has its own experts. The small businessman relies, and must rely, on estate agents to give him good advice.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I take it that in moving Amendment No. 1 the noble Earl will deal with Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 subsequently?
The Earl of KINNOULL: Yes.
6.31 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: First, this is a consumer protection measure—I want to emphasis that. I do not want to get involved in another Second Reading speech because, in point of fact, the noble Earl tended to give some indication of devoting himself to a Second Reading speech. However, in relation to this Amendment, which would extend control to wholly and substantially business premises, I should perhaps make it clear that, as it stands, the Bill covers broking activity in relation to certain mixed properties. These are essentially properties bought by the individual as a home in which business is carried on such as a house with a smallholding, a flat above a shop, a building designed or converted into a number of small flats, a guest house

81
and residential property with a business element. These are properties where in the same transaction there is a capital transfer relating to the business assets, goodwill, et cetera, and the property is let at a rack rent. This approach is consistent with the main aim of the Bill to protect the individual buying or selling his home.
There has been an interest in extending control to cover all types of property on the grounds that limitation of control would appear to license those not covered to misbehave. It has also been argued that control in the Bill should be extended to protect at least the individual sinking his capital in the small wholly commercial property—for example, a small corner shop.
The main beneficiary of the wide extension proposed would be the businessman or industrialist who is well able to look after himself. A recent survey has shown that a majority of businessmen are well satisfied with the work of the agents they employ, and extension of control under the Bill would seem to be control for control's sake. However, extension to cover the small businessman only has been considered, but no satisfactory definition could be found to meet the narrow area which did not mean that the wider one was also caught. I would emphasise that it has been considered, but no satisfactory definition has been found. For that reason, the Government are regrettably unable to accept the Amendment. That is all I can say on the Amendment at this stage.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised the question how much it would cost to extend the cover. Of course. that is a very difficult question to answer but I shall hazard a guess, backed by a certain amount of support from behind. Roughly, it would cost about £l million.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I thank the noble Lord for that answer. Can he also tell me what the extra manpower required would be, or is that too difficult a question at this stage?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Quite honestly, with the enormous number of Amendments presented to me in a matter of a few hours, it is both physically and
82
mentally impossible to answer that. However, I shall certainly make some inquiries in order to obtain an estimate, and then I shall write to the noble Earl and keep him fully informed. I would hope to get that information before the Report stage.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has given a very disappointing reply. He has just hinted that a great many Amendments have been given to him at a minute's notice. The word "yes" is just as easy and quick to say as the word "no". I should have thought that, in order to start off the discussions on the Bill in the right sort of spirit, this is one area where the noble Lord could have given an undertaking to look at the matter again. He has said that the Bill is a consumer protection measure. You are a consumer if you deal with business premises just as much as if you deal with a house, and that consumer is just as entitled to have the law pay attention to his needs as anyone dealing with a house in which he lives.
On behalf of the Government the noble Lord is introducing legislation which will hit the Government on the back of the neck unless they look at this sort of Amendment more carefully. If there is one sort of protection for a private house and no protection at all or a different sort for business premises, then confusion will be created as to where people stand vis å vis their estate agent and their general advisers. If there is any need at all for protection, I should have thought that it was needed where most of the business is done; that is, in relation to business premises as well as with residential property.
The noble Lord said that the people who would benefit if we introduced premises other than residential premises are usually the large conglomerates which can look after themselves. Most people who have residential properties can look after themselves; indeed, often they are much more able to do so because they are concentrating upon their property. If protection is needed, it should not be for any one section of the community: it should be for all sections. If, even though because of the terrific number of Amendments with which he has to deal, the noble Lord has had to give this rather disappointing,

83
negative reply now, he could on second thoughts say that before the next stage he will look at the matter again to see whether we cannot deal with the whole field instead of with a part of it—which is the proper thing to do—it would be much more satisfactory from his point of view as well as from the point of view of this Committee.
Lord AIREDALE: If the Rent Acts were capable of separating small dwellings from larger dwellings and treating the smaller dwellings differently, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to single out small businesses and treat them differently from large businesses. Does the Minister remember that the Trade Descriptions Act was to be called the Consumer Protection Act?—but the title was changed largely because it was realised that the Act protected the small businessman just as much as it protected the customer on the other side of the counter.
Lord JANNER: I was rather amused when the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, referred in the manner in which he did, to the distinction between residential properties and business premises. I see the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, smiling. He will probably remember that in the various Acts that have been passed year after year—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who was in the other place at the time, will also remember—this distinction has been quite inevitable. I would suggest that, if the noble Lord has any leisure time at all, he should sit down and look at some of the rent Acts, the leasehold reform Acts, land Acts et cetera. He will see that what he is at present driving at has been found to be impossible in other contexts.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: Before my noble friend replies, may I, through him, correct a statement that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale? The Trade Descriptions Act does not distinguish between large and small businesses— it protects the lot.
Lord SWINFEN: The distinction has been made between large and small businesses. This Bill is designed to ensure the honesty of estate agents. Is it not important that estate agents act honestly
84
towards their larger clients, or customers, as well as their smaller ones? The larger clients may well have their own advisers who can help them: but if their advisers are not as good as they should be, they can have a very much larger fall than the small persons and possibly bring down a large number of shareholders at the same time.
6.41 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: Before the noble Lord replies, I should remind him of what occurred in another place. His right honourable friend the Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection was clearly in a serious dilemma over this. We on these Benches fully recognise what a difficult dilemma it was; hence my noble friend's Amendment. It is interesting to see what the noble Lord's right honourable friend said. I refer to column 31 of the report of Standing Committee E. He said:
"We attempted to find a precise definition of what was residential property and what was not, but we found it impossible to achieve any worthwhile result".
A little further on he said:
"In the end, therefore, we resorted to a definition of residential property which contained the words' wholly or substantially'".
So much of Clause 2, on which Clause 1 hangs, depends on those vital words "wholly or substantially". The Minister in another place conceived those two words in the wider context to mean small shops with residential premises, and the type of premises known as a mixed hereditament, which all my noble friends on this side of the House are anxious to ensure are included. We have had assurances in another place that they are included, but alas! it does not necessarily depend upon what the Minister has assured another place but upon the interpretation of the courts.
To the layman—and I am a layman—the words "wholly or substantially" appear to be an unsafe base on which to concern oneself with a wide number of different types of property. I believe that the Government's dilemma is much greater than they are willing to admit, because the Minister also said something—and I refer to an earlier statement of his at column 6 in Standing Committee E—which reveals his true difficulty. He said this:

85
"I am anxious to keep the limits to the sale of property because that is the area where we have a consultative document and discussions with the professions".
That may well be, but of course the consultative document, as we heard on Second Reading, has really been set aside. At this stage I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the case for the Amendment.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: With the leave of the Committee perhaps I might reply comparatively briefly. I would repeat that this is a small Bill for the small consumer. It is not the Bill that some people had in mind. It is a Bill heartily supported by the Consumers' Association; it is a Bill supported strongly by the National Association of Estate Agents. In the main, the Bill is popular except in those circles where those concerned want to bring in the question of business protection.
As I have already said, the matter has been considered but no satisfactory definition could be found to meet this narrow area of the small businessman, which I believe is what noble Lords have in mind. I think it would be readily accepted that the large business people, ICI and people like that, are quite capable of looking after themselves. If business premises have a substantial residential element, there is no doubt whatever that they are included. I do not quite know what noble Lords are after, except that they want big business organisations to come in. If it is a question of a small business purchased, then of course that is a question of definition. So far we have been unable to find a definition. That is the point. I hope that we shall not have unnecessary delay on this because, as noble Lords will remember, it was the wish of those on all sides in another place that this Bill should receive a speedy passage in your Lordships' House.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: The noble Lord said that no satisfactory definition of small business has been found, or that it was beyond the wit of his Department.
Could he say whether some sort of scope in terms of turnover would do? If we are talking basically of very small businesses, corner shops, I should have thought that a turnover figure would have been more easily arrived at than some form of technical phraseology.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: It is difficult to jump up and down in Committee, but I cannot say any more than I have already said. If noble Lords can find a definition to meet the little man, then of course we must consider it. Perhaps the noble Earl might bear that in mind for another stage.
The Earl of KINNOULL: If it would help the noble Lord, he is in fact allowed in a Committee stage to speak as many times as he likes, and there is no question of him having to apologise to the Committee for speaking two or three times. I am unhappy with the noble Lord's reply. I should like to thank all those who have supported this Amendment. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls talked about confusion. I think that that is exactly what it will cause if we have a split responsibility under this consumers Bill. My noble friend Lord Swinfen talked about the honesty of estate agents. That is another bull point argument. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, did not bother to consider Lord Airedale's comment which really was: Could we not define small businesses by rateable value? I think that is an excellent idea. I was hoping that the noble Lord would say that he would look at this again, but he has not. It is all very well for the noble Lord to argue that we need this Bill and that it needs a speedy passage, but we must get it right. I should like to leave to the Committee the decision on this Amendment.
6.48 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Caithness, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Airedale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Allan of Kilmahew, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

de Clifford, L.

Falkland, V.

Amory, V.

Denham, L.

Falmouth, V.

Gisborough, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Somers, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gowrie, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royale, L.

Gray, L.

Mottistone, L.

Greenway, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Swansea, L.

Harvington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Redesdale, L.

Vernon, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Vickers, B.

Inglewood, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Killearn, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Windlesham, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sandys, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kinnoull, E. [Teller.]

Selkirk, E.

Young, B.

Kinross, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bacon, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Snow, L.

Blease, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Leonard, L.

Stone, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Noel-Baker, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Phillips, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hamnett, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

White, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Raglan, L.

Willis, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.56 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Before we move to the next Amendment I should perhaps make it clear that a number of consequential Amendments will have to be accepted following Amendment No.1 having been carried, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has a copy of the list. In saying they will have to be accepted, I wish to make it clear that we accept them under the strongest protest. We are resolutely opposed to the Amendment that has been carried and I must register my protest so that the Committee knows how we feel on the issue.
Lord SANDYS: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I read out the range of Amendments which are consequential upon Amendment No. 1 having been carried, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for furnishing me with a list of those Amendments, which we have not had time to circulate among members of the Committee. The consequential Amendments which follow on the Division which has just taken place are Nos.11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 53, 54, 55, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 79, 80 and 81.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I thank the noble Lord for reading out that list and I confirm that that is the position. As I said, we accept those Amendments but with the proviso that we are resolutely opposed to them and wish to register our strong protest.
6.59 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 14, after ("acquire") insert ("let, rent, license").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Minister for having tabled this Amendment so late: the Committee stage has followed quickly on the Second Reading and, living 250 miles away, the post takes a long time to reach me and return. I shall, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. In Committee in another place strong representations were made that the Bill should cover rentals and leases. The Minister of State promised to reconsider the position, but in the event no Government Amendment was tabled on Report.
Deposit taking by letting agents is an area where abuses can all too frequently occur and the sums involved can be considerable. Attention is drawn to the fact that the upper end of the furnished

89
letting market is largely outside current legislative control in that the majority of properties involved have rateable values higher than those covered by the Rent Acts. Rents of such properties, particularly in London, vary from £60 to £200 or more a week. Deposits asked are often a minimum of 10 weeks rent in advance, and this amount at the end of the tenancy is often dissipated by dilapidations charges. I am advised that this is a problem, and that these abuses are not controlled elsewhere; and the Bill provides an ideal opportunity to regulate the situation. I beg to move.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I should have thought that there is much force in this point. The opening words of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill state:
"The purpose of the Bill is to impose a measure of control on certain activities of estate agents with a view to affording protection to users of their services".
I maintain that a person involved in letting or in arranging a licence or a rent is more in the hands of the estate agent than when he is acquiring a property, which is the point that the Government have already accepted. Generally speaking, such a person when acquiring a property has the extra protection of the solicitor who is handling the conveyance, but there are many instances in which questions of rent and the arranging of a licence do not go to the solicitor but are left more or less subject to the advice of, and within the control of, the estate agent. If we really want to give protection from people who are not capable of giving advice, it is more essential to make certain that this is done on the renting and the licensing than even on the acquiring, because in matters to do with the rent and the licence the normal protection afforded by a solicitor does not seem to be present. Perhaps the noble Lord opposite already has this matter in mind. I can almost see the glint in his eye. Perhaps he is going to look at the matter again with a view to conceding some of the points that my noble friend has made.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: There is indeed a glint in my eye, but it is not connected with what the noble Lord had in mind—rather very much the opposite. Amendments Nos. 2 to 5
90
seek to extend the control to broking activities in relation to letting, renting, and licensing of residential property. The Government made some investigation about the possibility of extensions to this area as a result of discussions in the other place. Extension would alter the nature of the Bill, which aims essentially to protect the consumer. First, the known abuses are abuses by the landlord, and not by the agent, and existing legislation for which the Department of the Environment is reponsible provides for action against landlords. Secondly, the member of the public buying his house does not have the opportunity to choose the agent or middleman with whom he deals and who also acts for the vendor. Whereas in the field of letting, renting, et cetera the agent is not a middleman of this kind, there is no thought but that he is acting for, and under the control of, the landlord.
When we come to Amendment No.39, relating to Clause 12, to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I shall be explaining why extension of control to protect money in this field would also change the nature of the Bill as a whole. As was the case with the previous Amendment, to amend the Bill to include this provision—as is requested in the Amendment—would mean a considerable addition to manpower and would put demands on Government resources, particularly at local level where the main burden of enforcement falls. Apart from anything else, the moment is not propitious for adding to public expenditure, as I am sure noble Lords will agree. In any event this is not a case where the estate agent is mainly responsible. He is the agent of the landlord, and it is the landlord who is responsible, and there is already provision for dealing with landlords. Therefore, I reject the Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I wish to ask the noble Lord about one point. The value of the Amendment lies in the question of bonding. I have in mind the kind of case in which a tenant is asked to lay down a fairly hefty deposit. Deposits are governed by law, as I think the noble Lord has explained. In some cases there are very large deposits, and they are held by the agent as, I imagine, agent for the landlord. They are held on the basis of the argument that subsequently there may

91
be dilapidations, or telephone or electricity bills may arise which, when the tenant disappears, the landlord has to pay.
That is the situation on one side. On the other side the agent holds the rentals on behalf of the landlord and perhaps does not hand them over very quickly. In the Bill we are looking for protection for the consumer, and the consumer is both the landlord and the tenant. I believe that there is an argument here that the matter should be looked at again. I should at the very beginning have disclosed my interest professionally as a surveyor. I apologise for not having done so, though I have disclosed the interest on previous occasions.
Lord SANDYS: From these Benches I wish to agree entirely with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and to say that we are anxious to make a positive contribution to the Bill, and to improve it where we can so that it will pass to another place in a better condition. It is our contention that the centre of the Bill consists of Clauses 12 and 16. It is consumer protection. It protects the client's money. However, the Government, in examining the construction of the Bill, have not really found the solution to the dilemma to which I referred earlier. I believe that the issue raised in the Amendment should have further consideration. I hope that at this stage my noble friend might think fit to withdraw the Amendment, while the Government for their part might feel willing to look at it in greater detail.
Lord GISBOROUGH: The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, hit on the point here when he said that in this kind of transaction there are no solicitors to look after the lessees. Very often the lettings are made to people who arrive in a town either from abroad or from another town far away. They may come to London from Newcastle or wherever, and when they return, having been stung, it is very difficult for them to proceed against the agent or whoever they feel has taken their down payment unfairly. I hope that the noble Lord will consider looking at the Amendment again. I should like to withdraw it at this stage, but I may well raise it on Report—
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment perhaps the noble Lord opposite will give an undertaking that he will look at it again. In view of the arguments which have been put, the noble Lord may feel that he is in a position to do that, and that may be helpful to the Committee.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The noble Lord has a very mischievous character, as I know only too well.
Incidentally, we shall be dealing with the question of bonding later, and so we need not raise it at this stage. In the case of an estate agent who collects rents on behalf of a landlord, if he hops-off" —to use the phrase—with the money, it is the landlord whom he has robbed, and it is the landlord who is responsible. Furthermore, if the landlord himself acts in an anti-social manner, that is covered by the Department of the Environment legislation. That is the position. Certainly we can have another look at this matter, but I do not hold out much hope. In fact we can all have a look at it, and we shall see what happens at the next stage.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Will the noble Lord deal with the position where a tenant offers a deposit which the agent holds? I understand about the rent, but what about the deposit?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Is the noble Earl talking about the deposit on buying a house?
The Earl of KINNOULL: The case occurs where you take furnished premises and you pay a month's deposit, usually, which is held by the agent in lieu of possible future dilapidations or electricity bills, telephone bills and so on.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: As I understand the Bill on the question of clients' monies, there is a provision in a subsequent clause of the Bill that a register is to be kept of clients' monies and that there must be a separate account. There is that degree of protection; so when we are talking about clients' monies I think that money in the sense that the noble Earl has suggested would certainly be covered.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The noble Lord reiterates that it is only the

93
landlord and he does not matter all that much. That is what he seemed to suggest in terms of him not getting his rent. Of course the landlord matters. He is just as much entitled to the protection of the law as is a tenant. But it is not only the landlord who is affected by this. I beg of the noble Lord to read the first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum. Apart from the collection of rent and all the technical things that they have to deal with, one of the objects—indeed, the thing that makes me interested in the Bill at all—is that we are trying to see to it that we do not have any "phoney" estate agents about the place, and that people who carry the title of estate agents are reputable people who can be trusted. As my noble friend has said, certainly on renting and letting generally, new people come into a town, and they are not themselves in a position to know of the reputation of somebody whom they may entrust with the job of negotiating for them or of working out whether or not the terms of a rental agreement are right or whether they are having obligations put on them which they ought not to have put on them. If we are going to start giving protection at all, they are the people who need the protection of the law, if we are going to make it a law, to see that the people who set themselves up to give that sort of advice have passed the test, as far as the law can make it a test, of being bona fide people who can be trusted. I am saying that it is needed more in renting and letting than in acquiring, for the very reasons I have put forward.
I should like to feel that the noble Lord is going to be enthusiastic when he says that he will look at it again, because when, in your Lordships' House, as in another place, we use the term "we will look at it again", we do not necessarily mean that we as individuals will look at it again—there would not be much purpose in that—but that the Government, who have all the advice behind them, can invariably, if they have the enthusiasm, find an answer to these sort of things. I believe that the noble Lord is interpreting this Bill much too narrowly. If it is going to be effective at all, it has got to be a little wider than the noble Lord is at present describing it. This particular Amendment may look small, but I believe that more problems will arise from renting and letting than
94
from actually acquiring. That is why the noble Lord should enthusiastically look at it again, and get some return from the advisers whom we pay to give that sort of advice to the Government.
Lord SWINFEN: Is the noble Lord not aware that the "cowboys" in the estage agency world operate basically in the sphere of letting furnished and unfurnished accommodation to young people who cannot afford to lose their money and who are just beginning to make their way in the world? They are very often people who have just left school and have just left home for the first time.
Lord RAGLAN: I wonder whether I may say something on this, apologising for the fact that I was not here for the discussion on the first Amendment, so that my point may have already been made. It seems to me that the Title of this Bill (which, of course, is something which we discuss normally at the very end of the matter) leads one to believe that the Bill contains much more than in fact it does. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, are talking about matters which are normally within the competence and purview of estate agents, broadly speaking; that is, property without its being residential property, and looking after letting, renting, licensing and so forth. What the Government are trying to achieve in this Bill is merely the regulation of house agents, and not the regulation of estate agents. If I may say so, I think many of the Amendments to this Bill which have been put down by the Party opposite would probably be of enormous relevance to a Bill which dealt with estate agents broadly, but not to one dealing with house agents. I am wondering whether my noble friend on the Front Bench could have another look at this with a view to explaining that this Bill really is to do with house agency, and not at all with estate agency as landowners, landlords and so forth generally agree it to be.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: That is the purpose of the Bill. The noble Lord opposite has spoken at great length. I have already given an indication that we will look at this. But I want to repeat that, generally, money held by estate agents for landlords is landlords' money—nobody, I think, will dispute that—and

95
there is no stakeholder relationship there. It is the main object of the Bill to protect stakeholders' money. Furthermore, the purpose of the Bill is to protect money entrusted by the public to estate agents, not to protect landlords against commercial risks associated with their agents. That is the main point we are arguing about. As I have said, certainly one can look at it again, but I say again quite definitely that there is very little hope of being able to do much about it.
Lord GISBOROUGH: Before I withdraw this Amendment—and I am grateful that the noble Lord has offered to look at it again—I should like to put the picture of somebody who comes over from abroad to take premises at, say, £100 a week rental, and is asked £1,000, perhaps, as a deposit. If the tenant is going to go away at all, then at the end of the tenancy the £1,000 is not owed to the landlord; it is owed back to the tenant less any dilapidations. This is the point. Now, if the agent then declares that the dilapidations are £800, the poor tenant goes away with only £200, whereas probably the dilapidations were only, perhaps, £100 or whatever. So I think that it is the case for the lessee rather than the owner of the property. At any rate, I withdraw the Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, drew attention to the Explanatory Memorandum. It is curious and interesting that paragraph I not only refers to
"prospective buyers and sellers of residential property",
but, in line 2, refers to
"certain activities of estate agents with a view to affording protection to users of their services".
Of course, landlords and tenants are just as much users of their services as are buyers and sellers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3. 4 and 5 not moved.]
7.18 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 23, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with, I think, a very important
96
aspect of the Bill, and I think it will win the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. What the Bill does under Clause 1(2),as the noble Lord will know, is to define those people practising as estate agents or doing estate agency work who will not come within the scope of the Bill. The three categories are mentioned in subsection (2) (a), (b) and (c). Subsection (2) (a) refers to solicitors; subsection (2)(b) to credit brokers and subsection (2)(c) to insurance brokers. I think it would be true to say that there has been universal disquiet in the professional world—and not only in the professional world; I think in the estate agency world, too—that it is very odd that you should get a Bill which is protecting the consumer in relation to estate agency work and then, suddenly, that part of the operation should be excluded from the Bill.
The two obvious things which are lost, from the consumer's point of view, are, one, "bonding" and the other, under Clause 22, "Standards of competency" I would direct attention to the standards of competency. In Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, with a name like his, would know, the Scottish Law Society actively encourage their members to practise as solicitors and estate agents—and, indeed, to put up a board saying so. It is not done in the South, perhaps to the detriment of the Law Society here. It would be fair to say that in Scotland the majority of residential sales are handled by lawyers and solicitors. It is possible for an honourable young solicitor to set up his practice in, say, the fair city of Perth, to have all the right probity, integrity and ethics; but not to have professional experience, or even experience, in house sales.
I think there is a grave gap in this Bill with the exclusion of solicitors. I can understand the bonding argument because they are automatically bonded by their own membership rules. But there is this important Clause 22 which talks about standards of competency. The same applies to credit brokers and insurance brokers; indeed, more so, because these two bodies have less experience in property than solicitors. I would hope that the noble Lord will not be adamant on this because there is a good case to include them in the Bill.
Lord JANNER: I hope it is not necessary for me to declare an interest in this matter. I am about to complete 60 years as a solicitor, and I am really amazed at the suggestion that has been made here, which implies that the rules which are utilised by the Law Society for law purposes will lead to the kind of confusion that the noble Earl was suggesting. I know, of course, that one can get the wrong ideas about some professional regulations but the noble Earl does know a fair amount about this subject—certainly sufficient to be able to try to convince us, and, sometimes, to convince us, that he is right. He knows as well as I know that the restrictions which exist at present so far as solicitors are concerned are much more stringent than the regulations that are being imposed or (shall I say?) being introduced for his profession. Just imagine! You will have two sets of disciplinary regulations instead of having one.
Let me ask a question that he will perhaps answer. Would the noble Earl prefer to have the solicitors' restrictions as a whole rather than the ones which are being proposed for his own profession? If he will answer it without prejudice (let me put it that way) I am sure that his answer to that must be, of course, that that would be absurd. He has raised one or two points. The question of the Scottish solicitors has nothing to do with this at all. This is not concerned with Scottish solicitors at all.
Lord SANDYS: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Janner, but may I respectfully point out that this is a United Kingdom Bill and that it applies to Scotland. Hence, as Scottish solicitors do handle property, it could easily concern a great many Scottish solicitors.
Lord JANNER: I do not think you will find it covers the solicitors' profession as far as Scotland is concerned. Solicitors at present are, anyway, under strict regulation in Scotland as well as in England. In my view it would be entirely wrong that you should have two separate sets. This is a profession which has existed for years and against which nobody can find any real complaints. Of course, there are complaints, and those who have been in the other place hear many of them; but that is not the point. The point is
98
that they cannot find any flaws in the disciplinary provisions.
Secondly, with regard to Scotland, it is an entirely different kind of business. Those who know solicitors at all, anyone in this House who has gone to a solicitor, will know this. Sometimes some untoward circumstances arise. For instance, sometimes a client asks his solicitor to sell a place or to advise him, and the solicitor may have another client who wants to buy it. But these are rare occasions. They are not the kind that the estate agents deal with. The main feature of a solicitor's job is to carry on with solicitors' work. That is what they do. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this. He must see the disadvantages of having two separate sets of regulations.
Lord HALE: I would have not intervened at this point to make this look like a Law Society "do", or something like that, were it not for the fact that I do not quite know where we have got to.
The Bill certainly applies to Scotland, and certainly it was implicit in all the discussions that there were practices in relation to estate agency conducted by Scottish solicitors and, as I understand it, it was implicit in the negotiations that Scottish solicitors were not to be inferfered with in that activity. That I thought was a clear position. Now as I read the noble Lord's Amendment today—and unfortunately I, like many others, did not see it on the Marshalled List today—it seemed a measure which, as far as England was concerned, was really designed to bring solicitors into some of the restrictive propositions of the Bill and without extending it.
On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, on Second Reading specifically said in the course of the discussion that he was satisfied about what had been said about solicitors; and I thought that the matter had been disposed of. So I came in in some difficulty. I have listened to the discussion and I was greatly impressed by what was said on Amendment No.1,and I am not without sympathy. Sometimes, perhaps, I vote for the Government too often. On this question, one has to reconsider from time to time. Certainly I already regret one vote I have given today, but not on that.

99
So far as this Amendment is concerned, if the noble Lord looks carefully I am sure he will see that this is going right outside the negotiations. So far as English solicitors are concerned, when they are acting in direct connection with a client they are subject to the most rigid provisions. Incidentally, they have in the course of the past 20 years, I think, by judicial decision, been subjected to an action for negligence in respect of almost every single activity which they carry on in the course of their profession. They contribute to the insurance fund which was demanded by the Law Society. It is fair to the Law Society to say—and I do not often go out of my way to say such things—that as an ex-member who gets a free newspaper from them (which is a very good one indeed) and some very nice courtesies, everyone who has dealt with the Law Society in this matter knows that they have been completely enlightened and generally quite unbiased in the matter. They are there to protect the interests of solicitors to a certain extent they often protect them by suggesting they should remedy grievances; and, indeed, they have done that over the years.
The clear meaning of the Amendment, as I understand it, as my noble friend Lord Janner has said, catches solicitors under a dual discipline. As the Law Society themselves say, it can get them almost by mistake because a solicitor, in carrying on his wide activities, is not always talking to a client about a lease, a tenancy or a disposal of property. When he has finished dealing with his client in respect of one transaction the client almost invariably stops and wants to talk about something else if he is a regular business client dealing with conveyancing. He may say: "Have you any money to lend on mortgage? I have a friend who wants some property, do you know anything about it?" He may want to talk about some building. In areas such as the place in which I live, he may realise that the special laws of the Dulwich College Estate, and so on, involve certain obligations on which he may have special knowledge and he may be perfectly happy to discuss these issues. The same applies to almost every one of the leasehold estates.
So one is going to have a solicitor subject by statute to a form of restriction and
100
discipline which arises specially because he has done something in an Act which was not intended to apply to solicitors and which has the word "solicitor" and the words "Scots solicitor" in because it is found that some rare practices come within the purview of the Act. During the course of discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was saying how valuable it might be sometimes with an inefficient or unreliable agent that the client would have the services of solicitors in due course to deal with conveyancing matters following a sale.
I am getting confused about this. I am telling the Committee the absolute truth when I say that the Law Society rarely troubled me and perhaps only sent out a speedy letter. But I could tell from the letter that they sent that it was strong enough to make me look at it and realise they had, as I thought, a point. It might be tragic if an Amendment of this kind was carried under a misunderstanding because it would really undermine the practice of the measure.
Lord SWINFEN: This Bill is for consumer protection. Under Clause 22, standards of competence can be laid down not as a solicitor or any other profession but as an estate agent. Why therefore should solicitors, and those professions covered in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this clause, be exempt from complying with the provisions of this Act? If they are going to act as estate agents they should have the standards of competence that can be expected of an estate agent by the general public. It is a disservice to the public as a whole to exempt people from this Act because they are members of other professions not necessarily akin to that of estate agency at all. I must therefore support—
Lord JANNER: Will the noble Lord permit me? Will he be good enough to say what real differences of a strong nature are not imposed upon solicitors already which are not covered by this Bill? Why is it not realised that in the main it is because of the help that solicitors have given that the Act has been produced? It is because of the fact that for years and years the solicitors' profession has carried on in a way which has practically a complete control of its members. Why does he want to confuse the position?
Lord SWINFEN: I am not trying to confuse the position, I am trying to simplify it. Solicitors, as are the professional institutions dealing with the land, are well able to control the honesty of their own members. But at the moment estate agencies can be started by anyone at any time without any qualifications. Under the provisions of this Bill, minimum standards of competence in estate agency can be laid down by the Minister. Solicitors are not trained in estate agency as such. Very often matters of planning and other uses have to be considered when advising a client on property matters, and estate agents should be competent in this; but solicitors I am afraid not necessarily so. They are competent in the legal aspects but not in the planning aspects.
Lord HALE: So far as North of the Border is concerned, I understood that it had virtually already been agreed that the existing practice should continue. I know nothing about North of the Border. I do not know the reasons for their decision on the referendum. I do not know the reasons why we are now told that it is still being discussed after being clearly rejected. I do not know the reasons why we are being told that the Government might rely on some support if they decide to try—and I am quite sure they will not—to betray the undertaking as contained in that Act. It is all very complicated and I cannot speak for Scotland; but the noble Lord can speak for Scotland, and so far as Scotland and so far as family solicitors were concerned I understood it was agreed. The Law Society agreed that it is not the practice in England; they do not want to lay down arbitrary rules because there is the same difficulty in the arbitrary rules. They have no intention of going into this. The noble Lord can hardly mean that if a solicitor is sitting in his office and every now and again takes a step or procedure which would bring him within the general ambit of Clause I of the Bill, he should then be brought under some educative training.
Quite frankly, it really does not make sense at all. Solicitors at the moment are trying to familiarise themselves with the law of the Common Market, with the disposal of property abroad, with company law abroad and so on, and they are going through a tremendous re-educative process. I forgot to mention—I must—apolo-
102
gise to the noble Lord—that they are at the moment under investigation as to their competence in everything, as it were. There is a Royal Commission sitting to consider the whole question of the services of the two branches of the law. I think it is implicit that, with questions arising as to the fusion of two branches of the profession, the noble Earl's Amendment might in due course catch barristers. I do beg him in the circumstances to say that he will not press this Amendment.
Lord GISBOROUGH: The exemption for solicitors was for the benefit of Scottish solicitors who deal in estate agency work. This has been extended to the whole of the United Kingdom by this Bill. Solicitors are covered by their account rules, and that is why I said what I did at Second Reading. Since then, I have come to think that perhaps they are not subject to a declaration of interest, rules of interest on clients' accounts and rules of competence. For this reason, there is probably no justification for their exemption. In Scotland, the title of "solicitor and estate agent", which was mentioned, is now often adopted; but there is no reason why English solicitors should not gradually take over this same function and advertise themselves as solicitors and estate agents.
The duties and requirements of a good estate agency go far beyond a solicitor's rules of good professional conduct. One may take the case of a young solicitor who is fully versed in the law, has an impeccable accounting system and is fully trained, perhaps even fully trained in estate agency if that comes into his course. But I am advised that the experience of estate agents is enormously important and it is just not good enough to know the theory that so many bedrooms in such and such a place are worth so much. The experience of what the market is doing is of enormous importance, and very often a solicitor may not be aware of this, particularly if he is buying and selling houses outside his own particular area.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I have a sneaking feeling that somewhere in the drafting of this Amendment there has been a degree of professional jealousy involved, and I am not necessarily referring to solicitors. To meet the point of the

103
noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the Government have never accepted that the function of merely transferring residential property requires any qualification other than basic honesty and probity. Generally speaking, my noble friends behind me have really put the case: solicitors acting in the course of their profession and their employees have been excluded from control under the Bill because the consumer is already protected by the full disciplinary control provided by the legislation which applies to solicitors in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. In these circumstances, to subject the same person to comparable controls for the same work would be unreasonable, wasteful of resources, and, finally, would create a legislative absurdity.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a solicitor acting in the course of his profession may be involved in arranging the sale and purchase of residential property only incidentally to his work as a solicitor (for example, when acting as an executor in probate); and solicitors and their employees who engage in estate agency work in the course of another business are caught by the Bill. In Scotland, where estate agents have begun to operate only in comparatively recent years, solicitors continue their traditional function of carrying on business as an estate agent. The area in which the two parallel sets of control will bite is therefore limited at present.
If it were justified, the fear that differences between the two sets of control would put estate agents at a competitive disadvantage as compared with solicitors would certainly weigh heavily with the Government. It is, however, difficult to assess whether in practice the resultant balance favours one side more than the other. To take some examples, the hurdles on entry to the profession which apply to solicitors do not apply to estate agents and would be inappropriate to the type of activity covered by the Bill. The requirements placed on estate agents under the Bill to state their charges in advance do not apply to solicitors, but an estate agent can make scale charges, however much or little work he does, whereas a solicitor's charges must be reasonable and can be taxed by the taxing master.
104
Where competence is concerned, the Bill permits the introduction of minimum standards applicable in the case of a partnership to a minimum number of partners only, by reference to practical experience and, in addition and as a substitute, by reference to professional and academic qualifications. By contrast, solicitors are required to have both experience and professional qualifications of a much higher standard than the minimum level envisaged under the Bill and every member of the firm must be qualified; like estate agents, they can have unqualified employees. It is also worth noting that a solicitor struck off or suspended by the Law Society for reasons relating to property transactions could, under Clause 3 of the Bill, in certain circumstances be banned by the Director from starting up as an estate agent. None of this suggests that estate agents will be at a particular disadvantage, even if at some future date the prohibition on solicitors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland engaging in estate agency work proper were to be lifted. These considerations apart, the time and place for changing the control of solicitors by the Law Society would be in any amendment to the solicitors' legislation and not in the Estate Agents Bill. In any case, as has already been pointed out, there is a Royal Commission on the legal profession which is currently sitting, and it would consequently be premature to make any changes at present.
To sum up, quite apart from objections of principle to changing the controls exercised over solicitors by the Law Society in an estate agents Bill, acceptance of these Amendments would result in a dual control on solicitors, would not help the consumer, and would be of little, if any, advantage to the estate agent, I strongly urge the Committee to reject these Amendments. I am speaking to Amendment No. 10 as well as to Amendment No. 6.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I expected that one would arouse the wrath of solicitors in this House over this Amendment. If I may say so, though perhaps it is discourteous to suggest it, this was professional jealousy or perhaps just a subtle red herring by the noble Lord who is speaking on behalf of the Government. One has, of course, enormous respect for the Law

105
Societies of Scotland and England. From the consumer's point of view, they have done a tremendous service, and indeed their members also do a tremendous service. But what they are not qualified for, quite frankly, is to be valuers. That is the simple argument. I do not intend to press this case on solicitors tonight, but I would ask your Lordships to look carefully at this when we reach Amendment No. 8 and to see whether credit brokers and insurance brokers have the same protection. I think the noble Lord, Lord Janner, would support me on that.
I would add one final point. I think it is a little unfair to say that if the solicitors were brought into this Bill there would be two sets of regulations for them: so there would be for the professional bodies acting as estate agents. We have nothing to fear and I do not think that the solicitors would have anything to fear; but I do not intend to extend the argument any further. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Earl Cathcart): In calling Amendment No. 7, I should advise your Lordships that if it is agreed I obviously cannot call Amendment No. 8.
7.50 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, leave out lines 1 to 10.
The noble Lord said: The Government have not been prepared to make any concession on the exclusion from the scope of the Bill of work done by credit brokers, insurance brokers, surveyors and valuers. It is important that the Bill should apply with full force to surveyors and surveys for valuation. Surveyors and valuers should be obliged to give information to clients of prospective liability and to declare a personal interest, and they should be subject to minimum standards of competence. Incompetent advice from surveyors who are not members of the RICS or the ISVA is a serious problem, which sometimes reflects badly on the estate agency profession as a whole. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that where insurance brokers, surveyors or valuers are involved with their aspects of estate agency, they should be as subject
106
to adequate standards of competence, personal interest rules and disclosure of interest as are estate agents themselves. They should also be obliged to disclose the nature of their fees. Surely, it would be preferable to strengthen the Bill by applying it to all sections of the community, than to discriminate against one small section of society; that is, estate agents. I beg to move
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: If I may be permitted, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which are all related. The first two Amendments, Nos. 7 and 8, would bring into control credit brokerage and insurance brokerage where there are already similar controls under other legislation. As in the case of Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 in relation to solicitors, these Amendments would impose a dual control on the same person in relation to a particular type of work, without any additional benefit to the consumer. They would merely impose additional and, perhaps, incompatible obligations on their activities. From the estate agent's point of view, there are, in my view, no grounds for considering that their exclusion puts the estate agent at a competitive disadvantage where the credit or insurance broker concerned might, in the course of his business, carry out estate agency work as defined in the Bill.
Amendment No. 7 would also extend control to survey and valuation work done under a different contract from that relating to estate agency. It would, in fact, bring under control the separate structural survey or valuation carried out by the estate agent for a fee, as distinct from the work done in the course of estates broking where the work involved in surveying amounts to the measuring up et cetera of rooms and making a judgment as to a price at which a house is to be advertised. The Amendment would bring under control professional work provided as a separate service from estate agency activity caught by the Bill. The activities raise entirely separate issues from those subject to control under the Bill.
In relation to the last Amendment, No. 9, the Bill is intended to apply only to active participation in the process of introduction. The exclusion under subsection (4) relates merely to the publication of an advertisement; for example, by a newspaper, or similar dissemination of

107
information. I am sure that extension of control to this kind of case would be unrealistic. I hope that your Lordships will accept that these Amendments are ill-considered and should be rejected on the grounds that they could not benefit either consumer or estate agent.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I find that reply extremely disappointing. I should like to save the time of the Committee because, in a way, the noble Lord has taken a broad brush to these Amendments which we are discussing. I should like specifically to talk about credit brokers and insurance brokers. I have nothing at all against them. I am sure that they are extremely skilled and honourable in their line of work. But to say that, from the consumer's point of view, they are really qualified as estate agents, when, from the consumer's point of view, they are setting out as insurance brokers, is very confusing. They do not have the same strong case that the Law Society had, and I genuinely hope that the noble Lord will look at this again. He said that they are covered under other legislation and I assume that he means by bonding. But I am not talking about bonding. I am talking about Clause 22 which ensures a standard of competence, and that is what the consumers will want to see.
Lord SANDYS: We return once again to the problem of how this Bill is to apply, and we have been told that all those involved in insurance brokerage and credit brokerage are specifically excluded —just like that. There is a very serious fault which lies quite a long way back. I refer to the consultative document, which aimed initially to promote a system of licensing for estate agents. As I understand it, the thinking on that did not comprehend either credit brokerage or insurance brokerage, but I shall have to refresh my memory on that document. When the document was set aside and the Government adopted this Bill, which is very largely the Private Member's Bill promoted in the last Session, considera-ations made earlier were again set aside. My noble friends have brought out very real arguments here. There is a problem in the application of Clause 22, and it would be very much to the benefit of the Committee if the Government would agree
108
to look a little more closely at this important Amendment.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: There are no grounds on which I can justify saying this, but, on the other hand, I wish to be reasonable and I do not want to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily. I do not think there is any point in giving an undertaking on this Amendment. The Bill is quite specific on the subject and, at this time, I cannot hold out any hope of reconsideration. It could happen that, between now and Report stage, we might be in a position to have further thoughts, though I rather doubt it. I do not want to be too hopeful on this. The advice that I have just received is that credit brokers are controlled by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I understand that noble Lords will appreciate this point. They are subject to licensing by the Director-General of Fair Trading, which can be a more severe control than control under the Bill. That is an incidental point. There is a problem with dual control of solicitors and credit brokers. But if it will help the Committee, I shall certainly say that we could look at the Amendment, but I should not be honest if I said otherwise than that I do not think there is much hope of it.
Lord SWINFEN: I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer one question. There are a number of credit brokers and insurance brokers who also carry out the business of estate agency at the moment, and advertise themselves as carrying out the two businesses. If they stop advertising the estate agency side of their business, and just call themselves credit brokers or insurance brokers but carry on with the business of estate agency, will they be exempt from the provisions of the Bill?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I cannot readily answer that question on the spot. I should think that if they ran an estate agency as well as doing the other work, they would have a separate department and the same man would not be both a credit broker and a mortgage arranger, as well as being an estate agent.
Lord SWINFEN: In very small firms, the same individuals would probably do both kinds of work.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I cannot give to the noble Lord an im-

109
mediate answer to that question. It is a rather difficult point. However, I shall certainly get an answer to him.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that at least he will look at this point again. Before I withdraw the Amendment, however, may I say that those surveyors who are not members of the Surveyors Society—and there are a great many of them—are quite capable of inflicting extremely heavy losses on a purchaser. I am thinking in particular of advice which is ill given regarding subsidence. A house can be perfectly all right one moment and then subsidence can destroy it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, leave out lines 1 to 6.
The noble Earl said: This Amendment gives me an opportunity to ask the noble Lord to have a look at the two cases which we have discussed, for they are very important. The noble Lord said that the Director-General of Fair Trading issues his licence to these two bodies under the Consumer Credit Act. What I presume he means by that is, that if there is a complaint from a consumer on an estate agency matter, it will come within the remit of withdrawing a licence. If that is so, I do not have an objection; but I am advised that it is not so. If the noble Lord could look at that point and be a little sympathetic towards our very real concern over trying to make the Estate Agents Bill a little better, I should be grateful. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The noble Lord has raised a certain point, which will be looked into; he will not expect me to give an on-the-spot reply. I shall look into it and, if possible, will advise him before the Report stage. Apart from that, I have already spoken on this Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 27, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: In carrying property advertisements, newspapers are duplicating some of the most important functions of estate agents. This is an area in which abuses are far too common. It is important that tests of competence should be applied to advertising representatives who assist vendors over the wording of advertisements, for this is an area in which skill and experience are required. I am advised that there are many cases of misleading advertisements. They cause a great number of people to visit houses, and those people are then biterly disappointed by the inaccurate description of the houses.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I dealt earlier with this point. I am conscious of the fact that noble Lords are working at a very late hour. I cannot go beyond what I have already said.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No.10:
Page 2, line 31, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on the first Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDYS: I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I asked the Government at this stage what is their prospective programme. We have been sitting in Committee for nearly two hours. I believe that I am the only person who has been fortunate enough to be furnished with a copy of the grouped Amendments. We have completed Clause 1 but we have a substantial way to go before we reach the end of the Schedules. With 36 clauses in all before those Schedules, I am wondering whether the Government intend this evening to proceed to a certain stage, or until a certain time, or whether they intend to have an intermission, or what?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: This is surprising. Noble Lords will know that I received an enormous number of Amendments at very short notice. I have almost literally been sweating blood in the process of trying to get adequate answers at short notice. Now noble Lords want to pack up early. Somebody indicated that I have got Scots blood in my veins. In that case, I can be a very determined character. I cannot indicate how late we are likely to sit, but I shall try to have consultations. We shall go as far as we possibly can and then perhaps we will reconsider the matter. It is now five minutes past eight. Shall we say that when we reach nine o'clock and have got halfway through the Bill we will reconsider the position?
Lord AIREDALE: I believe that we are entitled to some consideration. Is it not the case that the Social Security Bill, which appeared on the Minutes that are available to us only today, was put before this Bill? Until today we expected that the Committee stage of the Estate Agents Bill would be taken very much earlier. We really must put a stop to the situation which seems to obtain, that anything which is labelled "consumer protection" comes on late at night.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My heart beats very sympathetically with noble Lords, but the point is that the spokesmen on the Opposition Front Bench and I do not arrange the business. There is another medium, known as "the usual channels", which arranges the business. I have nothing to do with it. The Second Reading of this Bill was taken very late in the day, but there it is. Perhaps those who arrange the business were over-generous in their estimation of the enthusiastic support for the Bill which emanated in another place but which does not exist here. I am sorry.
Lord SANDYS: I take issue with the noble Lord. Clearly there is enthusiasm for the Bill in this House. I hesitate to repeat what I said earlier; namely, that we on this side of the Committee are using every endeavour to assist the Government to produce a better Bill. Our view on this side of the House is that if the Government can promote a programme which will facilitate the better management of business it will benefit everybody.
112
I do not know whether or not my noble friends will be satisfied. If, however, the Government are to reconsider the matter at approximately nine o'clock, all I can say is that I have asked the question and they have given an answer.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Interests in residential property]:
8.8 p.m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Amherst of Hackney): I must tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 11 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 12.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Amendment No. 11 is not moved.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: Amendment No. 12 is not moved. I understand that as Amendment No. 11 is consequential upon Amendment No. 1, I cannot say what I wanted to say on this Amendment.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I thought that the noble Earl was moving Amendment No. 12.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: Yes.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment No. 11 was not moved. I called Amendment No. 12.
The Earl of KINNOULL: There has been a slight muddle. I should have withdrawn Amendment No. 10 which dealt with solicitors. I apologise to the Committee. Paragraph (a) should have been left in the Bill instead of being withdrawn. I should have said that Amendment No. 11 was consequential. My problem is that I did not take a note of the long list which my noble friend read out. I do not have a note and it would be very helpful if I had one. It is quite difficult at this late hour always to be totally alert.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I am sorry about the list, but I had to get it out at very short notice. A copy was addressed to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, who passed it on to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. As soon as possible we shall get a photostat copy. Time did not permit because the whole thing has been rushed. I am sorry about it.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 40, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendments Nos. 13 to 16:
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("residential")
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("residential")
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("residential")
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("residential").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of CAITHNESS: Perhaps this is an opportune moment to bring forward some of the points I intended to mention on Amendment No. 12. From what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, said earlier, if Amendment No. 1 is rescinded in another place, Clause 2(1) will come back into the Bill. Therefore, if it is appropriate, I should like the noble Lord to tell us exactly what the Government mean by the word "land". It can be argued that a farm is land which is enjoyed or occupied with a house, particularly if that land is in hand. Therefore, this Bill could extend to a 500 acre in hand farm. Whether or not that was the intention of the Government, I do not know. Similarly, if a landlord has to sell off an agricultural cottage that is subject to an agricultural usage as decreed by the Council, he might well have to sell off some land with it to make occupation of that cottage a viable exercise and therefore to contract the sale. Is this what the Government want or, as I believe is the case, do they want to limit it to a definition similar to that in Section 29(1)(b) of the Finance Act 1965?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I am grateful to the noble Earl because he wrote to me about this and I have been able to try to get a more detailed answer for him because, as he is fully aware, in the Bill itself the words are:
"any land which is, or is intended to be, occupied and enjoyed with a dwelling shall be treated as part of the dwelling".
114
Those are just simple words, but the noble Earl has a more complicated point in mind. The answer, so far as I can give it to the noble Earl, is that the issue is essentially how much land there has to be with a dwelling before it ceases to be property of the kind to which the Bill applies. Section 29(1)(b) of the Finance Act 1965 lays down one acre or such larger amount as is required for the reasonable enjoyment of the property. The context is the exemption from capital gains tax for an individual's only or main residence.
The Bill lays down no hard and fast rule. Each case must be considered on its particular facts. The amount of land which would normally be occupied and enjoyed with a castle in Scotland is far greater than, for instance, with a flat in central London. In practice, the fact that the edges are blurred is unlikely to be significant. In the case of capital gains tax the issue would be whether relief was available or not. In this case nobody would suffer if, in a doubtful case, the agent concerned complied with the rules laid down in the Bill. The reputable and conscientious agent is unlikely to find that the Bill impinges on him very much anyway. I hope that meets the point raised by the noble Earl.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply but I fear that we may have to come back to this at a later stage.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Orders prohibiting unfit persons from doing estate agency work]:
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 40, leave out ("or violence").
The noble Lord said: It seems strange that it should have been thought right to specify conviction of an offence involving violence as grounds for an order declaring an agent unfit. At best, the issue is an irrelevant one; at worst, it seems to be particularly insulting to the estate agency profession that it should be included. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: In replying to the noble Lord, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and

115
19, which are related Amendments, if that is acceptable to the Committee. This is all part of the mysterious list that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has not yet received. A basic intention of the Bill, is that the Director should by reference to clearly specified grounds be able to consider whether it is in the interests of house buyers and sellers that the estate agent should be able to continue in practice. In doing so, he will be able to look in the round at the fitness of the estate agent and consider whether the public can properly put their trust in him.
The view that it is wrong to punish a person who has already suffered a conviction by removing his livelihood is not one which can be sustained where in the public interest the aim is to ensure that only those fit to engage in estate agency work should do so. Double jeopardy in this sense is a fact of life, for instance, where professions are controlled. There are examples in the field of liquor, gaming, betting, consumer credit and the law, to name but a few.
If the first Amendment, No. 17, were accepted and carried, the Director could not, for instance, consider acting against an estate agent who was convicted of rape or housebreaking. It can be argued that an offence of violence goes to the character of a person and that those convicted of certain offences should not be allowed in the course of business to enter other people's private houses. It is in my view right—indeed, I would say that it is essential—for the Director to be put in a position to act in the event of a conviction for violence. The Director is, however, under no duty to act because there has been a conviction and I can assure your Lordships that there will be no question of the issue of a banning order for an offence of violence which cannot be regarded as indicative of a character deficiency.
Where sex or race discrimination are concerned (Amendment No. 18), complaints about estate agents are by no means unknown and, indeed, the Commission for Racial Equality is in the course of investigating a number of cases. Should there be resultant findings, it would be anomalous for the Director not to be in a position to consider whether the estate agent was fit to continue in practice. I would argue that it is important that
116
discrimination should stand as a trigger event if the public is to have reasonable protection. From the estate agents' point of view, provisions in the Bill as it stands will make it easier for estate agents to withstand pressure from their clients to discriminate as they will be able to indicate that such action could lead to the loss of their livelihood.
Amendment No. 19 is unnecessary as Clause 30 already requires my right honourable friend to consult with representative bodies before making an order specifying practices as undesirable. I hope that the Committee will reject the first two Amendments, Nos. 17 and 18, as undermining the necessary protection for the consumer, and the third Amendment, No. 19, as superfluous.
The Earl of KINNOULL: We are dealing with a very serious clause in this Bill, the clause where the Director-General may issue an order taking away the livelihood If a professional person. I must admit I did not quite follow the noble Lord when he said that the Director would not do this in the case of violence if he considered it was a character deficiency; I thought that was what the noble Lord said. There is a grave worry about this. This was a subject which was discussed in another place and I do not think all the points were satisfactorily answered.
The kind of case we are going to be dealing with must be a complaint to the Director by a consumer against an estate agent who has done something right outside the sphere of his professional responsibility. What I do not understand, and I hope the noble Lord can reply to this specifically, is whether that complaint about something right outside the professional capacity of the estate agent be construed as something the Director should look into and might act upon. If that was the case, I think that would be monstrously unfair. In small communities you get jealousies and complaints, and this weapon could be used against an estate agent. When I say "weapon" I do not mean that strongly. I understand that, if a case of violence was reported to the Director, it could trigger off the Director's use of this power. What I do not know is whether such a complaint would be a reason for withdrawing the licence of the estate agent.

117
Turning to the Second Amendment, which is dealing with discrimination, I think this is also a very worrying matter to include in this clause. We already have two Acts, so far as I know, which deal with discrimination, the one on sexual equality and the other one. It strikes one that this is a totally unnecessary duplication of a power which is already in legislation, and one really wonders why it should be included in this clause. This is a subject which could be quite volatile. One might have a perfectly genuine case of misunderstanding by someone who has come to our shores, who is not British, and who learns from his solicitor that he has power to complain to the Director. It might be found that in fact it was not the estate agent who was displaying any discrimination, but it was his client. I think this question of discrimination is something we ought to look at again, if not tonight at another stage. It is a very worrying power in a fairly worrying clause.
Lord SANDYS: I share the anxieties and the beliefs of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. Here we are at a formative stage of a piece of legislation. It is very interesting to look at what the Parliamentary Commissioner has to say in his report for 1978, reporting on matters in other spheres, admittedly, but in the broad field of what has happened over legislative practices and how Bills have become, as it were, part of the tapestry of life in this country. He has some very interesting comments to make at page 8 of this report. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull may have already seen this. He says in paragraph 27:
"It may be of interest to describe some of the basic causes of maladministration as I have found them. Naturally, in any large organisation—and each major Department is in itself a large organisation, let alone the Civil Service as a whole—there is bound to be individual error …"
Then he goes on to say in paragraph 28:
"With some notable exceptions, however, I have found that the more serious cases I have had to deal with have had deeper roots. It is either that there have been changes in administrative systems, arising perhaps from new legislation, which have been ill-prepared, or that systems have become so complicated as to baffle not only the public but sometimes the officials as well".
Lord AIREDALE: I am surprised I must confess at the expression used in paragraph (b) "has committed discrimination in the course of estate agency
118
work", as if that was in itself an offence or some quasi-offence. To begin with, exercising discrimination in some circumstances could not possibly be regarded as unworthy. If two prospective purchasers come along and the seller asks the agent's advice, "Who do you advice me to deal with?", the agent might say, "Well, I should say A is perhaps financially stronger than B, so I would favour A"; or he might say, "A is a British subject living here and B is from abroad, so I would tend to favour A". Well, there is discrimination, but nobody could suggest that there was anything improper in the agent giving that advice.
What does (b) really mean—" committed discrimination"? There is no qualifying adjective—"unfair discrimination", which would lead one along the road as to what is intended. If what is intended is discrimination which is referred to and made an offence in other recent Acts of Parliament, I would have thought those acts of discrimination should be stated in (b) by reference to the Acts of Parliament concerned. But simply to say "has committed discrimination", as if that was some kind of offence, I should have thought really quite extraordinary
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, straight away, I would draw his attention to the fact that "discrimination" is defined in Schedule 1. The word "discrimination" used in the Bill is a convenient handle, if I may put it that way. I would also add that the Director would not in law decide that an estate agent was unfit on the basis of an offence which was not relevant. I accept that this is a very sensitive matter, because we all hold the view that nobody should be kicked down because of something they have done. But, of course, there are times when, in the case of a certain offence and a conviction, it might be in the public interest that the question of whether or not the person should be allowed to continue to practise should be decided.
I would also repeat what I said earlier, that it is now common in the fields of betting, gaming, liquor, and consumer credit to impose a positive licensing system. In effect, society is saying that to carry on a given activity and to make a profit out of it is a privilege which we only grant to a fit and proper person.

119
In such cases, a recent criminal conviction would always be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration, although by no means always conclusive.
The same principles apply to the Bill, but instead of a positive licensing system, the Bill imposes a negative licensing system—in other words, people are fit until they are found to be unfit—a power to prohibit rather than a power to permit. The basis of the Bill is an appreciation of the fact that the social consequences of malpractice in estate agency work are such that it should be done only by fit and proper persons. I do not think that any noble Lord would disagree with that. Therefore, there is no double jeopardy. The Director's powers are not powers to impose a further penalty for the same offence, but powers which enable him to ensure that only those fit to engage in estate agency work should do so.
The fitness of someone convicted of violence to enter people's homes and of those who have discriminated to do estate agency work must inevitably be in question. However, there is nothing in the Bill that makes a debarral following a conviction or a finding automatic. Where a particular criminal conviction does not indicate unfitness to continue to engage in estate agency work, it would be quite wrong for the Director to make an order. The two things are different sides of the same coin and each illustrates that the Director's order is not a penalty but a decision based on the person's character as a whole. I know that this is a very difficult field, which I accept will have to be exercised with care, but the care is laid down in the Bill. It is a very difficult but a very necessary area.
Lord AIREDALE: I apologise for not having spotted the definition of "discrimination" in Schedule 1. I looked in this clause and in the general interpretation clause, but I did not think of looking in Schedule 1. I may not be the only person to miss this, so at the next stage may we please have a drafting Amendment which will say:
"… has committed a discrimination within the meaning assigned to it in Schedule 1".
Then people will find it.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I do not want to labour this point about the test of
120
fitness, but should there not be written into the Bill somewhere the lines upon which the Director would be asked to consider a test of fitness? At the moment we might have two or three different Directors, or perhaps his assistants, who give totally different views and it would be very confusing. When we are introducing a brand new concept into this profession—I am not saying that the noble Lord has quoted other cases—as a matter of justice, those who may be considered by this test should know in this Bill what the test really implies. I do not know whether the noble Lord could look at that before the next stage.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: That could be done. I accept that it is a very difficult point and if any form of words would give a further explanation and safeguard, certainly it should be considered. At this stage it is very difficult to think of such words. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has already fired a shot across my bows so I have had warning. Certainly, it is a matter that could be considered. However, in saying that I mean that it should be given consideration by both sides.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I was rather taken by surprise there because I spoke to Amendment No. 17 and did not realise that we were also dealing with Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. Perhaps, for the record I could say a word on Amendment No. 18. In another place the Secretary of State appeared to express some sympathy for the argument that discrimination should be left to the Commission for Racial Equality or the Equal Opportunities Commission. However, he rejected that approach largely on the narrow ground that the Consumer Credit Act contains a similar clause, but the precedent does not seem to be a good one as the Consumer Credit Act and the Estate Agents Bill are not properly analogous measures. This Bill seeks to regulate a long-recognised independent profession. In practice I think it would be very difficult to find this discrimination which, as has been mentioned, may well be insisted upon by the purchaser. There will be no obligation even on a vendor to accept the top price. I think that the totting up process within the Bill, which may lead to loss of livelihood, may become a worry to estate agents.

121
One of the important questions—and perhaps the noble Lord would answer this—concerns the various assurances that he has given and which were given in another place. Are those assurances binding on successive Administrations? —because it is all very well having an assurance now, but what happens in five years' time when we have perhaps a totally different Secretary of State with a different outlook who may ignore them?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: That is a very difficult question to answer. I can answer for my side of the Committee, but I cannot answer if the other side of the Committee came over to this side. This is something which I should not like to forecast. The noble Earl probably knows his own Party better than I do.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think he has told me that the assurance covers his own side. I think that this side of the Committee will also stand by their assurances. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No.18:
Page 4, leave out lines 3 and 4.
The noble Lord said: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Supplementary provisions as to orders under sections 3 and 4]:
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: With the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, as noble Lords do not have the marked list, although the two Front Benches do have it, it is hoped that we can deal with Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 together.
Lord SWINFEN Lord SWINFEN moved Amendment No. 20:
122
Page 6, line 19, after ("against") insert ("a body corporate, unincorporated association or").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 because they are consequential upon Amendment No. 20. By my reading of the Bill, this particular clause refers only to partnerships. Today there are a number of estate agencies that are either operating as limited companies or as unlimited companies. I think that the wording which I have suggested, which I have taken from Clause 22(3)(c) should include companies both limited and unlimited. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I am by no means unsympathetic to the purpose of this Amendment. When a company is banned it would be absurd if the true malefactor could set up again straight away on his own or through the medium of another company. All of us who are concerned with consumer affairs know that numerous complaints relate to just this sort of thing. The problem was much in our minds in drawing up the Bill. That was why we provided in Clause 1(1) that the controls applied equally to those employed in a business. Similarly, in Clause 3(3) we have provided for a measure of vicarious liability. The reason for the special provision in relation to partnerships is that the relationship of partners to one another and to the partnership is not that of employee/ employer. It might well happen that something was done or omitted to be done in the name of a firm for which one of the partners was morally responsible, but which could not be ascribed to him. However, although I think that the clause works as intended, frankly, I must admit that I am not entirely happy with it. I have listened to the noble Lord and I give the undertaking that, if he will withdraw his Amendment, I should like to look again to see that all is well and that it is satisfactory.
Lord SANDYS: That is one of the most reassuring answers that the noble Lord has given this evening. It is clear from reading the clause that it is considerably more complicated than it perhaps appears. This marks a stage in our discussions, and I am particularly glad that the Government have thought fit to support the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
Lord SWINFEN: I thank the noble Minister for his reply. On his undertaking to reconsider the clause, I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.] Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Revocation and variation of orders under sections 3 and 4]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: If Amendment No. 23 is carried then 1 cannot call Amendment No.24.
8.41 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: It is wrong in principle that the Director-General of Fair Trading should be given powers to speculate about an appellant's possible future course of action, he should be concerned only with points of fact. Sufficient powers exist under paragraph (a) above for the Director to be able to refuse applications from unfit agents. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I really cannot accept this Amendment. The Amendment proposed would have the effect of leaving the Director free to apply his own criteria in deciding whether or net to grant a variation or revocation of a warning order.
Under Clause 4 the Director will have made up his mind whether a person would be unfit to carry on estate agency work if he were to continue to engage in the specified practice. Therefore, where a person is seeking variation or revocation if no guidance were given to the Director he would again be able to consider only a person's unfitness if he were to repeat the offence (which is something he has already decided) without reference to the question whether he is likely to do so. The effect of Clause 6(4)(b) is that in judging whether to grant the application or not, the Director will consider whether he is likely to engage again in the practice and he will obviously look again for evidence of improvement. If he finds such evidence he will revoke the order. Thus Clause 6(4)(b) is of benefit to
124
the estate agent. It enables a warning order to be lifted if there are signs of improvement. The Amendment would have just the opposite effect.
In the case of refusal or more limited variation than was sought, the applicant would in any case have the right to make representations, have a hearing and make an appeal. Therefore, I emphatically ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: Would it not be an improvement if, instead of merely "he considers"—that is, the Director considers—it were to say:
"considers upon reasonable grounds, or has reasonable grounds to suppose that the applicant may again engage in the practice…".
I see that the next clause provides for appeals to the Secretary of State against the decision of the Director, and if the criterion is merely whether the Director-General considered, the Secretary of State has not got much room for manoeuvre; but if you insert in this paragraph "considers upon reasonable grounds", then there is something to appeal about to the Secretary of State. You can go to him and argue that the Director misdirected himself because he really had no reasonable grounds upon which to come to this consideration. I would urge that consideration be given to strenghtening the paragraph by inserting "on reasonable grounds", or words to that effect.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I would remind him that all statutory discretion must be exercised reasonably under common law.
The Earl of KINNOULL: The noble Lord in his reply ended by saying that this helps estate agents. I assume that this warning order under Clause 4 would be entered on the register under Clause 8, which is a register which is open to public inspection, and indeed is a damaging piece of evidence that the estate agent is possibly about to lose his licence, or could lose his licence. If the estate agent finds himself in this position with a warning order, and he then applies to get it revoked, as the noble Lord says he has an appeal under Clause 7. I do not understand how it can help him that the Director-General of Fair Trading can take a speculative view, which is really

125
the wording of this clause, that at some time in the future he is likely to go back to his bad old ways. I do not understand the wording of this subsection, and I hope that the noble Lord will look at it again and try to improve on the wording. I think that this is what the Committee is asking.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: In point of fact, subject to the noble Lord withdrawing this particular Amendment, I am to move Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 which I think will cover his point.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Would the noble Lord answer the point about the register? Does he know whether a warning order will be subject to being put on the register under Clause 8?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Not offhand, I must admit. As noble Lords know, work on this has been considerably rushed and I cannot give an immediate answer on that point.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Would the noble Lord be able to find out before we get to Clause 8?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I shall do my best.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.48 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26:
Page 7, line 31, after ("may") insert ("again fail to comply with a relevant statutory obligation, or as the case may be")
Page 7, line 42, after ("likely") insert ("to fail to comply with a relevant statutory obligation or")
Page 8,line 9, at end insert—
("(7) In this section "relevant statutory obligation" has the meaning assigned to it by section 4(1)a) above.")
The noble Lord said. With the leave of Committee, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 together. These are Amendments arising from Amendments to Clause 4 at Report stage in the Commons, and related Amendments. These Amendments are consequential on an Amendment accepted in the other place
126
which made it possible for the Director to issue a preliminary warning order under Clause 4 in the event of failure to meet one of those statutory obligations which do not attract a criminal penalty; they are at Clauses 15 and 18 to 21 of the Bill. As a result of these Amendments the Director will be able to consider whether an applicant for variation or revocation of such a warning order has shown sufficient evidence of reform to justify the lifting of the warning order or its variation in a way favourable to the applicant. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULL: There is one small point which possibly the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would have made, that under Amendment No. 26 the noble Lord is suggesting an interpretation of the words "relevant statutory obligation". Should that be put into the relevant Schedule so that all looking at this Bill will be able to see that interpretation?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I shall have to look into that. I might mention that warning orders will go on the register while they are in force.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Appeals]:
8.51 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 17, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("court").
The noble Lord said: We now enter the important part of the Bill which relates to the appeals procedure. Anxieties have already been expressed about the powers of the Director-General of Fair Trading. The Bill proposes that the Director shall be awarded and charged with the use of very wide powers, and the anxieties that have been expressed must be justified unless the appeals procedure under which someone who presents himself as a charged person to plead his innocence enables him do so in circumstances where he believes he may obtain justice.
The Government proposal is to set up a tribunal. The Director-General will be placed in the position that those who come within his jurisdiction will have to seek

127
to place their case before a tribunal set up by the Secretary of State. Presumably the tribunal will consist of one or more people drawn from a panel, and in this case the suggestion is very similar to what might be done in a planning situation. It is our contention, however, that the situation is totally different, and a number of those who will be presenting appeals will have their livelihood at stake. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull earlier described situations in which nothing less than the livelihood of the appellant would be at stake.
It is interesting to note what Mr. John Fraser, the noble Lord's right honourable friend, said in another place; it is clear that the Government are satisfied that the appeals procedure proposed in the Bill will be staisfactory, but we believe that it falls far short of the desired result. In Standing Committee E, the Minister said at column 78:
"Thirdly—this is perhaps the most important reason—the courts in general show a reluctance to substitute their judgments for that of a tribunal or, in this case, for that of the Director-General of Fair Trading. There would be a tendency, if the appeal lay direct from the Director-General to the courts, for the courts not to involve themselves too much in the judgments of practice which had been reached by the Director-General, whereas the tribunal would be better qualified to do so than a court of law".
I believe that is a serious misappraisal by the noble Lord's right honourable friend and it is our intention in tabling this Amendment to redress the situation. I beg to move.
Lord GISBOROUGH: Clause 3 gives wide powers to the Director General of Fair Trading, and in extreme cases the ability to deprive a person of his livelihood. In these circumstances, the rights of the individual must be fully protected and this can be done effectively only by ensuring that appeal against an order of the Director-General of Fair Trading lies not to the Secretary of State but to the court on matters both of law and of fact. Clause 7(1) should be amended by deleting the worlds "Secretary of State" and substituting the word "court".
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Are we dealing at the same time with Amendments Nos. 31 and 32?
Lord SANDYS: No, I moved only Amendment No. 27.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: As the Committee wishes, though I think it would have been better to deal with those Amendments too. I can fully appreciate the concern which noble Lords have expressed about cases where an individual could be deprived of his livelihood, and their anxiety that arrangements for appeal against the Director's decision should ensure not only that the appellant has a proper opportunity to put his case but also that he can be assured of just treatment. The Government have had these considerations much in mind when drawing up the system of appeal written into the clause and are of the opinion that it has advantages for the appellant as compared with the more formal procedures of the courts.
Amendment No. 27, by allowing an appeal from the Director's decision direct to the courts, would mean that the appellant had only two opportunities to make his case. The system written into the Bill allows him, first, a full administrative hearing by the Director; secondly, a subsequent appeal to the Secretary of State, who can consider the case on administrative grounds before deciding whether to uphold, withdraw or vary the Director's decision; and, thirdly, he can appeal to the courts on a point of law, and this includes the case where it is held that the verdict of the tribunal was against the weight of evidence. The system of the Bill therefore gives the agent three opportunities to state his case. I could give examples of further advantages, but I think those remarks cover the point. There is a chance to go to the court and, in the circumstances, the opportunities for appeal are greater here.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Although the Minister referred to three opportunities, in fairness to the Committee it should be said that they are really only two, and they are on the narrow point of law as to whether one could appeal to the court. It is also fair to say, if one is looking at the position where an estate agent has appealed either against a warning order or against having been struck off under Clause 3, that the case needs to be dealt with very quickly; we do not want a long

129
drawn-out case which is costly and time-consuming during the three phases which the noble Lord mentioned. I suggest that there would be very few estate agents who, having lost their earnings and their business, would have the money behind them to fight in such a situation.
If the Government are not able to accept my noble friend's persuasive arguments, then perhaps it should not be the court to which appeal should be made but a High Court judge; certainly it should be to someone other than the Secretary of State because he will basically be responsible for the Director-General of Fair Trading—he will have appointed him, so far as I know—and the matter is too close. I am not saying that the Secretary of State would act unfairly, but he could be seen to be acting unfairly or the applicant might not feel that his case had been dealt with fairly. If there is a parallel, perhaps one might mention the case of a member of Her Majesty's Services; if he is asked to leave the Service he has roughly the same procedure open to him, in that he can appeal to the Secretary of State for Defence and subsequently, on a point of law, to the court. I do not think it has been over-proved that this kind of situation is very satisfactory. I know that the professional bodies feel very strongly about this matter. Indeed, I believe that all those practicing in estate agency feel very strongly about it. What they want is simply a fair and quick procedure of appeal, and a hearing which is independent of the Government. At the moment, one is not getting this from what is written into the Bill, as my noble friend has said and as has been argued in another place. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to look at this again.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, correctly, it would seem that, if the appellant feels that the weight of evidence is on his side yet the tribunal rules against him, he can go to the courts even at that stage. Therefore, is this not duplicating a procedure, and would it not be better to cut out the appeal altogether and go straight from the Secretary of State to the courts, rather than involve the tribunal?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: That is a very attractive point. I had intended
130
to add to my opening remarks and to say that there are a number of real advantages for the agent in putting his case to a tribunal headed by a legally qualified chairman which will advise the Secretary of State, instead of to the courts. The tribunal can exercise a greater discretion than the courts. It cannot impose a sanction more severe than the Director has proposed. Its administrative approach will mean that its procedures are less formal than the adversarial procedures of the courts, and the appellant will in consequence find it easier to make his case and to put forward all the circumstances surrounding his work which appear to him relevant. The tribunal will be less expensive for him than the court hearing. The experience of someone involved in estate agency work will contribute to the assessments made by the tribunals of cases where a knowledge of what goes on in estate agency work is of relevance to a judgment.
Lastly, the courts show a general reluctance to substitute their judgment for that of a tribunal or of the Director. If the appeal were direct to the courts from the Director's decision, it is unlikely that the courts would involve themselves in the Director's judgments on the question of practice as the tribunal advising my honourable friend would be in a position to do. In brief, there is no reason why the appellant should be at a disadvantage under the appeals system of the Bill. Quite frankly, in many cases it will by virtue of the system operating be cheaper and better for the appeal, unless there are some points which force the agent to go to the courts, which he is fully entitled to do.
Lord AIREDALE: Did the noble Lord say that the chairman of the tribunal would be, or might be, a legally qualified person?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I said that he would be a legally qualified person.
Lord AIREDALE: The Minister said something on those lines, I thought.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I shall repeat my words slowly. There are, as I have indicated, a number of very real advantages for the agent in putting his case to a tribunal headed by a legally

131
qualified chairman which would advise the Secretary of State, instead of to the courts. The chairman of the tribunal will be legally qualified.
Lord SWINFEN: Will the noble Lord indicate the standing of the legally qualified chairman? Is he thinking of a judge or a barrister—or what would be the level?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Personally, I am not thinking of anyone, because I am not qualified to reach a decision on the question of legal standing. I cannot deal with that point at this stage. All I can say is that he, or she—after all, we have sex equality—will be legally qualified. I shall not try to answer tonight on what the legal qualifications would be.
Lord SANDYS: On such an important question we cannot leave the matter there. Clearly, the Council on Tribunals will be instrumental in making certain administrative arrangements. The Government cannot at this stage say the degree of qualification or eminence of the legally qualified person, which we most certainly desire to know as a matter of practice, and which would be helpful to our discussion. For the benefit of the noble Lord I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment at this stage if the Government will investigate and see what practices and procedures they are going to adopt in appointing the tribunal, so that we can have a much better discussion at the Report stage.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I accept that.
Lord SANDYS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: If Amendment No. 28 is carried, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 29 to 32.
9.6 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 8, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the Amendment is to press the Govern-
132
ment to include the regulations for appeals in the Bill. It is quite unacceptable for the regulations to be made by Statutory Instruments in the way specified in the clause. Estate agents have a right to know where they stand, and Parliament must be able to examine the Government's proposals in order to ensure that there are adequate provisions for consultations with the representative bodies on the composition of appeals panels and so on. The Bill should contain more positive requirements as to the hearing of appeals. The Secretary of State has said that regulations under Clause 7(3) would provide for an appeal to be heard by a panel and that the experience of those engaged in estate agency work would be of great importance in assessing the criteria of appeals, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord. If such a system were to be contemplated, there should be a positive requirement on the part of the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 7(3), and the Bill itself, and not the regulations, should set out the appeals procedure. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The Amendment would remove the power to make appeals regulations. There would be no power to lay down the time limit, the process, or the system of appeals. There is an established distinction between substantive and procedural law. The right of appeal is part of substantive law, and it would be wrong to put it anywhere but in the Bill itself. The time and manner for appeal is a matter of procedure which is entirely appropriate for regulations. The intention is to follow closely the regulations made for consumer credit appeals. The Government cannot accept the Amendment.
Lord GISBOROUGH.I think this is an important point for some of the bodies involved, and I should like to come back to it at Report stage and also when one has seen what has happened to the previous Amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 22,leave out ("may") and insert ("must within six months of the passing of this Act").
The noble Earl said: This, in a sense, is on the same point. The purpose of my Amendment is to put into the Bill a provision imposing on the Government a duty to bring these regulations into effect within six months of the passing of the Bill. I think that is a very reasonable request, and I think it is in fact an important request by Parliament. I think that all Secretaries of State tend to let things lie because of the pressure of work on their officials, and so on. Indeed, one is sometimes aghast at the number of Acts of Parliament which are passed in relation to which one finds that parts of the Acts have never come into force at all. I therefore think that on this particular point, when one is dealing with appeals, about which estate agents themselves are feeling very sensitive, it is only right that the Government should indicate in the Bill a time within which they will bring in the regulations. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: There is another Amendment to leave out "may" and insert "shall". Shall we take that now?
Lord SANDYS: I think it would be for the benefit of the Committee if both were taken together.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: There are two Amendments which would impose on my right honourable friend a duty to issue regulations about arrangements for appeals. It might be convenient, if it is agreeable—and this has already been indicated—that we take them together. The Amendments appear to be based upon an apprehension that the provisions of the Bill will be implemented without the provision of proper and publicised arrangements for the hearing of appeals by my right honourable friend against a decision of the Director to issue a warning or banning order. Any such fear is without grounds. The appeals arrangements are an integral part of the control system. The Bill itself, in Clause 7(1), provides a right of appeal. It would be unthinkable, and arguably illegal, for the Director's powers to make orders to be brought into force without bringing into force the right of appeal. The absence of regulations about their timing, conduct and so on, would not mean that there was no right of appeal, but the arrangements could not work as intended.
134
On the question of timing, it will have been noted that Clause 36 provides for the Bill to come into force when my right honourable friend, by statutory instrument, appoints a day, and allows him to appoint different days for different provisions and different purposes. This approach was adopted so as to enable my right honourable friend to make proper administrative arrangements at central and local authority level; to carry out consultations (including, for instance, with the estate agents' organisations about the make-up of the panel from which will be drawn tribunal members to advise my right honourable friend on appeals); to ensure sufficient prior publicity to allow estate agents to prepare for the necessary changes in their working arrangements, and so on. I can assure your Lordships that it is the intention to lay orders introducing the main provisions implementing control by the Director together with the appeals regulations at the earliest possible date. Certain other provisions, such as those relating to clients' money, where some agents will need time to arrange cover, will follow later.
Thus, the appeals regulations, which will be on lines similar to the Consumer Credit Licensing (Appeals) Regulations 1976, will inevitably be introduced at the first stage of the introduction of the control and, for the reasons I have mentioned, it would be unrealistic to put a time limit on the date for introduction. Furthermore, it would, as I have no doubt your Lordships will accept, be constitutionally indefensible to lay a duty on the Minister to make regulations, as a decision in such matters lies with a future Parliament.
Lord AIREDALE: Leaving aside the six months, I shall be astonished if the Government resist Amendment No. 30, when we get to that. What possible sense is there in saying that the Secretary of State "may" make provisions by regulations, instead of "shall", when at the end of the subsection it says:
"… such regulations shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment"
by Parliament? We have got to have these regulations, and we have got to have this appeals procedure. Like it or not, the Secretary of State has got to face up to making the regulations in order to make the Bill workable; and to say that

135
he "may" make provisions by regulation seems to be really quite ridiculous.
Lord SWINFEN: This is a very unusual year in that there must be a General Election; and this could be used as an excuse for delaying the making of these provisions. I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment and ensure that the Secretary of State does make provisions within six months—no matter what Party. Otherwise the matter could be allowed to drag on for a very long time. As I understand it, under the Bill the Director would have a duty to make orders under certain circumstances. If there are no provisions for appeal, there will be a very pretty mess and a number of individuals could lose their livelihood and be put into an exceedingly awkward situation.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Do not ask me to start getting involved in speculations about a General Election. That is not within my duties tonight, anyway. I can appreciate the points made by noble Lords. Amendment No. 29 is constitutionally indefensible because it would require the making of regulations within six months. I sincerely hope that that would not happen because it could be that my right honourable friend would be unable to comply with the duty laid upon him because, even though the regulations were laid, there was no Parliamentary majority for any proposals. How could he comply with his duty in that case?
Generally the Amendments achieve nothing. It is not the regulations which give the right of appeal; it is Clause 7(1). If my right honourable friend were so minded—which I hasten to assure your Lordships he is not—he could make regulations without bringing into force the substantive provisions about the Director's orders and appeals from them. I can assure your Lordships that there will be no undue delay; but if there was any danger of that this Amendment would not prevent it. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, whether he is very concerned about this Amendment and whether he wishes to press it.
Lord SANDYS: On the constitutional point, I was very surprised that the
136
Government have said that it would be constitutionally impossible or constitutionally inconvenient for this Amendment to be written into the Bill; because I can recall—and I am sure that many of my noble friends can recall—occasions when the noble Lord's noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner has criticised many Acts of Parliament which have not included implementation clauses with a time limit. This is a fact in drafting which has had very serious affects on certain Acts of Parliament. If we do choose to withdraw this Amendment, we would do so only with the greatest reluctance and at this late hour. I see that it is now long past the moment when the noble Lord was going to tell us his time-table for the rest of the evening. Subject to any further suggestions which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull might make, I believe it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I were to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: Before the noble Lord does so, coming back to what we were discussing just now—the question of a legally-qualified chairman of the tribunal—if the situation is that the Secretary of State "may" make provisions as to the persons by whom appeals are to be heard—and it is only an enabling provision—and he does not make the provisions, then it is not much good talking about there having to be a legally-qualified chairman; because unless the Secretary of State has to make provisions, how do we know that we are going to get a legally-qualified chairman?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I have already indicated that the chairman of the tribunal will be legally-qualified. I do not think I need go further than that.
Lord AIREDALE: He will not be so until the Secretary of State makes the provisions; and if the Secretary of State does not have to make the provisions, it will not occur.
Lord Wallace of COSLANY: There will be no tribunal until the Secretary of State lays down the order.
Lord AIREDALE: That is why we want "shall".
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I think there is a little misunderstanding here. I am dealing with the question of whether we are withdrawing the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am tempted not to take any action until my noble friend's specific question, about how long we are going to discuss this Bill, is answered. I see that the Chief Whip is not here. Perhaps she has gone off to a dinner. I wonder whether the noble Lord has a reply to that question.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The Chief Whip is away on Government business in another country warmer than this country at the present time. The Deputy Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is about. We are quite content to continue for quite a while yet. That is the position.
9.20 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: I really must express dissatisfaction with that reply. Not only have the Government put us in a difficulty—and we have been over this earlier—with the grouping of amendments, but, further, they have set no particular programme on how far progress shall go. It was a very real point of comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that consumer legislation should come on so very late at night. We are concerned here with a very important clause at the heart of a Bill. I ask the Government to consider very seriously what the programme should be. From our point of view, of course we will continue until a sensible and desirable moment; but it appears to us that the Government have no particular programme.
Lord JANNER: May I intervene? I do not understand what is happening. So far as I understand procedure in this Committee and in the other place, there is an arrangement between the people who are really important and know everything on both sides of the House as to what procedure shall be adopted. Why blame the Government? Blame your own people. Go and see them, have a talk to them and find out why they have misled you, if they have done so. You cannot put blame on what we are trying to do. I am not very keen about the situation myself;
138
I should prefer to be home. But that is not the point. The point is that this is an arrangement and you cannot blame one side or the other. You should blame yourself as well.
Lord SANDYS: What would satisfy us at this stage, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has said—with which I do not agree—is that we should like to know what the programme is for the evening.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I cannot give the answer immediately. I do not take these decisions; this is a matter for other people. I have passed a message to my noble friend to get a decision later. In the meantime, I must repeat the point that noble Lords at very short notice have put down 82 Amendments. I am sure that they want them properly debated. While I can understand that, in point of fact we have not had much opportunity to get the job satisfactorily settled. The "usual channels" have decided to take this Bill at the end of the day. I cannot help that. My responsibility is to get the Committee stage of the Bill through. If noble Lords have put down 82 Amendments, they must accept the responsibility for debating them, even if they lose their sleep.
Lord SANDYS: Of course everybody accepts responsbility for the Amendments; but the point is that we want to debate those important Amendments in an orderly and satisfactory manner. We would, I am sure, accept what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is acting Chief Whip for the Government, has to say. If he has been able to reach a decision it would please us very much.
Lord GISBOROUGH: Is the noble Lord aware that one of the reasons why this is happening is because this, along with many other Bills, is being rushed through? In fact most of these Amendments were put down as soon as they could be received and as soon as the postal service would allow. I am responsible for many Amendents. The time taken of a week for preparation with the responsible bodies and then about a week for the post to get the Amendments in, has meant that it has not been possible to do it earlier.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: This is not quite correct, is it? Many of these Amendments were tabled, discussed and disposed of in another place. It is not fair now to suggest or try to give the impression that these are new Amendments. These are not new Amendments that have been brought forward for the purpose, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said, of improving the Bill. To suggest that the other place did not deal with the Bill correctly I think is entirely wrong. Most of these Amendments have already been dealt with by the elected representatives of the people:
Lord AIREDALE: But that is very odd, because the Minister was complaining that he had had so little time in which to consider these Amendments.
Lord STRABOLGI: Perhaps I might say a word here. I should like to say initially that no one has approached me to suggest that we should adjourn at nine o'clock or at some slightly later hour. Nobody came to make any representations about that and I gave no undertakings. So far as I am concerned, I think the arrangement was that we should finish the Committee stage tonight. It does not seem to me, by the standards of another place, that it is very late; it is only half-past nine. As my noble friend Lord Wallace has said, a great many Amendments were put down last night. I think we ought to consider them and make some progress. I suggest that we carry on and see how we go, and perhaps review the situation a little later on. I hope that would be the wish of the Committee.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I should not have thought that was the wish of the Committee at all. I should have thought that the majority, if it came to a decision, would consider that we should adjourn. I wonder whether it would be in order to propose that: I do not know. I do not think that people work at their best if they are short of sustenance.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I think that one of the troubles—and I am sure it was quite inadvertent—was that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, indicated that at about nine o'clock we would adjourn. However, what he said will be on the record.
Lord STRABOLGI: I am sorry, but I must interrupt the noble Earl. As acting Chief Whip, I can say that no representations have been made to me that we should adjourn at nine o'clock. I gave no undertaking. In fact the matter has not arisen at ail before now. I must make that clear.
Baroness YOUNG: I hesitate to intervene as I have not been in the Chamber during the Committee proceedings, but I think there seems to have been some quite genuine misunderstanding about the arrangements that had been arrived at. Clearly we are going on until a very late hour if we finish the Committee stage. I think there is nothing against the Rules of the House in people putting down Amendments at the last minute, although I appreciate this makes matters more difficult for Government spokesmen. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said that he will look at this point again in the interests of everybody working in the House, apart from anything else. Perhaps he would consider what would be a reasonable hour at which we might adjourn. The other point I should like to raise is this: I do not know whether we have a quorum at the moment. If not, we are in a very difficult position in Committee, should we wish to press any of the Amendments.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Coming back to Amendment No. 29, there is one point I should like to ask the noble Lord; it is a very serious point. We have heard that it is constitutionally indefensible. We have had, as I understand it, an undertaking from him that the Secretary of State would not introduce by regulations Clauses 3, 4, 6 or 8 until he had produced regulations to cover the whole package. I would accept that as a very sensible arrangement and I hope the noble Lord will confirm that that is what he said. However, what I think we would like to know tonight is just how far the discussions with the Secretary of State and all his advisers have got as regards the appeal procedures. In essence they are, of course, spelt out in Clause 7, but not in detail. I think it would be reassuring, since there are many regulations in this Bill—some may say too many—if the noble Lord could advise the Committee how far the discussions have got. I think that that is a fair point, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reply.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I cannot really do that at the moment, for reasons which I think the noble Earl will accept. But I can say something to sweeten everybody. If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, 1 am prepared to consider accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.
The Earl of KINNOULL: That is a very sweet pill indeed, and I am delighted that my noble friend's Amendment should be the first successful Amendment to be accepted by the Government. It is a very substantial one, and on those grounds I am happy to withdraw this Amendment, on the understanding that we may have to look at it again at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.31 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No.30:
Page 8, line 22, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is prepared to accept this Amendment. I think that the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on this Amendment was most persuasive, and there is no doubt that this will be an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 8, line 27, after ("Secretary of State") insert ("such persons to be chosen in consultation with professional bodies concerned with the practice of estate agency").
The noble Lord said: We now come to that part of the appeal procedure which relates to the task with which the Secretary of State has been charged; that is, appointing and consulting with professional bodies. At this stage, it may not be particularly beneficial if I speak at great length, because we earlier had the assurance from the Government that they are to discover what procedures they will use, and how they will set up this tribunal. I prefer to regard this as a probing Amendment, and to ask the Government whether they intend to follow the sense of the Amendment by consulting with the professional bodies concerned. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: In answer to the noble Lord, it is clear that my right honourable friend will need accountants and lawyers, as well as estate agents among his advisers. Experience may show that it is necessary to draw upon knowledge in other fields. It is a requirement to consult with one or even a number of professions, and this is written into the Bill. It may be interpreted as excluding consultation with others. I am sure your Lordships will accept that to ensure the proper handling of individual appeals, my right honourable friend must be able to draw on individuals who have the knowledge and experience relevant to a particular case. In any case, it would arguably be a breach of natural justice to give the professional bodies any formal or other role in deciding by whom a case should be heard. Once the list of those on the panel is drawn up, on which, as I have said, there will be consultation, it is essential that in each case the tribunal should be, and should be seen to be, absolutely impartial. There will be consultations before the formation of the tribunal.
Lord SANDYS: With those assurances, I shall with great pleasure beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Register of orders, etc.]:
9.34 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9, line 28, leave out ("it comes to the attention of the Director that").
The noble Lord said: We now come on to the register. Under Clause 8, the Director is charged with the task of establishing and maintaining a register. Under this Amendment, we think it would be a good plan to adopt a fail-safe procedure. As it stands at the moment, subsection (4) reads as follows:
"If it comes to the attention of the Director that any order of which particulars appear in the register is no longer in operation, he shall remove those particulars from the register".

143
We believe that a better procedure would be to remove the words set out in the Amendment and to say that any order of which particulars appear in the register is no longer in operation if the Director shall remove those particulars. It is a simple but nevertheless, we believe, an improved procedure to adopt. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I shall make reference also to Amendment No.34. At first glance, it appears only fair to the estate agent that the Director should be required to correct the register when a banning or warning order ceases to operate. Unfortunately, such a requirement would not be practicable, as the Director will not in all cases know the date when the order ceases to be effective.
In the majority of cases, the Director will, of course, have sufficient information to amend the register immediately. Where he revokes an order himself, there is no problem. Similarly, where, for instance, a finding of discrimination which gave rise to the order ceases to have effect by virtue of Clause 3(5), he will know the relevant date and be able to amend the register accordingly. More generally, it is one of the purposes of the duty placed under Clause 9(5) and (6) upon the courts and upon the relevant discrimination commissions to inform the Director of convictions, judgments, findings and so on relevant to his functions under the Bill to ensure that the Director is fully aware of what is happening. However, circumstances will inevitably arise in which the Director cannot possibly know, for example, when a conviction becomes spent. Cases which spring to mind are those where an agent has committed another crime and the time limit under the rehabilitation of offenders legislation is in consequence automatically extended, or where the agent dies before the time limit is spent.
These Amendments would impose a duty on the Director which could not be fulfilled. It would be rare that he would not know of something, but it is by no means impossible and it is only right to make suitable provision. May I add that it was even the case not so long ago that another place was not certain whether or not one of its Members was still a Member? Just consider the effect of such Amendments as these on that case.
144
From the estate agent's viewpoint, the fact that an order remains on the register does not mean that the agent is subject to it if, in fact, it has ceased to have effect. The register is not conclusive evidence that the agent is banned or the subject of a warning. Clause 8(6) makes express provision for overturning the presumption raised by an entry on the Register. The agent can, as necessary, seek to prove that the register is incorrect and will no doubt not be slow in drawing the Director's attention to the fact where an order against him has ceased to be operative.
In brief, the Director could not, in the nature of things, fulfil a duty to correct the register when an order ceases to operate. However, I can safely say that he will be able to do so in most cases, and, where he knows of something, he is under a duty to act. Where he cannot know of something, I would maintain that it is no great burden to expect the agent to draw the Director's attention to the fact that an order against him is no longer effective. That is the position. It is because of that that I cannot accept the Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us that information because this Amendment has been discussed for the first time. I think a comment was made earlier that there were no new Amendments. There are a large number of new Amendments and this is one of them, and it is most definitely the function of your Lordships' House to examine this Bill in greater depth. We shall look with care at what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has told us about this Amendment but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
9.41 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No.35:
Page 10, line 4, leave out ("unless the contrary is proved").
The noble Lord said: Clause 8(6) seems to be ambiguous as it stands. It is not clear whether the words,
"and shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be correct",

145
refer only to the situation in Scotland or whether they have a more general relevance. It may be that this concerns an obscure point of Scots law but, if not, it seems to be a denial of natural justice to place the onus of proof on the estate agent to show that the particulars contained in an order made against him by the Director General of Fair Trading are incorrect. It should be for the Director General to prove his case. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: This Amendment raises similar issues to those raised by Amendments Nos. 33 and 34, which we have just considered and which have been withdrawn. I do not think I can say very much more. I have explained how it may happen that an entry may not be removed from the register when the order has lapsed. It would be quite wrong for the redundant entry to be presumed to be correct. The agent must have a right to show that the order has lapsed. We have virtually discussed this, and I cannot accept the Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I think what my noble friend was asking for was an explanation of the use of those words and I am not sure that the noble Lord has really replied to it. What he has said is that he has dealt with it in previous Amendments, and that is that. Can he in fact address himself to these precise words and explain to the Committee what they really mean? I took it that when he referred to Scottish law what he was saying was that you must prove yourself to be not guilty rather than the other way round. I may be entirely wrong and it would be helpful if the noble Lord could explain the use of these words.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: We have really discussed this and perhaps the noble Earl will care to check in Hansard tomorrow. The words apply to evidence in England as they would in Scotland; it is all conclusive. There is very little that I can add to what I have already said. This has to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has withdrawn his Amendments but the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord is very relevant and I ask him to withdraw it at this stage.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I can help my noble friend. This is a very common formula which crops up in all
146
the Acts: when evidence is referred to in England, it is referred to as "sufficient evidence" in Scotland.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of KINNOULL: Clause 8, as we know, deals with the register. As I read it, the register will be entered and in fact the names will not be withdrawn. They will be available; if any member of the public wishes to pay a fee to the Director he will be able to do so and these names will be on the record. What I should like to know is this: if an estate agent should go to appeal and should win the appeal, will the record then be withdrawn and will there thereafter be no reference to this charge? Will the action taken by the Director not be on the record? It is only a matter of clarification, which I hope the noble Lord can answer.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I think this is a matter we had better go into a little further. The noble Earl is trying to ensure that the name of an estate agent is not besmirched by a wrongful entry or an entry that has remained. I cannot give any reassurance on this. We have already dealt with it in some detail. I hope I will now be able to give the noble Earl an assurance. After an appeal, the register will be brought up to date.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Powers of entry and inspection]:
9.46 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No.36:
Page 12, line 18, leave out ("if required, of his credentials") and insert ("of a warrant either from a Justice of the Peace or from a Sheriff").
The noble Earl said: This is one of the most important Amendments that we have put forward from the estate agent's viewpoint, and one that concerns the

147
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to a great extent. It is, I am afraid, another of the Amendments which were discussed in another place, but the noble Lord has had due warning of it. I hope he will be a little more sympathetic to this one than to most of the others. I read with great care the comments made in another place and although I believe those points to be valid I will not take up your Lordships' time by repeating them tonight. I would, however, like to stress my main concern about the clause as it stands.
If a duly authorised officer of an enforcement authority enters an agent's premises to ascertain whether an offence has been committed the reputation of the agent could be damaged for ever by the innuendo of suspicion even though he has done nothing wrong. Word will get around and rumours will be rife that the office of XYZ and partners were visited last week by the authority and as a result their business will suffer. Indeed in a close knit community it will be practically impossible for that firm to continue trading. The purpose of this legislation is to control the rogue agents, and this has support throughout my profession. But control must also be exercised on the authorised officer. Reasonable cause in the mind of that officer in suspecting that an offence has been committed is not an adequate protection for the honest agent. If he has reason to believe that an agent is conducting his business improperly, it is imperative that he should apply for a warrant. I understand that, if there is sufficient evidence for one, it can be obtained quickly and there is no significant delay.
There will always be a section of the community who feel that an agent is not conducting himself properly, and this will be due in the main to lack of understanding of an agent's position and the work that he carries out. Sadly, although this Bill helps in many respects to alter this position it only serves to confuse the individual on other points. This is a matter your Lordships have already discussed. It is, therefore, very important to give the honest agent the adequate protection he needs in this matter.
I would ask the Minister what remedy an agent has, when his premises have
148
been entered and he is proved innocent, but as a result of the duly authorised officer entering the premises his trade suffers and he possibly loses his livelihood as a result. A check must be made on the powers of the officer and this is the best way of doing it; in that he has to obtain a warrant from either a justice of the peace or a sheriff, this would mean that a third party would have to be satisfied that the authorised officer has reasonable cause for requiring the same. I beg to move.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: I think I ought to declare my interest again in this; I am president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, the professional body of the officers to whom the noble Earl has referred. I am very glad to be supported this evening by one of the vice-presidents of the Institute, who is sitting on the Benches opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is living in a realm of fantasy if he thinks that the enforcement officers, as he calls them, going on routine visits not only to the premises of estate agents but to all kinds of premises, will get the businessmen whom they visit into any trouble whatever.
I had intended to make a rather prepared and much longer defence of the members of my Institute and the way in which they behave than I shall inflict on the Committee at this time of night. In fact, I was going to give a great many figures to prove my point. Let me take up one aspect of the noble Earl's approach to this. He is under the impression—a completely mistaken impression—that any publicity would be given to the visit of an officer to the office of an estate agent. I have been looking at the annual report of the chief trading standards officer of the county of South Yorkshire. Last year in the period covered by the report his department made over 20,000 visits to business premises. Not only did he do no harm to anybody who was innocent of any offence but in the course of making those visits the officers did something which is implicit in this legislation—legislation which has a very long history and which is part of our traditions. The inspectors go round giving advice and help. The last thing they want to do is to unearth anything that leads to a prosecution.

149
In fact, I was going to develop another argument, which I believe is very sound indeed; that the tradition of giving free access to business premises to these officers—a tradition that goes back 100 years—gains the admiration of people engaged in similar legislation and administration in Europe. I call it a British way of doing things. I was chairman of a Council of Europe Committee that was investigating similar methods of administration in other European countries as well as in Britain. I can assure noble Lords that my Continental colleagues on that Committee expressed a great deal of admiration for the way in which we, in this country, in the same service, have combined giving advice with enforcement.
Because of the tradition that has been built up—because the effect of this clause appears in the whole of our consumer protection legislation (this is not an innovation)—the effect of the clause is to put much greater emphasis on prevention of offences rather than to use, as some of the Continental countries do, prosecutions as a deterrent. I am sure that the noble Lord who disagrees with me about this would agree that the prevention of offences is a very important part of the work of the Trading Standards Officer, the Consumer Protection Officer, the Enforcement Officer or whatever we care to call him.
One argument which the noble Lord put forward on Second Reading was that, although this clause appears in other legislation, that legislation is concerned with the sale of goods; that this is an innovation. It is not concerned with the sale of goods. This is quite wrong. It is not an innovation because the Trade Descriptions Act deals with services. In fact, when we were preparing the Bill for that Act there was a great discussion within the Department as to whether we should cover the sale of properties in the Trade Descriptions Act. The Consumer Credit Act also covers services.
I do not want to prolong this discussion. I merely want to make one further point. I said that in South Yorkshire, for example, there were about 20,000 visits to business premises. Nine thousand of those were in response to complaints made by customers. In point of fact they had received nearly 40,000 complaints, but they whittled these down to something like 9,000 serious complaints. Those noble Lords who have
150
put forward these Amendments have a question to consider; whether they would prefer an estate agent who has had a complaint made against him—which, if these Amendments are carried, the officer has now to treat as prima facie evidence of an offence having been committed—visited by an officer flourishing a warrant (I do not know whether you can keep warrants secret) and looking like a chap from the Fraud Squad; or whether they would have an inspector, an officer with whom possibly he has already developed friendly relations, as happens with the people who are trying to prevent crime rather than seek out prosecutions, going in quietly, without any fuss, without any publicity, and finding out whether there is any substance in the complaint. Not using it as prima facie evidence of an offence being committed, but trying to find out not only whether there is any substance in it but whether, if there is substance in it, the matter can be dealt with without a prosecution.
I said that there were 9,000 serious complaints in South Yorkshire. Because of the way that it is dealt with, which I have tried briefly to describe, out of those complaints there were in fact 101 prosecutions, and most of those dealt with the sale of motor cars. If these Amendments are not carried your Lordships will give to the estate agent's operations the same kind of service that is given to other traders; giving greater importance to the prevention of offences rather than going and seeking prosecutions, going on fishing expeditions. We do not want any of that. It is quite wrong.
Finally, I would call in aid the quotation that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, gave a little while ago from the Ombudsmen. In effect, he said that when you have some good established administration do not change it. I do not think that we should alter our established administration in this regard. The changes proposed in these Amendments would be very much for the worse.
Lord JANNER: I hope not to detain the Committee for long. What I cannot understand, with the greatest respect, is how unrealistic people are when they put forward proposals of this sort. My noble friend adduced a number of the arguments I would have used, and he gave instances of cases. Imagine if in each

151
one of those cases one had to go to a magistrate or court, produce evidence or make a statement as to why he has found it reasonable for there to be suspicion of some kind. The overburdened magistrates of this country have enough on their hands without having to wait for every complainant to come along to try to prove his case.
That is not good enough and it is not real. What is real in these matters is the fact that we have responsible officers; they have been checked and they can get into very serious trouble if they act improperly. It is all very well to ask what will happen if the fellow is proved innocent; but imagine the situation if a person were proved innocent, without the prosecutor or whoever the person might be, being able to show reasonable cause. I wish certain noble Lords who are here today had been with me in the other place over the years; they would have had an opportunity to ascertain what the average person does and how he does it.
I can understand the object here, and 1 suppose I should declare my interest in that I am a vice-president of the Association of Municipal Authorities. They feel, I believe rightly, that people in this position should not be put to the difficulty, trouble and delay that would arise, because one must remember that it is not always possible to obtain a magistrate. It seems that some people live in realms where they do not know what is happening in these matters. Is it practicable to get hold of a magistrate and make a full application for a warrant and the rest of it and go to court? Delays would be bound to happen and red tape is ridiculous in a case of this description.
My noble friend explained how many cases were ultimately proved. Imagine what would happen if, to that number, we added a considerable influx; and that number would probably follow statistically the same numbers given by my noble friend. What a silly thing it would be to try to enforce such a proposal. I urge noble Lords to have a chat with their magisterial friends before tabling Amendments of this kind again. I hope this one will be withdrawn.
Lord SANDYS: Although I have listened to both noble Lords, Lord Darling
152
and Lord Janner, I remain totally unconvinced by their arguments. My noble friend has a very real point and I attempted, perhaps not convincingly so far as Lord Janner is concerned, to set out on Second Reading the number of Statutes in existence; I mentioned seven Statutes containing powers parallel, if not precisely parallel, to those in Clause 11. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, quoted the Finance Act 1976 which contains two instances of wide powers of inspection. If there are more Acts which give powers of entry and inspection and which are similar to those in Clause 11, that is part of one very large wedge.
Lord Darling said we were living in a world of fantasy. I believe that that world exists, and it was well portrayed in an article by Mr. Patrick Hutber which was quoted in Standing Committee E in another place. Some of us have seen that article, which related to a visit by VAT inspectors to a Chinese restaurant. I will not enter into the details of the case. There are other cases of similar parallel of inspectors visiting premises to the great embarrassment of the management, and subsequently their visits have proved groundless. I believe that there is a very real point of substance here. If a group of Acts of Parliament permit power of entry, we hope that the powers will be used with discretion, but that has not always proved to be the case, and—
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: I must interrupt the noble Lord, if I may. He refers to VAT inspectors. We are not concerned with VAT inspectors. Trading standards officers are employed by local authorities, and I should be very glad if he could produce any cases at all of these officers abusing their authority.
Lord SANDYS: The noble Lord makes a point which is most germane to what we are discussing. I am really discussing the broad powers of entry granted in a group of Acts of Parliament which do not necessarily refer specifically to trading standards officers. We believe that the Government should prove their case here, because under Clause 11(1)(d) powers are granted to an officer to seize books and documents, and to
"require any person having authority to do so to break open any container and, if that person does not comply, to break it open himself".

153
These are very wide powers. They are reflected in other Acts of Parliament, but we believe that there is a point here which bears much further investigation.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: At the moment we are dealing only with the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Another Amendment is to come forward from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and I have a very shrewd suspicion that that will take some time. Therefore, let us deal first with the Amendment of the noble Earl. Quite frankly, I am somewhat amazed by the heavy weather being made of this issue, because all this was discussed when we were considering the Consumer Safety Bill, though then there was a difference because the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, rejected the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I was assisting because the Government had a benevolent interest. At that time the opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, came from the Benches opposite. I just do not understand what they are getting at.
However, with regard to the present drafting of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I would ask, how can the trading standards officer obtain a warrant? How can the justices be satisfied? How, unless he goes in and looks, can the enforcement officer know whether, for instance, an agent banned from estate broking and dealing in residential property is ignoring the ban? My noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough made a considerable contribution on this point, but because of the hour I do not intend to develop that theme. We cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and I believe that the case has been made out very fully by my noble friend Lord Darling.
Lord AIREDALE: The Minister draws a parallel with the battle we had last summer when we were discussing the Consumer Safety Bill. Consider the circumstances. In that case, enforcement officers were in search of unsafe goods, and it made some sense to say, let the officer go into a warehouse and look around in case he finds unsafe goods, although he had no suspicion when he entered. But I remind the Minister that here the difference is that estate agents do not keep their goods on the premises.
154
What estate agents keep on the premises is their documents; and if the Minister will look at Clause 11(1)(b), he will find that before the enforcement officer is entitled to examine documents he has to have reasonable grounds for suspicion that an offence is being or has been committed. But in paragraph (a), which I am going to discuss when my Amendment is called, no such suspicion has to be aroused for the officer to enter the premises. So the situation is that a model clause, taken from other legislation enacted for other purposes, is jerked into this Bill, to which it has very little relevance indeed. There is no parallel between these two cases, and any suggestion of a parallel is quite illusory.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I made a terrible mistake when I referred to the Consumer Safety Bill and brought in the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, because 1 was going to confine my remarks to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. However, there it is. The position is that we can break off at this stage if the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, because we are going to have a very detailed debate on the Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—but not tonight if we can avoid it.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: In view of what the Minister has said, I will withdraw my Amendment. I remain totally unconvinced by the arguments put forward by the Government, and I shall come back to the matter on Report. I do not believe the Government have satisfied any of the fears felt by this side of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: I gave an undertaking that we would review the position at this time. We seem to have made some further progress, and I am sure it is the wish of the Committee, which has been sitting for nearly four hours, that we should now halt the Committee stage and adjourn it to another day. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

  STRIKE PICKETS: FOOD AND MEDICAL PACKAGING
  STRIKE PICKETS: FOOD AND MEDICAL PACKAGING
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE: POLICY ON LAYFIELD RECOMMENDATIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE: POLICY ON LAYFIELD RECOMMENDATIONS
  TEST CENSUS: ETHNIC ORIGIN QUESTION
  TEST CENSUS: ETHNIC ORIGIN QUESTION
  FUTURE TEST CENSUS: ETHNIC ORIGIN QUESTION
  FUTURE TEST CENSUS: ETHNIC ORIGIN QUESTION
  FUTURE TEST CENSUS: REPORT
  FUTURE TEST CENSUS: REPORT
  M.25 PROPOSED EXTENSION (ASHTEAD-LEATHERHEAD): DIESEL FUMES
  M.25 PROPOSED EXTENSION (ASHTEAD-LEATHERHEAD): DIESEL FUMES
  M.25 INQUIRY: APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTOR
  M.25 INQUIRY: APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTOR
  M.25 INQUIRY: NUMBER OF OBJECTORS
  M.25 INQUIRY: NUMBER OF OBJECTORS
  TOURISM AND THE EUROPEAN HERITAGE
  TOURISM AND THE EUROPEAN HERITAGE
  TORCROSS: EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE
  TORCROSS: EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE
  SCHOOL CLOSURES IN THE NORTH EAST
  SCHOOL CLOSURES IN THE NORTH EAST
  BRITISH AEROSPACE: FUTURE WORK FOR WEYBRIDGE/FILTON DIVISION
  BRITISH AEROSPACE: FUTURE WORK FOR WEYBRIDGE/FILTON DIVISION
  ONE-PARENT FAMILIES: ESTIMATES
  ONE-PARENT FAMILIES: ESTIMATES
  TELEVISION RECEPTION: CLWYD
  TELEVISION RECEPTION: CLWYD
  DIVORCES AND CHILDREN INVOLVED
  DIVORCES AND CHILDREN INVOLVED
  INFANT MORTALITY RATES: ENGLISH TOWNS
  INFANT MORTALITY RATES: ENGLISH TOWNS
  "NEWS AND COMMENTS": ALLEGATIONS
  "NEWS AND COMMENTS": ALLEGATIONS
  TELEVISION RECEPTION AND LICENCE FEE
  TELEVISION RECEPTION AND LICENCE FEE
  UNION MEMBERSHIP AND JOINT GOVERNMENT AND TUC STATEMENT
  UNION MEMBERSHIP AND JOINT GOVERNMENT AND TUC STATEMENT
  WORLD ADMINISTRATIVE RADIO CONFERENCE
  WORLD ADMINISTRATIVE RADIO CONFERENCE
  OIL PLATFORMS AND EQUIPMENT: LICENSEES' RESPONSIBILITIES
  OIL PLATFORMS AND EQUIPMENT: LICENSEES' RESPONSIBILITIES
  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS: LEGAL IMMUNITIES
  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS: LEGAL IMMUNITIES
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: COMMITTEE APPEARANCES OF CIVIL SERVANTS
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: COMMITTEE APPEARANCES OF CIVIL SERVANTS
  EEC SECONDMENT: PENSION RIGHTS OF CIVIL SERVANTS
  EEC SECONDMENT: PENSION RIGHTS OF CIVIL SERVANTS
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS: ALTERNATIVE USES
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS: ALTERNATIVE USES
  CATTLE IN TRANSIT: ACCIDENT
  CATTLE IN TRANSIT: ACCIDENT
  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: TREATIES
  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: TREATIES
  WIDOWS' BENEFITS
  WIDOWS' BENEFITS
  SPECIAL ADVISERS AND ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
  SPECIAL ADVISERS AND ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
  NURSING EDUCATION: EEC DIRECTIVES
  NURSING EDUCATION: EEC DIRECTIVES
  ECGD: COMPETITIVE CREDIT TERMS
  ECGD: COMPETITIVE CREDIT TERMS
  PERSONAL INJURIES LITIGATION: WORKING PARTY REPORT
  PERSONAL INJURIES LITIGATION: WORKING PARTY REPORT
  CHISWICK HOUSE: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
  CHISWICK HOUSE: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
  HOMOEOPATHY POSTGRADUATE STUDIES: FINANCING
  HOMOEOPATHY POSTGRADUATE STUDIES: FINANCING