Sitting of 4 July 1980

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

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the two Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision of 18th March 1980 on Supplementary Revenue) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
  That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. —[Mr. Le Marchant.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 1

  AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS FOR UPGRADING OF ON-LICENCES
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 17, leave out "commencement of this Act" and insert
  "end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed"
  9.36 am
  Mr. Neville Trotter: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 3.
  Mr. Trotter: These amendments relate to the commencement date of the Act. In simple terms, Lords amendment No. 1 provides that clause 1 shall come into effect one month after the date upon
  1940
  which the Act is passed. Lords amendment No. 3 provides that the remainder of the Act shall come into force on
  "such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument"
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for the way in which he has proposed acceptance of the amendments. At the conclusion of the passage of the Bill it may be appropriate to say how well my hon. Friend has handled the Bill. It is one of the few Bills on the Order Paper today—the last day when the House considers Private Members' Bills—that will probably complete all its stages. It is one of the few Bills to which we have had amendments sent from another place. The fact that we are considering the amendments today reflects on the wisdom of my hon. Friend in choosing such a sensible subject for a Private Member's Bill.
  It is worth putting on record the fact that the Private Members' Bill season this year has been distorted because many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have embarked upon a course that is totally unsuitable for the Private Members' Bill procedure. The one thing that we have learnt during the course of this long Session is that if Members introduce a controversial Bill the chances of its reaching the statute book are extremely limited.
  When one's name is drawn in the ballot at the beginning of the Private Member's Bill season, it is no good choosing subjects below the navel about which people feel strongly. It is better to be wise and shrewd, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, and take the advice—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are discussing the Licensing (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, not the Private Members' Bill procedure. The hon. Gentleman may be right, but we should stick to the Lords amendments.
  Mr. Kimball: I apologise for having strayed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thought that, at the end of the season, your tolerance might allow me to review the whole of the Private Members' Bill season.

  1941
  I turn to the amendments which have come from another place. I was sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth gave them only a short introduction. We are in a serious position when discussing the amount of notice that must be given before a minor drinking licence—one that allows wine with a meal —can be changed. Am I right in thinking that on one month's notice it will be possible to change that licence?
  Mr. Trotter: The amendment relates to the changing of a limited licence, for a wine bar, for example, into a full public house licence. Under the Bill, that will no longer be an automatic right. Magistrates will have the power to refuse such an application if they think fit.
  Mr. Kimball: Can my hon. Friend explain to what "one month" refers? I am concerned about the time that one will have to object. I understand that one can object to the change of a licence only at the annual brewster sessions. I cannot tie up the one month's notice with the fact that the brewster sessions are held only once a year. A change of status of a licence affects property values in the area and concerns many people.
  Mr. Trotter: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has given up his Friday to take part in the debate. That shows his considerable interest in the subject. This part of the Bill will not come into force until one month after the Act becomes law.
  Mr. Kimball: I am grateful for that explanation.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I have a genuine interest in the Bill, not only because I am a sponsor, but because I used to practise at the licensing Bar. I learnt my practice at the feet of perhaps the greatest licensing practitioner the Bar has known, Mr. James Burge, QC, and in the early stages of my Bar career I edited the "Current Law Statutes" on the Licensing Act 1961. I have a close interest in the minutiae of the Bill and I want to ensure that we are doing precisely the right thing and to elicit the reasons why we are doing it.
  Mr. Kimball: Should not my hon. Friend declare an interest? He represents the famous town of Burton and I know that previous hon. Members for Burton
  1942
  always took the greatest care, when they spoke on licensing matters, to declare a substantial interest in the products of that town. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend can represent Burton without having some interest in the brewery business.
  Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that I represent the greatest brewing town in the country and that I have to declare that interest. I am not slow in coming forward whenever the interests of my constituency are involved, but I hardly had time to declare my interest. I was coming to it, though not on this amendment, because neither the brewers nor the substantial work force in my constituency, whether involved in the production of beer or associated activities, is much concerned with whether the legislation will come into force
  "at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed".
  They are more concerned with other aspects of the Bill which I shall refer to at the appropriate time.
  9.45 am
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has done the House, the country and the brewing industry a signal service in bringing forward the Bill, but it is not apparent at first sight that it did not already adequately cover the point of the Lords amendment. Clause 1(3) provides:
  "This section"—
  which amends the provisions for the upgrading of on-licences—
  "shall not have effect in relation to any application made under the said section 37 before the commencement of this Act."
  Clause 4(2) provides:
  "This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is passed."
  It therefore follows that everything in the Act will come into force
  "at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is passed."
  It is not immediately obvious why another place needed to amend the Bill to insert the words proposed in amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 3, to clause 4, says:
  "Sections 2 and 3 of this Act shall not come into force until such day as the Secretary of

  1943
  State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument."
  It appears that in relation to the second matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth is legislating he has been prevailed upon by another place to give the Secretary of State as much time as he wants before bringing into force the second part of the statute.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will explain why it is necessary to change the basis of the Bill's timing in that way. If there is a good reason for the Bill not being implemented within one month of its reaching the statute book, I shall want to know why that reason does not apply to both parts of the Bill and not only to the part dealing with appeals.
  The timing of appeals is a matter of less concern to the licensing trade Applications for a licence or the extension or revocation of a licence which are business matters of great financial importance to the businesses concerned, are heard before a magistrate's court of licensing justices, normally on the application of a lawyer.
  If the case goes the wrong way for an applicant, the lawyer will advise there and then on whether there is justification for appeal. There does not seem to be any apparent reason for a delay in the implementation of that part of the Bill which deals with appeals. There does not seem to be any reason why the secretary of State should have to make up his mind what date the Bill should come into force.
  However, an application for an extension or upgrading of a wine bar licence must be considered with care over a period. I can understand that there might be a need for the Secretary of State to give more consideration and decide the appropriate time at which that matter should be brought before the House.
  I think that my hon. Friend has it the wrong way round, although I might be wrong. He should be giving the Secretary of State power to bring in the first part of the Bill at such date as he thinks appropriate because that deals with the upgrading of on-licences. He should ensure that the second part of the Bill comes into operation within one month of comes into operation within one month of its being placed on the statute book.
  Mr. Kimball: I realise that my hon. Friend is skilled in these matters. He said that the appeal would be handled by
  1944
  a barrister. What will happen if an appeal is lodged when barristers are on holiday? What happens if the one-month period begins when the courts are not sitting?
  Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend labours under the misapprehension that members of the Bar work for set periods in the year. In the halcyon days of the last century, and in the years before I was privileged to be welcomed into the arms of the great legal profession, that might have been true. However, it is many years since the Bar conducted its operations before the courts according to the rigid timetable which my hon. Friend was brought up to believe in.
  The barrister of today never sleeps. He is always on hand and has to be on hand to give all types of legal advice and to make appearances in court. I do not wish to digress, but there have been occasions when I have appeared in court on Boxing Day and Easter Monday. I have been telephoned on Christmas Day, even on Labour Day. I have been at work on days which the less-hard-working members of society regard as holidays. They are working days for the Bar. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham(Mr. Hogg), who has helpfully joined us for this legal debate—look forward to when the House is not—
  Mr.Deputy Speaker(Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentle man said that he would not digress but he is digressing a little. Will he return to the question of the period of one month after the Act is passed?
  Mr. Lawrence: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was led astray by the dulcet tones of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough(Mr. Kimball), who was making a valid point. I spent too long answering him. The short answer is that member of the Bar are always on hand to provide a service, as are solicitors. The law never sleeps. If it does, we are in trouble
  I have made my point. A fuller explanation would be welcome. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has got it the wrong way round. The delay should be occasioned on the other part of the Bill. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has a sensible, reasonable and wholly justifiable explanation for what is, on the face of it, an extraordinary procedure.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on bringing his Bill so far and handling it with skill. The Government are content that the Bill should come into operation in the way proposed by my hon. Friend. I thank him and Lady Phillips, who sponsored the Bill in another place. It is a useful measure and it has been well piloted through its stages. It will correct several anomalies in the licensing law.
  It is right that an applicant for a full on-licence should be required to provide to the licensing justices satisfactory evidence of need. It is also right that the justices and magistrates should be able to take into account social and environmental factors in granting special hours certificates which permit late night drinking when it is ancillary to the provision of music, dancing and substantial refreshments. The provision will be welcomed by many, not least by magistrates, the police and people who live in the vicinity of such an establishment and whose sleep might be disturbed by noise.
  The Lords amendments should be accepted. Lords amendment No. 1 enables the provisions of clause 1 to come into force earlier than the provisions in clauses 2 and 3, which it is proposed should come into force by a commencement order. The amendment is in line with what is becoming normal practice. It allows for a month between the passing of the Act and its coming into force so that people who must comply with the Act have an opportunity to obtain copies of it. It has become a familiar grievance that legislation is passed without the printers being able to keep up. It is common sense to give people a chance to buy and read the Act before it comes into force.
  Mr. Lawrence: The provision is in the Bill, so why do we need the amendments?
  Mr. Raison: The amendment introduces a period of one month to give people a chance to read the Act.
  Mr. Trotter: There is a problem in taking one amendment in advance of another. Amendment No. 3 provides that there shall be a delay in bringing in the second part of the Act until the Secretary
  1946
  of State provides that it shall be put into operation. That is because the appeal procedure intended in the second part requires the Crown court rules to be amended; and that will take time. That is why the second part of the Bill will come into operation later.
  Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend has done the job which I was about to do. Since the Bill is his and he is sponsoring the amendments, what could be more appropriate than that he should explain them for me? My hon. Friend has accurately described the reasons for the amendment.
  10 am
  Mr. George Cunningham: It would be useful to hear from the Minister, not so much confirmation that the sponsor of the Bill has got it right, but some indication, as was given in vague terms in the House of Lords, of the use that the Government propose to make of the latitude given in the Bill. Lord Belstead said in the House of Lords that it was the Government's intention to bring the provisions, subject to commencement order, into force as soon as possible, or words to that effect. It would be better for us to have some more precise indication of the date that the Government think that the commencement order might stipulate—or at least a rough indication.
  Mr. Raison: I cannot give a precise indication, but since we accept that this is a desirable and wise piece of legislation our feeling is that, once the problem of the adjustment to the Crown court rules has been carried out, this is something we should get on with. We support the legislation. I should have thought that the right answer was to get on with it.
  Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reassurance. The point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is not a superfluous one. There have been too many statutes recently—I cite the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act—in which commencement dates have been given and assurances have been made, yet, by the time the legislation commenced, it had to be changed. It is important perpetually to remind Ministers that these obligations to bring in, as

  1947
  soon as possible, commencement dates, are obligations that ought not to distort the will of Parliament, as has happened in the matrimonial causes procedures.
  Mr. Raison: I take my hon. Friend's point. I think I can rely on him as a tireless watchdog, who says that he never sleeps in these matters, to keep the Government up to the mark. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth will also do so. These are sensible amendments and I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to support the amendment and to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). It is valuable that the amendment provides for a delay of one month before the statute effectively comes into operation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Burton, I consider that it is extremely important, in the first place, that people who will be affected by statutes of this kind should have the opportunity to obtain a fully printed and up-to-date statute. One of the problems facing people is that statutes change as they pass through this House and the other place. As a result, they do not really know what are their statutory obligations.
  It is important that before people are required to comply with a statute, they should have the opportunity of knowing exactly what their statutory obligations amount to. Associated with that is the opportunity to take legal advice. Until the Bill is finally passed and receives the Royal Assent, it is extremely difficult for people who might be affected by this statute to know upon what question they should obtain legal advice. It is highly desirable that there should be this period of one month within which they can acquire the necessary legal guidance.
  People do not concentrate their minds on legislation unless and until they see that they will be affected by it. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for people to say that the matter will be looked after by the noble Lords or dealt with on Report. They do not concentrate their minds until they realise that the matter is law. The one-month period contemplated by this amendment enables people who are likely to be affected by the scope of the statute to put
  1948
  their representations in written form, to communicate with their Members of Parliament and, if desirable, to communicate with my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his colleagues. That is a valuable safeguard because this House is always ready to look again at possible defects. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is also ready to look at possible defects in a statute. I give the warmest possible endorsement to the amendment. I hope that it will be accepted by the House without any criticism.
  Sir Ronald Bell: I want to say only a word about the Lords amendment. It is rather strange in the sense that, in the past, we have often said that where a process such as an application for a justices' on-licence, or any such application, begins, one got through before the gate was closed and the statute, which is already the law, shall not apply to any of the subsequent stages of that process, because it can be a fairly extended process. From some experience of it, I can say that the process can also be agreeable and amusing—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Or remunerative.
  Sir R. Bell: My hon. Friend makes a quite unworthy comment. There is no part of my legal practice that I have enjoyed more than licensing work. It has a certain bucolic atmosphere lacking from other aspects of it.
  The process can continue for some time. One can appeal to the Crown court and so on. Even if we retain the words
  "the commencement of this Act"
  we are still in a sense exempting people from the new provisions for quite a long time.
  My first reaction on reading the Lords amendment was "Is this not odd? Is this to be done for all sorts of things in future?" Will it not lead to a situation when one does not say that anything started before the Act comes into force shall be exempt from the new provisions but anything started before one month after the Act comes into force shall be exempted from the new provisions? This could be a precedent quoted on future occasions. I am not aware of any exact parallel hitherto.
  This is not a very important matter, but it is an interesting proposal. I

  1949
  think, on balance, that it is justified in this legislation. We are dealing with a change in the law which will not get around all that quickly. There is an organisation of licensed victuallers that always resists any new application for a justices' licence. When one's client succeeds, as he always does, he joins the body and becomes one of the objectors next time. It is a most agreeable process, part of the bucolic atmosphere to which I referred. There is a trade organisation and knowledge of these impending changes gets around. There is nevertheless something to be said for the gap of one month. It ensures that anyone who did not know has a one-month better chance of knowing before putting in his application. It is a good amendment. I shall support it.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

  SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES; AMENDMENT OF SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 6, at end insert—
  "81B.—(1) Subject to subsection(2) of this section, any person aggrieved by a decision of licensing justices or a magistrates' court—

  (a) to revoke or not to revoke a special certificate on an application under subsection (2) or (4) of section 81 of this Act,

  (b) to impose or not to impose a condition under subsection (1) of section 81A of this Act on an application for the grant of a special hours certificate or to impose a condition under that subsection on an application for the revocation of such a certificate, or

  (c) to impose or not to impose a condition on an application under section 81A(2) of this Act,

  may appeal to the Crown Court against that decision.
  (2) Only the chief officer of police may appeal against a decision not to revoke a certificate as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section or not to impose a condition as mentioned in paragraph (c) of that subsection; and a person may appeal against a decision not to impose a condition under section 81A(1) of this Act only if he has appeared before the licensing justices or magistrates' court and made representations that the condition be imposed.
  (3) A person other than the appellant shall be a party to an appeal under this section if,
  1950
  and only if, he has appeared before the licensing justices or magistrates' court and made representations on the application to which the decision appealed against relates.
  (4) Licensing justices shall have the same power to make an order for the payment of costs on the abandonment of an appeal under this section as a magistrates' court has by virtue of section 85 of the magistrates' Courts Act 1952 on the abandonment of an appeal to which that section relates."
  Mr. Trotter: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Wetherill): With this we may take Lords amendment No. 4.
  Mr. Trotter: Lords amendment No. 2 provides a right of appeal where, under the Bill, the justices decide against an applicant for a late night drinking special hours certificate. Under the Bill, provision is made for magistrates no longer to have automatically to grant a special hours certificate for late night drinking until the same time as covered by a music and dancing licence. It was felt by representatives of those with such establishments as require these certificates that justice might not always be done by the initial court which hears the application and that there should be a right of appeal.
  I have great faith in British justice. While I cannot help reflecting that half the time the learned gentlemen at the Bar appear to be wrong, I am sure that the justices are not often wrong. Certainly they are not wrong half the time. It is, however, a fair point that there should be a right of appeal against a decision. I was, therefore, prepared to accept an amendment setting out such a right. From the point of view of procedure, it was easier for that to be done in the Lords, and I should like to pay tribute, as has the Minister, to the help given by Baroness Phillips in steering the Bill through the other place. Their Lordships accepted the argument for a right of appeal, and Lords amendment No. 2 has that effect.
  Lords amendment No. 4 is a consequential amendment which slightly alters the title of the Bill.
  Mr. George Cunningham: This Bill has had a chequered career through two Parliaments. There have been many stages to it but very few speeches on it. This

  1951
  is certainly the first time that I have opened my mouth on the subject, and I do so only to make one or two points.
  First, I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on his perseverance in pushing the measure through and on the great clarity with which he has explained it to the House on this and previous occasions.
  This Lords amendment was described by one noble Baroness as being technical. Of the four amendments with which we are dealing, it is the one which is least accurately described as technical. It is a substantial amendment, creating a right of appeal which did not exist before. Because in the past I have often been irritated when looking back at the manner in which this or that Bill has passed through Parliament, and not being able to find the basis upon which an amendment has been passed or the assumptions about it which were in the minds of hon. Members at the time, I believe that it would be right either for the sponsor of the Bill, or perhaps preferably for the Minister, to tell us how the right of appeal which is added to the Bill by the amendment relates to the right of appeal which normally exists in licensing matters.
  I think, although I am not at all sure that I am right, that in respect of these new discretions in the hands of magistrates, this gives an exactly comparable right of appeal to the Crown court which presently exists for the discretion which magistrates have on other points. If I am right, let us have it said during the course of someone's speech so that if points arise on the issue in future we know the basic upon which the House has decided to pass the Bill.
  Mr. Lawrence: This is a thoroughly sensible improvement. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has said, it is certainly not a technical amendment.
  I should also like to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on the measure that he has introduced and on the excellent way in which he has handled the matter from start to finish. I should also like to take the opportunity of thanking Baroness Phillips for her contribution in the House of Lords.
  My astonishment is as to how we ever let the Bill get as far as it did without
  1952
  noticing that apparently it deprived people who are concerned with matters dealt with in the Bill, in that it did not give them a proper opportunity to appeal, short of an appeal on a point of law to the Divisional Court.
  With the benefit of hindsight, one can always blame oneself. One never likes to blame others. I took part in the earlier proceedings on the Bill. So preoccupied was I with the general principles that were set out in it, that I completely failed to notice on Second Reading that we were depriving those concerned with the operation of the legislation of a valid right of appeal.
  10.15 am
  Of course, an injustice would have been thought to have been done where an addition to the processes of the licensing law, which was a restrictive one, is introduced which does not provide for an appeal to another tribunal, as is provided by other matters contained in the Bill.
  Of course, the position before the Bill was introduced was that the justices had to grant the upgraded licence, provided that the music and dancing licence and the suitability of premises applied. Those matters were not arguable. It lay at the discretion of justices to upgrade. That was the evil of the situation as identified, not only by my hon. Friend but by licensing practitioners and writers, notably Mr. Martin, who I am proud to say was educated at the same superb establishment as I was, the Brighton, Hove and Sussex grammar school. That is yet another connection that I have with this legislation which enables me to speak. I am only sad that that wonderful grammar school in Brighton became—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can have that.
  Mr. Lawrence: I have no wish to digress, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My sadness shall be buttoned up inside me for another more appropriate occasion.
  The point made by Mr. Martin and other writers, which I observed when I read all the established writings and the authorities, and made my limited contribution to the understanding of the licensing law, was that that matter has been put right. Its object is to restrict, but we should not restrict without giving a right of appeal.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am somewhat troubled by Mr. Martin. I am afraid that I do not know very much about Mr. Martin, nor the nature of the work that he has published. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us something about that man, together with his works.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that Mr. Martin has a great deal to do with appeals in respect of special hours certificates. Perhaps we should listen to the views of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
  Mr. Lawrence: I am conscious of the fact that I mentioned the eminent and learned gentleman's name without saying anything about him. If I did so, that would add to the strength of purpose of the Bill. But probably the leading authority in this sphere thought it appropriate that this legislation ought to be introduced.
  Sir Ronald Bell: Would that be the Mr. Martin who is the secretary of the Lord's Day Observance Society?
  Mr. Lawrence: Not that I am aware of. This is Mr. J. N. Martin, OBE, who is a solicitor and was formerly the Clerk to the Justices for the petty sessional divisions of Beccles, Blything and Lowestoft. He has devoted his life to the licensing practice and the informing of practitioners. He is, of course, well known to those practising at the licensing Bar as the editor of "Paterson", which is the leading authority. I am sorry for forgetting that my hon. Friend the Member for Granthan (Mr. Hogg) has moved on from the licensing practice to wider and—I hope—more remunerative areas, and has forgotten the name of the editor of the book.
  I welcome the Bill, and I pay tribute to those who have introduced it. I have explained why this amendment is necessary, but I do not think—I say this with considerable trepidation and some hesitation—that the way in which it is to be integrated into the law is as tidy as it should be. I understand that the clause, which gives the right of appeal to a Crown court on questions of fact, is to become a part of section 81 of the Licensing Act 1964, which is a consolidation Act. That is untidy, and it is unnecessarily verbose. Section 21 of the Act deals with appeals. A lawyer advis-
  1954
  ing a client or a layman seeking to find out his rights will obviously look at the definitive Act—the Licensing Act 1964 —under the section on appeals. Therefore, he would expect to find the contents of this amendment in section 21 of the Act. But it will not be there. It will be included in section 81. Although I concede that anyone who looks at the statute for that purpose will naturally look at section 81, this is untidy, and we should not churn out ill-digested legislation—as Lord Renton reminded us in the report on legislation.
  If this amendment had been an amendment to section 21 of the Act, it would have been simpler and shorter. Section 21, which specifically deals with appeals, states:
  "Subject to subsection (2) of this section, any person aggrieved by any of the following decisions of licensing justices, that is to say—

  (a) a decision granting or refusing to grant a new justices' licence or an ordinary removal of a justices' licence;

  (b) a decision refusing the renewal, transfer or special removal of a justices' licence;

  (c) a refusal to declare a provisional grant final or to affirm a provisional grant or to give consent, on the application of the holder of a provisional licence, to a modification of plans;

  (d) the making of an order under section 19 of this Act;

  (e) the refusal of a consent required under section 20 of this Act; or

  (f) any decision as to the conditions of a justices' on-licence;

  may appeal to quarter sessions against that decision."
  The amendment uses over 100 words. If the amendment had been more appropriately included under section 21, a paragraph (g) could have been included stating "Any decision covering revocation of a licence under section 21 of the Act", and a paragraph (h) stating: "Any decision as to the conditions of special hours certificates under section 21 of the Act". That would have been far simpler.
  Mr. Kimball: As a non-lawyer, I am in some difficulty over this matter. The amendment states that:
  "Only the chief officer of police may appeal against a decision."
  Section 21(1)(a) to (f) does not deal with the position of the chief officer of police. Can my hon. Friend give some guidance
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with this Bill, and not with the 1964 Act. The hon. Gentleman must not be tempted to digress too much from the amendment.
  Mr. Lawrence: I take your indication, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is relevant I am merely making the specific technical point that instead of using over 100 words which are appended to the wrong section, 30 words might have been used concisely, and added to the appropriate section of the Act. It is a simple point. I do not wish to detain the House by dilating upon it further, but I ask the Minister to consider my suggestion.
  Sir Ronald Bell: I also welcome these amendments, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I am a little astonished at the complication that has been necessary to introduce a right of appeal.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) invited the Minister to explain the background and circumstances. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has now found out what the amendment is about, and no doubt in due course we shall be given an explanation. This is a remarkably cumbrous way round. Perhaps it was felt in another place that this was the only way of proceeding, because the principal Act could not be amended in the way that my hon. Friend suggested, which would be shorter and more convenient. In principle, I welcome the amendment. It was a remarkable omission that a right of appeal was not incorporated in the Bill, although I do not criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for that. A right of appeal is necessary in these cases.
  10.30 am
  Occasionally one gets some odd licensing benches. They are always interesting, but sometimes odd. I remember one place, very near Teignmouth for which my hon. Friend is not the Member, where the licensing justices, holding strong evangelical views, had not granted a licence or an extension since the First World War. But this was one particularly strong case and they wrestled with the devil for about two hours before granting the licence. One knows that on a number of occasions idiosyncratic results emanate from licensing justices.
  1956
  Therefore, we must be able to go to the Crown court to know that there is scrutiny of them.
  Mr. Lawrence: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that not only are licensing justices sometimes idiosyncratic but that they are often selected from politically elected councillors? That being so, some areas have a political attitude to the control of licensing. For example, Conservative predominated areas have always tended to think that there should be no restraints, or a limited number of restraints, on the opportunities for licences to be granted and, as it were, that the applicants or licensees should fight it out amongst themselves for business. If they are not successful, they will go out of business. The successful licensees will make a greater contribution to the community than would otherwise perhaps have been made.
  In other areas, there is a tendency to restrict and to control which is almost Socialist in its concept; that is, that there shall be just three licensees and anybody else who applies will not get in because that would take business away from any other licensee and the competitive instinct is removed. Therefore, it is not only idiosyncratic. In licensing policy and its application there is often a political policy-making slant. Because licensing is a legal matter, which should not in any sense be political, it is appropriate that appeals should be made to the Crown court which is in no sense political.
  Sir. R. Bell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not being the hon. Member for Burton, I am not so well informed on these matters as my hon. Friend. What he said had a great deal of truth in it. However, I do not think that it is so much the political affiliations of the magistrates which produce the idiosyncrasies as their religious affinities. At least, that is what I have found. It is much harder to get a licence from a Calvinist bench than from a high Anglican bench. I speak as one of Calvinist background who has urged the House that people of that persuasion should not be compelled to wear seat belts because they believe in predestination. It may be that some of these convoluted theological arguments find their way into the apparently mundane subject

  1957
  of licensing although, I have always found it an interesting one.
  There is a certain unpredictability about licensing benches. Therefore, one must be able to go to the Crown Court. When I say "one", I mean not only the applicant but the objectors, too, because they are affected. I suppose that a good deal of neighbourhood change could be affected by the extensions that we are considering—noise, people and so on. Therefore, it is important that both sides should have recourse to the Crown Court in a matter which never fails to excite a great deal of local interest.
  Both before the magistrates court and Crown court, the witnesses are local people who usually feel quite strongly about these matters. When people on both sides give this kind of evidence—it is more an expression of opinion than evidence in the strict sense—and find the decision by the local bench odd, they do not feel that they have had justice. Therefore, they must be able to go—I say this without disrespect—to a proper court for a rehearing.
  I once had the agreeable experience of finding that my tutor from Oxford of 30 years ago was a witness pressing for increased facilities for the consumption of alcholic liquor in the neighbourhood. I hope that agreeable tradition of Oxford is not changed by the influx of women which I have noticed with regret.
  It gives me great pleasure to support Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 which are hinged on Lords amendment No. 2, although we are not positively discussing No. 2, I am sure that this will be an improvement in the law. I hope that one day we shall meet on one of these agreeable Fridays to tidy up the prolixity to which we seem to be committed today by the stage of proceedings at which the amendment is made. It will look absurd to have a section 81B in the Licensing Act conferring this isolated right of appeal on both sides in this long form.
  I could say a good deal more about this matter, but I see that my hon. Friends are anxious to speak. Therefore, I shall not stand between them and their comments on the amendment.
  Mr.Kimball rose—
  Sir R. Bell: Perhaps I may restrain my hon. Friend's eagerness for a moment. One point which struck me as odd was the restriction to the chief officer of police in appealing against the grant. The subsection then goes on to say:
  "and a person"—
  presumably it must be a chief officer of police because he is the only person who can—
  "may appeal against a decision not to impose a condition…only if he has appeared before the licensing justices or magistrates' Court and made representations that the condition be imposed."
  That seems odd if it applies only to refusal to impose a condition, not to the revocation of a certificate. I hope that the Minister of State will explain that extreme refinement. First, the person must be a chief officer of police, and, secondly, he can appeal only against refusal to impose a condition. Is one to infer from that he can appeal on a revocation matter even though the police were not present and represented in the magistrates' court? Is that the position? It is a little odd.
  I look forward to a full explanation of this whole matter from the Minister. We are obviously going to get it, because my hon. Friend has been running back and forth between the Box and the Front Bench. I know that he is now fully briefed on all the implications, and no doubt my hon. Friends will refine the question.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: I had not intended to intervene, but, having listened to the words of my hon. and learned Friends, I feel that certain aspects of what I thought was a simple and wholly unexceptionable Bill should be commented upon.
  Mr. George Cunningham: For those who are witnessing our proceedings or may later read them, will the hon. Gentleman say whether Conservative Members are filibustering against the Youth and Community Bill of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) or one of the other Bills that we may come to later in the day?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the debate, and it is important that hon. Gentlemen should stick to the amendments on this Bill. We have a lot more business in front of us.
  Mr. Shaw: I shall follow your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) suggested that on occasions licensing benches were rather odd bodies.
  Sir Ronald Bell: But always interesting.
  Mr. Shaw: My experience is limited but practical, and I have found that they are very representative of local opinion.
  Sir R. Bell: Local opinion is often odd, although always interesting.
  Mr. Shaw: We may owe our presence here to the fact that the oddity of our constituents is closely allied to our own quirks. Therefore, we should not be too critical.
  Representative though they are of local opinion, licensing benches embody the perpetuation of local opinion. Others who have a different opinion may not have a chance when appearing before licensing benches to get a new point of view accepted. It is important that there should be a right of appeal. The generality of decisions may be welcome and wise, but there are occasions when the exceptional view should be taken into account and given a right of appeal, which would bring an outside mind to judgment on the matter.
  Certain appearances before the local bench have been almost automatic in the past. It may be that that should continue. However, there can be sudden changes in the representatives on the bench, in the police force or in the practice. It may seem unreasonable to those concerned that, although there has been no change in their circumstances, such changes should dramatically affect their living. It is only right that justice should be seen to be done by there being the right of appeal.
  In view of my hon. Friend's comments, I felt that the position of local licensing benches, given the tremendous amount of valuable work that they do, should be put into perspective. Even though that excellence has been proved, there are occasions when the right of appeal is appropriate.
  10.45 am
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support the amendment, and in particular the provisions for appeal.
  I have the misfortune to differ in part from the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). He described applications before licensing justices as being of a judicial character. That is the theory, but in practice such hearings are more of an administrative character. Whether that should be so is largely irrelevant to the argument. To appear before justices is mainly to participate in an administrative function. That fact is important to the question of an appeal. Many justices sitting on licensing benches do not consider an application for such licences in a wholly judicial way. Indeed, I am not even sure that they should do so. They take into account broad questions of local policy, together with the views of the local community, as is right. However, it is not wholly judicial. The judicial process involves examining a question on its narrow merits, and forming an opinion on that narrow question.
  If I am right in saying that what the licensing justices are essentially doing is carrying through an administrative process, one sees at once that the absence of an appellate procedure can cause considerable hardship to those affected by that decision. Frequently licensing justices refuse to grant a licence not because the applicant is in some way unsuitable but because in their opinion there is a sufficient number of licence holders in the immediate area.
  The House will wish to understand the financial repercussions that can befall somebody whose licence is revoked or may be subject to repressive conditions. We are not talking about only a few hundred pounds. In many cases it is thousands of ponds. It is unsatisfactory that such a decision can be taken on administrative grounds and not be the subject of an appeal.
  It is not for me on this occasion to digress on the wider implications of the problem. However, administrative decisions are too frequently taken without the ability to appeal. This is a useful precedent to which I hope the House will have regard in the future, when considering wider issues involving administrative law.
  Mr. Kimball: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if there are any changes in these conditions, and the landlord is a tenant and it is not a managed house, the brewery will still want the same rent from the landlord before there is a chance to change his lease? Publicans can be seriously affected by changes.
  Mr. Hogg: That is a valuable intervention. Not only could the landlord be affected, but also the tenant. There could be a change in the conditions that would make the business wholly uneconomic. The burden will fall not on the landlord but on the tenant, who will be contractually bound to pay the rent provided for under the tenancy agreement, although his income may be substantially reduced because of the conditions imposed by the licensing justices. My hon. Friend's comment emphasises the importance of the appellate procedure.
  However, the argument for the appellate procedure goes much further. I have dwelt on the nature of applications before licensing justices and stressed that it is essentially of an administrative character. The amount of time devoted to such administrative decisions varies considerably from bench to bench and area to area. But frequently the amount of time devoted to the process is naturally very small. The courts are overburdened, they have many applications, and as a matter of fact licensing justices often hold the licensing sessions at the beginning of a full morning's business, and, therefore, are under considerable pressure to cut short the hearing. This is an important point because it means that the justices frequently—and no blame to them—do not have sufficient time to probe all the relevant considerations.
  The existence of an appellate procedure provided by this clause introduced from the other place gives a court—in this case, the Crown court—an ability to consider the application in considerable detail in so far as it applies to a revocation of a grant.
  Moving from the general to the particular, I should like to say something briefly about the second subsection in the new clause. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) asked an important question about the application of the new subsection. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will give a full
  1962
  description of what this subsection purports to do. My understanding of what it purports to do is that it gives to the chief officer of police, and only to him, the right to appeal against a decision not to revoke the certificate and a right to appeal against the decision not to impose a condition mentioned in paragraph (c). The chief officer of police has a right to appeal against a refusal to act in the specified ways, but no other person whatsoever has such a right. I understand that that is the effect of subsection (2).
  The subsection goes on to say that in respect of decisions
  "not to impose a condition under section 81A(1),"
  any person may have a right of appeal provided that that person participated in the lower court and made representations. I understand that to be the effect of subsection (2).
  I regard that as being a wholly sensible approach to this problem, for two reasons. First, I think that it is right that there should be some finality in proceedings of this kind. If we were to allow any person who might deem himself to be affected by a refusal to grant a condition or to revoke a licence, there would be a multiplicity of appeals and thus no finality. It is in the interests of justice broadly that there should always be finality on matters of this kind. Therefore, I welcome and support the restricted right of appeal.
  There is the other point that, in so far as the second part of the new subsection is concerned, we should not have a situation in which people should be taken by surprise.
  Mr. Kimball: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hogg: Therefore, I agree with the proposal contained in the second part of the new subsection that a person should be able to appeal unless that person appeared before the licensing justices and made his representations. The reason is that the person likely to be affected by the appeal must have at least some knowledge of the case which he has to meet and, therefore, is not taken by surprise. Therefore, I entirely support the proposal contained in subsection (2) of the amendment.

  1963
  Turning to subsection (3), I should like some clarification from my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He may have some hesitation about giving that clarification but I hope, none the less, that he will do so, because I think that the House would like to know exactly the interrelationship between the provisions contained in subsection (2) and those contained in subsection (3). As my hon. Friend the Minister is hesitant, perhaps I could indicate to him what I think it means.
  Subsection (3) does not touch on the right of appeal at all, but when an appeal has been mounted by an appellant it enables other persons who have views— such as interested Members of Parliament—to toddle along and make their representations to the appellate court. But that right, as I understand it—the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—is limited by an important restriction, namely, that they should have appeared before the licensing justices already and made those views apparent.
  I am sure that the Minister of State will treat this as an important matter. It is essential that the House should appreciate the interrelationship between these two quite significant subsections. Therefore, I hope that he will take advice, if he needs advice, and tell the House about it.
  There is also the question of costs. Subsection (4) contains an important provision dealing with costs. I have long held the view that magistrates' courts and licensing justices are not sufficiently alert to their powers to award costs to successful litigants. I do not wish to digress and, therefore, the point I make is very brief. It is very important that, whenever the licensing justices or magistrates have a power to award costs, they should exercise that power so as to prevent successful litigants from having to fund the litigation or the complaints which are determined in their favour. The higher courts, in particular the High Court and the county courts, have long held the rule that costs follow the event. I wish that the licensing justices and the magistrates' courts would, as a matter of practice, adopt the same approach.
  That is the general proposition. Subsection (4) deals with an important situation which would not previously be covered. It is this. It is very easy for
  1964
  an application to be made before the licensing justices which gives rise to some form of decision, and that decision gives rise to an appeal. So one has an appeal to the Crown court, but, for reasons best known to the appellant, the appeal is not proceeded with. The respondent to the appeal is, in such circumstances, in rather a difficult position, because once the appeal has been launched he must prepare his case in order to meet the appeal.
  Frequently in cases of this kind—and, as I have already emphasised, substantial sums of money are involved—the respondent to an appeal has to take expensive advice. I am not here referring to advice from people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. I have in mind advice from surveyors, estate agents, accountants, and so on—all of whom charge substantial sums, probably correctly, for preparing the respondent's case. But then one has the embarrassing situation of the appellant not proceeding with his appeal, and, therefore, there is no matter before the Crown court which can give rise to an order for costs in favour of the respondent.
  So what this subsection does is to provide against that situation, namely, when the appeal has not been proceeded with but the respondent has incurred substantial costs, the respondent can go back to the justices' court and require an order for costs. That seems to be an important safeguard and it has the additional advantage of making frivolous appeals somewhat less likely.
  Mr, Kimball: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hogg: Therefore, having considered this proposed new section with some care, having reviewed all its subsections, and having asked certain questions of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I think that I can, with a degree of confidence, recommend it to the House.
  11 am
  Mr. Kimball: It is with some trepidation that I speak on this new clause. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)— who is also my political neighbour—for his lucid and erudite explanation. It is significant that two Members who represent the same county are involved in the consideration of this legislation. It shows how strongly Lincolnshire feels about today's Order Paper and this measure.

  1965
  Although the electors in Grantham and Gainsborough feel strongly about the issue, I should hate to create the impression that we in Lincolnshire are a bucolic lot. We are not. We are worried about an increase in drinking outlets, not about their closure. At the end of March, a whole Friday was devoted to considering the eight P's of the countryside—the parson, the postmistress and so on. Among those people was the publican. Publicans are important because they keep local communities going. We in Lincolnshire suffer because we do not have the eight P's in the villages. However, I do not wish to create the impression that we seek an increase in the number of drinking outlets.
  The other place has, as I understand it, but I am not a lawyer, prevented a grave injustice. My hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) are all trained in the law. As a layman, I was impressed when I heard them make clear that a grave injustice would have been committed if the Bill had not been amended.
  Earlier, I misled the House because I did not have the benefit of the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. As a layman, I said that the licensing court sat only at the brewster sessions. I think that I said that one had only one opportunity of appealing to the licensing court. I wish to put the record straight. I understand that the licensing justices sit four times a year. The fact that an appeal can be made to the Crown court is an advantage as the Crown court is always available and is non-political. However, I shall not stray on to that subject as it has been covered well by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
  All hon. Members will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) as he has carried on the famous traditions of this House. He is willing to accept an important amendment that will prevent a major injustice.
  Mr. Raison: The Government believe that it is only just that there should be a right of appeal to the Crown court against decisions made by the licensing
  1966
  justices and the magistrates in relation to restricting the operation and revocation of special hours certificates. Such decisions will affect not only the livelihood of the operators but also the environmental comfort of the community. The Government also think it right that all interested parties should enjoy the right of appeal. We find the amendment quite acceptable.
  Several points have been raised during a spirited debate. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) asked whether the provision brings the right of appeal into line with other rights of appeal in discretionary decisions in this area. I confirm that it does.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) spoke at greater length. His interpretation of the amendments has been of the accuracy that we would expect of a lawyer of his calibre. Concern was shown about who could appeal. As has emerged from the debate, this is a slightly complicated issue. In order to answer that point, one must look at the original Bill as well as at Lords amendment No. 2. In clause 3 there is a new section 81A under which there is a general power for licensing justices—or, for members' clubs, magistrates—to impose conditions. Anyone may appear in the proceedings if the original tribunal will hear him. If so, he can appeal.
  Under section 81A(2), 81(2) and 81(4) of the principal Act—which allows the chief officer to apply for revocation—only he can apply for a condition once a certificate has been granted. Only he can appeal in that situation. I think that that confirms my hon. Friend's interpretations. I congratulate him on his erudition and diligence. The Lords amendments are helpful and sensible, and we certainly support them.
  Mr. Trotter: With the leave of the House, may I say that the appeal procedure was not in the original Bill, because this valid argument had not been raised. In the past there has been no right of appeal against a revocation of a special hours certificate. When it was suggested that such a right of appeal should exist against the imposition of conditions it seemed right to consider whether there should also be an appeal against the original power of revocation. The amendment will provide a right of appeal against

  1967
  the imposition of conditions and also give the right of appeal against revocation. The situation has therefore been improved immeasurably. It has been said that those concerned with legislation should know what it means.
  Mr. Lawrence: That applies to revocation but not to the conditions attached to the justices' licence. Section 21 of the Licensing Act 1964 provides a right of appeal against decisions on the conditions.
  Mr. Trotter: That is absolutely correct. It is important that those outside the House of Commons should know what laws are being passed. We wish to know the views of outsiders when we debate Bills. I do not wish to filibuster, but I should like to mention en passant the Tyne and Wear [Lords] Bill. It proposed to make masters of ships liable for the bills incurred by the owner of ships entering the port of Sunderland. It was only because that provision was spotted that the clause was withdrawn. Master mariners would not have spotted that point. More thought should be given to measures before they become law.
  Several hon. Members have raised the question of complexity. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) said that this was a simple Bill. I am not an expert on licensing law, but I have spent about three years on the Bill and I quickly found out that licensing was extremely complex. We are being forced to refer to many different measures on licensing law. I believe that we need a consolidation measure. I therefore hope that the Government will present such a measure.
  Mr. Lawrence: I made a point about complexity on Second Reading. The Erroll committee was set up to consider the complexities of licensing legislation, and it reported in 1970. Does not my hon. Friend feel that it is inexcusable that nothing has been done about it? Does he not share my view that it is time that the Government applied their mind to the total reform of licensing law? They should consider the well-intended and sensible suggestions for simplifying the procedures that the Erroll committee put forward. Will he join me in asking my hon. Friend the Minister to say some-
  1968
  thing about his intention to implement at least some parts of those recommendations?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a Third Reading debate. The Minister has already spoken once. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) is speaking for a second time by leave of the House and he should not be tempted into discussing the whole of the licensing law.
  Mr. Trotter: I will be guided by your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My hon, Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) expounded in the most erudite way the complexities of the Bill and the amendments. He referred to the loss that would be suffered by a person who had a special hours certificate if there were conditions imposed. We are talking about enormous sums of money. At some of these establishments there are 4,000 people present at the same time. If a place such as that is to have its certificate withdrawn or conditions for shorter hours imposed it will suffer enormous losses.
  The need to deal with the late night nuisance in urban areas has been foremost in my mind during discussions on this part of the Bill. I take the point that even in Lincolnshire from time to time there have been troubles, even if there are not as many pubs there as there used to be. All over the country there has been excessive trouble at night caused by late-night drinking. This is not due to the well-run establishment; it is caused by the fly-by-night operators. This Bill will help to deal with that problem, not least because for the first time it brings in the condition that magistrates may have regard to disturbances outside the premises and not just inside. That will be a great help to magistrates in improving the position.
  Finally, there has been a genuine feeling of concern expressed in this debate by all the hon. Members that this measure is necessary. I pay tribute to those who have supported me, not just now, but throughout the proceedings, not least Mr. Martin the editor of "Paterson's Licensing Acts".
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.

MARRIED WOMEN'S POLICIES OF ASSURANCE (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
11.13 am
Mr. Marcus Kimball: I hesitate to speak, but I had hoped that the promoter of the Bill would make a considerable speech explaining its provisions. I obtained the report of the Standing Committee debates. When I read that, I found that the proceedings basically consisted of birthday greetings to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg).
Mr. Douglas Hogg: He is not here today.
Mr. Kimball: No, the other Mr. Hogg. His birthday greetings were the total sum of deliberations in Standing Committee on the Bill.
However, the Standing Committee was a little more fortunate than the House of Commons is today, because at least it had the presence of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. In no way do I wish to cast any aspersion on the ability, hard work and competence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is sitting on the Front Bench, but when a highly technical matter to do with married women's policies of assurance in Scotland comes before the House the least we can expect is the presence of the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
The 5 million people in Scotland are legally extremely well represented. They have a Solicitor-General and a Lord Advocate. But the Lord Advocate is not a Member of the House of Commons and when we have two Scottish Law Officers, one of whom is not a Member of this House, I feel very strongly that one of them should be present on occasions such as this. If the Solicitor-General for Scotland was able to attend the Standing Committee in order to wish many happy returns to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, he might have at least been in the House today to help us understand the Bill.
1970
My purpose in putting down the Third Reading motion was to give the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) an opportunity to explain its full provisions to the House on Third Reading. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to do that, so I shall conclude my remarks by congratulating him on succeeding in getting his Bill as far as he has. I would not wish to see the Bill tumble at the last parliamentary hurdle. I tabled the Third Reading motion purely and simply in the hope that I would receive an explanation. The whole House wishes the hon. Member well with his Bill and congratulates him on a considerable achievement in getting it so far—particularly in this Session when people have abused the Private Members' Bill procedure. In the present climate it is an indication of the hon. Member's charm and competence, and the respect that the House has for him, that he has succeeded in getting the Bill so far.
Mr. William McKelvey: I hope that I shall be able to convince the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) that I chose this Bill not for any sensation-seeking reason. It is a modest but very important Bill. I am not really the perpetrator of it but merely the catalyst by which it has proceeded.
I wish to record my thanks to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who was very kind and helpful to me as a new Member. I sought advice from wiser and more experienced hon. Members, and they told me that if I saw the Solicitor-General for Scotland there would be some small piece of humane and desirable legislation which I could pilot through the House. I took that advice, and I am glad to be here to make these submissions. I hope that hon. Members will give the Bill a Third Reading.
The Bill is comparatively simple but important. It implements report No. 52 by the Scottish Law Commission. The main provision of this simple measure is to give women in Scotland the same right that men in Scotland have had for 100 years, namely, the power or right to take out insurance policies on their own lives under the Married Women's Policies of Assurance (Scotland) Act 1880 for the benefit of their spouses and children, or for any of them individually.

1971
The Bill achieves that by amending section 2 of the 1880 Act. The purpose of that Act was to enable a man, as the almost invariable breadwinner in those days, to give his wife an irrevocable gift in the form of a policy on his life which would not be subject to the claims of his creditors in the event of his bankruptcy or debt. It was a particularly sensible measure 100 years ago, when by law anything belonging to a wife became her husband's on marriage, and all gifts between spouses were recoverable by the donor. The Act remains useful today because a wife's property, including her money, is often closely intertwined with her husband's and may be presumed to be part of his assets—for example, in bankruptcy. Policies written under the Act provide an uncomplicated method of constituting a trust, and they will therefore continue to be of importance.
The only definition in the Bill that I should like to mention is that of "children"—the children that the person effecting a policy may have, including illegitimate or adopted children. It does not include children of his or her spouse and another person, unless they have been adopted by the person effecting the policy.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have read the Bill with considerable interest and I should like clarification on one point from the hon. Member. Am I right in thinking that the chief benefit that is likely to flow from the Bill is that a married woman will be able to write a policy in favour of her children, with the effect that on her death the benefits payable under the policy will not form part of her estate for the purposes of capital transfer tax?
Mr. McKelvey: That is not my understanding of the Bill. The Bill provides only that such a policy of assurance can be taken out in Scotland, as happens at present in England. That is what the Bill seeks to provide. It seeks simply to amend the law to remove the anomaly of the differences between England and Scotland.
Sir Ronald Bell: I follow that. In the case of a spouse, capital transfer tax does not arise nowadays. However, it would in the case of children, and, as I understand it, the Bill will not affect that position.
1972
May I ask the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) about illegitimate children? Do I understand him to say that they would have to be adopted before they attained the exemption which his Bill confers? The Bill refers to "illegitimate or adopted children". In the case of a man, that could give rise to a very odd position, could it not? In the case of a woman, it may be known who her illegitimate children are, but how is one to know where the category is drawn in the case of a man?
Mr. McKelvey: I have some difficulty in following the hon. and learned Gentleman's train of thought. The Bill seeks to give a woman the power to make out a policy of assurance, and she would know her illegitimate children. The Bill seeks to go no further than that. As for what the husband would do in those circumstances, the power under the 1880 Act is that husbands in Scotland can make policies of assurance.
Sir R. Bell: I see that, but paragraph (c) of clause 1 gives the following definition:
"…'children' includes children that the person effecting the policy has or may have, including his or her illegitimate or adopted children".
Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that in relation to husbands the definition clause which he is putting in makes no change?
Mr. McKelvey: I can give that assurance. That is my understanding.
While in Scotland this facility has been available to a man insuring his wife and in England and Wales it has, since 1882, been available to a woman for insuring her husband, the Scottish Law Commission feels that it is high time Scotland came into line and that this example of sex discrimination was removed from the law.
I think that all hon. Members will appreciate that that is a humane point of view and that this anomaly in Scottish law should not remain after this incredibly long time. Scottish women should be given the same facilities, rights and powers as their counterparts in England and Wales. I agree fully with the findings of the Law Commission, and this Bill is the result.
The other provisions of the Bill are concerned with minor amendments to the

1973
1880 Act to clarify the position of trustees under the Act, the rights of beneficiaries and the power of the Court of Session to approve and authorise variations of trusts.
I hope that I have outlined in sufficient detail the important facility of this Bill. I ask hon. Members to appreciate and accept the spirit and intention behind the measure.
11.25 am
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am glad to be able to play a part in this rather important debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) for putting down a motion giving us the opportunity to raise this matter on Third Reading. I take the view that this is an important Bill, and I should like to echo the views expressed by my hon. Friend.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) on having carried the Bill through the rather complicated processes of this House. As a new Member, I hope that I do not sound patronising when I say that it is a remarkable achievement. I am far from certain that I could have done it. I am sure that I would not have been bold enough to undertake the task. I think that the whole House—all 15 of us—wish to say to the hon. Gentleman that his work deserves commendation from us all. If I may say so, he is following in the very high traditions established by his predecessor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred to the absence of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. As I say, I am a new Member, and I am a very humble member of the Conservative Party at that. That being so, I express criticism of my betters with a degree of modesty and circumspection. However, I feel that this House would have benefited from the distinguished and learned advice of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. After all, his abilities in the courts are well known, his learning in the law is appreciated by this House, and this is an important Third Reading debate. We are discussing subjects of considerable complexity.
Unfortunately, there are not that many hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies who happen also to be lawyers.
1974
The converse is true of England and Wales. It may be that some hon. Members take the view that there are too many lawyers in this House representing English and Scottish seats. In the earlier debate this morning no fewer than four lawyers intervened. As there were only about seven hon. Members present, that was a remarkable proportion.
We are in some difficulty today. We are discussing rather intricate provisions affecting tax and trust law, and we do not have the presence of the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland can deal adequately with any questions which may arise. I do not think that we need the presence of the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
Mr. Hogg: I take your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have said that, as a very modest and humble Member, I make my criticism with some hesitation and circumspection. Therefore I pass on, confident that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to explain fully these rather complicated matters which perplex the House.
We are venturing into a very subtle area of tax and trust law. The general proposition which lies behind the Bill is a valuable one, namely, that it is wrong in principle that a distinction should be drawn between men and women when it comes to the ability to write polices of assurance. One could advance that proposition more broadly. It is wrong that the law should ever impose a discrimination which is against one or other sex. There should be equality and parity in legal rights. Therefore, the proposition behind the Bill is an extremely valuable one.
The Bill is also of increasing importance because one of the characteristics of modern society is the way in which more and more women are obliged to go out to work. That is of significance to this debate because, going out to work, women have financial resources which they would not have had, say, 20 years ago. Therefore it is right that this House should introduce what is, after all, a fairly major measure of reform whose purpose is to enable married women who happen to be

1975
working to pass on some part of their earnings to subsequent generations.
Here I come to a problem, and I look forward to clarification from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about the effect of these policies of assurance. My understanding is that when a husband writes a policy of insurance in favour of his wife and children, and the moneys are payable under that policy when he dies, those capital moneys would have been already transferred to the children because they were already in trust for the children or for the wife and therefore did not fall within the deceased husband's estate for the purposes of capital transfer tax. I have always understood that that was one of the perfectly legitimate measures for passing on capital sums to subsequent generations. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House whether that is correct. It is important that we know what we are doing. If I am right, it may cause the hon. Member for Kilmarnock some alarm to know that the proposals that he has sponsored—
Mr. John Ward: My hon. Friend said that because a married woman is now earning money she will be able to purchase policies for the benefit of her husband. Is he suggesting that only those women who go out to work could pay for such policies? I presume that it would be perfectly in order for a husband to give the money to the wife, possibly in a joint account, so that she would not necessarily be driven out to work if she wished to ensure the well-being of her husband.
Mr. Hogg: That is a valid point. I am sorry if in some way I have misled the House. It was not my intention to do so.
This is an opportune moment to introduce this piece of social reform because many wives go out to work and have the financial resources that they may wish to dispose of in the manner contemplated by the Bill. It is especially appropriate to introduce the measure now because many more wives go out to work now compared with 20 years ago and have the financial resources to undertake policies or assurance. It is desirable that we should give them the ability so to do.
It is an important matter and I would like to understand what we are about. We are putting man and wife in the same position, which is perfectly proper, and
1976
the measure will enable wives to pass money to their spouses and children free of capital transfer tax. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to give us some specific guidance on that matter.
One other point that arises on the Bill was touched on briefly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell), namely, that the definition of the word "children" includes adopted and illegitimate children. That is right and proper. For all purposes the word "children" should always include illegitimate and adopted children. Problems always arise on titles of honour.
Mr. Kimball: I wish that my hon. Friend would use the term "love child" rather than "illegitimate". It is more attractive.
Mr. Hogg: I agree that it is more attractive, and I do not intend to argue with my hon. Friend about that. If he wishes me to use the term "love child" I shall do so. The general law on this subject is that the word "children" should include love children—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The term "love child" does not appear in the Bill.
Mr. Hogg: I should not digress on titles of honour, but they are interesting exceptions to the general proposition.
There is one lacuna in the definition clause of the Bill to which, even at this late stage, the House may wish to pay attention. The matter worries me. At the top of page 2, at the end of the interpretation clause, there is the following provision:
"but does not include children of his or her spouse and another person, unless they have been adopted by the person effecting the policy."
That raises an important point, and I shall dwell upon it. Since 1973—and I cannot remember the English statute— it has been held that children of one spouse to a marriage are to be deemed to be the children of the family for all purposes unless there is some evidence that the other spouse, who is not the parent of the child, has renounced responsibility. There is a new concept in English law that is not the same as the concept of adoption but is the concept of a child of the family.

1977
When parties marry who have children by a previous relationship, those children are brought into the new relationship and are deemed by that statute to be children of the family. The House would appreciate guidance on that matter. As I understand the interpretation clause, that important category of children is being expressly excluded from the scope of the policy. I find it difficult to believe that the House would wish to make such a distinction between Scottish and English law. It is quite wrong that a wife should not be able to execute a policy of assurance in favour of children who are not her natural children but who are the children of the family in the sense that they are the children of her present husband, have been brought into the marriage, and for whom she has accepted responsibility.
That is an important matter. I am sorry that it is being raised on Third Reading. I am sorry that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is not present because he might have wished to comment on that question. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not let the debate end without giving us clear guidance about whether I am right in saying that children of the family are being excluded.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Having listened to the question of benefit to young people from the policies of assurance, it crosses my mind that if they have the benefit of such policies they may not need so badly the provisions of the Youth and Community Bill which might be discussed later today.
Mr. Hogg: That is a valuable suggestion. My hon. Friend is always helpful on these points. I entirely agree with him. If we get this Bill right today, the urgency for considering the Youth and Community Bill will be greatly diminished. We shall move on to that Bill and give it our detailed consideration because it is an important Bill, but we must get this Bill right. It would be wrong—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but there is no chance of amending this Bill on Third Reading. We cannot do that today. Let us deal with the general principles of the Bill and not seek to suggest amendments.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would not dream of arguing with that helpful direction. We must concentrate on the position which will obtain when the Bill becomes law in its present form. That in no way precludes the House from returning to the question and introducing amending legislation.
I return to the important point about children of the family. If I am right in saying that they are excluded from the benefit of this Bill—and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make this point clear—the House should contemplate amending legislation. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend would consider whether amending legislation could be introduced. If he thinks that it could be introduced, I am sure that he would want to tell the House that this morning.
11.40 am
Mr. Donald Dewar: We have had one or two minor surprises this morning, including the fact that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) described himself as a humble Member of the House. The hon. Gentleman's speech was interesting, but it did not show a great knowledge of the law of Scotland. Perhaps that was because he is not a Scottish lawyer.
The Bill is a modest, but important, measure. I do not believe that it will greatly change the face of the legal profession in Scotland, but we should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) for having introduced it. The Scottish Law Commission report No. 52, which is implemented by the Bill, was published in July 1978. Thanks to the individual enterprise of my hon. Friend we have managed to get through some law reform in Scotland in a fraction of the normal time that elapses between proposition and legislation.
The Bill amends the Married Women's Policies of Assurance (Scotland) Act 1880. We need not go into detail about its consequential effects. I understand that it merely puts a wife in the same position as her husband in the law of Scotland and gives the women of Scotland a right that has long been available in the concurrent legislation covering England. There are no far-reaching changes.

1979
I fail to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham about children in the family who are the children of an earlier marriage or of a relationship of the spouse in whose favour a policy is being made. Under the law of Scotland, and I imagine that the same is true in England, unless those children are formally adopted, they do not have rights upon the estate of the spouse who is not their natural parent. For example, they would not rate in the intestate succession under the law of intestacy in Scotland. If we changed that provision, it would have far-reaching social consequences that would be well beyond the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct, but it is also true that, if a woman has children by a previous relationship, the husband of a subsequent marriage becomes, for all purposes, the person liable to maintain the children of the first relationship, because they become children of the family.
It is odd that there should be a discrimination between children of the family for those purposes and children of the family for the present purposes, so that they cannot be beneficaries under a policy of assurance.
Mr. Dewar: The husband has a general duty to maintain the children and there are legal consequences in terms of the social security Acts but not in terms of, for example, the law of succession or the law of trusts. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to drive us into a dead end. I cannot see the parallel that he is seeking to draw. The hon. Gentleman's interest is probably dictated by later matters on the Order Paper. If he were interested in the law of Scotland he would realise that he is inviting us, under the cover of a modest Bill, to remodel the theory of the law of succession in Scotland.
The Bill allows a wife to make a policy of assurance in favour of her spouse and children in order to create a trust with ease and financial efficiency. It will not be an expensive process. The amount of trust work in Scottish legal practices has been declining in recent years and I do not imagine that the Bill will reverse that trend. Not many of us in the solicitors' profession will regret that.
1980
It was a striking anomaly that women should not have the rights that were open to their counterparts in England and to their husbands in Scotland. The Scottish Law Commission held its hand for some time before making the recommendation, because it was thought that the changes in capital transfer tax might have eliminated the potential advantage that the Bill attempts to confer.
On consideration, the Commission found that there were still advantages in making such policies of assurance, despite the changes brought about by CTT. It properly decided that the law ought to be extended so that Scottish women are not left in an inferior position compared with those in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Commission's report refers to the principal differences between English legislation and Scottish law and says:
"it will be clear that important facilities or advantages are presented by the English Act which are not presented by the Scottish Act. We consider that these disparities cannot be justified and we understand that they have caused persons who have their domicile or habitual residence in Scotland to have recourse to the English Act rather than to the Scottish Act, a situation which we think highly undesirable."
That is a fair point. There are examples of people who would normally be inclined to use the Scottish legislation being forced to shelter artificially under the umbrella of English law. In those circumstances, and quite apart from the general point of equity, it is clearly time that the matter was put right.
The Scottish Law Commission report recommended that the right should apply not only to a spouse but to those who were intending marriage but had not married. That has been omitted from the Bill, because, as I understand from my hon. Friend the Member of Kilmarnock, it would have complicated the measure.
I welcome the power of a beneficiary to deal with his interests, which appears in paragraph 21 of the Scottish Law Commission's report and removes the lingering doubts that the Commission felt still existed following cases such as Scottish Life Assurance Company Ltd. v John Donald and Edinburgh Life Assurance Company v Balderstone.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct when

1981
he says that that recommendation has not been implemented in the Bill. The definition section in the Bill refers to a spouse:
"who becomes the spouse of the person effecting the policy".
Therefore, a wife or fiancée could properly write a policy of assurance in favour of an intended husband who, when following the marriage, would be a spouse for the purposes of the definition section.
Mr. Dewar: That is in an interesting point, but I understand that the Bill is not intended to implement the Commission's recommendation on the extension of the measure to unmarried persons. I presume that there would be problems if the person who was to become a spouse did not become a spouse. Presumably, he would not fall within the terms of the Act. It may be that Law Lords will have to decide at some time whether the interpretation of the hon. Member for Grantham is correct. If that degree of flexibility could be supported by the text of the statute it would be an advantage and would largely follow the spirit of the Scottish Law Commission's recommendation. But I understand that the intention was that that recommendation should not be implemented.
There have been lingering doubts, following the cases that I mentioned, about the power of a beneficiary to deal with his interest once be becomes of age. That has now been dealt with, which is useful in tidying up an area of the law that is arcane and technical and where there have been undoubted problems for the Inland Revenue and the insurance profession. I imagine that they will welcome the Bill.
I certainly welcome the measure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is unfortunately unable to be here today, but he has asked me to indicate that the Opposition welcome the Bill and are glad that it has reached its final stages and is about to arrive on the statute book. The Opposition support the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and I hope that in the next few minutes the Bill will be through safely.
11.50 am
Sir Ronald Bell: I am brought to my feet by the description of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) of himself as a humble
1982
and circumspect Member. That gives me the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) on getting his Bill advanced so quickly and on getting it through at such a late stage in the Session.
I do not wish to detract from those congratulations, but I see the Bill in a different light from hon. Members who have spoken so far. It seems to be the general belief nowadays that if we assimilate the law relating to men and women and husbands and wives we are doing something good which is worthy of praise. However, the Bill extends to women the right, which has been enjoyed by men, to defraud their creditors. That is what the Bill is about. It is not about taxation. Capital transfer tax will not be much affected by it.
The purpose of the Bill is to allow a person to take out a policy of assurance the proceeds of which will be exempt from action by creditors. That is what it is, let there be no mistake about it. The Bill extends to the wife the device of defrauding creditors. It assimilates the law; and everybody says that that is a fine and creditable thing to do. Husbands have been able to defraud their creditors in that way for a hundred years and now the wife will be able to do the same.
I may be old-fashioned, but I believe that tradesmen who have supplied goods have a better claim on a person's resources than that person's children—or bastards or love children, whatever one cares to call them. Why are we so dedicated to the cause of cheating the honest tradesman or supplier of goods and services? What is virtuous about that? By all means let us assimilate the law but not in the way proposed in the Bill. The law could be assimilated by depriving the husband of that right so that people pay their honest debts and do not establish fictitious trusts.
The Bill does not deal with a straightforward trust, but trusts are much misused for the defrauding of creditors. To extend the provision to life assurance policies opens up yet another avenue through which people can avoid their just debts. I realise that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock is carrying out a recommendation of the Law Commission and I congratulate him, especially since he is a relatively new Member of the

1983
House, on the success of his legislative project. However, we should always look behind the simple argument of assimilating the law for men and women and husbands and wives. We should ask about the effect of such measures. We should ask whether it is good or bad. Making the law the same for everybody is no answer.
11.54 am
Mr. John Ward: I venture with some trepidation into a jungle of lawyers. I regret the fact that no Scottish lawyers are present. I spent about four years of my education in Scotland and learnt a little of the caution with which the Scots traditionally approach any respect of English law before they embrace it.
Mr. George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that no Scots lawyers are present. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is a well-known and well-respected Scots solicitor.
Mr. Ward: I am grateful for that correction.
I understand that Scottish law sets out how the estate of a husband shall be divided among his children and wife. The Bill might complicate that provision. I hope that the Minister will indicate how that provision will be affected. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) is right to say that we should understand what we are doing, however few of us are present.
11.55 am
Sir Albert Costain: I believe that the Bill should be debated on Third Reading. I have sponsored Private Members' Bills and realise the difficulties involved in having a Bill properly prepared. I do not pretend to know anything about Scots law. The more I look at it the more I wonder how it is understood by an intelligent race.
How does the Bill affect English people who retire in Scotland? For how many years must an English person live in Scotland before the Scottish law applies? There is a tendency for people, as they approach death, to look round the world to see where they can afford to die. There is a tendency to go to the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
11.57 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): We have had an interesting, if unexpected, debate. I am glad that six Scottish Members, which is more than half the number that occupied the Chamber during the debate, are present. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) made the long journey over seas to be with us for this important debate on an important Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) said that the Solicitor-General for Scotland should be here. My hon. and learned Friend is a busy man and we must try to get on without him. Had the Solicitor-General been here, my hon. Friend would have had correct legal answers, humour and various other surprises. However, that is not to be and my hon. Friend will have to put up with the more humble and mundane replies that I shall give.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) made a considerable number of points. I do not know whether there is an ulterior motive for his sudden interest in the law of Scotland. Whether I like it or not, and whatever the reason, I am duty bound to answer some of his questions to the best of my ability. He said that this was a complex matter that perplexed the House. He posed a number of highly technical questions. He asked whether the provision was a means of avoiding capital transfer tax on married women's estates. It depends on the source from which the premiums are derived. Generally speaking, there should be few CTT advantages. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham also asked if other children who were not adopted—hon. Members went into deep and difficult areas of illegitimate, natural, love children and even some other non-parliamentary words—
Sir Ronald Bell: The word "bastard" is not unparliamentary. It is the ordinary word. The others are simply genteelisms.
Mr. Fairgrieve: I knew that my hon. and learned Friend would correct me. I thank him for so doing. Whatever those terms are, I should like to answer the point. This would involve a substantive change in Scots law which would not be proper in this modest Bill. There is no

1985
universal rule in United Kingdom legislation that children of the family have the same rights as illegitimate, adopted, love children or bastards. I understand that this is the case only in relation to social security payments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham asked whether it was normally the case that the funds should go directly under the trust to the children. The situation is explained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Scottish Law Commission report, which I shall read to my hon. Friend for his enlightenment:
"The possibility of setting up a trust under the Act was seen to have considerable further advantages under the estate duty provisions of the Finance Act 1894. A policy under the 1880 Act was, as soon as it was effected, deemed to be a trust to the benefit of the assured's wife and children, and consequently was in law, property in which the deceased did not have an interest. It followed that the policy did not fall to be aggregated for estate duty purposes with the deceased's other property passing on his death. This advantage was very considerable and such policies were much used in order to save estate duty until their advantages were reduced by legislation in 1954 and 1968.
The possibility of using policies of assurance for the purpose of obtaining the benefits of exemption for 'transfers of value' specified in Schedule 6 of the Finance Act 1975 remains and it appears likely that policies written under the 1880 Act will continue to be of considerable importance as providing a simple method of constituting a trust."
My hon. Friend asked why children of the family are not in the same position as illegitimate or other types of children who have been mentioned. This legislation does not need to cover these children, as it is always available to the assured to take out a trust policy in favour of the child involved. Such a trust policy does not have to be written under the Married Women's Policies of Assurance Act. The final question of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham was as to why the Bill did not extend to prospective spouses, as mentioned in the Scottish Law Commission report to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred. The policy does not become a protective trust until the parties marry. To introduce precise definitions of prospective spouses would destroy the principal advantage of a policy under the 1880 Act—simplicity and clarity.
1986
The hon. Member for Garscadden made a useful intervention, with his legal knowledge, and I appreciate the message he gave from the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) that the Opposition support the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) mentioned the Bill as one way of allowing wives to defraud their creditors as husbands had. In England and Wales since 1882, apparently, wives have been defrauding their creditors. While this facility has been available in Scotland only to men, it is a fact that, south of the Border, there has been this facility since 1882. We feel that we should get in on the act. Section 2 of the 1880 Act says:
"Provided always, that if it shall be proved that the policy was effected and premiums thereon paid with intent to defraud creditors, or if the person upon whose life the policy is effected shall be made bankrupt within two years from the date of such policy, it shall be competent to the creditors to claim repayment of the premiums so paid from the trustee of the policy out of the proceeds thereof."
I shall make sure that married women in Scotland now know how their counterparts in England and Wales have been able to proceed for the past 100 years and see if we can catch up more quickly.
My hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Ward) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) both spoke in the debate. I do not think that their remarks affect the position on Third Reading.
I wish to take this opportunity to express the Government's thanks to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) for the able manner in which he has steered the Bill through its various stages in the House. He was kind enough to pay respect to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland for the help that he received from him. Tho two of them, especially the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, have played a notable hand for Scotland today. The hon. Gentleman has played a valuable part in furthering the work of the Scottish Law Commission in its formidable task of reviewing Scots law. There is no need for him to look so shy and bashful. He has done a great job in his first year in Parliament. The Government support the Bill and its objective of according to women a right that men in Scotland have

1987
enjoyed for a century. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock has displayed a clear grasp of the essentials of the Bill and is to be congratulated on handling his first Private Member's Bill with such aplomb.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

YOUTH AND COMMUNITY BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
12.4 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We now have two hours and a little over 20 minutes in which to debate this Bill, to which there are 126 amendments, 77 of them originating from the Government. Would it be possible for the Under-Secretary of State to explain whether it will be a constructive debate or simply a wrecking move?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Points of order must be directed to the Chair. The Under-Secretary of State coould not possibly answer that question.

New clause 1

  YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEES
  (1) An authority may establish a youth advisory committee to advise on the provision and development by the authority of services for young people in their area and on the co-ordination of those services with any similar services provided in that area by voluntary organisations.
  (2) Schedule to this Act shall have effect as respects the members and procedure of youth advisory committees.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
  Government amendment No. 1.
  No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
  No. 3, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
  '(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to a local education authority if and so long as that authority, having before the passing of this Act established, continues to maintain a committee—

  (a) for encouraging the development of and the co-ordination of the services provided by the authority for young people with those provided by voluntary organisations;

  1989

  (b) which includes representatives of local authority members, voluntary organisation members and young members (within the meaning of those expressions in paragraph 1 of the said Schedule 1);

  and in the following provisions of this Act any reference to a joint committee established under this section shall include reference to a committee established and maintained as described in this subsection.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 30 to 32, Government amendment No. 60 and Government amendments Nos. 73 to 75.
  Mr. Macfarlane: The new clause is clear in setting out what we wish to achieve—that is, that an authority may establish a youth advisory committee to advise on the provision and development by the authority of services for young people in its area and on the co-ordination of those services with any similar services provided in that area by voluntary organisations. Secondly, the clause alludes to schedule 1 which
  "shall have effect as respects the members and procedure of youth advisory committees."
  The new clause is consistent with the attitude of the Government on Second Reading and in Committee. I should explain to the House, because it is important that everyone understands fully, that the new clause is intended to replace the Bill's present clause 1.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: This is a complicated matter. I find it difficult to follow. May I ask my hon. Friend to speak more slowly.
  Mr. Macfarlane: I apologise if I was perhaps going on a little, because I am mindful of the fact that we have to try to debate many amendments in the couple of hours remaining. The new clause is intended to replace the Bill's present clause 1, though we acknowledge that it should not necessarily come first in order in the Bill. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) will understand the reasons. A more logical place might be following clause 4. I look forward to the comments of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. It is important that the House and all those associated with the youth movements and local education authorities understand that this provision must be permissive. Its prime purposes are clear—to replace an obligation with a power, and to redefine the function of the committee, with which the clause is con-
  1990
  cerned, so as to ensure that it cannot conflict with the statutory functions of the local education authorities. I think that hon. Members know the difficulty which the Government face in that regard, when we look at the statutory obligations of the Education Act 1944.
  Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister said that the new clause will replace an obligation with a power. Does not that power exist in present legislation?
  Mr. Macfarlane: That power exists in an interpretation which some local authorities have made already. However, the hon. Gentleman knows very well that in Committee we were extremely concerned about the correspondence from, and attitudes adopted by, local authorities with regard to the existing provisions and what is contained in my hon. Friend's worthy Bill. However, we are concerned to ensure that it cannot conflict with the statutory functions of the local authorities. As he comes from Scotland, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) knows of the difference which exists between the two countries.
  A secondary objective is to remove a provision with regard to the composition of these committees, the clarity of which suffers from over-compression. I am proposing an amendment to schedule 1 to clarify what I take to be the intention of the Bill in that regard.
  Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: Before leaving his first objection, can my hon. Friend say anything at this stage—it would be helpful if he could—about what, if any, estimate he has made of the additonal financial burden which will be placed on local authorities by the obligation contained in the new clause? What would be the financial burden if all local authorities which do not already have such committees were to exercise the power that is proposed in the new clause?
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: And manpower.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: And manpower.
  Mr. Macfarlane: That is a difficult point to define. As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know, under the terms of the 1944 Act certain local authorities already operate

  1991
  the kind of structure which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford is suggesting in his Bill. I think that he wants to place an obligation on them. I am mindful of the fact that many local authorities, as well as hon. Members on both sides of the House, have written to my right hon. and learned Friend, myself and other Ministers in the Department expressing their deep anxiety about what the likely cost effect would be, as well as their concern about the difficulties which could be imposed upon local authorities, given the direction of the Government to reduce manpower in local authorities.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have tabled amendment No. 95, which is in effect a commencement order. Therefore, it is impossible to assess any cost, which, indeed, may be negligible, because the Bill may not come into operation for a number of years.
  12.15 pm
  Mr. Macfarlane: I think that this is a question of current cost. I know that my hon. Friend, who feels deeply about these things, would wish us to ensure that the Bill is debated thoroughly and approached conscientiously, given the importance of the subject. We have found it difficult to measure the precise cost for local authorities were it to go ahead. I know that that is hypothetical, but, if it were to go ahead, there would be some increase in expense and manpower.
  I have received a number of letters from colleagues and local authorities expressing concern about what that might be. That concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is not confined to the counties throughout England and Wales. There is a letter from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities which, alas, is now controlled by the Labour Party. It has written a general decree, dated 26 June, and I should like to quote from paragraph 4, because it is germane to this problem. It states:
  "The requirements of joint committees (clause 1) and youth councils (clause 5) serviced by the LEA (clause 6) will entail manpower and financial costs."
  However, I cannot state what the precise cost will be, because it will vary from area to area. The AMA goes on to say:
  1992
  "The aggregate total across the country is hard to estimate because some LEAs have one or both such bodies already".
  That is an interesting point.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: There is one thing which puzzles me about the new clause, and perhaps my hon. Friend can clarify it. Does it have any purpose other than to ensure that the establishment of the youth advisory committees and the expenditure related thereto is intro vires the power of the county councils and the education authorities?
  Mr. Macfarlane: The new clause is permissive. On Second Reading and in Committee, we have tried to meet the important point which my hon. Friend has enshrined in his Bill, but it must be permissive for the time being.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: It covers their expenditure.
  Mr. Macfarlane: That is right. However, perhaps I can complete my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). The letter from the AMA adds that:
  "others have completely different arrangements which nevertheless suit local circumstances. One large LEA which already have youth committees which could form the basis of joint councils believe that they will incur for this item no costs above their present £115,000; but youth councils would be an innovation, at an additional annual cost of some £111,000."
  That is not a Department of Education and Science or a Department of the Environment assessment. It is an AMA assessment. It goes on to state:
  "An LEA in South Yorkshire estimate that their existing committees, somewhat adapted would cost between £1,000 and £4,500 annually; though the sums are modest,"—
  I make that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, because he raised it in Committee and we debated it fully—
  "the range is considerable, as it is difficult to assess the extent of these bodies' self-generated activity."
  It continues:
  "An outer London borough,"—
  which is the sort of constituency that I represent, as do you Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  "somewhat smaller in size, give comparable figures for an existing committee and council which would not need adaptation under the proposed Act—£1,000 for four meetings of a joint committee and eight 2-hour meetings each of a youth council and its executive".

  1993
  Many committees have said that they have already made their budget preparations for 1980–81. I have received a letter from the county of Lincolnshire expressing concern and containing a specific request that this clause in the Bill be reviewed. I have also received a number of other letters, but I shall not bore the House by reading them. However, they are important.
  The drafting of clause 1 exemplifies very well the difficulties presented by the Bill. I made that clear on Second Reading and in Committee. We are presented with a number of problems, hence the new clause. The intentions of the clause are quite clearly to encourage the development and better co-ordination of services for young people, whether provided by local authorities or voluntary organisations; to promote collaboration between the statutory and voluntary sectors; and to give young people a say in the services provided for them. Those intentions are admirable, and they have an important part to play in the life of the United Kingdom. That goes without saying. However, we cannot impose this in an obligatory way upon local authorities at the present time.
  I am certain that my hon. Friend accepts the important objective that a code of good practice is essential. I hope that local authorities will be mindful of what is said in today's debate, as well as what has gone on before. My hon. Friend is a member of a party which has a certain philosophy, and I am sure that he acknowledges the problems that we have discussed and which present themselves to us.
  The clause as drafted goes well beyond encouragement. It obliges local authorities to set up a machinery of a prescribed pattern—that is what causes anxiety among hon. Members on both sides—and functions, whatever arrangements they may themselves have developed for consulting and working together with voluntary organisations and young people. Taken together with clause 6, it would require those authorities to meet the full costs of servicing and supporting such machinery.
  In this respect, the clause—and the Bill—is in major conflict with the Government's policies, specifically towards the responsibilities of local govern-
  1994
  ment and expenditure by local government. When we discuss later amendments I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will enlarge upon some of these matters. They are in major conflict, and I want everyone who has taken a major interest in the Bill to understand the position. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, who has done a tremendous amount of work in identifying the needs of young people, will understand the problems in that area.
  The point was made on Second Reading and again in Committee, but I make clear to the House the Government's attitude to the Bill. Not only in this clause, but throughout, its effect is to impose specific obligations, where at present authorities act under general powers, in accordance with their judgment of priorities. Our policy is to widen, not reduce, the existing area of local authority discretion. Its effect is to increase local authority expenditure. There can be no doubt about that. We may argue that it will cost only £1,000 for some areas. In other areas the cost will be even higher. That is difficult to define. It is certainly an integral and essential part of our economic strategy to restrain such expenditure. The Bill's supporters may argue that services for young people should be protected against the full effect of such restraints. My reply to that argument is that if our economic measures fail because of lack of determination, young people will be in need of more protection than any youth service can afford. Here, there is a direct overlap with other Departments, and it is important that the House should understand that.
  To return to clause 1, I repeat that the Government cannot accept that a duty should be placed on every education authority to establish a joint committee with the function of co-ordinating the provision of services. Education authorities are already obliged by statute to establish an education committee and to consider its reports before acting in the exercise of their educational functions. The joint committee envisaged by the Bill could not fulfil its function of coordinating services without encroaching on the prerogative of the education committee. I may add that voluntary bodies are independent organisations, and usually

  1995
  attach great importance to their independence. They may reject the idea that their activities should be "coordinated" by a committee on which their representatives would be in a minority. I suggest that those national organisations which have supported the Bill should think carefully about this, and perhaps consider whether they have been speaking authoritatively for the host of bodies which function at the local level.
  Finally, I must, of course, take note of the amendment that my hon. Friend has put down to clause 1—to add a new subsection (3). If I can make sense of it at all, its effect is to exempt from the application of the rest of the clause any education authority which has had the good fortune to make arrangements before the enactment of the Bill which comply with the provisions of the clause. In other words, if it already complies with it, it need not take steps to do so. I am not altogether certain that I understand the point of that, and no doubt my hon. Friend will explain it when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it was my hon. Friend's intention to go any way towards meeting the Government's criticisms of the Bill, I am sorry to have to tell him that I do not see eye to eye with him on that.
  I commend new clause 1 to the House. It is important. It has permissive powers, but that is consistent with the argument that we have put forward.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: The attitude of the Government has been one of wanting to kill the Bill but not wanting to do the job themselves. They have aroused expectations among some of their supporters that they will kill the Bill. An example of that is a letter from the under-secretary of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—when that body was controlled by the Conservatives. It read:
  "I also have to record, I am afraid, that we were misled by the DES's confident expectation that this babe would have been strangled nearer birth. There is some chance that the Department will get a little way with a series of amendments neutralising what are at present set out as duties, but there is a risk that too much of that will set off a reaction among the Members of Parliament, who will press ahead with the terms as set out in the published Bill."
  The day before Committee proceedings started, the Government put forward
  1996
  amendments to delete 12 or 13 clauses of the Bill. I was the only hon. Member on the Committee who supported those clauses. Having tried to kill the Bill by slashing, the Government are now trying to kill it by at least 81 cuts. There is no doubt that the Bill will not go through this afternoon because the Government have ensured lengthy discussions on the preceding Bills—
  Mr. Kimball: The hon. Gentleman was not present when the two previous Bills were discussed. If he had been present, he would have realised that amendments from another place constituted a grave injustice to his constituents. The Scottish Bill, in which many hon. Members were genuinely interested, was extremely important. I spent a considerable time in Scotland, and I wanted to know the position of an English proprietor under that Bill. The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair in his allegations about the previous Bills.
  Mr. Marks: I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that he was genuinely interested in the previous Bills. Having waited since 9.30 am for this Bill to begin, and having seen what happened in Committee, I still believe that the Government and their legislation advisers have been giving advice on what should happen to this Bill.
  The Bill was Conservative policy. It was the pride and joy of the Young Conservatives, and it has had much support from them.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede that Conservative Members are slightly better able to judge the views of Young Conservatives than Labour Members. I assure him that the opinions of Young Conservatives are extensively divided on these matters—as on many other matters—and it is desirable that they should be so.
  Mr. Skeet: I am sorry to show any divisiveness with my colleague, but I have toured the entire country and I have been closely in touch with Scottish and English Young Conservatives. They are totally behind me. What division there may be is minuscule.
  Mr. Marks: I do not pretend to be an expert on what happens among Young

  1997
  Conservatives. I went by the opinions of the ex-presidents of the Young Conservatives who are present in the House now. My only link with the Young Conservatives is that I was asked to address them when I was a parliamentary candidate. I was only 32 years old at the time, and I was the youngest person present.
  The clause is necessary in order to make it obligatory on councils and education authorities to provide the machinery for setting up a decent youth service. The Under-Secretary said that it was the good fortune of those authorities which were already providing one. But it is not simply good fortune. It is good management and planning. The slower authorities should have followed the pacemakers—cities such as Manchester—in providing services such as this a long time ago.
  I urge that it is necessary—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg rose
  Mr. Marks: I urge that it is necessary for an obligation to be placed on councils to provide a youth service and the necessary machinery to carry it out.
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am the proposer, jointly with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), of amendment No. 2 which emphasises the importance of the point made by the Minister about the need to make these proposals permissive not mandatory.
  I declare an interest, though not financial. I speak as a vice-president of the Federation of Conservative Students. Its members are by and large, but not exclusively, older than Young Conservatives. Being students and actively engaged in education, they may be expected to have applied their minds more closely to the problems created by this measure than some of the younger supporters of the chairman of the Young Conservatives.
  No group could have worked harder in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) than the Young Conservatives. The Young Conservative and Unionist organisation is an utterly praiseworthy, hard-working and eminently desirable body. Those of my hon. Friends who oppose this measure and I have nothing but the highest regard for the Young Conservatives movement, which is
  1998
  the largest youth movement in the country and probably in the Western world. None of us would be here on these Benches unless we had the active support and hard work of the Young Conservatives. I hope that what we might be moved to say in our resistance to this measure will not be taken as a slight upon the Young Conservatives, still less upon my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, who has worked with such dedication for it.
  The aims of the Bill are wholly good and would merit support from all hon. Members, because our young people are the flower of the nation. Yet in many cities, towns and villages they have nowhere to go in their spare time. They have nothing to do with their leisure. They are too often, alas, unemployed and confused. The philosophy of the Bill is to improve that situation, to harness the energy and enthusiasm of young people and to encourage the flower of our youth to grow and blossom. They are wonderful aspirations and anybody who aspires to these ends must be well-meaning. Therefore, it is with regret that we feel it necessary to oppose the Bill.
  The reason for our opposition is that it is one thing to identify the problem, it is another to wish for the fulfilment of a dream, but it is quite another to introduce a Bill which would be unworkable, would not achieve the desired ends and would, if passed, achieve ends that certainly would not be desired by anyone, least of all the Young Conservatives.
  The clearest example is to be found in the unworkability of clause 1 which new clause 1 seeks to delete and to replace with something more workable.
  There are several reasons why clause 1 should be removed. The first is that it takes money to set up what is laid down in clause 1. But where is the money to come from? Is it to come from the local authorities or the Government?
  If the local authorities are to find the money to set up the bureaucracy inherent in clause 1, where will it come from? Is it to come from an increase in the rates or from a reduction in services? Will it come from reducing the provision which local authorities, already stretched, are having to make on schools? Will it come out of their housing provision? Will it come out of their social services provision? We must be realistic. At this time in our economy there

  1999
  is no scope for increased expenditure by local authorities on any area of their operations if they are to keep within cash limits and to stop the growth of expenditure. The only way in which savings can be made is to cut back on expenditure somewhere else. All those things, except certainly a cutback on the amount spent on administration in local government, are more desirable subjects for expenditure than the subject matter of the Bill, however praiseworthy.
  Mr. Skeet: Is my hon. Friend aware that vandalism is costing this country £100 million a year? Therefore, would not local authorities make considerable savings if they spent more rather than less on youth provision? Is not his suggestion a false economy?
  Mr. Lawrence: Unfortunately, my hon. Friend could not prove that to set up a bureaucratic organisation for the coordination of young people's welfare would lead to a diminution of vandalism. I have more constructive solutions for the reduction of vandalism than that. Perhaps at some time my hon. Friend may care to read my speeches about the measures that we could take which could be proved to be more likely to succeed in the reduction of vandalism than the setting up of a bureaucratic organisation. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has done any work on this matter. Is there less vandalism in areas where there is adequate provision for youth councils?
  Mr. Skeet: Yes.
  Mr. Lawrence: Then perhaps in due course he will be able to give us some facts and figures. My experience of youth activities in urban areas is that it by no means always follows that where there is a youth organisation there is a diminution of vandalism.
  Mr. Arthur Bottomley: I can say that is so in Middlesbrough, for example, which is densely populated. In areas where there are facilities for youth there is less vandalism.
  Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I did not seek to suggest that it was never so. My point is that there are more direct ways than the setting up of this bureaucratic organisation for controlling or reducing vandalism. The evidence is
  2000
  by no means all one way. The hope that at some time, as a result of better organisation through a bureaucratic set-up, vandalism will be reduced is not, I am afraid, a substantial enough reason for spending money on these provisions now. We are not against organisations for the improvement of youth welfare. We are against the specific bureaucratisation which is inherent in the Bill.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) made an important point. If I heard him aright—I apologise if I did not—I understood him to say that it was his experience in his area that vandalism was considerably reduced where there was provision for youth. I would agree with that proposition. However, we are talking about provision for committees. The two are not necessarily the same thing.
  Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.
  If the money does not come from local authorities, it will have to come from the Government. The Government have made no provision for such finances, and we cannot reasonably expect them to. We must maintain a sense of reality. It is ridiculous to expect the Government to provide the money in the present financial climate.
  To appoint one local government officer as a co-ordinator would involve a salary of about £8,500 a year, plus indexation of his pension, and that does not take account of the provision of a typist or an office. The cost would be several thousand pounds at a time when local authorities are having to look carefully at their expenditure.
  I represent in Staffordshire one of the best counties for the provision of youth welfare, and I speak with the backing of the Association of County Councils. On 27 June 1980 the education officer of the Association of County Councils wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle), stating:
  "I think it is fair to say that all LEAs in membership of the Association who have expressed a view on the issue have emphasised their concern about the proposals which are likely to lead to increased expenditure and to restrict and inhibit local freedom of choice."
  In a letter to me, Staffordshire county council states:
  "We in Staffordshire have a long history of support for our Youth and Community

  2001
  Service, of which we are very proud, but we think this is a thoroughly bad Bill…
  The Association believes it is quite wrong to impose additional duties upon Local Authorities at this time and to create a climate of expectation when resources are not available to meet these expectations."
  Mr. John Ward: My hon. Friend quoted a salary of £8,500 for a co-ordinator. Does he agree that the normal calculation in industry is to double the salary of each individual to cover overheads and back-up facilities? Nearly every education authority has borne the brunt of local government economies, and there are marked reductions in services. That applies not least to the schools service in my county. It would be irresponsible to produce a measure that would add to the present rate burden. I have received many letters from old people who feel that they are paying higher rates than they can afford. A further burden would increase their difficulties. We must also consider that the country is facing a period of expenditure restraint.
  Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend's point makes good sense, and no one would disagree. I am often asked by elderly people why there are not more concessions for fares, television sets, telephone charges and so on. We should not even consider spending money to set up a bureaucracy when that may deprive those people of such concessions as they now enjoy.
  County councils feel strongly that the expenditure involved has not been sufficiently considered. I know that the Minister has already sought to come to grips with the argument.
  12.45 pm
  Mr. Marks: I cannot quite see why Staffordshire is so worried if it has such a wonderful system. It has a committee of this kind. It spends a lot of money on it, so it will certainly not worry Staffordshire, any more than it will worry Manchester, if the Bill goes through. Is it because Staffordshire has a good youth service in Stoke-on-Trent and that the odds are that that area will lose some of its youth service.
  Mr. Lawrence: I promise that I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's question
  2002
  When I come to the appropriate part of my speech.
  The arguments of the sponsors in reply to the points that I have been advancing about costs are these. First, they say that the Bill will not cost very much. I notice that they say this because there was a noise in the Strangers Gallery when I said that it would be expensive, so obviously there are many young people who think that these costs are not very substantial. The argument is that the cost will not be substantial because it will only bring those local educational authorities that are falling behind up to the standard of the best.
  The expense, such as it is, however much one concedes that there is expense—and if one does not concede that, there is no purpose in the Bill—must still come from somewhere. My points about the cost are not answered by someone saying merely that it will not cost very much. Some country councils probaly do not have a very good standard, and those are the councils where it may cost more.
  The second reasons why I say that the argument of low cost is not a good one is that someone must make the judgment as to whether a county council is living up to its responsibilities and is conforming so that it can take advantage of the clause But who makes the judgment as to whether any particular county council is living up to the minimum requirements of the Bill?
  Mr. Marks: The Secretary of State for the Environment.
  Mr. Lawrence: Is it the Government? But where is that in the Bill or the new clause? Where is there any requirement that the Government should set themselves up as the arbiter in any area of whether a local authority is living up to the requirements in the Bill?
  Goodness me, we are trying as hard as we can to leave as many powers in the hands of local authorities as is reasonable in all the circumstances, and, for goodness sake, to get the Government off the backs of local authorities. Here we are making a provision which, if it is vetted by the Government, will have Government bureaucrats breathing down the necks of local officials to see whether they are making provision up to the standard.

  2003
  I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford wishes to intervene. I am sorry, because I do not wish him to keep getting up and down with that bad leg but—
  Mr. Skeet: I wonder whether I might be so presumptuous as to intervene again. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill and the Education (No. 2) Bill make quite a sally into local authorities' powers? Would it not be consistent, therefore, in view of the interference with local authorities' essential purposes, to have it here too?
  Mr. Lawrence: Opposition Members who feel so strongly about the Education (No. 2) Bill have been making the central point. I see the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), an Opposition spokesman, deploring the fact that it appears to be contrary to Conservative Party policy that there should be any interference in local government in either education or housing. So the fact that there is a wrong done from that point of view would not make it right to copy the wrong in this Bill. I do not accept that it is a wrong. Distinctions can be drawn concerning the housing and education legislation. However, I do not wish to discuss them now lest I be accused of talking too long.
  The Government give no such powers, and take no such powers. There is no reason why the Government should draw a distinction between those local authorities that do, and those that do not, come up to the necessary minimum provision. Therefore, only local government can judge whether it comes up to the Bill's provisions. If the Bill did not exist, which local authority would say that its provisions were inadequate? The fact is that if local authorities wish to spend money on the new provision, they will do so. If they do not want to, they will not. If they do not do so, and if local authorities are to judge whether the provisions required by the Bill are fulfilled, they are unlikely to judge in favour of the bureaucratisation that this Bill requires. Unless those in favour of the Bill respond to this criticism it must be accepted that there is no point in the provision.
  There is a third criticism of my proposition that it is too costly. The hon. Mem-
  2004
  ber for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) said that if a county such as Staffordshire already produced adequate requirements, the question of cost would not apply. I wish to refer to a brochure on the youth and community service, produced by the Staffordshire education committee. I should be happy to place the brochure in the Library so that all hon Members can consider it. It states:
  "This provision affords a lively, imaginative and personal service which improves the quality of life of the people of Staffordshire. Effectively it is a partnership between the Statutory and Voluntary provision within the County which aims to help people of all ages achieve their full potential."
  Part of the brochure discusses democracy at work. It speaks of the concept of adults and young people being involved in the service and participating in the decision-making process, which is central to the philosophy of the youth and community service. It sets out the following bodies: county council, education committee, youth community and careers subcommittee, county youth and community officer, deputy county youth and community officer, area advisory officers, county training officer, county youth council, county training advisory committee, adult and management committees, area youth councils, area leaders' councils, adults, leaders, wardens, centres, clubs, organisations and members' committees.
  That is just what Staffordshire does voluntarily. There are pages of examples of the work that is done in adult education, community work, the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme, arts and crafts, competition and sporting opportunities, leadership courses for outdoor activities, the adult literacy scheme, the Manpower Services Commission, community service, and overseas links. A tremendous organisation already exists.
  It has been asked why the Bill will cost this county anything. Most of the work is done by volunteers. The work that volunteers do costs little. They get petrol money, but most of the money spent belongs to volunteers who are dedicated to the job. How do volunteers react when a paid official is brought in? Suddenly, volunteers find that somebody is trying to justify a job, and is breathing down their necks. The official tells the volunteers to do this or that. He says "No, we cannot" or "Yes, we must". Given a new

  2005
  regime, and given that volunteers are obliged to do—without payment—what a local government official tells them to do, they not unnaturally often decide to do something else. It has actually happened in Staffordshire. The moment that the responsibility for meals-on-wheels passed from the Royal Women's Voluntary Service to the control of a county council official, that meals-on-wheels service seems to have become less efficient and less welcome. We are now beginning to get complaints. Much of the reason is no doubt that volunteers are less happy working under the guidance of bureaucrats than they were when they were left more or less to their own devices.
  This is a matter of psychology. Those of us who work closely with volunteers know perfectly well that there is a very delicate balance. There is a point at which volunteers, who are overburdening themselves as a result of their generosity and service to the community, will say "This far I will go, and no further." Therefore, it is almost inevitable that in many of these areas where there is adequate volunteer provision now, there will be a depletion of volunteer representation under this measure, and with it more expense because the contribution that the driver, for example, makes in his spare time will have to be done by somebody who is being paid.
  Mr. Marks: The hon. Member listed from his brochure a large number of full-time officials who are paid by Staffordshire county council and its committees. Staffordshire county council has the bureaucracy, and if the hon. Member is suggesting that volunteers will not work because the Government say that Staffordshire county council shall have that bureaucracy, he is talking nonsense. Volunteers are always demanding the help of full-time officials and they are trying to build up local government full-time services in order to help them. A full time service can use more volunteers.
  Mr. Lawrence: I simply do not agree with the hon. Member. But, as I do not wish to prolong the argument for the purpose of delaying the Bill, I shall move to another point.
  These provisions require this bureaucratic organisation for a county, so one
  2006
  envisages the creation of at least one paid local government official who must organise that county according to the requirements of the Bill. Amendment No. 3 will not cover adequately the situation in a county such as Staffordshire. Suppose such a man is appointed in Stafford. Where will the organisation be in Burton, Lichfield, Tamworth or Stoke? It will not be possible to have one man organising all those towns. Sooner or later it is as inevitable as that night follows day that there will be a call for more assistance. It is more than one can expect on man to cover—all the hundreds of square miles of the county—to service all these different towns.
  We all know what it is like. In Burton on Trent we used to have a good town clerk. Then he became the chief executive and had a deputy. It was not long before it was necessary to have a public relations officer to explain what these two were doing. Then, it was not very long—but fortunately my district council was too sensible to fall for this—before a plan emerged from out of the inner recesses of the East Staffordshire District council which claimed "It is unfair to load the public relations officer with all these burdens. He is doing wonderful work, but he needs a deputy." So bureaucracy proliferates. It feeds upon itself. When it is said "All we need is one man in Stafford to do the work", it will be seen clearly as nonsense by people in Burton, Lichfield, Tamworth and all the other towns in my county when they realise that they have not got the provision that is laid down in the Bill.
  1 pm
  Mr. Ward: Cannot my hon. Friend draw a useful parallel between what he has said about a bureaucracy and the way that the scout movement is organised? Apart from the national headquarters, there are county commissioners with certain assistants. In each district there is a district commissioner, again with assistants. They find that they need all these people to cover all aspects of training. Surely that proves that any organisation as big and as national as the scout movement—a movement which serves youth throughout the world'—needs this kind of set-up so that it can run efficiently. We are going very far down the path where we shall parallel that organisation not with volunteers but with

  2007
  professional people. This will add to the burden of costs, and not only the costs to local authorities. The next thing that will happen is that a Whitehall department is set up. It has happened on every other occasion when we have tried to do anything like this. I hope that my lion. Friend will say that where we have volunteers doing what he has described in Stafford—and it is happening in Dorset and in Poole—we ought to learn the lesson that volunteers are very much more useful and get a better response from the grass roots than paid officials who are resented by so many volunteers over whom they are put in control.
  Mr. Lawrence: I do not wish to prolong my speech. I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I shall not enlarge upon it. My point is simply that the cries that the cost will be minimal under the requirements of clause 1 are phoney. When was bureaucracy ever capable of producing anything at minimal cost? To suggest otherwise is the joke of the month.
  As briefly as I can, I move on to deal with the other objections which have been brought to my attention by the authorities. This is not just me speaking. I am advised by those who have to handle these problems daily.
  The Association of County Councils says:
  "The Association's second major concern lies in the prescriptiveness of the proposals contained in the present Bill. Some County Councils have spent a considerable amount of time and effort in the years since local government reorganisation in developing and reshaping their services for youth. In many cases these developments have extended youth and community provision and in some cases have taken in the field of adult education also. Arrangements have been made for co-operative work and for consultation involving the community in the widest sense, and a great deal of attention has been paid to breaking down barriers between what were previously regarded as different sectors. These wider arrangements would not be appropriate in all areas but, where they are appropriate, they would be threatened by the special arrangements which the Bill would require authorities to introduce. The long standing and recently developed arrangements for co-operation would be jeopardised by the particular framework which the Bill suggests."
  If that is the view of the Association of County Councils, what are we in this House doing considering a measure which goes directly contrary to that view, since it is patently one which is not party
  2008
  political but founded upon common sense.
  That brings me to my third objection, and I refer again to what the Association of County Councils says about the infringement of local democracy which it sees threatening in the Bill. It says:
  "Local democracy is about the freedom to decide what is needed locally and, as it stands the present Bill would impose a system which could lead to unnecesary, new, local youth bureaucracies. The Association strongly supports the underlying objectives but must oppose the attempt to ensure their achievement through a rigid prescription."
  Then there is the letter from Northampton. It says:
  "Northamptonshire are of the opinion that the successful co-operation between voluntary and statutory bodies depends upon the free association of local people arising out of their mutual recognition of their need to provide a service and that this is less likely where the parties are subject to a shotgun marriage of compulsion by statute."
  Finally, the education committee of Staffordshire county council said:
  "At a local level, we are very worried about the provisions which will make mandatory the setting up of statutory joint committees with voluntary organisations. The idea of such a committee is not new. It was urged on Local Authorities as long ago as Circular 1486 from the then Board of Education in 1939. In the early years of the Youth Service in Staffordshire we had such a committee, but it was abandoned by mutual consent because, for actually getting things done, it was much better to have liaison at local rather than at County level…To have to rework that structure in accordance with the mandatory precepts in the Bill is to us both an unnecessary bureaucratic exercise and a retrograde step."
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: To put the matter in proper balance, can my hon. Friend, who has gone into the matter with such care, give the House any indication of any awareness that he may have of any local authority, local authority organisation, or representative body, which has supported the Bill as presently drafted? I am unaware of any such support, but it is important that if there is such support the House should be aware of it.
  Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the obvious point which, I hope, will be dealt with by the sponsor of the Bill. The burden is upon his shoulders to show what support he has for this measure from those who will have to administer it in the present climate.

  2009
  Clause 1 is a disaster because it is opposed by county councils—especially the Staffordshire county council and its education committee—because there is no money to pay for its inevitable cost, and because it is bad psychology to say to county councils "You must restrain your expenditure"—as we are having to do every day in the current economic climate—and then to say "By the way, we want you to spend more money on this measure ". It is a disaster because it will damage the existing set-ups in counties such as Staffordshire. It is bad because it is contrary to the Government's policy to let local authorities have as wide discretion as possible for the good of Britain.
  The sadness of the matter is that the aims of the Bill are so good, and the ideals that moved the introduction of it by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford are so praiseworthy. The question is "How do we save it?" The answer has been given by my hon. Friend the Minister in the introduction of new clause 1. It does not go as far as that expected by the hon. Member for Gorton but it goes as far as is reasonable, bearing in mind the complaints of the county councils, the question of costs and the other matters to which I have referred.
  Mr. Skeet: Will my hon. Friend, on behalf of himself and his colleagues who are protesting against the Bill, accept my Bill as drafted if it incorporates all the Government amendments?
  Mr. Lawrence: Speaking for myself, I would accept it provided that clause 5 were deleted. That clause deals with youth councils, and I hope that we shall come to that matter at a later stage. That apart, I can see nothing wrong with the Bill. My objections to the Bill are the "may" and "shall" in the current economic climate, which is the context in which I have been speaking. The provision of youth councils is a matter to which I shall return when we debate clause 5—and the evil that would attend those councils if they got into the wrong hands.
  Mr. Skeet: I have studied the amendments carefully, and those of my hon. Friend conflict with those tabled by the Government.
  Mr. Lawrence: That only goes to show that we who are alert to these matters and who table amendments do not necessarily pay the closest of attention to what comes out of Whitehall. There is no reason why we should. Our amendments are responsive to the reactions that we have been getting from our local authorities.
  If Labour Members want something for which they will get my support, they should support new clause 1 which incorporates the permissive "may" instead of the mandatory "shall" and sets up a new youth advisory committee.
  Finally, may I say that I cannot remember any matter that has created stronger opposition from local councils. It is particularly astonishing, because local authorities like bureaucracy, yet here is an item of bureaucracy that would help to expand the empires of some local government officers, and they do not want it. May I read from a letter which Mr. James Lightdown, the chairman of the Staffordshire education authority wrote to me—
  Sir John Eden: May I emphasise that the inference drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) does not apply to me? I have not had an opportunity to discuss the terms of the Bill or any of the amendments with my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I wish to ensure, as far as I can, that if the Bill proceeds it does so in a way that will not add to the cost burden of local authorities, from which I have had the strongest representations.
  Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend who speaks for the Dorset county council, which is one of many that feel strongly. My right hon. Friend's intervention strengthens my point.
  The chairman of the Staffordshire education authority wrote to me:
  "I cannot stress too strongly the depth of feeling which obtains on this issue and very much hope we can look to you for urgent help in this matter."
  They can, they have and I hope that I have been able in this small way to assist them.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said in answer to

  2011
  an intervention from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) that he had some constructive remedies for dealing with vandalism to replace the suggestions of the hon Member for Bedford.
  The only suggestion that I have ever heard from hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Burton for dealing with young people who need the sort of facilities suggested in the Bill is that they should have a short, sharp shock and that we should punish youngsters who are being deprived by Conservative Members of jobs and leisure opportunities and who are getting into difficulties because of the Government's policies. In the context of debates on the Bill, the only people who deserve a short, sharp shock are the Government and Conservative Members who have treated the hon. Member for Bedford in a shabby and despicable manner.
  The Government said on Second Reading that the Bill would receive their support. There was nothing equivocal about that; no reservations were expressed. The cost factors were as relevant in November as they are now.
  1.15 pm
  Mr. Macfarlane: I am sorry to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman referred to my speech on Second Reading and it is important to set the record straight. We do not want more of the type of exaggeration in which the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) indulged when he tried to convince the House that Manchester has a progressive local authority. One has only to examine its finances to see what the hon. Gentleman means by "progressive".
  On Second Reading I said:
  "The Government do not oppose the Bill in principle. Indeed, we very much support its objectives which, in general, offer an excellent model of good practice…
  There are, however, a number of important aspects of the Bill which run counter to Government policy, notably over relationships with local authorities and over public expenditure."—[Official Report, 9 November 1979; Vol 973, c. 834.]
  I hope that that puts the record straight.
  Mr. Foulkes: It adds to what I said about the Bill having Government support. If Government Members do not want to take my word for it, since they might assume that I would be critical of the Government—and there are
  2012
  many good reasons for being critical of the Government—they should look at page after page of the Standing Committee reports. My hon. Friends were not critical of the Government, but Government Members were. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is not with us today, said:
  "The Under-Secretary's attitude is obstructive, destructive, unhelpful and unto-operative."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 March 1980; c. 64.]
  One cannot be more critical than that.
  Mr. Macfarlane: A number of the debates in Committee were unsatisfactory to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), principally because it was ensured that Scotland remained covered by the Bill. He made clear that that was not acceptable. For a brief time he and I were in unison in Committee.
  The hon. Gentleman says that the Government and Government Back Benchers were obstructive. I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), the Opposition Chief Whip and three other hon. Members tabled a blocking motion.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) will deal with the Government amendment later. If Government Members, particularly the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), took the time to consider the issues and to read the Standing Committee reports they would see the tenor of the criticism.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foulkes: No.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It is normal to give way when an hon. Member refers to another hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman has devoted much time to the discussion in Committee. He must understand that a Standing Committee is not the ultimate repository of authority in the House and that the Floor of the House is the ultimate judge. Opinions expressed in Committee might not be representative of the generality of opinion in the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us the benefit—since he is the only Opposition Member present from north of the Border—of his knowledge about the number of Scottish

  2013
  local authorities which are in favour of the Bill as it stands.
  Mr. Foulkes: I intend to do that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was one of those who were glad to see him depart the political scene in Scotland and move south of the Border.
  I accept that the Committee stage does not decide matters. There was a major discussion on Second Reading. I understood that the composition of the Committee was supposed to represent broadly the kind of expressions of opinion made on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. If one reads the reports of the Committee proceedings, one will see the concern.
  I am also concerned that, with the honourable and notable exception of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best), some of the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Bedford who supported him in Committee seem to have deserted him today, perhaps frightened off by the Government Whips. I am also concerned that during the course of this debate there has been a deliberate filibustering effort by the hon. Member for Burton, and in the previous two debates there were irrelevant—
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), has made the allegation that hon. Members on this side of the House have been indulging in a deliberate filibuster. Is it not the case that a deliberate filibuster is out of order? Since you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your predecessor in the Chair did not rule out of order any of my remarks or those of my hon. Friends, is it not desirable that the hon. Gentleman should be required to withdraw that remark this is clearly in itself out of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I think that that sort of observation has been heard in the House before.
  Mr. Foulkes: Can I also say—
  Mr. Lawrence: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was specifically referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I could dilate at length on the reasons why it could not be appropriately said
  2014
  that I had been filibustering on either the licensing Bill or this matter. Can it be clearly on the record, with all your authority, that if there had been a filibuster, you would have drawn attention to it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who said that he could dilate at length, that he would not have had the opportunity.
  Sir John Eden: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has made clear, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) made the deliberate charge that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton had engaged in a deliberate filibuster. That is clearly wrong. It is clearly untrue. Otherwise the Chair would have ruled against my hon. Friend. Since the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor has deliberately told an untruth, should he not be directed to withdraw it? On what possible basis can he say that it was a filibuster?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is getting into rather deep water.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was one of those attacked by implication in what the hon. Gentleman said because I played a full part in the two previous debates. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would remind the hon. Gentleman that he was not present during the entirety of the two previous debates and, therefore, he is out of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Nor was I, so I have no grounds on which I can make such observations.
  Mr. Foulkes: It may be said that four spurious points of order in themselves constitute a filibuster. I was present during the debate on the Married Women's Policies of Assurance (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill when your predecessor called the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) to order on four occasions because he was wandering from the point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: What went on at that stage is not within the knowledge of the Chair and is not relevant here.
  Mr. Foulkes: If I may now return to the Bill, I should like to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) who asked whether the purpose of the Government new clause was—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have asked no question of the hon. Gentleman. I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing me with my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman asked whether the purpose of the new clause was to legitimatise expenditure which is currently being undertaken by local authorities in this area. That is clearly not the case, because in reply to my intervention the Minister indicated that existing legislation covers the aims of new clause 1. Therefore, the existing legislation is quite adequate to deal with the permissive powers given to any local authority to set up these kind of bodies. It is quite clear to me, therefore, that the Government's action in introducing this new clause—which is unnecessary, not required and only tabled effectively to delete the effective clause which the hon. Member for Bedford has included—is a fraud and a deception. The new clause is totally irrelevant.
  I now turn to the question of the local authorities. Local authorities in Scotland, along with those in England and Wales, have said that they are concerned—I expressed that point in Committee—lest any new powers are laid upon them without the additional resources to make them effective. I appreciate their expression of concern. I share that concern as someone who served on a local authority for nine years.
  There are two ways of proceeding. The first is to say "We shall not carry out these desirable things"—in my view, these necessary things—"to improve the position for young people". The other is to say "We think that these are desirable and necessary objectives and we shall make the resources available in order that they can be carried out". As for the official Opposition—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West will confirm it—our policy is that the resources should be made available.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I follow the point which the hon. Gentleman is making.
  2016
  However, where in the Bill as drafted are the resources to which he has referred provided? If they are not, what on earth is the point of his argument?
  Mr. Foulkes: It is clear that some hon. Members have not read the reports of the Committee proceedings. This matter was dealt with at length in Committee. During our discussion on clause 9, I said that a Private Member's Bill must have such a clause included in it, and I pointed out the difficulties which would arise if it were not.
  The Minister said that if the Government's economic policy was unsuccessful—the cutting of public expenditure, the cutting of school milk to children, the increases in school meals charges and all the other things from which we are suffering at present—the young people themselves would suffer, and that there would be no point in having a Youth and Community Bill if we did not have a strong economy to provide those services. If there was any evidence that the Government's economic policy was having even a modicum of success, that argument would hold some weight. However, in terms of unemployment, inflation and our present economic situation, it is clear that that is not the position.
  I hope that the House will recognise that the hon. Member for Bedford has been treated in a shabby and disgusting way by the Government and by Conservative Back Benchers. I hope that we will deliver a short, sharp shock to the Government for that shabby and disgraceful treatment.
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I hope that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) will forgive me if I do not range as wide as he did. I found the extent of the field he sought to cover surprising. The hon. Gentleman accused Conservative Members of filibustering, but he indulged in a wide-ranging review of Government employment policies, which ran so wide of the issue that we are discussing that if he had proceeded he would have swiftly run himself into dispute with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about resources in a moment, but first, as I was not a member of the Committee, I wish to pay tribute to the considerable time and effort that my

  2017
  hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has devoted to this matter. Whatever the outcome of today's discussions, his efforts will have been of great value to the House and to young people generally.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said that the Young Conservative movement, without exception, was entirely in support of the proposals in the Bill. Among the representations that I have received is a letter appealing for my support from the North-West Young Conservatives. However, it is important to put the record straight in this respect. There are divisions of opinion among the younger members of the Conservative Party, and it is right that there should be. There are different views on the desirability of this proposal among the members of the Federation of Conservative Students, for example, and inevitably there is a considerable overlap between the membership of the federation and the Young Conservatives.
  Mr. Keith Best: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the last meeting of the national advisory committee of the Young Conservative movement—which includes representatives of the whole Young Conservative movement—a motion was passed unreservedly welcoming the Bill?
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That is as may be. I do not dissent from the proposition that among other sections of Conservative youth, such as the Federation of Conservative Students, different views are expressed.
  Mr. John Lee: My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and I represent North-Western constituencies. The North-West Young Conservatives are totally in favour of the Bill. I quote from a letter that was sent to me by the chairman of the North-West Young Conservatives:
  "With these considerations in mind North-West Young Conservatives strongly urge you to support the Bill by attending the Friday session and casting your vote in favour of it."
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I have already referred to that representation, a copy of which I also received. I was able to assure the North-West Young Conservatives that I would be present today to
  2018
  give the Bill the careful scrutiny that it deserves.
  I turn to the two alternatives—the proposition in clause 1 that there should be a mandatory obligation on local authorities, and the proposition in the new clause that the power should be permissive.
  I am not wildly enamoured of the new clause, for the reason advanced by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). It is clear from what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that the power to set up youth committees of the type envisaged in the Bill is already entrusted to local authorities. Therefore, we should have reservations about putting on to the statute book what might be called acts of supererogation.
  For that reason, I am less than 100 per cent. enthusiastic about the new clause. But if I had to choose between the new clause and the clause in the Bill, I should most certainly prefer the new clause.
  Like others of my hon. Friends, I do not think that we should impose additional specific obligations on local authorities at this time. I have no doubt about the excellent ambitions and purposes of the sponsors of the Bill. We can all endorse them without a moment's hesitation. But at the same time we must all bear in mind that one of the more important reasons why local authority current expenditure is out of control today and why our constituents face vast rate increases year by year is the endless addition of obligations which the House has required local authorities to fulfil. A large and embarrassing proportion of these additional obligations has sprung not from Government legislation but from Private Members' Bills. For that reason, we should always be cautious about adding to the primary obligations of local authorities. If that is true as a generality, I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that this moment of all moments is about the last to add to those obligations.
  We have heard a lot about the attitudes of local authorities towards this proposal. So far as I have been able to ascertain all who are anxious to see the Bill put on the statute book in its present form have to date been unable to produce a

  2019
  single instance of a local authority which is in favour of the Bill as it stands.
  Mr. Best: I have written to all local education authorities and I have their answers here. I pluck one from that list. This letter from the city of Sheffield reads:
  "Dear Mr. Best,
  Thank you for your letter which I received on 23rd June about the Youth and Community Bill. Some local authorities may have been lukewarm, but not this one. Last month the Education Committee, now with the confirmation of the City Council, promoted a resolution urging the Government to ensure that the Youth and Community Bill becomes law during the current parliamentary session. The Committee asked that this resolution should be forwarded to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the South Yorkshire Members of Parliament and to other interested and relevant groups.
  I hope you find this news encouraging."
  I hope that my hon. Friend is not feeling particularly proud of his county council. If he wants further elucidation, I have the letter from that authority here as well.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has produced that example. I suspected that he had written to a lot of education authorities. I have a copy of the reply that he received from the Director of Education for Cheshire, which I shall read in a moment. I hope tha my hon. Friend will give the House the advantage of other positive replies that he has received. He chose to read the reply of the republic of South Yorkshire, as it is sometimes called. My local authority takes a different view.
  Mr. Ward: Perhaps my hon. Friend will invite our hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) to read the reply that he has received from the Dorset county education authority, as I am sure that he wishes to strike a fair balance. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) indicated, Dorset is totally opposed to the provisions, not only because of the expense, but because they will create unnecessary bureaucracy.
  Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that the South Yorkshire county council has apparently advanced proposals to employ 24 people to count the trees in its areas? Two years ago it employed 12 young people to count the
  2020
  lamp-posts! It might be more useful if it sent someone to count its bureaucrats and councillors. It would have been more helpful had South Yorkshire suggested how the proposals could be paid for.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It might also have suggested how many hundreds of additional bureaucrats it would employ, given the opportunity. We should not regard South Yorkshire as a model.
  Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) quoted a positive letter from the Sheffield authority. I have spent some time in the past year in dialogue with Sheffield, which has some good educational codes of practice, Peter Horton, the chairman of the Sheffield education committee, is the chairman of the local education authorities committee this year and also a member of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I said earlier that the AMA was distinctly unhappy about clause 1. There is, therefore, confusion between the role that Sheffield is playing in writing to my hon. Friend and the role that it is playing on the AMA.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That confusion is illustrated in other dealings with local authorities, as I discovered in dealing with my local authority over the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill.
  1.45 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) referred to the reply that he had received from the director of education for my authority. The director of education for Cheshire could not he accused by his worst enemies, if he had enemies, which I am sure that he has not, of being a paid-up member of what might be regarded as the more obscurantist wing of the Conservative Party. The contrary is true. In reply to my hon. Friend he stated:
  "Thank you for your recent letter concerning this Bill. Under present conditions I am afraid I cannot work up a great deal of enthusiasm for the Bill. Until recently this Authority would probably have been able to take one or two small steps which presumably would have qualified it for the exemption which you mention"—
  that is, the exemption made in the Bill for local authorities which were acting in

  2021
  a manner which has considered to be in conformity with its purpose—
  "Government pressure for reductions in public expenditure, however, have compelled the discontinuation of the County Youth Advisory Committee and its associated eight District Youth Advisory Committees, staffing reductions having made it impossible to service them.
  While I feel that the Bill has much to commend it I think it is singularly ill-timed and I cannot imagine that the members of my Authority would be prepared to support measures which would compel them, in these very difficult times, to reincur expenditure which they have so recently decided to save"
  From my contacts with the leading elected members of Cheshire country council, I know that they very strongly endorse the view which has been expressed on their behalf by their director of education.
  Mr. Best: Once again I apologise to my hon. Friend for intrerrupting at such length. However, I am glad that he has brought that letter into evidence as he called it. To be fair, is not the clear inference from that letter that there is a country council that desperately wants to see measure such as those encompassed in the Bill brought into effect, and that the only reason why it cannot do that the only reason why it cannot do that is there is a cutback in public expenditure? If my hon. Friend looks closely at that letter and picks out one or two of the phrases which he was so careful to read a moment ago, he will see that it says:
  "Until recently this authority would probably have been able to take one or two small steps"
  and
  "Government pressure for reductions in public expenditure, however, have compelled the discontinuation of the County Youth Advisory Committee."
  Those are the sort of things that the Bill envisages as being beneficial to the youth service and the sort of things that Cheshire county council has had to give up. It is not that it disagrees with them fundamentally but simply that it cannot provide them on financial grounds.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not clear where my hon. Friend stands on the need for restraint in public expenditure, but I know where I stand. If we are to involve local authorities in fresh obligations at present, such as the Bill is designed to
  2022
  impose upon them, we make a farce of the whole concept of bringing public expenditure and, above all, local authority current expenditure, under proper control. I believe that we would be acting in the highest possible degree of irresponsibility towards our taxpayers and ratepayers if we went down that road.
  Mr. Lee: On that specific point, my hon. Friend's main criticism of the Bill, as I understand it, is that the financial obligations are put on the local education authorities and, through them, on the county councils. In national terms, is he in favour of central Government spending more or less on youth at this time?
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: At present I am in favour of central Government spending less on current account—period. I have never believed—although I know that it is fashionable in this place—that one can be in favour of retrenchment in general and expenditure in particular. Those two concepts are totally incompatable. I know that many hon. Members —not all of them on the Opposition Benches—somehow manage to see no incompatibility between them. But I am afraid that I cannot go down that road. Therefore, my answer is that if we were to expunge clause 9 as it stands and to transfer on to the Government's shoulders responsibility for any costs incurred as a result of these proposals, I should be not one whit the happier.
  What will be the financial implications for local authorites if clause 1 is carried? My hon. Friend the Member for Burton asked where the money would come from. I commend to the House a letter that appeared recently in that excellent and celebrated newspaper, The Daily Telegraph. It came from the Chairman of Kent county council youth and community service sub-committee. The author, Felicity Simpson, wrote:
  "I write to contribute to the debate on the value of the Youth and Community Bill…This Bill is surely one of the most well-intentioned but totally misguided measures to come before Parliament."
  I shall not trouble the House by repeating the whole letter. However, she continued:
  "It seems wholly unproductive in terms of cost and the involvement of young people in their own affairs for this Bill to impose the setting up, and the servicing by local authorities, of youth councils…with

  2023
  a membership aged up to 26 years. This will involve costly administrative and professional time.
  The Bill also dictates the membership and chairmanship of a joint committee of local authority and voluntary youth organizations…thereby upsetting local arrangements.
  As this Bill does not provide any more finance to the Youth Service,…not only will its effect be to switch resources away from teenagers in local authority clubs to already well motivated 21–26-year-olds, but also it will force a reduction in the grant-aid and advice-time pump-priming organisations."
  That letter was written by someone with considerable experience. It reflects the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. If clause 1 were enacted it would not improve youth opportunities, but would divert resources away from existing services. Those resources would be channelled into new systems of bureaucracy. I seriously wonder whether they would advance the interests of the young.
  Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend read a letter from The Daily Telegraph, which was written by a member of Kent county council. Is he aware that the weight can be taken out of his remarks? In terms of per capita expenditure on youth, 1·7p is spent in Kent, compared with 12·6p in other authority areas.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Those figures do not alter the fact that the letter came from the chairman of the Kent county council youth and community service subcommittee. Such a person is at the sharp end of things. My hon. Friend would look to just such a person to achieve the purposes of his legislation. One cannot lightly ignore the point that that letter makes.
  When one considers the desirability of a measure, one must look at the source of its support. Hon. Members have drawn attention to the considerable volume of support that has been lent to the legislation by the Young Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey plucked out one local authority from the depths of South Yorkshire. I hope that he will pluck out some more. However, he could pluck out only one that supported the propositions in the Bill.
  I have received one other representation in support of the Bill. I quote:
  "in any event, I do urge that you are present when the Bill comes up and that you cast your vote for it. If you can spare the time to let
  2024
  me know your views in regard to this matter, I should be grateful."
  That came from Mr. Colin Barnett, the secretary of the North-West Regional Council of the TUC, of which some of us had experience at the time of the troubles and disruptions at the beginning of 1979. At that time local services were reduced often to a state bordering on chaos. I am bound to say that an appeal from that particular source to lend support to a measure is not one that I view with enormous enthusiasm.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is important that we get a proper balance here. I declare an interest as a sponsor of the Bill, and also as the Member for a neighbouring constituency to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that such highly reputable and respectable organisations as the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides fully support the Bill? My hon. Friend quoted from a letter in the recent edition of The Daily Telegraph and the person whom he quoted referred to voluntary organisations. Does not my hon. Friend agree that some of the intent behind the Bill would enable the voluntary organisations to play a much greater part in youth and community service in this country and that this would ensure much better value for money than providing bigger and better maintained and statutory youth centres and youth organisations in this country? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the voluntary organisations which do a great deal and which, under this Bill, may well be encouraged to do much more at low cost?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that we are dealing with new clause 1 which is concerned with youth advisory committees. We seem to be drifting into a Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I shall try to bear that closely in mind. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that at this time we should encourage to the maximum possible extent the involvement of volunteers in the improvement of services for the young in all areas. What I am doubtful about is whether we are really likely to enhance the degree of voluntary involvement and commitment by imposing on local authorities a legislative duty of the type

  2025
  envisaged in clause 1. For that reason, as much as for any other, while I cannot conjure up a great deal of enthusiasm for the new clause, I can conjure up even less for clause 1 as it stands.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I shall be brief, because it is important that the House should be able to come to a decision on the new clause as soon as possible. The Opposition are very unhappy about the proposals put forward by the Government in the new clause. I agree with one thing that the Minister said in moving the new clause. He claimed that his attitude today was consistent with that which he adopted in Committee. That is true. Throughout the Committee the Minister sought to create difficulties and make the Bill absolutely meaningless in its main proposals. In view of what the Minister has said today, I still do not understand why he did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. That would have been a more honest approach.
  This new clause is one of the two ways in which the Government are trying to kill the Bill. One is by tabling so many amendments that they hope that the Bill will run out of time. The other is by tabling this clause which in effect makes the provisions of the Bill meaningless. The use of the word "may" in the first subsection means that, if the Bill goes through, it will not achieve any of the ends which its sponsors originally envisaged at the time of Second Reading.
  2 pm
  Mr. Macfarlane: I understand the hon. Lady's point, but I am sure that she accepts that we shall have to agree to differ.
  I am in some difficulty, as, I think, are many of my hon. Friends. On 26 June, the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) and three other leading members of the Shadow Cabinet, tabled a motion designed to secure that on Third Reading of this Bill the Question be not put forthwith.
  Mrs. Taylor: The Minister will also be aware that the Opposition did not table any amendments for Report. We should have liked a very short and direct Report
  2026
  stage dealing only with those amendments which had proved in Committee to be necessary, some of them promised by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). We should then have liked a Third Reading debate in order to discuss this subject a little further. But we have no intention if, miraculously, the Question is put in the next 29 minutes, of voting against the Third Reading. I think that the hon. Member for Bedford will confirm that the Opposition have never tried to frustrate the passage of this Bill, as some of his colleagues have. We have given him full support in all the Bill's stages from Second Reading until now, and we have no intention of frustrating the Bill's further progress.
  Mr. Macfarlane: W must get this clear so that we know where the Opposition stand. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues put down a blocking motion against Third Reading would not automatically have ensured a debate on Third Reading. That would have happened automatically, regardless of the fact that the Opposition had tabled a blocking motion.
  Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friends intended to make it clear that the Opposition were more interested in the principle of the Bill than in the devious amendments tabled by the Government, for whatever purposes.
  Mr. Macfarlane rose—
  Mrs. Taylor: The Minister obviously wishes to waste time. The Opposition do not.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) of wasting time when she refuses to answer a reasonable question that is put to her?
  Mr. Skeet: Pure comment.
  Mrs. Taylor: I shall continue, having answered that question several times.
  I deal briefly with some of the matters raised by Government supporters who objected to the original clause 1 because they believed that it would have cost and manpower implications for some local

  2027
  authorities. Those are fears which hon. Members did not express during the passage of the Education (No. 2) Bill when the Department of Education and Science wished to impose new obligations on local authorities in respect of local appeal systems. I assume that hon. Members realise that, though they did not show any understanding of it when we discussed it earlier.
  What many hon. Members fail to realise is that the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Bedford are intended as an investment in youth and as a means of countering the need for other expenditure because of the problems arising from non-spending.
  Earlier, one of my hon. Friends spoke about the problem of vandalism and about the costs which can arise if problems of that kind are not dealt with. This Bill seeks to give a greater commitment to youth service than we have had in the past. Hon. Members are very foolish if they think that we can ignore that and brush it aside.
  Amendment No. 3 covers a matter that we discussed in Committee. In my view, it went a long way to allay the fears of those local authorities who thought that the Bill would make them change their existing provision for youth services.
  Many of the fears that have been expressed about the Bill are not worth consideration. People have been putting forward suggestions about what will happen without understanding the Bill or our previous discussions about it. Everyone is aware that there is an amendment to make the Bill subject to a commencement order, which means that it is not necessarily the case that any current expenditure will be required in the near future to meet the requirements of the Bill.
  The whole reasoning behind the Bill is that some local authorities are not doing enough to provide a decent youth service in their areas. The Bill would put pressure on them to provide more services. It is important for it to be realised how wide is the difference between different local authorities in the services that they provide. I draw the attention of the House to a paper recently circulated by the British Youth Council about a survey on existing provisions. It says that about one-third of all local authorities are cur-
  2028
  rently cutting their expenditure on youth services by more than 10 per cent. It is even more worrying that many of the cutbacks are taking place in support for the voluntary sector, so there is no possibility that the voluntary sector will be able to fill the gap.
  The highest spending local authority spends 14 times as much as the lowest spending local authority on each young person in its area. That is unsatisfactory. More pressure needs to be put on local authorities to improve that position. The Minister said that he wondered where the new resources would come from to meet the costs of better provision for youth services. Many people, especially those involved in youth service in local authorities, wonder what has happened to the money provided by the Government in the rate support grant for youth services. That money is pooled with the remainder of the money, and the, services that should be provided go by the way. The money is not spent in the way that was originally intended.
  I hope that the Government will think again about their opposition to the Bill. I hope that neither they nor Conservative Members will kill the Bill today. The Bill has a tremendous amount of support among those involved in youth work, both on a voluntary basis and on a professional basis. It is a modest measure. The Government are trying to kill even the modest proposals in the Bill as it stands. I hope that the new clause will be rejected. I hope that the Government will think again, and that the hon. Member for Bedford will be successful in his original intentions.
  Mr. Skeet: I recollect that in Committee the Minister tabled a new clause to delete the whole of my Bill. I congratulate the Government on the fact that they have changed their minds. In this instance they have kept the entire framework of the Bill, but they have made it permissive. The Government have not been consistent. Had they properly utilised their 80 amendments in Committee, perhaps some progress could have been made on this occasion and we would not be in the position of having the Bill talked out. But that has not occurred.
  Bearing in mind the importance of clause 1, perhaps the Government will recollect that, as they were reminded in

  2029
  Committee, it was only in 1974 that they said:
  "We will introduce the Youth and Community Bill which, among other things, provides local reviews of existing arrangements in the field of housing, employment, leisure and advice services as they relate to young people."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 27 February 1980; c. 37.]
  That commitment of the Conservative Party incorporated the provisions in clause 1 of the Bill which the Government are now seeking to negate.
  A number of hon. Members are particularly concerned about what the Bill will cost local authorities. Hon Members have questioned how much support there is for the Bill. I do not know of a single youth club or youth organisation in this country that does not support not only the principles of the Bill, but everything undertaken in it. They feel that the 1944 Act should have been modernised to take account of trends that have occurred in the past 35 years.
  We are told that because of the expense that would be incurred by some authorities no changes should be made. The AMA and a concerted cartel of local authorities are against the Bill and we are told that for that reason youth should be overridden. Make no mistake. The topic of youth will raise its head again. This is not the first such Bill to be brought before the House. In fact, it is the fourth. The previous Bill was talked out by a Labour Minister, but can it not be said that this Bill is being thrust out of the House largely at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary? I hope that that is not so.
  I should like to support the new clause on the basis that we may get something for youth. If my hon. Friend is prepared to give me an undertaking that he will legislate on the framework of my Bill, as modified by the Government amendments, I shall vote for the new clause.
  Mr. Macfarlane: I understand that my hon. Friend displays a certain amount of emotion because of the important contribution that he has made and the course that he has plotted in relation to possible future legislation. I cannot give him an assurance, and he would not expect me to. He knows the problems involved.
  2030
  With a certain amount of divine intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has come first in the ballot for Private Members' motions and he is to initiate a three-hour debate on Monday. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will reply and I hope that we shall be able to explore all the points that we have discussed over the past few months and we may be able to give my hon. Friend some indications. However, he knows that I am not empowered to give any assurances today.
  Mr. Skeet: I am not satisfied with that. The Government spent a long time drafting various amendments to the Bill. They must have had in mind either a paper exercise that amounted to nothing or the idea that they would legislate on the basis of their proposals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is concerned about the anxieties of local authorities. I pointed out in an intervention that not merely I but the Secretary of State have advocated that the Act should come into force on such dates as the Secretary of State may, by order, appoint and that different dates may be appointed for different provisions. In view of that, what conceivable reason could a local authority have for remaining anxious about the Bill?
  Mr. Lawrence: The answer is simple. The mere device of including a tactic that will allow the Secretary of State to bring in provisions at some time in the future does not mean that when he brings in the provisions all our criticisms of the Bill, particularly that of cost, will not still apply. The Secretary of State may feel under an obligation to introduce provisions within the next year or so. Questions of cost will still apply. Indeed, they will have been added to by inflation.
  2.15 pm
  Mr. Skeet: Conservative Governments realise the need to reduce expenditure to a minimum. Therefore, it is unlikely that any Conservative Government would defect from the principle.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burton spoke of expenditure. In 1978–79 the local authority commitment to the youth and related services was £66 million out of a total of £89·9 million. That

  2031
  figure will be slightly increased for 1979–80. The increased expenditure is minuscule. If it is for the benefit of youth, or to support the voluntary services, there is every reason for supporting that slightly increased expenditure.
  A recent survey on behalf of the Youth Service Partners found that
  "75 per cent. of local education authorities are planning to reduce their real expenditure on the youth service during 1980–81. The overall average of the planned reductions in expenditure is 6·7 per cent."
  That works out at a reduction of an average of 9·9 per cent. while support for the voluntary sector, which costs so little and uses money inexpensively, is being reduced by 13·8 per cent. Why is my hon. Friend complaining about increases in expenditure when local authorities are reducing it? That survey was carried out in conjunction with the National Youth Bureau. The voluntary side is being cut more than the statutory side.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Expenditure on youth has been reduced, but the amount of money wasted because of vandalism has increased.
  Mr. Skeet: Local authorities seldom recognise that of the cost of £100 million a year of vandalism, £15 million is associated with schools. We can try to prevent such vandalism from occurring or we can use the custodial remedy and put offenders into institutions. In 1978–79 the average annual cost of keeping a person in custody in the six category A-B dispersal prisons was £12,000. In other closed training prisons the cost was £5,700. That money could be saved if appropriate action were taken at the appropriate time.
  When the Secretary of State addressed the University of London Union on 3 March 1979, he said:
  "The youth service must surely be the Cinderella service of education…and the response of local authorities to the need to provide services and recreational facilities for young people varies enormously."
  I agree with that. It was put even better by the Lancashire county youth service, which said:
  "Consistently the level of youth service provision varies from LEA to LEA; regrettably this variation is not a function of the needs of a community, but of the importance, which the elected representatives place on such a scheme of development. The variation lies between minus 5 per cent. of the educational budget in such counties as Lancashire and Cumbria to 2·5 per cent. in, say, Sheffield."
  2032
  My sponsors support the idea of a mandatory joint committee because of the variety throughout the country. Without a mandatory provision, the authorities that have done nothing in the past will do nothing in the future. The Minister will say that under sections 101 and 102 of the Local Government Act 1972 local authorities have powers to set up any number of committees. This may be the case. But will they do so? Will there be anything to persuade them and goad them to make them do it? Many will say that if the Bill fails to get the support of the Commons, they will do nothing but sit back and cut the youth provision. This has happened in Cumbria and other parts of the country.
  I feel strongly about the matter. I do not want to talk out my own Bill and I have no intention of doing so. I regret that there has not been more support from my right hon. and hon. Friends. This cannot do the good name of Conservatives any good in the country. We have a good record on youth and hope to improve it. I hope to say more about that matter on Monday. We have to remember that it is not money but people who count. We do not want to consign people to scrap heaps. We want people who will, in time, benefit the country through the development of their resources. It would be frivolous and sterile to take the opposite course.
  I am surprised that the Minister has put forward a permissive clause. He is prepared to give certain services to youth; he is prepared to recognise that it is necessary to co-ordinate. Is he, however, prepared to go a step further? Is the Bill to be lost, or is the Minister prepared to recommend to the Secretary of State that time is still available? We are not at the end of the Session.
  The Abortion Act 1967 was given additional time in order to get it through the House. The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 got through with additional time. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1967 got through with additional time. To those who point out that those Acts were passed under a Labour Government, I say that I am distressed that this should be the case. I would probably not have supported the Acts myself. At the same time, there is no reason why a Conservative Government,

  2033
  bearing in mind the importance of the topic, should not give the Bill additional time. I hope that the Minister will draw this to the attention of the Secretary of State, the Chief Whip and all those associated with the timetable.
  The Minister has suggested that I either accept or reject the concept of youth advisory committees. I would have been prepared to accept it with all the consequential amendments if the Minister had given me an undertaking. As he says this cannot be done, I shall have to go into the Lobby, if there is a vote, in
  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after half-past Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received notification from the Secretary of State for Defence, to whom I have written, asking him for extra time for my
  2034
  support of the original Bill. All the 80 amendments cannot simply have been cast in order to effect a paper exercise. Many hon. Members desire to ensure that youth is advanced.
  Mr. Marks rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 56.

  Division No. 388]

  AYES

  [2.24 pm

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Hooson, Tom

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ward, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Wheeler, John

  Carllsle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Costain, A. P.

  Mac Kay, John (Argyll)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Raison, Timothy

  Mr. Tony Newton and

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Mr. Peter Morrison.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  English, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

  Farr, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Beith, A. J.

  Field, Frank

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Best, Keith

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Greenway, Harry

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Haynes, Frank

  Squire, Robin

  Cohen, Stanley

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Cowans, Harry

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Straw, Jack

  Cryer, Bob

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Deakins, Eric

  McKelvey, William

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Dewar, Donald

  Mcwilliam, John

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Marlow, Tony

  Dover, Denshore

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Dubs, Alfred

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Kenneth Marks and

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mellor, David

  Mr. George Foulkes.

  Cruise Missile Sites Bill to give the people in the localities a chance to vote, and have you any information—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret to say that the Secretary of State for Defence would be unlikely to write to me about such a matter.
  The procedure for the Division has been corrected to accord with Vol. 988, column 45.

  DEER BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  GROUND GAME BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  HIGHWAYS (ROAD HUMPS) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  ROAD TRAFFIC (SEAT BELTS) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) [7 March], That the clause (Report on the operation of the Act) be read a Second time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Further consideration what day? No day named.

  CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? Friday 24 October.

  HOUSE OF LORDS (ELECTIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? Friday 24 October.

  INSURANCE POLICY HOLDERS PROTECTION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? Friday 25 July.

  RETIREMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? Friday 25 July.

  HEARING AID COUNCIL ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  DOMESTIC RATING (ABOLITION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? Friday 25 July.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) to object to a whole series of Bills rather than to distribute this task among a variety of Conservative Members?

  DEFENCE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (INQUIRY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  HUMAN ORGANS (ANONYMITY OF DONORS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONER (POWERS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  EMPLOYMENT (NO. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? Monday 7 July.

  SOCIAL SECURITY (PAYMENT OF BENEFIT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  ACCESS TO COMMONS AND OPEN COUNTRY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  TELEVISING OF PARLIAMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  BEVERAGE CONTAINERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  HYPNOTISM BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  STAMP DUTY (ABOLITION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  DEVELOPMENT LAND TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  VAGRANCY (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 July.

  SKYLINE PROTECTION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 July.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to ascertain whether my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has positive thoughts on anything?

  VOLUNTARY AID FOR LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  FISHERY LIMITS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES (PROHIBITION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (METRO- POLITAN DISTRICT OF BOOTLE) (AMENDMENT BILL)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CHILD CARE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  FREEDOM OF THE PRESS (PROTECTION OF SOURCES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 July.

  CONTROL OF INTERCEPTION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 18 July.

  DOMESTIC FUEL REBATES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CRUISE MISSILE SITES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 July.

  HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CHILD BENEFIT (UPRATING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 October.

  LAND DRAINAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CLEGG COMMISSION ABOLITION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  BILL OF RIGHTS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 October.

  TRANSPORT ACT 1962 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
  Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A difficulty has emerged in the speed of calling these Bills, which I had not anticipated when we began the list. I have not been able to check whether the hon. Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) is a sponsor of any of the remaining Bills to which he is objecting. If he is a sponsor of any of the remaining Bills, is it in order for him to object to them?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has some experience in these matters.

  TENANT AND LEASEHOLD PROTECTION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  SOVIET UNION (TEMPORARY POWERS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 July.

  ORIGIN MARKING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES FOR PENSIONERS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 July.

  HIGHER EDUCATION (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  MANSION BLOCKS PURCHASE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 October.

  DISPOSAL OF DEAD BODIES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 July.

  SOLICITORS (DISCIPLINE TRI- BUNAL) (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CIVIL DEFENCE (INQUIRY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 July.

  LABORATORY ANIMALS (PRO- TECTION) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 July.

  MENTAL PATIENTS (RIGHT TO VOTE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
  Mr. Greville Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a protector of the interests of the Back Bencher, would you consider initiating discussions on whether this awful procedure whereby Bills which contain in some cases desperately important measures can be, wiped out by the objection of one right hon. or hon. Member week after week? Has not the time come when there ought to be some dis-
  cussions, behind the Chair or elsewhere, as to how Back Benchers can obtain some of the time of the House to preserve their right to put forward legislation in a way that ensures that it has some chance of reaching the statute book?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said will be noted in the appropriate quarter.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am fairly certain that, when we considered the question of Members' interests, the rapid procedure under which Private Members' Bills are dealt with was not considered. However, the fact is that these Bills are disposed of so rapidly that there is not even time for anyone on the Back Benches to ascertain whether a Member objecting has a financial interest in so doing so that he can challenge the Member who is raising the objection. I hope that that point is noted, too.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can only enforce the procedure which is laid down.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: To save the time of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the two statutory instruments.
  Hon. Members: Object.

  INSURANCE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A(5):—
  That the draft Insurance (Transfer of General Business) Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 2 June, be approved. —[Mr. Newton.]
  The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 2.

  Division No. 389]

  AYES

  [2.47 pm

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Hooson, Tom

  Squire, Robin

  Best, Keith

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kimball, Marcus

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Mackay, John (Argyll)

  Ward, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Wheeler, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Dover, Denshore

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Farr, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Tony Newton.

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Greenway, Harry

  NOES

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. A. J. Beith and.

  Mr. Donald Stewart.

  It appearing from the report of the Division that forty Members were not present, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.
  Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the second Friday in succession that the Government have not had a quorum in the House. They should do so. I except the Government Members present, including the Government Chief Whip, who has been present on both occasions, although his deputy has not—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of these matters is for me.
  Mr. English: Further to that point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. I am prepared to hear the hon. Member on another point of order, but not on that matter because it is not a point of order.
  Mr. English: On another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you to raise with Mr. Speaker the fact that the Government are putting Government business on the Order Paper on Friday and then abandoning it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Harry Greenaway: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It concerns the procedure for the handling of Private Members' Bills. At times this afternoon I found it difficult to hear hon. Members' objections. On occasion it was impossible to know whether one had even been made.
  I had a very important Bill before the House entitled the Disposal of Dead Bodies Bill. I heard no objection. When I discovered that an objection had been registered, I wondered whether it had come from the dead. However, the objection was registered and the Bill fell, although it is not dead.
  2046
  In future, might consideration be given to requiring an hon. Member raising an objection to a Bill to stand in his place and say so in a loud, clear voice?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter which will be noted.
  Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to send for the Leader of the House, who has not been present on any Friday for any of these Divisions?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret to say that that is not a point of order for me.
  I understand that the second statutory instrument is not moved.

  MR. NED SPARKES (IMPRISONMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Jopling.]
  3.1 pm
  Mr. William van Straubenzee (Woking-ham): One of the attractions of this House is that it changes mood very quickly. We turn from the vagaries of the minutiae of parliamentary procedure, probably understood only by those hon. Members at present in the House, to a very serious matter which I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for permitting me to raise in this brief debate. It concerns the very human story of my constituent, Mr. Ned Sparkes, who was a contracts manager with the distinguished firm of Wimpey responsible, in his case, for Iraq and who, on an indeterminate date in 'September 1978, was arrested in that country. I say "an indeterminate date" because it was some days after his arrest before anything was heard, and it was only on 12 October of that year that the Iraqis confirmed that he had been arrested.
  I accept, of course, as must other hon. Members, that the Iraqis are fully entitled to arrest foreigners of any nationality if they have contravened the domestic law

  2047
  of their country. That of course, applies to us as well. However, there are three reasons why there is very special concern in this case. The first is that there was what I can only describe as deliberate evasion for three weeks before Her Majesty's Government were informed of the fate of my constituent. The second was the refusal, except for one visit, to allow regular consular access to my constituent, contrary to all the requirements of international law. The third was the failure to lay formal charges against him.
  As a result of sustained pressure, the Iraqis later agreed to two consular visits a month to my constituent; and charges were laid.
  The charges were laid and found allegedly proven, in a court proceeding which would not pass scrutiny in this country, of attempted bribery and economic espionage.
  To the extent that any outside person can judge these matters, having listened to senior members of the great firm of Wimpey, and having talked to persons who know my constituent, I believe Mr. Sparkes to be innocent of these charges. But, fortunately for the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) knows Mr. Sparkes very well and has worked alongside him. I hope that my hon Friend will be able to catch your eye for a few minutes because I shall be very happy for him to add his more effective testimony to the personal qualities of Mr. Sparkes.
  Meanwhile, Ministers have kept up unremitting pressure over all these long, weary months. I pay tribute to Mr. Frank Judd, the Minister of State responsible at that time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, for whose courtesy in being here this afternoon I am deeply obliged. I can testify from personal experience that he has made this human case his special concern. I wish to say publicly what I have said privately, namely, how deeply grateful I am that an immensely pressed Minister has shown such personal concern for this case—although that is no surprise to those who have the privilege of knowing my hon. Friend.
  I went to see the ambassador in London for the republic of Iraq in September 1979. I am grateful to His
  2048
  Excellency for receiving me, and I acknowledge the courtesy with which he did so. I placed the matter before him in trenchant terms, but without result. Had there been a result, I should not be raising the matter on the Floor of the House.
  It has been suggested in some quarters that there should, in matters of this sort, be an exchange arrangement between those held prisoner in other countries and those held prisoner in Britain, being nationals of the countries concerned. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I would need a considerable amount of persuading before going down that road. I am as conscious as any outside person can be—other than a member of the family or some close friend—of the truly enormous pressures on the family of Mr. Sparkes. But, quite frankly, that would be a slippery road to go down even if it was suggested by any quarter.
  Leaving aside the fundamental question that in Britain Ministers do not control our courts—nor do we wish to live in a country where Ministers control courts—and leaving aside the fact that anyone convicted in Britain, of whatever nationality, will have had a fair trial conducted in public with opportunities for appeal, and before a jury in the case of really serious crime, surely in an age which, most regrettably, knows increased violence and terrorism, it requires not softer, but harder, standards when dealing with violence.
  It would doubtless have been comparatively simple for the Government of the United Kingdom to have dealt with and settled the occupation of the Iranian embassy in London by adopting some such strategy as that—one only has to reflect for a moment to realise at what price. Those quarters which might have such suggestions in mind must take full account of the repercussions that there would be in that part of Britain where, regrettably, we have to deal on a daily basis with the threat or actuality of terrorism. I am referring to Northern Ireland in which I served for about two years as a Minister in the previous Conservative Government.
  I am not pressing my hon. Friend in that direction. I am certainly not critical, as he knows, of inaction or anything approaching it. I have paid my tribute

  2049
  to the sustained pressure that has been brought to bear. I know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary has been concerned with the matter. I know that Ministers visiting Baghdad have never allowed their hosts to forget that this is a matter about which many people feel very deeply.
  I hope that by bringing the searchlight of publicity, through a debate on the Floor of the House, on to a dark corner of an Iraqi gaol, we can together help to secure justice and mercy for someone who I believe is a much-wronged man and that we may together be able to give some support, particularly to his wife, whose courage and fortitude in circumstances that would have broken many a lesser person, command the admiration of all who are privileged to know her.
  I speak with moderation, because I am conscious of the gravity of the issue, but I trust that no one who subsequently reads my words will underestimate the strength of feeling with which they are spoken.
  3.11 pm
  Mr. Den Dover: It is a privilege and pleasure to speak on behalf of Ned Sparkes. Between April 1975 and April 1977, I worked for Wimpey as a contracts manager for the company's work in Iran. I shared an office with Ned Sparkes who was the contracts manager for Iraq.
  During those two years, I got to know Ned well and I can vouch for his uprightness, warmth of personality and strength of business approach and for the respect in which he was held by his Wimpey colleagues and others. I met many of his Iraqi colleagues and it was evident to me that the Iraqi people had the highest regard for him. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) for raising this important and tragic matter.
  The first charge against Ned is one of attempted bribery. In 1976 the Iraqi Government brought in a new law providing the death penalty for attempted bribery. Ned and I talked for two hours about bribery, the Middle East and the new law. Our philosophies were similar. We saw no point in attempting to attempt bribery in the Middle
  2050
  East. That was also the policy of our company. The chairman of Wimpey told Ned "Don't even offer the Iraqis a cigarette, in case that action is misinterpreted." We felt that any payment to any agent would only increase the price to the Iraqi Government. Often, it held no certainty that the work would be obtained anyway. Bribes were often asked for by those who could have no influence on the placing of contracts.
  Ned served in the Army and has been employed by Wimpey's for many years. He is respected by everyone in the company and, knowing Ned as I do, and having spent the best part of two years with him, taking messages for him and meeting his business contacts, I can vouch for his innocence.
  The second charge is economic espionage. When any contractor's man or industrialist overseas is trying to obtain work, it is essential for him to obtain economic information—five-year plans, economic forecasts, forward exchange rates, programmes for building and construction, and so on. Ned was trying to obtain a £600 million railway contract for the whole of Iraq. It is essential for anyone in that position to have basic marketing information. In this country we take it for granted that one looks for the necessary documents. In the Middle East, as in the rest of the world, those documents have to be obtained.
  Ned was not stupid. He knew that, like others, he was followed wherever he went in Iraq. He knew that telexes and telephone messages were intercepted. There is no way that he could be guilty of economic espionage.
  I add my thanks to the Minister and pay tribute to him. For the last year or more he has worked personally and made strenuous efforts to do everything possible for Ned. I thank him on behalf of Wimpey's and the family. Everything must be considered in the attempt to obtain Ned's release. Thank yon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to speak on his behalf.
  3.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) raised the case and that he was so effectively supported by my hon.

  2051
  Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover). At any given moment, there are several such cases of which the House and the Foreign Office are aware. Sadly, that is the nature of the world in which we live. Mr. Sparkes's case, more than any other, has rightly taken up the time of Ministers since he was imprisoned. My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary has been involved. We are deeply disappointed that the matter has not so far been resolved.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham for the way in which he has handled the case today and over recent months. I ask him please to let Mrs. Sparkes and the other members of the family know that we understand that the great restraint that they have shown is simply because they are passionately anxious to do and say nothing which might put back the day on which Mr. Sparkes is released.
  In September 1978 Mr. Sparkes went to Baghdad at the invitation of the Iraqis to follow up a tender for a construction project. Mr. Sparkes knew Iraq well and his visit was such that British businessmen pay to Iraq and a host of other countries as a matter of course every day of the year. He was arrested shortly after his arrival. After a secret trial he was sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of economic espionage and attempted bribery. The Iraqi Embassy in London, in a note dated 30 May 1979, confirmed the sentence but provided no further details.
  Mr. Sparkes is still in prison. He is now seen fortnightly by British Embassy officials. They find that he is physically and mentally fit, but of course the strain and distress caused to him and his family is very great indeed. We do not question the right of the Iraqi Government to make their own laws, to enforce their own laws and to arrest and imprison British subjects who break their laws. However, there are obligations under international treaties and international law. We expect that Iraq, as any other country, will comply with them. Many aspects of Mr. Sparkes's case are disquieting in that respect.
  In spite of repeated representations, the Iraqi Government took three weeks to confirm that Mr. Sparkes had been arrested. We were not notified officially
  2052
  of the reasons for his arrest and detention. At the beginning he was not allowed regular consular access. The trial was held in secret and he was not permitted a defence lawyer. Our embassy in Baghdad was not notified of the trial or allowed to sent a representative to it. In those respects, Iraq failed to comply with specific obligations under the Vienna convention on consular matters, to which it is a signatory.
  Later we were told that Mr. Sparkes had been sentenced to life imprisonment, but we have not been provided with evidence to substantiate the conviction. I have listened with care to what my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley said in that regard. For all those reasons, we cannot accept the way in which this matter has been handled.
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the case with the President of Iraq when he visited Baghdad in July last year on one of the first visits he made as Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. He has followed this up with two messages to the President of Iraq appealing for clemency on humanitarian grounds. Others of my right hon. and hon. Friends have visited Baghdad since then—the Secretary of State for Trade, the Secretary of State for Energy and the Minister of State, Department of Trade. In each case, they have raised the question of Mr. Sparkes's imprisonment when they visited Baghdad and talked to members of the Iraqi Government. We have also used, and sought to use, the good offices of other friendly countries to make the same point on grounds of humanity.
  Like my hon. Friend, the Member for Wokingham, I have heard suggestions about the possibility of some bargain or exchange in this regard, perhaps for an Iraqi citizen who was convicted of murder in this country in March 1979 and sentenced to life imprisonment. After careful thought—it is a matter that needs careful thought—Her Majesty's Government are of the firm view that we cannot proceed along this road. There is no way in which a sentence imposed by a court in this country can be reduced by administrative decision other than by exercise of the Royal Prerogative. Release on licence—there are rules—can only be on the recommendation of the Parole Board. In the case of a con-

  2053
  victed murderer, such a suggestion would not be favourably considered by the Parole Board until he had served a substantial prison sentence.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary simply does not have the power in this regard to act without a recommendation from the Parole Board and until he has consulted the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if he is available. Apart from these legal considerations, which are tough, there is also the argument on which my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham touched from his experience in Northern Ireland. There are always humanitarian arguments for some kind of exchange in these cases because it would bring to an end the immediate personal distress. But there are also, we feel, strong humanitarian arguments against such a proposal. I would simply say, without labouring the point, that if it became known that the British Government were willing to hand over people convicted in our courts of terrorist offences, the dangers facing British subjects travelling abroad would be greatly increased. It is a sad paradox that this case of Mr. Sparkes drags on at a time when, in other respects, our relations with Iraq have been improving.
  We see Iraq as a very considerable power in the Middle East. We want good relations with it. It is a country, I do not need to remind the House, with a long history and a future full of promise. We recognise the growing influence of Iraq in international affairs and, in particular, in the Middle East. We find that our views on some of these problems are increasingly similar to those of that State.
  2054
  Both Governments are alarmed by the growth of Soviet influence in, and on the edge of, the Middle East. We have both condemned the invasion of Afghanistan. We have a common concern over instability in the area following the Iranian revolution. On all these matters we want to work with the Government of Iraq. We feel that there is much scope for consultation and co-operation. We have no desire to intervene in its internal affairs. It is against this background of improving relations in other respects and our wish for further progress in the coming months and years that I appeal again, as strongly as possible, to the Government of Iraq to release Mr. Sparkes. So long as he is held, that fact—apart from the personal suffering which it causes to him and his family—is bound to get in the way of the better relations that we are seeking and for which we, and I believe the Iraqi Government, have been working.
  Quite honestly, I do not think that I in any way deserve the kind remarks or thanks which my hon. Friends have expressed, because I do not feel in the least bit complacent about what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been able to achieve in this case. We shall continue to take every opportunity which looks promising of pressing for the release of Mr. Sparkes on humanitarian grounds. I am sure that it is the view of the whole House, and we believe strongly, that on grounds of fairness and humanity, the case for his release is overwhelming.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Three o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE
  Manpower (Northern Ireland)
  Manpower (Northern Ireland)
  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Photocopiers
  Photocopiers
  Shoe Cleaning Machine (Norman Shaw North)
  Shoe Cleaning Machine (Norman Shaw North)
DEFENCE
  Hunter Aircraft Crash (Tintagel)
  Hunter Aircraft Crash (Tintagel)
WALES
  Public Expenditure (Roads)
  Public Expenditure (Roads)
  Roads
  Roads
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Textiles (Illegal Imports)
  Textiles (Illegal Imports)
  Wilson Committee
  Wilson Committee
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service (Non-health Workers)
  National Health Service (Non-health Workers)
  General Practice Training
  General Practice Training
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Accident and Emergency Departments
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Medical Practitioners (Unemployment)
  Medical Practitioners (Unemployment)
  National Health Service (Consultants)
  National Health Service (Consultants)
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
SCOTLAND
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Roads
  Roads
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Vivisection
  Vivisection
TRADE
  Company Accounts (Energy Costs)
  Company Accounts (Energy Costs)
  Footwear Industry
  Footwear Industry
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Foreign Manufacturing Investment
  Foreign Manufacturing Investment
  Peripheral Vascular Surgery
  Peripheral Vascular Surgery
  Ulster Office, London
  Ulster Office, London
  Terrorists (Apprehension)
  Terrorists (Apprehension)
TRANSPORT
  Parking
  Parking
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
ENVIRONMENT
  Public Toilets
  Public Toilets
  Roads
  Roads
  National Heritage Fund (Acquisitions)
  National Heritage Fund (Acquisitions)
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Tenants' Charter
  Tenants' Charter
  Rate Support Grant (Lambeth)
  Rate Support Grant (Lambeth)
  Olympic Games
  Olympic Games
  MAGISTRATES (TRAINING)
  MAGISTRATES (TRAINING)
  APPEALS (COSTS)
  APPEALS (COSTS)
  DIVORCE CASES (CUSTODY)
  DIVORCE CASES (CUSTODY)
  DIVORCE LAW
  DIVORCE LAW
  HOUSEBUYERS (COSTS)
  HOUSEBUYERS (COSTS)
INDUSTRY
  British Plastics Developments Limited (Torrington)
  British Plastics Developments Limited (Torrington)
  Government Grants (Devon)
  Government Grants (Devon)
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Carlisle and Cumbria
  Carlisle and Cumbria
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Manpower Services Commission (Staff)
  Manpower Services Commission (Staff)
  Northumberland
  Northumberland
  Skillcentre Places
  Skillcentre Places
  Insurance Costs
  Insurance Costs
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Offices and Factories (Automated Technology)
  Offices and Factories (Automated Technology)
  Keighley
  Keighley
  The North-West
  The North-West
  St. Helens
  St. Helens

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

BABRAHAM INSTITUTE OF ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY
The Earl of HALSBURY: 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 will take to protect property and personnel employed at the Agricultural Research Council's experimental station at Babraham against vandalism by militant anti-vivisectionists who bring undeserved discredit on the animal welfare movement.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I assume that the noble Earl has in mind an incident which took place on Sunday 29th June in which approximately 70 demonstrators broke into several buildings of the Agricultural Research Council's Institute of Animal Physiology at Babraham and damaged them. This incident has resulted in the staff of the institute reviewing, in consultation with the local police, precautions which they had already taken to protect personnel, animals and property.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his reply to my Question. I am glad to learn that there has been reconsideration of the security arrangements. In probing a little deeper into this matter, I wish to steer between the Scylla of asking the noble Lord to comment on a matter which is sub judice and the Charybdis of asking for the details of the enhanced security arrangements to be published. However, without impropriety, may I ask him, while waiting for the outcome of the judicial proceedings, to think out very carefully the part that the Star newspaper has played in stimulating mass hysteria in this field, with a view to taking under consideration whether a complaint might possibly be made to the
736
Press Council with respect to the be-haviour of one of its affiliates?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right in referring to the matter as sub judice. I would remind your Lordships that I understand that 18 people have been charged, 17 with burglary and one with obstructing a police officer, following the incident at the institute. The Press matter, to which the noble Earl referred, is mentioned in some detail on page 59 of the institutes own report for 1978–79, published in April 1980. So far as the Press comment is concerned, may I remind the noble Earl that this is a matter for the Press Council, which is a body entirely independent of the Government.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who saw excerpts on television will have noticed that there was a 7 ft. wire fence, over which these people, who may well have been doubtful value to the research people and were probably not interested in it at all, managed to clamber? While there is an inquiry to take place, may I ask whether my noble friend could ascertain if, in the view of his department—
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I understand that, although these individuals have been charged, their trial has not yet taken place. It therefore seems that the matter is sub judice.

GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [H.L.]
11.10 a.m.
Read 3a.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved the amendment:
Leave out Clause 164.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment that I wish to move is to invite your Lordships to strike out Clause 164 of this Bill described in the rubric as:
"Arrangements as to construction of buildings or carrying out of works."
As not everyone of your Lordships will have in his hands a copy of the Bill, may I begin by reading the clause. Clause 164 (1) reads:

737
"Notwithstanding anything in section 101(10) of the Act of 1972, the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 or any other enactment, the Manchester council may enter into arrangements for the construction within the county of buildings, or the carrying out within the county of other works by them on behalf of an authority to which this section applies."
Subsection (2) says:
"This section applies to—

(a) another local authority;

(b) the water authority;

(c) the police authority;

(d) the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive;

(e) a Health Authority (within the meaning of section 128(1) of the National Health Service Act 1977) in the county."

"Local authority" is defined in Clause 1 as the county council; that is, the Greater Manchester metropolitan county council, or a district council. "District" is defined as a district in the county. The clause would thus give power to Manchester city to engage in major construction work all over the county, but only within the county. On the Second Reading, which took place on 19th February 1979, my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne moved during the proceedings that it be an Instruction to the Committee, to whom the Bill was committed, that they should give special consideration to Clause 196, arrangements as to construction of buildings or carrying out of works—that is now Clause 164—in order to satisfy themselves that it does not constitute an undesirable extension of the powers and functions of local authorities to operate in competition with private industry and interests in the same field.
My noble friend also said in the course of the short debate which took place in moving his Motion that
"the two federations concerned"
—that is, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors—
"considered that the powers sought by Clause 196 should not be granted unless the promoters can show that extending the construction activities of the contracting authorities would constitute as efficient an application of the limited resources, manpower and materials available to the industry as would be achieved by private contractors."
The Bill was then committed to a Select Committee. The two federations presented a petition against the clause but later withdrew it—something which they
738
tell me they have never done before. They withdrew it not because they were any less opposed to the clause—quite the contrary—but because they were convinced that the clause would not be allowed by Parliament to stand and so they did not consider it necessary to oppose it. The withdrawal, I need hardly add, took place after the change of Government in 1979, and the National Federation told me they considered that the clause was totally at variance with the policy of the new Government. As a result, the clause was unopposed and the Select Committee heard evidence on it given on behalf of the promoters only, though a representative of the Department of the Environment was allowed to state the views of the department after the evidence from the promoters had been heard. I may say that the evidence given on behalf of the promoters extends to 33 pages in the transcript of the proceedings, and the views of the department take up four pages.
The Select Committee reported in the following terms:
"The Committee were satisfied that the promoters had proved a need for the clause. The Committee were further satisfied that although the clause constitutes an extension of powers and functions of the Manchester City Council to operate in competition with private industry and interests, the operation of Part III of the current Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill would secure that such competition was not unfair."
The Secretary of State had previously reported on the clause as follows, and the report is dated 14th July 1979:
"This clause seeks to extend the scope of the activities of direct labour organisations of the City of Manchester and the Wigan Borough Council"—
Wigan later withdrew—
"to allow them to carry out construction work for other councils and public authorities in the Greater Manchester area. The Secretary of State intends to bring before Parliament early legislation directed at all the direct labour organisations in the country which will aim to control their operations. The Secretary of State therefore recommends that the clause be disallowed."
The promoters sought to argue that the last sentence was a non sequitur, but it is only right to point out that, at the time, the legislation was in its early stages of preparation and it was impossible to foretell at that stage precisely what the legislation would contain. The legislation is of course the Local Government,

739
Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which is expected shortly to come before this House.
I should like to make two points at the outset. The first is that the need for the clause must at least include the need of the recipients of the service for it. Indeed, I would say it is, and always is, the main element. In this case the recipients live outside the area of the promoters, who have no responsibility for them. Secondly, the power is new and unprecedented. Before such a power is granted, especially when it is a power to be exercised outside the promoters' area, it is surely desirable to take into account the effect of granting it on future applications from other local authorities for such a power.
The essential point about this clause is that the power contained in it to enable Manchester City to extend the area in which it is entitled to erect new works outside its own municipal area is wholly new and unprecedented. Let there be no confusion between the City of Manchester and the Greater Manchester Metropolitan County. In the Long Title of the Bill the two are referred to separately and indeed I understand that Clause 196 (now Clause 164) originally proposed that the powers should be conferred not only on the Borough of Manchester but on the Borough of Wigan.
The legislation—that is, the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill—is expected shortly to come before this House. I do not intend to quote from the Bill, but as counsel for the promoters relied heavily in his arguments on the provisions in Part III—arguments which may very well have influenced the conclusions of the Select Committee—I would ask the indulgence of the House to refer to what was said.
The present powers of the Manchester Council to construct buildings are relevant here. What are they? They are to construct any building or construction needed for the discharge of their own statutory functions; powers which local authorities have long been deemed to possess and which were statutorily conferred on them by Section III of the Local Government Act 1972. Those are broad powers which, subject to any other enactment, empower local authorities,
740
"to do anything…which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions."
I suggest that the primary duty of local authorities is to look after their own electors. Any new proposal to extend those functions to cover the needs of electors of other districts has to be looked at with more than usual care. The promoters sought to argue that there is a kind of precedent for the powers proposed, in that local authorities are expressly permitted under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 to carry out maintenance work for a range of public bodies listed in orders made under that Act.
I would ask your Lordships to note that that was an Act passed under a Labour Administration, an Act which clearly defined the limits to which Parliament was prepared to go. It is true that local authorities were given powers to construct new works in overspill areas, but counsel for the promoters recognised that the power in Clause 164 has nothing to do with overspill. There is neither parallel nor precedent at all there. Why then is Manchester Council seeking to extend its construction powers in this unprecedented way?
There appear to be three main reasons: first, because they say that they need to widen the base of the operations in order to provide training for building trade apprentices; secondly, because they say that they need a wider area in order to preserve their present establishment and occupy their resources; and, thirdly, because they believe that their department provides a good service which is capable of competing with private builders, to which I might add because they feel that the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill gives private builders sufficient protection against unfair competition from Manchester Council.
Let me deal with these arguments, one by one. The promoters claim that they have a superior system for the training of building trade apprentices which they wish to extend. This claim is repudiated by the private builders. They acknowledge that Manchester has a good record in this regard, but deny that it is any better than that of private constructing firms. They point out that the ratio of trainees to operatives in private contracting firms

741
was 1 to 10, at a time when Manchester had a ratio of 1 to 9, but at the last count the ratio for Manchester was 1 to 11.7. Evidence was given that about 50 per cent. of Manchester's apprentices leave to join other organisations. It cannot be assumed from that that if Manchester trained fewer apprentices private contractors would suffer. It may well be that a similar proportion of apprentices trained in the private sector subsequently leave to work elsewhere. The number of opportunities for apprentices is related to the amount of work in hand.
Secondly, the promoters also argued that they needed to extend their area in order to preserve their present establishment. There is, of course, a decline in building construction in Manchester, as elsewhere, in present economic circumstances and private builders are also having to cut down their establishments. Why should Manchester be exempted from the effects of the recession at the expense of private builders? It is not enough to argue that Manchester has a policy of no redundancies. Surely Manchester should adapt itself to the real needs, as private employers have to do—
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I am most grateful. I am not sure that all of us are following this exercise. As I understand it, the noble Lord is now reading out, at, if I may say so, considerable length a submission by one of the counsel, which was heard by the Committee which had to consider it. Are we now to have the treat of listening to the speech of counsel for the other side? What is the object of this exercise?
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not quite follow what the noble and learned Lord has said. I have pointed out at an earlier stage that there was no cross-examination of the witness, during the procedures on the Bill before the Select Committee. I have also said that I am not quoting from the report. I must examine the arguments put forward by the promoters, if I am to make a case that there are answers to the points that were made. Without that, I cannot see how I can possibly contest the standing of Clause 164. I hope, therefore, that
742
noble Lords will continue the indulgence that they have shown me so far, since I pointed out that it was necessary to do this.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Would he not accept that, if he now goes on to put the case in favour of the opposition, then, inevitably, someone will want to put the other side of the case and that we shall finally finish the proceedings of this House in the situation of having heard both sides of the case that have already been put in Committee?
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the problem I have to face is that the case has been so fully put already. Noble Lords will probably have received a copy of the representations made by the Greater Manchester Council, or Manchester City, and of course they have been discussed in great detail before the Select Committee. I think it is only fair that I should attempt to rebut, to the extent that is necessary, what has been said. I do not see how we can proceed otherwise.
The promoters gave evidence that other boroughs in the area were willing to put Manchester on their list of builders who are invited to tender for major new construction, if the clause remains in the Bill. No doubt they would, but that does not, in itself, indicate dissatisfaction with the work done by private builders. Still less does it give any assurance that Manchester would win contracts, because contracts would of course have to follow on the basis of tenders.
Coming to the third point, it is not as if Manchester has a particularly good record in its building activities. The district auditor felt obliged to report adversely on its direct labour organisation in August 1976, in respect of the first period after the direct works department became subject to his audit. He then stated:
"It is estimated that the extent to which the council has not received value for money because of bonus abuses and over-generous bonus targeting is not less than £340,000 for each year"—
presumably 1973–74 and 1974–75. From evidence given to the Select Committee, it seems that they did better in 1976–77 and that they are still endeavouring to put their house in order, with of course

743
the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill in mind.
But the fact remains that their record is not so uniformly good as to justify the conferring of exceptional and unprecerented powers. Even if it had been, there really would, I submit, be no justification for extending Manchester's area of operation. As I have said, there is no precedent for such an action. To create a precedent now, would be to give an open invitation to other local authorities to seek similar powers.
I am aware that my putting down this amendment has been criticised. Naturally, if one appears to have won the game, one is never too pleased if one is told that the game is not yet over. There is an inherent right in Parliament, I submit, to review the findings of any of the Select Committees when they report to Parliament. Admittedly, it is very rare, but not unprecedented, for a Back-Bench Peer to put down an amendment on Third Reading. I did so, because it seemed to me necessary to challenge some of the evidence upon which three Members of the Select Committee had to base their conclusions, and to draw attention to the lack of expert cross-examination.
I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the Select Committee. I simply believe that they did not hear the whole story, and I have endeavoured to remedy the necessarily ex-parte nature of the evidence. But at the end of the day Parliament's decision should be based on principle. Each local authority has an inherent right to build in its own area in performance of its statutory functions. It has no inherent right to build outside its own boundaries. Only Parliament can confer such a right, not, I may say, Select Committees, which have to report back to Parliament. Direct labour organisations exist to serve the needs of their own authorities.
Tendering for contracts in other areas constitutes a risky and indeed an expensive business. The promoters ask: "Why should not Manchester Council be given the opportunity to tender for contracts outside the area for which they are responsible?" They answer their own question by saying that this would tend to bring
744
down the general level of tenders. Perhaps it would; perhaps it would not. But one thing is sure. If the Manchester Council set out to undercut tenders from the private sector they would soon find themselves in the position of not meeting the rate of return on capital in real terms that is to be prescribed under the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill and so being ordered to discontinue or modify their major construction operation not only in the Greater Manchester area but in the City of Manchester itself.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? This is a fascinating argument and I should be grateful if he would give way for about half a minute. Is the noble Lord aware that, under the EEC, local authorities cannot refuse contracts from within the Common Market and there is nothing to say that they could refuse contracts from within the Common Market where direct labour was employed in some of the cities that are members of the Common Market? In other words, he is taking the whole of this House into deep, deep water and I advise the House not to take the slightest notice of the attempt.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think that was a matter that came into evidence before the Select Committee, but it is true that there are these powers. I think I am right in saying that local authorities do not have to issue tenders to other members of the Common Market, nor, indeed, wider than that. It is only the national Government and the agencies of national Government that have to do so.
The new Bill, like any other law, will deter, but it cannot prevent bad practice. It should, however, ensure that the malpractices ultimately are discontinued on the direction of the Secretary of State, but serious damage could be done to the private sector in the meantime. I think this is something that has not been taken into consideration. The proper answers to the question, "Why should not Manchester Council be given the opportunity to compete outside their own area?" are surely these: because it is outside the area for which they are responsible; secondly, because it is not right for them to take risks with their ratepayers' money in competition with the private sector; and thirdly, because no

745
other local authority enjoys this privilege. It is just not fair. If Parliament ever decides to allow local authorities to extend their construction areas, let Parliament legislate to give such an opportunity, as it has already done for maintenance, to be available to all cities and large boroughs if they want it.
I submit that it is not right to confer these powers on Manchester alone merely because they ask for it. In my view, and I believe in the view of the vast majority of my noble friends on this side of the House, it is simply not right in principle to allow local authorities to risk their ratepayers' money in commercial ventures, albeit in the public sector alone, where there is already a fully developed private sector whose function it is to take risks. I hope very much that my noble friend, Lord Bellwin, will confirm that it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to permit public commercial enterprise to be extended at the expense of private enterprise, and I hope your Lordships will accept his advice. I beg to move.
11.35 a.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, before I get down to my arguments, I want to make it perfectly plain that I speak as a Member of this House, from this Front Bench, but representing a large number of Members of the House. In other words, I speak as a House of Lords man and certainly in no narrow, party political sense whatever. I want the House to understand that clearly, whatever else it may decide.
We are dealing with a very serious issue. If the noble Lord's amendment is carried, we shall be creating a precedent which will have serious repercussions on our Private Bill procedure, because it is a fact that no Government have yet opposed or challenged the decision of a Select Committee. It might be argued that a Back-Bench Member is moving this amendment, but in point of fact it is well known that the Government have given evidence to the Committee of their opposition to the Bill and to the clause. And therefore it is right to assume that although the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is moving the amendment, it has considerable support within the Government. Your Lordships' House is giving the Bill its Second Reading and it passed an
746
Instruction to the Committee to give special consideration to the clause which is the subject of the proposed amendment to satisfy themselves that there was no undesirable extension of powers to operate with private industry and interests in the same field.
An additional reason for the Committee to exercise the closest scrutiny and consideration was the adverse report of the Secretary of State for the Environment, based mainly on the Government's intention to introduce legislation which, amongst other things, was aimed at controlling direct labour organisations. True, the Government have introduced the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which provides means of ensuring that direct works organisations operate efficiently and fairly vis-à-vis the private sector. As we know, the Bill is in another place at the moment and has yet to reach this House. To submit an amendment to delete Clause 164, based as it obviously is on legislation which has yet to reach the statute book and which has not even been considered by your Lordships' House—legislation which, I may add, could face possible amendment—is high-handed and questionable.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me? I thought I made it clear that that was not the ground at all on which I was opposing the legislation. Indeed, it is the ground on which the promoters gained support for it in the Select Committee.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, it was included in the Select Committee Report, and in point of fact it was taken into account. The Select Committee did take it into account, although it is not yet law and on the statue book. That is the point I am making.
In my opinion the amendment also constitutes a vote of no confidence in the Committee, who have taken all factors into account, including the Government's proposed legislation and policy. In addition, the petition against the clause by the National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors was eventually withdrawn on the grounds, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, now says, that the clause would not be

747
allowed by Parliament because of the policy of the new Government. And there we have it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I did not say that, my Lords. I said that this was the opinion of the opponents of the clause.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: That is the point. I do not disagree with the noble Lord. That is virtually what he said. They withdrew on the grounds which we now know from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Considerable time was taken in hearing the evidence, including the evidence against by representatives of the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the committee reached a conclusion, after extremely careful consideration, which should be supported by this House on whose behalf the committee acted.
I am very concerned about the way in which this matter has been handled in the House. Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State submitted an adverse report and recommended that the clause should be disallowed and that his representatives gave evidence against it, it is very evident that the Government are against the clause and, either directly or indirectly, are determined to defeat it. Although the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has explained this, there is a question about a Back-Bench Member moving here an amendment which is against Government policy and to which the Government are determinedly opposed. This may be a back door method of getting it, but this is an assumption and we could argue about that.
We are dealing, in the main, with proposed legislation, part of which has been considered in another place, and we have yet to deal with it. The three noble Lords who formed the Select Committee are of high repute and are highly respected in this House. I say quite emphatically that the committee has discharged its duties to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of a large number of Members of this House and deserves the confidence of the House.
I am seriously concerned about the amendment and the way it is being handled, but what is the position on a Private Bill? This is something which we should clear
748
up for ourselves. I quote Hansard, cols. 778 and 779 of 14th July 1955 on the Kent Water Bill. The Lord President of the Council, the Marquess of Salisbury, speaking for the Government, said:
"My Lords, this seems to be a point upon which the Leader of the House should give some guidance. I am sorry that did not hear the earlier part of the discussion, but the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is a prefectly simple one; namely, has the House any interest—discretion is probably the right word—in this Bill once the Select Committee has reported? The answer is that the Select Committee is a Select Committee of the House, and the House is, as it were, the sovereign body in the matter. At the same time, if a Select Committee has reported, having given so many days of time to the most careful consideration of every point raised on this or any other Bill, then I should have thought there would have to be new and special considerations before the House decided to reverse a recommendation of that Committee. Otherwise, it seems to me it would knock a great hole in the whole system. The time of the whole House cannot be fully occupied with matters of this kind, and the House appoints a Committee to give special consideration to a Bill of this type. Once it has considered it, and reports to the House, if there are some special or new considerations it would, of course, be open to the House to take whatever action it thinks proper; but it would have to think most carefully before it reversed the recommendation of the Committee".
I submit in all sincerity that there is no new or special consideration to be given to this Bill. The committee, appointed by this House and responsible to it, had before it for consideration the Secretary of State's report and the evidence of his representatives. It also took into account the provisions of Government legislation; namely, the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, yet to be discussed by this House and yet to become law. It has been held that the Bill conflicts with Government policy. This was the basis of the Instruction moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, in February 1980.
There is no new or special consideration. If it is a fact—I am not arguing about this—that the Government wish to create a precedent, they should do so openly. Bearing in mind what the noble Marquess said and bearing also in mind that the Select Committee, which has the confidence of the House, has heard all the evidence and has made a report, I suggest to the House that it should reject the amendment.
11.46 a.m.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, I am mindful of the fact that your

749
Lordships' House has a very heavy programme. It is essential that we should get through the Housing Bill, and I do not want to take up too much time in saying what I feel should be said. First, let me join my noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany in complaining, and expressing my point of view as a younger Member of the House, that this matter should have been dealt with in this way. I have been here long enough to know that this House is very jealous of its reputation outside. At this very moment we are in grave danger of destroying that reputation. Fundamentally, that reputation means that when anyone approaches this House he expects fair play. Fair play means that he should be given an opportunity to express his view upon any particular matter coming in front of the House. The way in which we decide that that should be done is through a Select Committee.
When this matter came before your Lordships' House last time I opposed the concept of giving an Instruction to the Select Committee because I believed that beneath that Instruction, which appeared to be harmless on the face of it, was a political desire to destroy the intentions of the greater Manchester Bill. I said that if we sought to give Instructions, it might be interpreted as giving a bias to the Committee's viewpoint. That was hotly disputed. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, implied in his speech, which is on the record, that no such intention was in their minds and that all they wanted to do was to ensure that the Select Committee had all the facts in front of it so that it could consider the relevant issues. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, agrees with me.
Now what has happened? It is now revealed that all the while there was an intention to destroy the purpose of the Bill. I have no objection to that, provided that the case for and the case against are fairly put and provided also that both sides are entitled to a hearing. I pointed out that it was wrong to have a debate on the principles of the Bill when the promoters and the petitioners against were not present. That was accepted. It was also accepted that they should both appear in front of a Select Committee. I do not know, of course, but it seems to me that what we have been hearing this morning from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is merely
750
a restatement of the petitioners' point of view. If the petitioners wanted to do that, they could have done it in the Select Committee. It may be that the petitioners feared to put it in front of the Select Committee on the ground that their case would be destroyed. I do not intend to argue the merits or the demerits—
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that the petitioners could possibly have thought about their purse? I have had experience of this. It is a very, very expensive thing to petition in this House.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, of course it is very expensive. If local authorities have to go through the expense of appearing in front of this House, so does the private sector. Nobody should suggest to me, in view of the money wasted in the private sector, that they have not got the money to make the necessary representations in front of this House.
I do not want to debate the merits or demerits of private enterprise as against public enterprise, but the Government are not saying that public enterprise should not be given a fair crack of the whip. If they are saying that, let them say it frankly and let them put it in the Local Government Planning and Land Bill. They do not intend to do that. This is merely a back-door method of achieving the aims of certain people who are supporters of most of the people on the benches opposite.
Let me deal with the case presented by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on two points only, because I think it would be counter-productive for me to answer all the points that would remain. We would then in effect have achieved a rehearing of the Select Committee and that I am opposed to. First, he mentioned the fact that at a certain period of time Manchester City Council would run into difficulties to the extent of £300,000. He completely glossed over the statement given to the Select Committee that in another period of time Manchester City Council saved £400,000 on the basis of the second highest tender.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I hope he

751
will not pursue that line because I specifically said that they had done better lately.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, all I am saying is that the case in that regard was presented in detail with figures mentioned in the other, but in the other it was glossed over. Let me deal with the D of E's evidence to the Select Committee. It reads:
"…were Manchester direct works to undertake these building jobs, would be expenditure within the public sector, and it is the Government's policy to transfer and shift resources from that sector if at all possible; and the alternative would be to have the work done in the private sector."
The case for the D of E did not even represent that the transfer of resources from the public to private sector depends on who pays for the job and Manchester City Council is not intending to go out into the broad fields and compete for private jobs. It is seeking the opportunity to do work for other local authorities and if you prevent the Manchester City Council from doing that and give the work to private enterprise it is still within the public sector.
The two points that I have mentioned to your Lordships are merely two points in what could be a long history, because if we are to re-hear the case we must at least hear 36 pages of closely-typed evidence given to the Select Committee, and I should like to conclude on this note. I had some doubts as to whether or not the role of your Lordships' House had been weakened and I believe that the role of your Lordships' House is absolutely vital in the sense that it is a second chamber that keeps a check on the executive; namely, the other place. I believe that is absolutely essential and a major political battle facing this country is whether or not we can bring that point of view home to the people outside this House. If we do, we shall preserve a democracy that has proved itself for over 300 or 400 years; if we do not, then the consequences for this Government are fairly grim in view of the economic situation we face and an attempt to upset a Select Committee like this not only destroys the procedure of this House, but it destroys the faith of the people who have come along in good faith and prepared their case, who go to the Select
752
Committee and expect to be given a fair deal in the name of justice. We should reject this amendment and I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that if he thinks of the consequences as to the fate of this House he should do the decent thing and withdraw it.
Lord SWINFEN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can explain why only one of the local authorities in the Greater Manchester County requires this power and none of the other local authorities seem to want it?
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, I suspect that that comes from a person who is not very much involved in local government. One of the major problems of local government is that the last reorganisation of local government was not a sensible one.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: I do not know why that should cause amusement. It was not a sensible one because it did not take into recognition the economic factors that should be taken into recognition when one decides the areas of a particular source of government. The reason why we need one authority in an economically integrated area to do this kind of work is quite plain to me and to most people inside local government. It would be foolish to have a public sector works enterprise in the Greater Manchester area under the control of all the local authorities. I should like to say this about local authorities. This is not a party political issue because I have received a letter from the Merseyside County Council, which is dominated by Conservative Party members and evidently intending to carry out Conservative policy and that letter asks me to support the defeat of this amendment.
11.55 a.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I hope to be very brief—in fact I shall be, but I had the privilege of being a Member of the Committee under the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees. In dealing with Bills of this sort, I would remind the House that we are thinking now in terms of one clause. We can set up perhaps four Bills a year, most of them

753
with 200 to 300 clauses, over a great period of time. In this particular case of this one clause we spent five hours and we felt that it was no part of our job (and we discussed this) to take into consideration what one might term political ideologies. In this case whether one is in favour of direct labour or whether one is against it. We felt that was no part of our job. In considering this particular clause we had to consider, as we do in all cases, whether in fact there is a need for it, and we came to the conclusion, having taken into consideration the instruction from this House, that there was in fact a need.
I will not go into the details of the whole of the discussion that took place during those five hours when we heard counsel for the promoters; we heard one witness put in by the promoters; we heard quite a long speech on behalf of the Secretary of State and his department's view. I hope I am not misquoting the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, but I think I heard him say that there was no cross-examination. In fact the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, my other colleague and myself questioned not only the counsel but the witness and in fact the representative of the department.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was careful to put in the word—without any disrespect to the Select Committee—"no expert cross-examination". There was counsel on one side alone and the evidence was not subject to cross-examination because there was no other counsel there.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, if it was a criticism of the Chairman of Committees and myself and my other colleagues that we are not experts, then I accept the criticism. We are not; we are put there by the House to do a job and we do the best we can with it. The question has been raised as to whether or not there were petitioners against the Bill promoted. In fact, there were two, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, but they were withdrawn. He has suggested they were withdrawn—and again I hope I am not misquoting him but I think he implied at least, if he did not say it, that they were withdrawn by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and the Federation of Civil Engineers, for the
754
simple reason that we have a Conservative Government and they hoped that the Bill which is now at Report stage in another place will eventually become law. It may well do, although it will take time, but this was not a matter which concerned us. It would not have come to us at all had there been petitioners against the Bill. It was an unopposed Bill and an unopposed clause.
The powers asked for are fairly minimal and perhaps I may try to elaborate what the powers are as they exist at the moment: to do maintenance work anywhere within the county (which they do); to erect new buildings within what one might call the boundaries of the old City of Manchester (which they do) and the powers they seek are not in order to do work outside the area—that is within the county—but to tender for such work against any other contractor who wishes to apply. This we felt was not unfair, and we felt also that if it was thought to be unfair when the new Local Government Planning and Land Bill (No. 2) becomes law and the requisite orders are made, then at that time the Secretary of State will have terrific powers under Part III of that Bill even to close down the direct labour department if he so wishes. So there, too, is a full stop.
My Lords, we sit in a semi-judicial capacity; that is our function; and it was taking that view that we considered every possible aspect, including the Instruction that came when the Bill was before this House on Second Reading. We are of the opinion that if the Secretary of State, who was well represented before us during that long sitting, wishes to act at a later stage when the Bill now before the other place becomes law, of course there is no reason whatever why he should not do it.
But I am concerned about another aspect of this subject, nothing whatever to do with Manchester, and, although I say it, as to whether this minimal power is extended to Manchester or not does not concern me very much personally. If they are going to have to compete with tenders they will only get the job if their tender is worth while. But I am concerned, if I may be a little modest, about the constitutional issue. As noble Lords may be aware, I have had some experience in this field, as Chief Whip in another place for something like 15 years, Leader of the House for two years, Chairman of the

755
Privileges Committee and so on. In another place, at least, if there is even an implied criticism of Mr. Speaker or of the Chairman of Ways and Means it is taken extremely seriously, as it would be in this House if there were any criticism of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or in this particular case implied criticism of the Lord Chairman of Committees. This is what really worries me, and I would appeal to noble Lords who may feel we were wrong, that we made a mistake, if there is a Division not to go into the Lobby against their own Lord Chairman.
12.2 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, in view of the very powerful plea made, in spite of the fact that I had written promising to take part in this debate, and of the fact that I have torn up about eight or nine speeches in the course of the last fortnight without delivering any, I propose to scrap my speech entirely and to make a single observation which I do not think has been made. That is that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—who knows I have perfect respect for him and would not wish to put forward any discourteous or unfair arguments—started off by saying that the two powerful organisations who have been mentioned, who were going to object, did not in fact object because they thought that this Government would not pass this clause or possibly some other parts of the Bill. If he will forgive my saying it—he may be surprised if he goes to Hansard to check; I am always in difficulty because I hear with difficulty—I understood him to go on to say, "I have seen them since and they have told me" this, that and the other. I was tempted to intervene at the moment I heard it, and perhaps it would have been wiser in all the circumstances.
But surely, this really will not do. If we are acting in a semi-judicial capacity, as we are, then evidence cannot be given post facto and by proxy by a single Member speaking from the Back Benches of the House, as I do, exposing evidence that was not given and endeavouring to draw some additional motivating power from what he thinks they would have said or from what they have told him they would have said. That is not easy to criticise, and certainly it is not subject to either
756
expert or inexpert cross-examination. So it seems to me, in the circumstances, that I have never before heard so overwhelming a case put in three such excellent speeches, clear, detailed and wholly unprovocative, and I would join in the appeal to the noble Lord to say, "In the circumstances, and in view of the arguments, I should like to withdraw this amendment".
12.5 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, may I say, first of all, and very briefly, that I am not in a position to argue or join in the debate on the constitutional aspects. There are those far better qualified, not least my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and others, than I to do that. I would only say on that point that, listening very carefully, as even more of a newcomer than the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, if the thesis is that the conclusions of a Select Committee thereby irrevocably bind your Lordships' House, if that is the case, then I make no other comment than that I am rather surprised. But clearly that is not for me to comment upon further at this moment.
My Lords, may I take, I hope literally, two minutes to state the Government's view on this clause? I can do it very quickly. Our attitude has already been made clear in my right honourable friend's report. We think Clause 164, formerly 196, of this Bill is both unnecessary and undesirable. Our argument is based on general principles and there is nothing in the particular circumstances of Greater Manchester which detracts in any way from the force of those principles. Indeed, although I do not want to get into a discussion of the details of Manchester's case, I think the difficulties facing the works department there, and described by its manager to the Select Committee (Minutes of Evidence, p.28, paras. 6, 7 and 8) point rather the other way and suggest that an extension of powers is particularly undesirable in Manchester.
What Manchester City Council are asking for is in essence a power to use their direct costs department as a general building contractor to all the other public bodies within the county. There is no doubt, as your Lordships' Select Committee concluded, that the Government's

757
own legislation now being considered in another place offers a good prospect of ensuring that all works departments will in future have to achieve a reasonable standard of efficiency in any work they undertake. Nevertheless, that does not alter our fundamental objection to the clause.
The Government do not believe that it is in any way appropriate for a local authority to use its ratepayers' money—money raised by compulsory levy from, dare I say, unwilling contributors—as risk capital in commercial ventures outside its own boundaries, in competition with private enterprise. One wonders what Manchester imagine they are doing, going into this highly competitive business at a time when the market is hardly favourable to expansion, at a time when, from all we hear and know, Manchester have problems enough of their own already. The whole thing is wrong in principle and in practice, and we are convinced that Manchester should not have this power.
Finally, my Lords, Manchester do not, in our view, need any additional powers to help them perform any of their statutory functions. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the private building industry in the Greater Mancheser area is not well enough developed to satisfy the needs of any of the authorities in the county for building services. There is thus no justification in terms of existing statutory obligations for the extension of powers this clause is seeking. I would hope, therefore, that your Lordships will feel able to support the amendment to leave out this clause, which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has so eloquently moved.
12.9 p.m.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I feel the House will be somewhat shocked by that. Here is a crucial constitutional question, and I am sorry the Leader of the House, who for good reasons has not been able to be here before, was not here to give us the sort of guidance that was given by the Leader of the House the Marquess of Salisbury on a not dissimilar situation. The Minister has now intervened in this situation on behalf of the Government, and the exercise that we are engaged upon becomes more transparent as the debate continues. Here is a Select Committee
758
of three most distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. The Chairman of Committees, with his great experience, presided and two distinguished Privy Counsellors constituted the rest of the Committee. They heard the arguments that are now put forward by the Government and, in the circumstances of the whole case, they decided unanimously to reject it. That was on their part, as my noble friend Lord Aylestone, has said, a quasi-judicial decision. The Marquess of Salisbury, in a similar situation, made the comment:
"It seems to me it would knock a great hole in the whole system"
and that, of course is true. Secondly, there is this undermining of the authority of the Chairman of Committees, the undermining of the authority of a Select Committee itself.
It is very interesting, looking at the Hansard of the debate on the Kent Water Bill, to see the support that the proposition of the Marquess of Salisbury had on that occasion: the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor; the noble Lords, Lord Kilmuir, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Reading, Lord Alexander of Tunis, Lord De La Warr and Lord Jowitt—the most powerful support that could be conceived of in the consideration of a constitutional principle.
In the light of that and the clear guidance that has been given when the House has appointed a committee to give special consideration to a Bill of this type, unless there are new and special considerations which arise—and as far as I can understand none are suggested here because all these matters were canvassed before the Select Committee—I hope that when he gives thought to the matter the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, with his considerable experience in parliamentary affairs, will think it decent to withdraw his amendment.
12.12 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, before this debate reaches a conclusion I feel that, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has said a word as regards his position, it is necessary for me to say a word, not on the merits of the amendment or indeed the Bill, but of explanation of my personal position. That touches on the constitutional aspect which has also been mentioned. I confess

759
to finding myself in some difficulty in considering the promoters' case on this particular clause in the light of the evidence given to us by the Department of the Environment representative, and I was conscious that my own personal conviction, politically, was in favour of the statement that was given to us. On the other hand, in the context of our function as a Select Committee dealing with an unopposed Bill—in other words, there was no petitition against this clause—I felt that the proper thing to do was, within the context of that Select Committee and despite my own personal reluctance, to agree to the promoters' clause.
However, the constitutional point of which I am conscious is that it is not for Select Committees to take the ultimate decision on these matters; it is for this House to take a decision where a major political issue is concerned. That, in my judgment, is what we are concerned with here. I felt that that was not an issue which should influence me to go against my colleagues in our deliberations on the Select Committee, but I feel that today, the House sitting as a House and having received the report, is in a position, if it so wishes, to take a decision on the major political issue which is concerned and on which we were so advised by the Department of the Environment.
I entirely take the point made by the noble and learned Lord opposite and by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany. It is most unusual to go against the report of a Select Committee, but I am just making my position clear, as a member of that Select Committee, as to why I took the responsibility of agreeing to the report and why I feel myself free to take whatever decision I think is right to today.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I think that at the end of this debate I should just say a few words. I do not wish to enter into the merits of the case. The arguments on both sides have been heard adequately this morning and I do not think that it is up to me to enter into that matter. But I should like to echo what has been said by my two colleagues on the Select Committee as regards the way in which we proceeded. This was an unopposed Bill and therefore there were no peti
760
tioners. We heard counsel for the promoters, we heard evidence from the promoters and we heard the representative of the Secretary of State for the Environment. We did not find this an easy decision to make. We took a great deal of time and had a long discussion of the issues involved before we made the decision. But we were guided, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has correctly said, by the normal principles of Private Bill procedure and we judged the issue on whether or not the promoters had justified the need for this particular provision. As your Lordships know, we took the view that they had done so.
Of course, the nub of the matter—and this is the point of major concern on ail sides—is the question of competing with the private sector and whether we were extending the powers of the direct works organisation of Manchester City Council too far. There were two matters that influenced us in that regard. The first, which has already been referred to, is the fact that the two petitioners—the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors—had withdrawn their petitions. I must say that I was astonished to hear the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, give us the reason for that withdrawal of their petitions, because that certainly was not brought out to us on the committee. We could only assume that they had withdrawn their petitions because they no longer objected to what was being proposed in the Bill.
The second factor which influenced us was the fact that in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which is now before Parliament, there are specific powers for the controlling of direct labour organisations in order to ensure fair competition with the private sector. It was our view, as we expressed it in our report to the House, that these controls, when enacted, would ensure that competition was not unfair.
I shall say only a very few words on the constitutional position as I understand it. If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, with the full support, evidently, of the Government, wishes to overturn the Committee's decision, then he is certainly entitled to seek to do so by this amendment at Third Reading. However, I must point out that to reverse the decision of a

761
Select Committee on a clause in a Private Bill is without precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, quoted the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in 1955. I would only quote one of my predecessors, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow who correctly stated in 1933 the position as I understand that it is now. He said:
"I do not think there has been a Bill rejected, or substantially amended, on Third Reading after its consideration by a Select Committee. But of course it is open to the House, if it wishes, to do so."
12.20 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, if I may intervene at this point, it does seem that your Lordships have expressed very strong views on this—perhaps stronger than could have been foreseen. I think, it I may suggest it, that, in view of the things that have been said, it would be useful if we could have a look at those on paper and without a great deal of hurry behind it. If I may suggest it to my noble friend, perhaps we could adjourn the discussion on his amendment—
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord DENHAM:—and give it further thought outside. If your Lordships prefer to do it now in the Division Lobby perhaps that would be—
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, we have had a debate for an hour and 20 minutes on this matter. The issues have been fully canvassed. What purpose is served by an adjournment? Of course it is a matter entirely for your Lordships, but I should have thought that enough has been said to call for a decision by the House.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I need say very little. I think it would be wrong for me to withdraw my Motion. The fact that this is without precedent is
only one factor that has to be taken into consideration. I think the views have been fairly strongly expressed, and my noble friend Lord Aberdare, as Chairman of Committees, has confirmed that the House could, if it wished, overrule the Select Committee. That is not in any way derogatory to the Select Committee; not in the slightest. We are an assembly which is literally a confrontation assembly, and if different views persist when it comes to the House, it must be the House that has the last word here.
I need not go over any of the arguments again, but I should like to say once again that when a new clause giving totally unprecedented powers comes before us, this really goes beyond the competence of a Select Committee. The Select Committee has guidance; it has reached its view and its recommendation, but to say that in all circumstances the view of the Committee must prevail whatever the merits of the case seems to me to go against our parliamentary constitution here.
Matters are remitted to the Select Committee and the Select Committee report back and make their recommendation. I cannot see how, under our constitution, it can be held that the House is in any way bound to accept their recommendation any more than it invariably accepts recommendations in this House and any other from its Committees. If it is the wish of the House that we should go to a Division—and my noble friend the Chief Whip has suggested that we might first consider it further, but he withdrew that—I think that the only thing we can do is to test the opinion of the House. Therefore, I beg to move.
12.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents; 72.

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elton, L.

Ironside, L.

Bellwin, L.

Faithfull, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Long, V.

Cockfield, L.

Gowrie, E.

Lyell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Mancroft, L.

Denham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Marley, L.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Effingham, E.

Holderness, L.

Monson, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Morris, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Sandford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mewbray and Stourton, L.

Sandys, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mugent of Guildford, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Spens, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ridley, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Milverton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Oram, L.

Amulree, L.

Gainford, L.

Peart, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

Auckland, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Banks, L.

Hale, L.

Porritt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Redmayne, L.

Beswick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Richardson, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Robbins, L.

Boothby, L.

Heycock, L.

Rochester, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hood, V.

Romney, E.

Brock, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Brockway, L.

Ilchester, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Segal, L.

Caccia, L.

Jeger, B.

Shannon, E.

Clancarty, E.

Kaldor, L.

Stamp, L.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Strabolgi, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Swansea, L.

Davidson, V.

Listowel, E.

Underhill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Vivian, L.

Denington, B.

McCarthy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Evans of Clauehton, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSING BILL
12.34 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 130 and 131 agreed to.
Schedule 19 agreed to.
Clauses 132 and 133 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 249 not moved.]
Schedule 20 [Amendments of Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and Housing Act 1974, Schedule 8]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 249A:
Page 144, line 41, at beginning insert—
(" . In section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, in subsection 1(a) (certain tenants entitled to enfranchisement or extension of their leaseholds where rateable value is within certain limits on a particular day) there shall be added the following subsection:—
"(7) In any case where the rateable value of a house and premises has been reduced since the appropriate day following a proposal for an alteration in the valuation list and the rating authority certifies in writing either that

(a) it has made a refund of rates for a period commencing on or before the appropriate day under section 9(1)(a) General Rate Act 1967 on the ground that the amount of the entry in the valuation list was excessive, or

(b) it would have made a refund on that ground for a period commencing on or before the appropriate day had the application for such a refund been made within the period specified by section 9(2)(a) of that Act

then the rateable value as ascertained for the purposes of this section shall be the reduced amount shown in the valuation list following the proposal for the alteration.".")
The noble Lord said: This is in the nature of a probing amendment raising a matter which I should be grateful if my noble friend would undertake to look into. I have no intention of pressing it at this

765
stage. The purport of this was tabled in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Winchester, who was encouraged to table it by my honourable friend the Minister of Housing, but owing to some misadventure it was not debated.
The amendment is designed to deal with the injustice which has been caused to leaseholders who have their rateable value assessed incorrectly because of a mistake by local authorities and who have therefore been disfranchised where they ought to have been allowed to be enfranchised and negotiate the purchase of the freehold of their properties. I think the Committee will appreciate that, where an error like this has occurred, it ought to be possible for the matter to he rectified and for the leaseholder, if he is entitled in fact to become enfranchised, to he so enfranchised. I should be grateful if my noble friend would look into this and, if he agrees that an amendment along these lines is required, perhaps table one himself, because I am almost sure that his department would get it more nearly right than I can. I beg to move.
Lord JANNER: I support the amendment. I am sure that if the Government look into the matter they will realise that it is an injustice to the person who is placed in the position the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, described, to be deprived of what in fact should be given to him. I hope the Minister will consider the amendment favourably.
Lord BELLWIN: On the face of it, this seems a reasonable suggestion, but the difficulty is that if reductions of rateable value were allowed to count, it would be inequitable if corrections upwards were not also allowed to count. It would tempt landlords of houses just inside the limits to apply for corrections intended to take them outside the Act and thus would give rise to considerable anxiety on the part of the leaseholders concerned. There would also be the question of what to do about completed transactions and cases in the pipeline. We do not know how many leaseholders have been excluded from the 1967 Act as a result of incorrect rating valuations, but it seems unlikely to be many. On the other hand, a similar number may
766
probably have been brought within the Act for the same reason. Consequently, although the Government are not unsympathetic to the intention behind a proposal of this kind, it seems that on balance we are as yet not persuaded that corrections in one direction only can be equitable. Whenever lines are drawn in legislation there are inevitably hard cases on either side of the line. That is a fact we must accept and regrettably there is no easy solution.
As it happens, the amendment would be effective only where the local authority had refunded an overpayment of rates back as far as "the appropriate day", as defined in the Act, or would have done so if the application had been made in time. Since this is a matter in which local authorities have discretion and base their decisions on widely varying criteria, the result would be uncertain and therefore unsatisfactory. It would also mean that corrections made in the future could not affect the position except in the case of new houses where the application for a reduction was made within six years of the house entering the valuation list.
I hope that in view of this explanation my noble friend will withdraw the amendment; it is clear that problems would arise from it. I am not sure whether we can, as he suggests, take the matter up and find a better way to make it effective in the way he wants. I suspect that, if that had been possible, we should, in view of the sympathy we have for what my noble friend is trying to do, have done it already. Nevertheless, if my noble friend has highlighted a point we should look at, of course we shall, but that is as far as I can go at the moment.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: A point arises here, particularly in regard to Wales. Let us consider the City of Cardiff, where 40 per cent. of the population are leaseholders. Since the Industrial Revolution—which was spoken about by my noble friend last night, when we were here until very late—there has been a certain unfairness. The Government ought to look at this matter favourably. There is no need for me to make a long speech about it. I have the 1967 Act in front of me. I sincerely hope that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, receives the attention that it deserves, because in Wales,

767
in particular this question has a great bearing on people's rights.
Lord JANNER: I hope that the Committee will forgive me for rising again, but I should like to direct a few more words to the noble Lord who is dealing with the Bill from the Government Benches. I find that he is prepared to listen to reason, and it must be borne in mind that two wrongs do not make a right. If a person has been in a position to obtain the advantages of the Leasehold Reform Act, it would be quite wrong to deprive him of them if the rates were increased. But the situation is not quite like that. I do not think that anyone would want such people to be placed in a category similar to those to whom the noble Lord referred in his amendment. I hope that the Minister will have another look at this matter. It strikes at the root of what we have been doing for many years; namely, correcting a situation which had prevailed, wrongly, for a long time.
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful for the support for the amendment and I am grateful to my noble friend for his recognition that there is here an issue which is perhaps worth looking into. Nevertheless, I was impressed by his argument that if adjustments made one way must count, then adjustments made the other way ought to count, too. That probably means that marginal errors ought to be discounted and that an element of rough justice around the margin ought to be accepted. However, if the errors have been fairly substantial—and I understand that in a few cases they were, because totally wrong plans were used in the assessment—it ought to be possible to devise a way for the injustice to be corrected. If my noble friend will undertake to look at the matter again with a view to dealing with those issues—leaving aside the marginal ones, which I agree will be more difficult—I should be very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: I tried to say that if there was a way in which we could be helpful without causing difficulty, we should want to do that. Yes, we shall have a look at this. May I point out in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that the amendment is not of any signifi-
768
cance in regard to Wales because most, if not all, leasehold houses there fall well within the reteable value limits.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Good. I thank the noble Lord.
Lord SANDFORD: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendments Nos. 250 and 251:
Page 144, line 43, leave out ("three years") and insert ("one year")
Page 144, line 47, leave out ("three years") and insert ("one year")
The noble Lord said: I think it would expedite our proceedings if, with the permission of the Committee, I moved Amendments Nos. 250 and 251 together. For a long time the issue regarding the right to buy a freehold has been hedged around with all kinds of difficulties. Nevertheless, something is being done. I notice that several amendments to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, including some contained in Labour legislation, have been retained by the present Government. Some of these amendments are purely technical, while some contain points of real substance.
The Government have already amendded the Bill in order to reduce from five years to three years the period that a leaseholder must have lived in his home before he can exercise the right to buy the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. That is the elementary position. The time which must elapse has been changed. Since the Government have gone so far in this direction, why should they not reduce the period to one year'? The nub of the argument is known by the entire Committee, and I should only cause irritation if I were to give illustrations which are in fact well-known to everyone. I hope that the Government will look at this matter sympathetically, because in particular it is of importance to the whole of Wales. I beg to move.
Lord MONSON: I oppose these amendments, as I do all amendments which are designed to broaden the scope of the 1967 Leasehold Reform Act. I am surprised that the Government themselves have in this Bill provided certain exten-

769
sions to the 1967 Act, albeit minor ones. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was understandably also somewhat surprised. Back in 1967 the Conservative Party in this House, in another place, and in the country as a whole, described the leasehold reform proposals then going through Parliament as "legalised robbery", and that description was an accurate one.
Speaking in your Lordships' House on 26th June 1967, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, as reported at column 23 of the Official Report, spoke of the
"injustice and the immorality of an unjust and immoral Bill."
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull (whom I am glad to see in his place today), described the proposals as astonishingly iniquitous, and he went on to point out that Mr. Silkin, an extremely distinguished member of the Labour Party, also conceded that the compensation terms were decidedly unfair to certain ground landlords. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, spoke of great injustice, and from the Liberal Benches the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to deplorable compensation which was scandalously unfair. From these Benches that very experienced surveyor Lord Silsoe, who unfortunately is no longer with us, also strongly condemned the compensation terms.
The fundamental objections of principle which applied 13 years ago are surely every bit as valid today. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench will resist any amendments that are designed to widen the scope of the Bill, and that he will, indeed, have second thoughts about the Government's own proposals which also to some extent have that effect.
Lord JANNER: I listened with great care to the speech that has just been made, and I need hardly say that I do not agree with the contention. The aim of the Leasehold Reform Act was to remedy a grave injustice. We must face that fact. Therefore, there ought not to be any limiting of the period. Those of us who have been involved in this matter for 50 years or so realise what the Leasehold Reform Act did. It gave an opportunity to people who had lived in their homes for many years. Such people had built up the area, had given much of their lives
770
towards making the area in question a flourishing one; and then found themselves deprived of all that. The whole idea was that they should receive something in return for the years of service that they had given in respect of the buildings that they had been occupying. Consequently, although I shall probably have a further word or two to say on this matter on later amendments, I think we ought to regard this from the real point of view, that anything which affects the leaseholder's rights should be very carefully examined. I therefore think that the amendment moved by my noble friend is a reasonable one.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: I think the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is along the right lines. I must declare my position as one of principle: that I am opposed, except in exceptional circumstances, to the maintenance of the concept of long leases of residential property. I should like to see them—subject to compensation, of course—converted into freeholds. Under the 1925 legislation copyholds disappeared, much to the joy of copyholders and, indeed, of lawyers, who had to try to understand them. I should have thought that with a bit of real will on the part of a Government—and this Government seem to have a great will to introduce the right to buy —this would be an opportune moment to consider the abolition of long leases of residential property. I agree that there are specialist areas—flats, business premises and so on—which are different, but I think the concept of leasehold tenure, with long leases of residential property, is wrong in principle; and therefore anything which increases the rights of the tenants to enfranchise I would support.
The EARL of KINNOULL: Perhaps I could say briefly, as my name was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is possibly on his own now, some decade later, in taking the view that one could go any further with the Leasehold Reform Act. When the Act came into effect I felt just as strongly about it, because one was affecting a market and one was removing what were, in a sense, very large capital sums from freeholders who might have invested in property a year before, and who, a

771
year later, would find that their compensation was greatly reduced.
When the Act first came into law, as it is indeed the law today, I think one had had to occupy the residence for five years. Now we are down to three years, and the suggestion is to make it one year. The principle of five years is that the occupant had established a right. He had improved the property and had established a right to a home. What happened immediately is that the clever lawyers recognised the position, and they advised their clients to serve a notice to purchase the freehold and, before the purchase actually went through, they could then sell that right on and make a handsome capital sum. I put that point only because it has not been mentioned; and I should like to think that that was the judgment, the balance. I would support my noble friend, in fact. Three years is now possibly the minimum period. One year is too short a time, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: I am most grateful to those who have spoken, very briefly and yet, I think, very effectively on this matter. Especially am I grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for the specialised observations which he makes. They are always such a help in this complex area. The Act was, and is, intended to help genuine owner-occupiers of leasehold houses, and the Government felt that this objective could be adequately served by a three-year requirement, which, as I think the noble Lord has acknowledged, was amended in another place. We do not feel it would be justified to reduce the period to one year, and I feel, therefore, that we cannot accept that, so far as Amendment No. 250 is concerned.
Sub-paragraph 1(2) in the Schedule similarly reduces from five years to three the period which must elapse before a leaseholder who has withdrawn an application to enfranchise can make a second application. Some restriction of this sort is necessary to prevent landlords from being subjected to applications that are not seriously intended. But the five-year ban at present in the Act may sometimes cause hardship. So here again we thought the principles of the Act could be served by a three-year period, but we would not be in favour of reducing it to one year. I wonder whether, in the light of that, the
772
noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I thank the noble Lord for that analysis of the situation. I paid a tribute to the Government for having brought the period down from five to three years. In view of the reply of the Minister and the fact that we have made some movement, to be fair to the Government, I will withdraw both amendments, 250 and 251, because I asked permission to move them together.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
12.57 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 144, line 47, at end insert—
("(3) After subsection 1(4) of the 1967 Act insert:
"(5) Where a tenant is entitled to enfranchise his lease under the provisions of this Act, and if a Housing Association registered with the Housing Corporation under the Housing Act 1974 is willing to acquire the freehold on the terms to which the tenant would be entitled under this Act, the tenant may serve with his notice under this Act a notice stating that he wishes that Housing Association to purchase and the provisions of this Act will apply as if the Housing Association were a tenant entitled to apply for enfranchisement under this Act and the landlord will be bound to convey the freehold to that Association.")
The noble Lord said: There is not a matter of great principle involved in this amendment, but I think it is a useful reform, because it intends to amend the Leasehold Reform Act so that a housing association can obtain the right to acquire the freehold of a tenant if that tenant is willing that the housing association should. As the law stands at present, the housing association cannot purchase the freehold direct despite the fact that the lessee might be willing for the association to do so and the lessor might be willing for the association to do so; and even when the lessee cannot afford to do it, there is still no opportunity for the lessor to sell direct to a housing association. I understand that in South Wales and the Midlands, where this problem is very prevalent, there are many active housing associations which are anxious to take advantage of this potential improvement in the law, and numerous leaseholders who would benefit from it are currently suffering because of what must surely be an unintended anomaly in the existing law.
I know that this can be got round by the lessee contracting to sell to the housing association and then the transaction being completed in that way. I know that this is a device which can sometimes be used. But it is not a device which is always successful; it is a device which has pitfalls. If an amendment along these lines could be accepted, I should think that it would be to the benefit of quite a large number of people who are in difficulties as lessees at the moment, and where the lessor has no objection whatsoever to a housing association standing in the shoes of the lessee. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: The Leasehold Reform Act provides that a person who is qualified under the Act and serves a notice of his intention to enfranchise may sell the house with the benefit of that notice. There is no restriction on to whom he sells it, and the purchaser then completes the process of buying the freehold from the landlord under the terms of the Act. It follows, therefore, that there is no need, with respect, for this amendment, since its objective can to all intents and purposes be achieved already, albeit in two stages.
Furthermore, by involving the third party in the process of enfranchisement from the start, such a proposal would give rise to a number of issues which would need to be dealt with. For example, if the transaction fell through because the housing association withdrew from the purchase, would the leaseholder lose his right to enfranchise for the next three years? I would have to say that I am not convinced that what is proposed here really is necessary to achieve what I think the noble Lord is wanting to achieve; and in view of the other problems it may bring with it I wonder whether he would feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: I had no intention of dying in the last ditch in support of this particular amendment. I think the two-stage device to which the noble Lord has referred is not as widely known as it might be, and if the existence of that device is better known as a result of this debate and people in fact take advantage of it, it will be a good thing. They do not do so now
774
very much because they find it complex and difficult—that is the problem. But I am quite willing to withdraw the amendment in the hope that people make more use of the two-stage device. So, with your Lordships' leave, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call the next amendment I must point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 255 or 256.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 145, line 7, leave out paragraph 3.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to remove that subsection which would effectively make it impossible for anyone to grant a new long lease which would be exempt from the provisions of the 1967 Act or any subsequent modification to that Act. This subsection seems to me entirely contrary to the new Conservative philosophy, or shall I say the revived Conservative philosophy, of allowing people to stand on their own feet; because people will after all, should the Committee agree to this amendment, be going into the lease with their eyes open. They will know that it will terminate in a certain number of years and they will weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of paying a lower price in return for never being able to gain the freehold.
There are, and have always been, certain advantages in this for certain people. In 1967 the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, speaking on 26th June (in column 24) described how he had been brought up as a boy in a leasehold house in London and how, when he was young, he resented the fact that the house would not be his or his family's forever. He said:
"… as I grew older I soon realised that the fact that this house was not ours for ever was offset "—
and this is the point: it was offset—
"by the fact that my father had been able to buy it at a much cheaper price than if it had been freehold."
It is surely up to the individuals, so long as they know what they are in for, to be able to enter into a contract on this

775
basis if they wish. I would ask the noble Lord to think again about this subsection.
Lord BELLWIN: Amendment 253 would delete the provision in paragraph 3 of Schedule 20 to the Bill which closes a loophole in the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967. In so doing it will reopen the loophole and will thereby permit landlords to evade the provisions of the Act by granting life leases of a certain kind which are at present exempt. Government Amendment 255 will modify the proposal in the Bill by permitting the granting of bona-fide life leases in the future which will be exempt from the 1967 Act. I hope that this may satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord MONSON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I did not realise that the amendment has the effect that apparently it has. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Before calling Amendment No. 254 I should explain that it will pre-empt Amendments Nos. 255 and 256, so that if it is argeed I shall not be able to call those amendments.
1.3 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 254:
Page 145, line 7, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—
(" 3. The proviso to Section 3(l) to the 1967 Act (meaning of Long Tenancies) shall be deleted.")
The noble Lord said: The Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, which gave a long-leaseholder of a house in certain circumstances the right to acquire the freehold compulsorily also had a proviso in Section 3(1) of the Act exempting leases which are terminable by notice after a death or a marriage. The purpose of this exemption was to enable people who had relatives, especially elderly ones, to continue in the house with a leasehold without necessarily attaining the right to buy.
Unfortunately, that small and well-intentioned loophole opened an enormous
776
gap in the Act through which could be driven a horse and cart. There are a number of estates at the moment where the giving of a lease is tied to the death of someone totally distinct from the party. A very frequently used provision is the reference to the death of all the issue of King George V presently living, and the lease can go on until the last one dies. It then becomes, because it has that provision in it, a lease which cannot be enfranchised. That is obviously not what the Act intended. I do not think it is a very good thing, although the firms concerned were entirely entitled to treat the law as it then existed.
The Government have gone some way to correcting this by putting a provision in this Bill which amends the 1967 Act and means that long leases on houses granted from the 18th April 1980 will not be subject to that proviso. That is a very good thing and we are grateful to the Government for doing what they have done. What they have not done is to say that it applies to all the long leases of houses under the 1967 Act, including the ones in which the leasehold started before April 18th. They take this position, as I understand it—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—on the basis that to apply this alteration in those cases would be retrospective. It is my argument this afternoon that in that they are totally mistaken or, if they are not mistaken, that this Bill, too, is retrospective and so is the 1967 Act.
There are two ways of dealing with matters in the past in our legislation. One is where we say that a thing becomes an offence and was an offence as we look at it now, even though at the time it was committed it was not against the law. That is the kind of retrospective legislation that most of us deplore, and certainly my party has always stood very firmly against it. That is entirely different from passing a law which says, we will now change what the law is as it affects people's houses and leaseholds, et cetera. That is a very serious step to take, because, to a certain extent it is taking away from some people their rights just as it is giving other people rights. It should not be done. It is more common than true retrospective legislation, and we are used to it.
We are at the moment in fact dealing with a Bill doing exactly that the whole

777
way through; and the 1967 Act did exactly that all the way through. I cannot see why the Government cannot amend this Bill to what was originally intended in the 1967 Act, without any injustice to anyone. I think that they really should do this. It would help enormously a number of people of the kind the Government want to help. I ask them seriously to consider this. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: The intention of Amendment 254 seems to be to go further than the Government's original proposal in paragraph 3 of the schedule to close a loophole in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, by making the proposal operate retrospectively. That is to say, the result would be that all life leases which are at present exempt from the 1967 Act would become enfranchisable, whether they were entered into as bona fide family arrangements or whether they were granted by commercial landlords perhaps as a means of avoiding the Act.
The Government's proposal, by contrast, does not affect leases granted before 18th April, 1980, and was announced in a Press Notice issued the previous day, so that those contemplating granting life leases would be aware of the proposed change in the law. The fact that this amendment would bring bona fide family arrangements within the scope of lease-hold reform when the original Labour Act excluded them—while I would not in all cases want to use that as an argument—in this instance is an argument against it. I am not able to be very helpful to the noble Lord. I entirely understand the point that he makes and, I like to think, the motivation behind his making it, but we would not want to go further than we are proposing. Therefore I hope that he will not be unhappy that I have not gone into greater depth in responding—I am sure that we shall do so on other points that he will raise—but on this matter, that is as far as I can go.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I am not unhappy. I take the noble Lord's point. With the leave of the Committee, I will withdraw this amendment. I will try—and at first sight it does not appear totally impracticable—to come back at Report stage with an amendment which will catch the people who make distant
778
provisions about the children of King George V and will not catch bona-fide family cases. I entirely follow the noble Lord's answer. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.12 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 145, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert ("the following words are inserted at the end of the proviso:" if either—

(a) it was granted before 18th April 1980; or

(b) the notice is capable of being given at any time after the death or marriage of the tenant, the length of the notice is not more than three months and the terms of the tenancy preclude both its assignment and the sub letting of the whole of the premises comprised in it".")

The noble Lord said: The reason why Amendment No. 255 is starred on today's Marshalled List is that two words—"or marriage"—have been inserted into it in the light of a comment from the Law Society. Schedule 20 to the Bill contains in paragraph 3 an amendment to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 which closes a loophole in Section 3 of that Act. I should explain that Section 3 contains a proviso which exempts from the Act tenancies granted so as to become terminable by notice after a death or marriage.
We have recently seen examples where landlords have granted long leases of houses which would be within the scope of the Leasehold Reform Act but for the fact that they contain an option for the leaseholder to determine the lease at any time after the death of the last survivor of any issue of King George V living at the date the lease was granted. We are back to King George V again. Such leases would appear to be exempt from the Leasehold Reform Act by virtue of the proviso to Section 3.
The Government decided that this loophole should he closed and the provision in paragraph 3 repeals the proviso so that it would not apply to any leases granted from 18th April 1980, the date on which the proposal was announced. The change would not however affect leases which had been granted prior to that date.
We recognise therefore that a further amendment is needed, and Amendment

779
No. 255 restores the proviso, but only for leases which satisfy certain conditions. This should allow for the creation of bona-fide tenancies terminable on the death or marriage of the tenant, which would be exempt from the Leasehold Reform Act, but would prevent the proviso being used by commercial landlords as a device to evade the Act. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like to support my noble friend and welcome this amendment. I should like to make one plea on a general point: Schedule 20 is possibly the most complicated "gibberish", one would almost say in the reform of the Leasehold Reform Act. It is so bad that I hope my noble friend will insist that an explanatory memorandum is published very soon so that everyone knows their rights: tenants, landlords and the professionals. Quite frankly, at the moment you have to buy three old Acts, this new Act and then you have to piece it all together.
Lord STRABOLGI: May I support what the noble Earl has said? The explanatory and financial memorandum attached to this Bill is one of the most laconic and brief that I have ever read. It is no help at all. I hope that the Government will consider this in the future. May I repeat the plea that I made before that they will publish a plain man's guide (or perhaps I ought to say also a plain woman's guide) to this complicated legislation.
Lord BELLWIN: Dare I say that we sometimes refer to certain guides as "idiot's guides"? I dare not say that and nor do I mean it in any context other than one within our department: sometimes we have "idiot's guides" for Ministers. I entirely take the point. I am not aware of the problems that the schedules or whatever present to people. If there is a need, as has been so forcefully and fairly suggested, certainly we should look at it. I undertake that we shall do so, and similarly with those parts referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
Lord STRABOLGI: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
[Amendment No. 256 not moved.]
1.16 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 257:
Page 145, line 21, at end insert—
("In Section 16 of the 1967 Act, omit subsection (1)(a) and subsection (1)(b)")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I feel I may be slightly inconsistent. I exclaimed loudly in support of what the noble Earl said about the complexity of Schedule 20, but my amendment now makes it more complex. But this is on humanitarian as opposed to administrative grounds. This is a very important amendment and is similar to that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, Amendment No. 258.
Under Section 16 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, leaseholders who have exercised the right under that Act to extend their leases by 50 years are denied the right then to purchase the freehold of their property at the expiry of their extended term. To me this is totally inconsistent with fair play and certainly inconsistent with the views of my party and with the present avowed policy of the Minister's party of establishing a property-owning democracy. The present situation is such that there are a very large number of people who have been born and brought up in one house—a house that their parents and sometimes even their grandparents lived in before them. When the present representatives of the family—after 99 years of continuous family occupancy are told that the lease has come to an end and they are asked to pay several thousands of pounds to purchase their family home, this seems to be anomalous and contrary to the most modern views about house ownership.
If they do not at the end of the 99-year term have the money to buy the house but because of financial stringency choose to take the 50-year term and renew the lease after 50 years, at the end of that period their successors, their great-grandchildren perhaps, will not have the option under the present law of purchasing the freehold. They will be denied the right that is currently given to council tenants all over the country by this proposed legislation. I should have thought that the Government might well have been willing to accept this amendment. I do not think they will be showing weakness

781
in doing this. It would be consistent with their policy of expanding a property-owning democracy. As the Leasehold Reform Act stands at present, it is not consistent with that philosophy. Many of us who have had to work with the Leasehold Reform Act and have had to try to interpret its meanings and fathom the complexities and obscurities of that legislation would like to see the Leasehold Reform Act rewritten completely. This is one way in which an anomaly and a hardship could be reversed and it would be consistent with the general philosophy of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord STRABOLGI: What the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has said gives me the opportunity to ask the Government what in general they are intending to do about leasehold reform. A century ago vast areas of Birmingham, Cardiff, London and other industrial cities were developed on 99-year leases. These are now beginning to fall in or will fall in within the next few years. I think it is true to say that in London, which I know well, there are very few freehold houses at all. There are only the houses which are clustered round what were the old villages and they are rare. These leases are expiring and will be expiring in very great numbers. There will be thousands of houses where the leaseholds will be running out and many elderly leaseholders are faced with an extremely worrying choice between buying the freehold, extending their lease or being thrown into the insecurity of the private rented sector.
The Bill introduces a price formula for valuing minor intermediary leases and establishes the leasehold valuation tribunals. These proposals are welcome, but there are other major reforms which are long overdue. Many leaseholders are not qualified to buy their freehold and often the price asked prohibits purchase. I hope the Government are going to consider this. I know it is one of their views that, because houses below a certain rateable value are able to, houses above a certain rateable value should go to a valuation tribunal and the market price should be paid. But in the case of some of the London houses, particularly in the more desirable parts, this could mean £150,000. Perhaps the tribunal would say, "We think a fair price would be
782
£100,000 or £110,000"; but that is still far beyond what the leaseholder can pay. The Government might say, "Oh, yes, but we cannot allow them to make a large capital gain", but even the houses below the rateable value involved, which are still able to do this at very reasonable prices, are making a capital gain. Anyone who owns a house makes a capital gain. In fact, the country is now divided not between rich and poor but between those who own property and those who do not.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, talked about "daylight robbery", but I really think that the rights of a landowner in London whose estate has let the houses on leases for 100 years or more are fairly slim. Is it the noble Lord's intention that every 100 years the house should go back to the estate? That is certainly not the case with the copyright laws, which exist only for 50 years after the author's death. You might be a beneficiary of a very lucrative estate of a popular composer or author, but it is cut off after 50 years.
Lord MONSON: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, in London at any rate, the contract has always been between a willing buyer and a willing seller. People know exactly what they are in for when they are buying a short or medium length lease and they accordingly pay a price which reflects that. Prior to the 1967 Act they paid very much less for a leasehold house than they would have done for a freehold house.
Lord STRABOLGI: I accept that, but people did sometimes buy houses 50 or 60 years ago, which is a long time, and at that time it was an accident really whether you bought a freehold or a very long leasehold. If you were unfortunate enough to come down on the side of buying a long leasehold house, now, at the end of your life, you are probably finding that it is beginning to run out. I know there is a lot to he said on both sides. As I mentioned before, in the case of the rented fiats and the large mansion blocks in London, this is a problem which the Government ought to take on board because thousands, thousands and thousands of long leasehold houses granted 100 years ago are

783
going to fall in within the next decade and hundreds of thousands of people are going to be thrown out who are not in a position to buy the freehold. What are the Government going to do about it, particularly in the area of stringent public expenditure cuts? I do not think that local authorities are going to be able to cope. What is the forward thinking of the Government and what long-term plans have they in mind?
1.22 p.m.
Lord JANNER: I hope your Lordships will forgive me for participating in almost all these amendments, because I fought an election on the Leasehold Reform Bill and the leasehold system in 1929. I think the approach to it is wrong. What is the idea of lease reform? Why did Lloyd George spend so much effort on it? I knew Lloyd George very well and discussed these matters with him. The whole idea was that when the Industrial Revolution came an ingenious set of landlords decided they would have leaseholds which would protect their future generations and give them the benefit of what the leaseholder had done for the whole of his life.
That is the position. It is not a question of capital gain. It is a question of paying a leaseholder for what he has done by having occupied the leasehold for all the years and consequently having increased the value of the house or flat—of course, the Leasehold Reform Act did not refer to flats, but that is the position. This is not a question of being given a gift. It is a question of being compensated for having kept a house or flat in order and having, by that method and by paying the rates, improved the area in which the house is situate. Consequently, because of this and because the payment has been made by the lessee all along, it is a question of his being entitled, according to the leasehold reform idea, to have the benefit of it. So, please, get it out of your minds altogether that the idea of the Leasehold Reform Act meant that there was a gift to the person who had actually been a leaseholder for many years.
What are you asking for now? In 50 years' time you will have somebody other than myself and others who are living today raising exactly the same point.
784
Areas and districts will be left at the mercy of the landlord, and who knows what kinds of landlord they will be? As I have said many, many times, there are very good and very humane landlords but it will be left to the unscrupulous landlord to come along—and God knows how high the prices will rise then!—and say: "Unless you pay this price, all you have done in the past 50 years is for my benefit and consequently you are entitled, as a decent fellow, to help the landlord by giving him the gift of the advantages you have brought to the property in all those years."
That is why I speak like this. The noble Lord referred to my contribution as "emotive." Probably it is, because I have lived through it all and I was president of the Leaseholders' Associations for many years. This is the actual position. We are dealing with the lives of people, with the homes of people and with the advantages that are brought to districts and docks —because this is what happened at the time of the Industrial Revolution: land increased in value because there were docks there. Do not let us take advantage of the people who were responsible for improving those areas; and please, I hope the noble Lord will, without having to wait until a further time, say that this is a reasonable request.
Lord BELLWIN: Of course, it is true that I said the noble Lord is emotive on this subject, but there is nothing wrong with being emotive on it. Indeed, the whole subject of housing is an emotive one. It is bound to be. It concerns the lives of people, because housing is so basic to everything in the country. I was rather pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—it would not have helped him if I had called him my noble friend—say that the country is divided between those who own property and those who do not. Of course, he is quite right. That is the very reason why we are so desperately keen to see that tens and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of council tenants also become owner-occupiers and join those who own their properties. I do not think that the noble Lord differs from me as to that.
May I say, first, before I come to the specific points on the amendment, that, so far as I am aware, the Government do not have proposals at the present

785
time to amend the Leasehold Reform Act beyond the proposals in the Bill. Whether or not that is something which should be taken up, as has been so eloquently commended to the Committee today, is something which no doubt my colleagues will consider. But I know of no such proposal at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked what would happen to people when the leases fell in. Again, to the best of my knowledge, when those leases do fall in tenants can become secure Rent Act protected tenants, if they so wish. While that is not, by any means, the same kind of thing as noble Lords opposite would like to see, nevertheless it is an answer—it may not be satisfactory—as to what would presumably happen to them at that time.
Coming to the amendment, and the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, when a leaseholder has obtained an extension of his lease for 50 years he has a valuable asset which is saleable, and it is not easy to see what justification there is for giving him another opportunity to change his mind and enfranchise once the 50-year extension has begun. It also seems fair that once the term of the original lease has expired and the leaseholder has made his choice, the landlord should know that the position is no longer subject to change.
We are told constantly—and I think with great sincerity—by noble Lords opposite, not only that not all landlords are villains but also that very few are villians, and that is fair. That being so, we must see that their position, too, is watched carefully in the context of this whole matter.
The question of the valuation basis to be used under this proposal could give rise to some difficulties, but presumably the price of enfranchisement would be expected to increase the further one got into the period of the extension lease. For this reason, it would seem unlikely that many leaseholders who were unable to enfranchise during the original period of their lease would be able to do so at a later stage, when the cost would be higher in real terms, quite apart from increases in house prices. I do not myself think that that is a very powerful argument against the amendment, but nevertheless it is a factor.
786
The second part of Amendment No. 257 would enable a leaseholder who had obtained a 50-year extension lease to claim a second extension and, I suppose, any number of extensions. I would remind the Committee that no premium is payable for an extension lease under the Act, and that is one very good reason for not permitting more than one extension. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the White Paper, Leasehold Reform in England and Wales, which announced the proposed legislation in 1966, made it quite clear that once the lease had been extended there was to be no right to a further extension thereafter, and that is the position under the Act.
I do not feel that there is much more I can add to that. As I said a moment ago, I recognise the depth of feeling on this matter, as indeed on other matters which are covered in this Bill that we are discussing. But it does not seem to me, if I may say this off the top of my head, that without a major and complete reform of the Leasehold Reform Act we can get much further than we have done with this matter.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: There is a philosophical difference between the noble Lord the Minister and myself about these matters. I have a very deeply-felt, fundamental belief that it is totally inappropriate that long leases of residential property, such as this, should be able to produce a profit for a second and, perhaps, a third time to the feudal landlord—which is pretty well what he is.
My grandfather was one of the notorious, or famous, Welsh builders on Merseyside and he built thousands of houses. But because he did not think that he had some feudal right, he sold them, while other people—ancestors of some noble Lords in this place—at the same time created 99-year leases which they were selling for virtually the same price. What is the difference? It is a matter of fundamental principle to me, and I think it is extraordinary that the noble Lord, the Minister, will give tenants of council houses endless bites at the cherry of house purchase, but will give the leaseholder only one bite and will not give him a second opportunity to come back.
Lessors seem to me to be one of the very few groups of people in our society

787
who not only want, but can have, the cake and eat it, and have it frequently. I feel very strongly indeed that, in this day and age, this is a totally wrong attitude. It is causing a very great deal of hardship to a very large number of families who thought, rightly or wrongly, that they had a house which they would own for the rest of their lives and which they could pass on to their families. They may not have been aware of all these complexities, but that is what they believed and they are finding now, in many sad cases, that they are having to pay many thousands of pounds to try to buy what they thought was their own—
Lord MONSON: Would the noble Lord not agree that most ground landlords are not feudal landlords but charities?
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: Indeed. I am very glad the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that. The BP pension fund is one that comes to mind. I do not want to repeat the problems that they had in another place, but they have been very much criticised for their attitudes to their lessees. They say, quite rightly
I suppose, that they have to make the best terms they can for their pensioners, but these make very bad terms for the lessees. It seems to me that this would be a reform that would not go to the root of the concept of leasehold, as I should like to do—I agree that this is not the appropriate time—but it would help people who were not able to afford to renew, when it came to an end, a lease which they may have thought, without justification, was theirs in perpetuity. They could not afford to renew it and they took out a 50-year term. Why can they not have another opportunity to buy it? We are not talking about expropriation. We are just seeking a second opportunity for people to buy something which they thought they had already bought. I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister. My intention is to test the feeling of the Committee, and I hope that I shall have widespread support.
1.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 257) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Claughton, L.

McCarthy, L.

Amulree, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Peart, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gifford, L.

Rochester, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Gordon-Walker, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hale, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Henderson, L.

Stone, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

Underhill, L.

David, B.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mottistone, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Greenway, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Bellwin, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hanworth, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Redmayne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ilchester, E.

Remnant, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Romney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sandford, L.

Davidson, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

De Freyne, L.

Long, V.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Spens, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Effingham, E.

Marley, L.

Swansea, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Elton, L.

Milverton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Faithfull, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vickers, B.

Ferrers, E.

Monson, L.

Vivian, L.

Fortescue, E.

Morris, L.

Westbury, L.

Gainford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

1.46 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 145, line 21, at end insert—
("In section 16 of the 1967 Act, after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) No person whose tenancy has been extended under section 14 above shall thereby forfeit the right to acquire the freehold".")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Birk. May I explain why the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, is not here. It is because of the illness of his wife. It is not because he lacks any assiduity in following up the leasehold issue. He was kind enough to let me see some of the notes he was going to use, but I am not going to read masses of them to the Committee. I am sure the Committee will be glad to hear that.
What am I saying and why? This is very important because half the Committee does not seem to know what it is saying. That was evident in the very important debate which the House had this morning. In my amendment I say that after subsection (1) of Section 16 of the 1967 Act the following new subsection should be inserted:
"(1A) No person whose tenancy has been extended under section 14 above shall thereby forfeit the right to acquire the freehold".
In other words, this Bill has in it a Catch 22—the 1967 Act. You can buy your leasehold if you can afford to do so, and yet, by the tenant foreclosing on you, you cannot buy the leasehold. That is putting it in simple English. We can forget the Barons at the Bar—I mean the legal Bar! It is quite obvious that the Committee is tired—
Baroness FAITHFULL: Can I say to the noble Lord how much we are enjoying this?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK:—for the Committee would have picked that up like a shot last night. But sitting until three o'clock in the morning affects the reactions!
Turning to Section 16 of the 1967 Act, I will try to put the relevant part of it into plain English. When the tenancy of a house and premises has been extended under Section 14, and any part other than the house or the property then comprised in that tenancy is afterwards, while so
790
comprised, held or occupied with another house not so comprised, what happens? This Act shall not apply to exclude any right under this Part of the Act for the tenant of the other house to acquire the freehold, but if the case falls within subsection (2) above and the tenant of the other house gives notice of his desire to have the freehold, or to extend it, the landlord—here is the nub of it—not later than two months afterwards, may give written notice to him objecting to the inclusion in his house and premises of that part in question.
Putting it into plain English, he can stop the purchase of the leasehold. To pick up the philosophy of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, I heard the Committee talking about leaseholds costing £110,000.
A noble Lord: Freeholds.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Yes, freeholds. When I was a child, my grandfather could have bought his farm for £50. It was offered, until he poured sand and glass down the chimney pot and stuffed it up and could not undo it. He tried to put a fire out in a crooked farm. What has happened? It happens that the individual is left with conditions—and I think I ought to give one or two—that are completely different from those of the tenants of council houses. There is a complete disparity.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has worked brilliantly during the week and he is so tired out—I could see that he was tired out this morning—but about 10 minutes ago, before we had the Division, he built us a glorious picture of council house tenants being property-owning democrats. They were going to buy these council houses all over the country. What he has not told the taxpayer is that about £15,000 for each house bought is ultimately to be a charge on the nation. Where is all this money coming from? This is the kind of people we are dealing with. In Wales, the West Midlands and in Leek, where I had the honour to represent the people for about 26 years in the other place, I knew the miners' houses and I knew the farm houses. We had about 3,000 farms in one area. The leasehold system is like perpetuity of interest. Until mankind discovers an

791
answer to the perpetuity of interest the power of the tomb will completely dominate the living. I have said in this House many times before, we have not yet paid for the Battle of Waterloo in real terms.
In land, if you have perpetuity of leasehold you can go on until you have a volcano or one of these atomic wars which some people think will protect us and life will not be on earth. We then come to the axiom: there is no wealth but life. Land cannot create wealth unless people are there to work it and when leaseholders talk about their property and their land and their treatment, let me give an example. The noble Lord from Cardiff said that I could quote the person's name, but I do not want to make a silly mistake by quoting somebody's name without checking it; but I will give the example of this dear old person. This lady in Cardiff, in her seventies, has lived in a house for nearly 50 years; she has brought up five children and has been a widow for most of that time. During that time she has looked after the little house, kept it clean, grown roses in the garden and had it looking good.
Her lease expired last September. Before it expired she asked to buy the freehold and was quoted £3,200—none of your £110,000. The house is worth £8,000 freehold but there seems to be no way in which she can raise or pay back this money. If she fails to find this money she can extend her lease at £220 per annum. This forfeits the right of her ever buying the leasehold. How in the name of heaven can a poor old widow like that find the money? Noble Lords talk about £110,000. Let us bring it down to the reality of the people we are trying to make property-owning democrats. That is the issue at stake.
Now I do not want any sanctimonious answers about robbing the landlord. That is bunkum. Some of that property has been leased for 999 years in some parts of historic Britain. To say that one can reclaim the land after such a time is nonsense. In fact we Celts were driven out. We have a better claim to England than the noble Lord here has to Palestine.
Lord JANNER: Not Palestine!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I knew I would upset the noble Lord. We were driven out—
Lord HALE: Will my noble friend give way for a moment? I do not want to be discourteous, and I agree with him on his theological and geographical observations, but which amendment is he talking about?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Oh, the noble Lord did not hear—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord BELLWIN: If I may intervene, I also have been wondering that same thing for the last few minutes.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: There is no need to be worried about it.
Lord BELLWIN: I am not worried about it; I should just like to know which amendment it is.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: It is Amendment No. 258.
Lord STRABOLGI: The noble Lord must move it.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: What on earth is the noble Lord telling me that for? My first words were "I beg to move."
Lord STRABOLGI: I am sorry.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: That was the example that I wanted to give. That landlord could also, by the application of this 1967 Act, if necessary, prevent the person concerned from ever buying the leasehold. That is all I want to say. It is very similar to the Act that we had. There was no let-up in the answer given to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and I sincerely hope that we shall bring this subject down to the realities of little people like this who are in terrible circumstances, in various places throughout the length and breadth of England and Wales. I have kept your Lordships long enough. I have wakened you up a little and thank you for listening. I beg to move.
1.57 p.m.
Lord JANNER: I should like to support this amendment, in spite of the fact that my noble friend brought in Palestine. If I may say so in passing, if he were to go to Israel today and could see what they

793
are doing he would find a tremendously important example of what the world should be doing, particularly in housing, with the vast number of immigrants coming into the country. But be that as it may, I will return to this Bill. Here again we are up against the same problem and I appeal to the Minister because, as I have said before, I think he is a reasonable person who is prepared to listen to appeals that are made to him and to persuade his Government. Never mind about the Government persuading him, he should persuade the Government that what we are saying is right and then we should have some peace.
The Leasehold Reform Act was intended to protect people who had leasehold properties. We fought for about 12 to 15 years in order ultimately to get the Act through, and it is so reasonable and sensible an Act. Apart from some of the amendments that have been produced, we really must look at it from the point of view that the leaseholder is the person who has created the value. Therefore, any removal of the possibility of having the benefit of that value to go to him or to his successor is absolute robbery. That is the position and I will not pursue it much further. I think the noble Lord understands what we are driving at.
Lord BELLWIN: I do indeed understand the point that noble Lords opposite are driving at. I understood it on the last amendment, when we had a lengthy debate on it and I have to say that I do not become more impressed when the same points are repeated and thrown at me over and over again. I like to think that I am as tolerant as anyone, but I find it frustrating to have the same points put to me almost ad nauseam after all this time.
I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, had not said that he wants no sanctimonious answers about robbing the landlords. In the first place, I have not given him any sanctimonious answers about anything, and I feel that perhaps that request is something that he will not feel so pleased about when he considers having said it. After all the debates we have had about the finances and the implications of selling council houses, I think it is wrong simply to
794
knock out that it will cost the taxpayer £15,000 for every council household in the country. It is not so. That is totally false.
I am not going to say much at all on this amendment because I made the points to the best of my ability on a similar amendment. It so happens that this amendment, No. 258, is technically defective because it would conflict with another part of Section 16 of the Leasehold Reform Act which makes it clear that a leaseholder cannot enfranchise during the 50 years' extension. We cannot accept this amendment.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: If I may intervene before the noble Lord sits down, he question my figures. He should know that I take care before I quote them. The financial effects of disposing of asset council houses, which in the long run will more than pay their way, according to a Department of the Environment confidential figure leaked in the Guardian showed that each house sold over its life would cost the public purse between £1,500 and £9,500. This money will ultimately have to be made up by the taxpayer. I did not drag it out of the air.
Lord BELLWIN: I am not going into this argument again. We had it yesterday at some length, and I said at that time that I would produce, and the department has produced, evidence which shows that that is not a fact. There is nothing in the experience of what has happened that shows it to be a fact. In fact it is total rubbish, and I do not care what source the noble Lord quoted. He cannot come along, at this point in time, when he had the opportunity yesterday when the matter was being debated at length and now throw out figures which have no validity at all.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.2 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 146, line 45, at end insert—
("9.—(1) The freehold reversioner of any long lease falling within the provision of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 shall notify the

795
tenant of his rights under that Act not less than six months nor more than one year before the date on which the lease is due to expire by effluxion of time.
(2) Where any freehold reversioner fails to give such notice as is required by paragraph (1) above, the term granted by the lease shall be extended until one year after the service of notice of the tenant's rights under the said Act.
(3) The Secretary of State for the Environment shall make regulations by statutory instrument prescribing forms of notice for the purposes of this paragraph.
10. All expenses incurred under section 9(4) of the Leasehold Reform Act shall he repaid to the tenant by the local housing authority for the district in which the property is situated.").
The noble Lord said: Again I am beginning to feel that I am repeating myself, but this amendment is again an amendment which I think would be a useful help to the lessee and make the plight of people who are not aware of their position, less onerous. What it seeks to do in the first three paragraphs, is to help lessees, tenants, who are unaware that their lease is coming to an end, to be informed. In other words, it puts an obligation of a positive nature on the lessor, the landlord, to inform the tenant, not more than a year and not less than six months before the expiry of the term, that his lease is coming to an end. If he does not inform the tenant, the lease continues until he does so inform the tenant, and thereafter the tenant has a year in which to enfranchise or renew the lease as appropriate. This seems to me to be a very important minor measure of assistance to lessees. I do not think I need to go over the ground again. They should know that their lease is coming to an end, but so many people do not know for one reason or another, because of age, or infirmity or whatever. What it really seeks to do is to put the same obligation on the landlord as the landlord has under the Landlord and Tenant Act in the case of business premises. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable proposal which would leave the tenant in no doubt at all. The landlord has to take the positive step of telling the tenant his lease is coming to an end, and then the tenant would not have the fear or the uncertainty about when his lease comes to an end and expires. The final paragraph is, of course, to cover the cost of carrying out that work. It seems to me a reasonable amendment which would be helpful, and I would hope the
796
Government might soften their stony heart and accept it. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: I think my noble friend will be able to deal with the substance of this amendment, but I would, before he does so, take up the last point the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was making when he was referring to the cost of all this. The expenses involved are the expenses of investigating the right of the leaseholder to acquire, verifying title, valuing the premises, and then eventually conveying the premises. I cannot for the life of me see why that should fall upon the ratepayers, which is what the local housing authority is at the end of the day.
Lord BELLWIN: I am very grateful to my noble friend for making certainly one of the points I had intended to make myself in response to Lord Evans.
The noble Lord may perhaps be unaware that a provision of the kind he is seeking already does exist. He mentioned the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Under that a long tenancy of the kind to which the Leasehold Reform Acts apply does not automatically terminate on the date specified in the lease. The landlord has to serve notice on the tenant giving him not less than six and not more than 12 months' notice of the date on which the tenancy is to terminate, and the notice must among other things warn the tenant that he will lose his rights under the Leasehold Reform Act unless he exercises them no later than two months after service of the notice. This provision is to be found in Schedule 3 to the 1967 Act. It ensures that the leaseholder will not be deprived of his rights under the Act merely by being unaware of them. Consequently, the first part of the amendment is covered in that way.
With regard to the second part, in relation to costs, I would only want to repeat what my noble friend said. I do not for a moment think it right to expect the public purse to pay these costs in all circumstances, which I assume is the intention of the amendment. Legal aid is available in the usual way to those who qualify. I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: The provision as I put it in the amendment would have improved, in my opinion, the position of the tenant at the end of the term, or the successor or the family

797
of the tenant at the end of the term. In a sense I might have been wiser if I had left out paragraph 10 and concentrated on the first part, because I see now that there was not much chance of this Government doing as I hoped they would. I have taken the view right from Second Reading, as the noble Lord knows, that what I want to do is to protect the rights of private tenants just as much as those in the public sector. It seems to me that the interest of the Government has only been about those in the public sector. I know the philosophy behind that. But the fears and problems and disadvantages of tenants in the private sector are very often worse than those in the public sector. This has always been the difference between myself and the noble Lord the Minister over this. Consequently, I could not have expected him to accept my amendment, and because of the time of day and the general atmosphere of longeur in the Chamber, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 146, line 45, at end insert—
("9. In the event of there being more than one interest in the premises superior to that of the tenant the total of the prices to be paid by the tenant to those entitled to such interests should not exceed the price that the tenant would under the provisions of this Act have to pay to the owner of the freehold interest. If after ascertaining the price payable by the tenant for the freehold and any other superior interest in premises if the tenant gives notice to landlord that he is unable or unwilling to acquire such interests at that price, the tenant may not serve a new leaseholder's claim until a year has elapsed after he withdrew his previous application".).
The noble Lord said: I am really quite frightened to move this amendment, because it is an extremely complex point which arises when renewal of long leases comes up, where an intermediate owner has intervened. The type of case that I am thinking of is where a tenant thought that he would be able to enfranchise the lease from the lessor and it turns out that there is more than one immediate superior landlord. The Leasehold Reform Act 1979 went some way to help here. That Act was passed providing that the price payable on enfranchisement could not be made less favourable to the tenant seeking enfranchisement by transactions carried out after 15th February
798
1979, which created or transferred such intermediate leases, as I was mentioning. Thus, such transactions are to be ignored if effected after that date.
However, the 1979 Act does not relieve tenants from having to pay inflated prices because of transactions before that date over which they have no control. And if a tenant is caught by such a pre-1979 transaction, he still has to buy out each superior interest separately. The purpose of Amendment No. 260, therefore—and I am trying to put it briefly, simply and as quickly as possible because of the time —is to place all tenants seeking to enfranchise in the same position, in that they will only have to pay the price which would be payable if they were the immediate tenant of the freeholder. I hope that that is pellucidly clear to your Lordships.
This is a technical amendment which is perhaps unimportant to the vast, overwhelming body of lessees, but it is extremely important to a small number of lessees as the difference to them might be the difference between having to pay £300 or £400 and £5,000 or £6,000. So, although it only affects a small number of people and although it has been brought to my attention by people representing such people, I think that the mere fact that it affects a small number of people is not a reason why we should ignore it. That is why I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: As the noble Lord has said, this amendment is in two parts. The first part would provide that where there was a chain of leases between the occupying leaseholder and the freeholder, on enfranchisement the leaseholder would not pay more in total to purchase several interests than he would if there were only one. This is what would normally happen in practice, however, because the value of each interest will be reduced by virtue of the existence of the leases below. The advice I have received, therefore, is that the provision in the first part of the amendment is not necessary.
The second part of the amendment is similar in intention to Amendment No. 251, and would reduce the period before which a leaseholder may serve a second notice of enfranchisement, after withdrawing a previous one, to one year. It would, however, conflict with the

799
provisions in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 20 which reduces the period between applications from five years to three years. I do not think that it would be reasonable to go further and to reduce this period to one year, because it would enable leaseholders to make repeated claims and it does not seem very likely that their circumstances would change so quickly and so often. For those reasons we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: There is no question that this is a difficult amendment. It involves two separate matters of principle and also the possibility of a very large number of interests. What I am trying to do is to attack the weakness of the 1967 Act of separate valuations of each superior landlord. I could summarise the purposes of the amendment as follows. It seeks to abolish the scheme of separate valuation and replace it with a system under which all tenants enfranchising their leases have the price fixed on the same basis, and where there are superior interests that price would be divided between the holders of those various superior interests.
I think that I had better ask leave to withdraw the amendment on the grounds that it is a complex matter. I should like to look again both at the form of my amendment and the reply which the noble Lord has made. If it does not satisfy those who brought the matter to me, I shall have to bring it back at a further stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 134 agreed to.
Schedule 21 [Leasehold Valuation Tribunals.]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendments Nos. 261 and 262:
Page 147, line 39, after ("9(4)") insert ("or 14(2)").
line 40, after ("freehold") insert ("or an extended lease").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment Nos. 261 and 262 en bloc. These two amendments fulfil an undertaking which my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
800
for Wales gave in another place. Under our proposals in Schedule 21, valuation disputes arising under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 are to be referred in the first instance to Leasehold Valuation Tribunals instead of the Lands Tribunal, as at present, but unlike the Lands Tribunal the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals will not have power to award costs.
Paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 makes it clear that the landlord's legal and valuation costs which a leaseholder may be required to bear under Section 9(4) of the 1967 Act when he enfranchises, do not include any which arise solely from the reference to a leasehold valuation tribunal. It does not, however, deal with the situation where a leaseholder has obtained a 50-year extension to his lease under the 1967 Act and is asking the leasehold valuation tribunal to determine the modern ground rent payable at the beginning of the 50-year period. The amendment therefore inserts a reference to costs arising under Section 14(2) of the 1967 Act, to ensure that a leaseholder will not have to bear the landlord's costs of a reference to a leasehold valuation tribunal to determine the modern ground rent. I commend this pair of amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
2.15 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 148, line 4, at end insert—
("Provision of information
6A.—(1) Where a matter is referred to a leasehold valuation tribunal for determination, the tribunal may by notice in writing served on the tenant or landlord or on a superior landlord require him to give to the tribunal, within such period but not less than 14 days from the service of the notice as may be specified in the notice, such information as the tribunal may reasonably require.
(2) If any person fails without reasonable cause to comply with any notice served on him under this paragraph he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £200").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment 263 is to ensure that a leasehold valuation tribunal, to which valuation disputes arising under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 will in future be referred instead of the Lands Tribunal, will have the necessary power to obtain such information as it needs. For

801
example, it may need to see copies of leases. Accordingly, the amendment empowers the leasehold valuation tribunal to require any party to a dispute to provide such information as it may reasonably require, within a specified period. There is the usual penalty for non-compliance. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendments Nos. 264 and 265:
Page 148, line 10, after ("(1A)") insert—
("An application to a leasehold valuation tribunal under subsection (1) above must be in the prescribed form and contain the prescribed particulars.
(1B)")
Page 148, line 29, at end insert—
("(5A) After section 21(4) insert—
"(4A) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing—

(a) the form of any application under subsection (1) above; and

(b) the particulars which it must contain; and any such regulations shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".").

The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I will deal with these two amendments together. At present an application to the Lands Tribunal for the determination of a dispute arising under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 has to he made in a prescribed form. Schedule 21 to the Bill provides for these matters to be determined in the first instance by a local leasehold valuation tribunal. Amendment 264 requires that an application to the leasehold valuation tribunal must similarly be made in a prescribed form, and Amendment 265 gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations prescribing an appropriate form and the particulars it must contain. The regulations would be made by statutory instrument, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 135 agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 266:
After Clause 135, insert the following new clause:
802
"Landlord's failure to disclose identity or give notice of assignment: increased penalties
(. In relation to offences committed after the commencement of this section section 121(1) and (5) and section 122(5) of the 1974 Act shall have effect as if for "£200" there were substituted "£500".).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 266 and consequential Amendment No. 293 fulfil an undertaking given by the Government in another place. Sections 121 and 122 of the Housing Act 1974 relate to the disclosure of a landlord's identity. Under Section 121 a tenant of a house or flat may request an agent of his landlord to provide him with the name and address of the landlord, which the agent must supply within 21 days, if the landlord is a corporate body the tenant may ask for the names and addresses of the directors and secretary, which the landlord must supply within 21 days. I am concerned that many tenants seem unaware of these rights and the penalties on landlords who fail to comply. The maximum penalty for failing to provide any information of this kind is a fine of £200. The amendment will increase it to £500, which is in line with the general scale of penalties for which the Home Office has responsibility. I commend this amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136 agreed to.
2.19 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 267:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause:
"Houses in multiple occupation: over-crowding.
(".—(1) For section 90 of the 1957 Act (overcrowding in houses let in lodgings) there is substituted the following section—
"Over-crowding in houses let in lodgings.
90.—(1) If it appears to a local authority, in the case of a house within their district which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household, that an excessive number of persons is being or is likely to be accommodated on the premises having regard to the rooms available, the local authority may serve on the occupier of the premises or on any person having the control and management thereof, or on both, a notice under this subsection (an "overcrowding notice") complying with subsections (2) and (3) below and including either—

(a) the requirement set out in subsection (4); or

803

(b) that set out in subsection (5).

(2) An overcrowding notice shall state, in relation to every room on the premises, what is in the authority's opinion the maximum number of persons by whom it is suitable to be occupied as sleeping accommodation at any one time or, as the case may be, that it is in their opinion unsuitable to be occupied as sleeping accommodation.
(3) An overcrowding notice may, in relation to any room, prescribe special maxima applicable in any case where some or all of the persons occupying the room are under such age as may be specified in the notice.
(4) The requirement referred to in subsection (1)(a) is that the person on v. horn the overcrowding notice is served must refrain from—

(a) knowingly permitting any room to be occupied as sleeping accommodation otherwise than in accordance with the overcrowding notice; or

(b) knowingly permitting such number of persons to occupy the premises as sleeping accommodation that it is not possible, without—

(i) one or more rooms to which the overcrowding notice relates being occupied as sleeping accommodation otherwise than in accordance with that notice; or

(ii) any part of the premises which is not a room being occupied as sleeping accommodation; to avoid persons of opposite sexes and over the age of 12 years (other than persons living together as husband and wife) occupying sleeping accommodation in the same room.

(5) The requirement referred to in subsection (1)(b) is that the person on whom the overcrowding notice is served must refrain from—

(a) knowingly permitting any room to be occupied by a new resident as sleeping accommodation otherwise than in accordance with the overcrowding notice; or

(b) knowingly permitting a new resident to occupy any part of the premises as sleeping accommodation if it is not possible, without—

(i) one or more rooms to which the overcrowding notice relates being occupied as sleeping accommodation otherwise than in accordance with that notice; or

(ii) any part of the premises which is not a room being occupied as sleeping accommodation; both to permit the new resident to so occupy any part of the premises and avoid persons of opposite sexes and over the age of 12 years (other than persons living together as husband and
804
wife) occupying sleeping accommodation in the same room.

(6) In subsection (5) above "new resident" means a person who was not immediately before the date on which the overcrowding notice was served, living in the house.
(7) Where a local authority have served an overcrowding notice on any person and that notice includes the requirement referred to in subsection (5) above, the local authority may, at any time, withdraw that overcrowding notice and serve on that person, in its place, an overcrowding notice which includes the requirement referred to in subsection (4) above.
(8) Not less than seven days before serving an overcrowding notice, the local authority shall—

(a) in writing inform the occupier of the premises and any person appearing to them to have the control and management thereof of of their intention to serve the notice, and

(b) ensure, so far as is reasonably possible, that every person living in the house is informed of that intention;

and shall afford to any such person an opportunity of making representations regarding their proposal to serve the notice.
(9) The local authority may from time to time serve on the occupier of premises in respect of which an overcrowding notice is in force, a notice requiring him to furnish them within 7 days with a statement in writing giving all or any of the following particulars, that is to say—

(a) the number of individuals who are, on a date specified in the notice, occupying any part of the premises as sleeping accommodation;

(b) the number of families or households to which those individuals belong;

(c) the names of those individuals and of the heads of each of those families or households; or

(d) the rooms used by those individuals and families or households respectively.

(10) Any person aggrieved by an overcrowding notice may, within twenty-one days after the date of service of the notice, appeal to the county court and—

(a) on any such appeal the court may make such order confirming, quashing or varying the notice as it thinks fit; and

(b) sections 37 and 38 of this Act shall apply in relation to an appeal tinder this section as they apply in relation to an appeal to the county court under Part II of this Act.

(11) A local authority may at any time, on the application of any person

805
having an estate or interest in the house, revoke an overcrowding notice or vary it so as to allow more people to be accommodated in the house.
(12) If a local authority refuse an application under subsection (11) above, or do not within 35 days from the making of such an application, or within such further period as the applicant may in writing allow, notify the applicant of their decision on the application, the applicant may appeal to the county court, and on the appeal the court shall have power to revoke the notice or vary it in any manner in which it might have been varied by the local authority.
(13) Any person who contravenes an overcrowding notice shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.
(14) Any person who knowingly fails to comply with the requirements of a notice under subsection (9) above, or furnishes a statement which he knows is false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50."
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of the 1957 Act, as it had effect immediately before the commencement of this section, in relation to any notice served under section 90 before that date.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises from consideration that we undertook into overcrowding legislation, following discussion of the Bill in another place. It was put to us then that there was no power that would allow authorities easily to control the occupancy of houses in multiple occupation by reference to their size. This clause will allow the authorities to do just that. I have other reasons why I feel that this amendment will commend itself to the Committee. Unless pressed I see no reason especially to enumerate them at this moment. I beg to move.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: I agree, of course, with the principle of the amendment, and I am sure the Committee will agree to it, but a few points about it worry me. In these days of not only shortage of accommodation but difficulties that young people and others find in getting accommodation at all, I am worried least in certain areas local authorities might even evict parts of families. I am thinking in particular of the first and second generation of people coming into our country who may have large families. It is possible—I can
806
envisage this—that local authorities might take it unto themselves, because of the amendment and the way it is drafted, to distribute families separately, and I want to avoid that. I am not against the amendment but simply wish to bring this point to my noble friend's attention.
Secondly, one knows of accommodation which one would think, in the terms of the amendment, would be seen to be overcrowding. Young people are taken in and perhaps sleep five, six or seven to a room, simply because there is nowhere else for them to go, because they have no roof over their heads. I fear that unless local authorities are guided by the Minister as to what they can do as a result of the amendment, some of those young people may be thrown out into the streets with literally nowhere else to go. As one knows, that has happened in the past. I hope that, with these comments, my noble friend will ask the Minister to ensure that what I have described does not happen.
Lord BELLWIN: I am grateful to my noble friend, and of course what she says is a matter of concern. She can be comforted by the fact that our proposals will make some improvement on the present situation. I fear there will be a tendency for there to be a worsening; it seems to have gone on in that way for so long, however much one strives to make it better. It is sometimes like trying to push back the sea. Nevertheless, we must try to improve matters, and I am grateful for her remarks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
2.22 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 267A:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause:
Houses in Multiple Occupation—Termination Orders
(.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sections 12, 14, 15 and 16 of the Housing Act 1961, where the local authority are satisfied that a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household does not satisfy the relevant standard in respect of any one or more of those provisions, and is not capable at a reasonable expense of being made to satisfy that standard, then the local authority shall serve on the person having control of the house notice of the time (being not less than twenty-eight days nor more than

807
fifty-six days after the service of the notice) and place at which the condition of the house and any offer with respect to the carrying out of works, or the future user of the house, which he may wish to submit, will be considered by them.
(2) Within seven days of the service of a notice under subsection ( 1) of this section, the local authority shall post a copy of that notice in some conspicuous part of the house, and it shall be an offence (other than on the authority of the local authority) for anyone to remove, damage, deface or obscure that notice, punishable, on summary conviction, by a fine not exceeding ten pounds for a first offence, and a fine not exceeding fifty pounds for a subsequent offence.
(3) The local authority may serve a copy of the notice on any persons having an intrrest in the house, and where such person gives notice to the local authority of his interest, the local authority shall serve a copy of any notice issued under this section.
(4) A person upon whom a notice under subsection (1) is served, any other person having an interest in the house, and any private tenant shall be entitled to be heard when the matter is taken in to consideration at the meeting called by the notice issued in accordance with subsection (1).
(5) Any freeholder, mortgagee or lessee shall be entitled to submit offers with respect to the carrying out of any works. Details of such an offer shall be given to the local authority not less than three days prior to the time set by the notice under subsection (I). On receipt of such details the local authority shall forthwith post a copy in some conspicuous part of the house.
(6) The local authority may accept an undertaking from any person having an interest, in the house either—

(a) to carry out the works detailed in a programme which will, in the opinion of the local authority, ensure that the house conforms with the relevant standard: or

(b) that the house will not he occupied by persons who do not form a single household until such time as the local authority certify that the house conforms with the relevant standard.

(7) If no such undertaking as is provided for under subsection (6) is accepted by the local authority, or if, in the case where they have accepted an undertaking there has been some breach of that undertaking, then the local authority shall forthwith make an order requiring the termination of the use of the house by persons who do not form a single household.
(8) Where a local authority have made an order under subsection (7) they shall serve a copy of the order on the person having control of the house and shall post a copy in some conspicuous part of the house.
(9) An order under subsection (7) shall come into force when it is made, and the effect of the order shall be subject to the provisions of subsections (10) and (11) of this section.
(10) At the expiry of six months from the making of the order under subsection (7) it
808
shall be an offence for any person to cause or permit the house subject to the order to he occupied by persons who do not form a single household, punishable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 for a first offence, and a fine not exceeding £2,000 for a second or subsequent offence.
(11) From the date of the making of an order under subsection (7) and until the expiry of six months from that date, the local authority shall have the like powers and duties with respect to the house as if a control order under section 73 of the Housing Act 1969 had been made.
(12) Nothing in this section shall preclude the letting of any vacant accommodation within the house: Provided that any such letting shall not be for a longer period than that remaining unexpired in the period specified in subsection (10) of this section.
(13) For the purposes of this section, private tenant ' has the meaning given to it in section 17 of the Rent Act 1977.").
The noble Baroness said: May I, before dealing with this amendment, thank the Government for making the previous amendment, with which we totally agree. We are glad to see that something is being done about what is a really horrendous problem. Amendment No. 267A supplements the one we have just accepted. It introduces a new clause to allow local authorities greater flexibility in dealing with multi-occupied houses which do not comply with the proper standards. At present a local authority, if it requires an owner to do necessary work, can only make a closing order, a drastic remedy which means that the house cannot be used at all. Many authorities are unwilling to do this, with the result that many houses continue to be multi-occupied in absolutely appalling conditions, with many families sharing a WC or kitchen, or both.
The amendment would provide for a termination order whereby over a period the house would cease to be multi-occupied but could be used for a single household, so it would not be removed altogether from the housing stock, particularly at this time of such enormous homelessness. The Government have said they are studying these problems with local authorities. While, as I have said, we welcome the previous amendment, I hope the Minister will tell the Committee what progress has been made and whether he is prepared to accept this amendment or something along these lines, because both are very badly needed.
Lord BELLWIN: In examining this amendment, we are considering what should be the duty of local authorities who consider that an HMO is not up to standard in some way or another, and cannot be made so at reasonable expense. Quite apart from the vexed question of definition of "reasonable expense", I should like to make the general point that our purpose must be to keep these houses open: closure or reduction of occupation must be regarded as a last resort.
Local authorities already have wide powers to close an HMO wholly or partly, and to reduce occupancy levels, as well as powers to require works of improvement. I am not convinced that this amendment would add a useful power to what authorities are already able to do. However, my honourable friend the Member for Hampstead made this point in another place, and said that we should be willing to consider this, if it was shown to be needed, but such consideration would not be possible within the timescale of the Bill. No further evidence of the need for this measure has been received by my department in the interval. For the present, therefore, I can only repeat that I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by this amendment. In the light of the Government's offer to consider evidence to the contrary, I invite the noble Baroness, first, to withdraw the amendment, and further, to send me evidence, which I assure her will be very carefully taken into consideration.
Lord GIFFORD: May I follow what my noble friend and the Minister have said? There is probably a general wish in all parts of the Committee to find constructive solutions to the problems of multi-occupied housing. On the one hand there is a real need for housing for the single homeless and often for families for whom there is no other provision. On the other hand we are talking about what is probably the rock bottom in terms of amenities and conditions, when discussing these various clauses on multi-occupied housing. A little later, we, and I think the Government, too, will come to the fire problem.
In this case it is not so much a question of new evidence. We all know that there
810
are multi-occupied houses which are grossly insanitary and where the need to share facilities is quite unacceptable. The question is: Are the existing legislative mechanisms adequate and sufficiently flexible to deal with the problem? I am thinking in particular of the smaller houses which are quite unsuitable for three or four families to be crammed into, but which might he perfectly suitable in terms of accommodation. I am wondering whether the idea of a termination order—which is not new; I think that it was put forward in another place in a Private Member's Bill—is the subject of consultations with the local authorities, which, on the information that I have been given, might be interested in exploring the use of wider powers. Of course I take it that these ideas are under consideration, but I was informed that at some point a report is to be produced following the consultations which have been taking place with local authorities.
Lord BELLWIN: I must confess that I do not know of the report that the noble Lord mentions. I understood that my honourable friend the Member for Hampstead said that we were anxious to consider whatever may be put to us, and I repeat that we shall be glad to do that. If, in addition, there are reports or discussions of the kind that the noble Lord mentions, I should think it right that they should be included in the pool of thinking on this whole area. This is a subject with which at one time I was very much concerned as the noble Lord will probably appreciate and as such it is of much interest to me.
Lord GIFFORD: I think that the report is to be made by the Housing Services Advisory Unit. The unit has been asked to examine this problem and to report to the Minister of Housing, who I think has agreed to publish the report. Perhaps the Minister can inform me in writing, if he does not have details now, what progress is being made with the preparation of the report.
Lord BELLWIN: I shall be glad to do that.
Baroness BIRK: Bearing in mind that there is about to be correspondence between my noble friend and the Minister, and in view of the Minister's assurance

811
that he will look at this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 22 [Houses in multiple occupation; revised penalties for certain offences]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 150, line 16, leave out ("(as originally enacted)").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment, the intention of which is to remove from Schedule 22 the erroneous implication that Section 61 of the Housing Act 1969 has been amended in the past. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 137 to 139 agreed to.
Clause 140 [Regulations and orders]:
2.30 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 269:
Page 93, line 26, leave out ("51(3)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 51(3), which is mentioned in this amendment, takes us back to our discussions on short-holds, because that clause is the clause which provides for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State for the prescribed form of notice to be given by landlords proposing to let on shortholds. Your Lordships may recall that when we debated shortholds some concern was expressed about the form of that notice, and the Minister agreed to give further consideration to providing us with information about what would he in the notice. At present, under the Bill, the regulations prescribing the form of notice do not need to be laid before Parliament, even under the Negative Resolution procedure, and the purpose of this amendment is to require that they are brought under that procedure, so that we have the opportunity to look at them when they are finally agreed to. If we find that they are defective and do not give enough notice to the tenant, then the matter can be raised in either House of Parliament. I do not see why they are one of the few exceptions to the
812
Negative procedure, which has been laid down for almost everything else, and it would be much more suitable if they were. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: There are already precedents for using the Negative procedure in cases similar to those that we are proposing. For example, may I mention the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Section 68 of that Act is concerned with exempting certain classes of development from the requirement for an industrial development certificate. Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State to direct that no industrial development certificate shall be required for particular classes or descriptions of development in any area prescribed. It does not specify the criteria that the Secretary of State must consider, and these regulations are subject to Negative Resolution.
However, the appropriate procedure obviously needs to be determined in the light of the circumstances of a particular case. I agreed yesterday that we should consider this, but without commitment. I hope that the quoting of this example will nevertheless help to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that what we are proposing is in fact neither unconstitutional nor unprecedented. Even so, I promised the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that I shall be consulting with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on this point, which the noble Lord was concerned about, and I shall ensure that whatever my noble and learned friend may say on it will be communicated to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford.
Lord JANNER: May I ask the noble Lord whether before the matter is considered again some kind of opportunity will be given to those of us who are concerned about this matter to have a look at what is proposed, and possibly to suggest some alterations which might be acceptable? It is a very difficult position, because the average person does not really know what his rights are, and it is important that these matters should be introduced in such a way that the public will be able to understand what they are about.
Lord GIFFORD: I hope that we all agree about what the present Bill is

813
providing. It is not providing the Negative procedure at all; it is providing that the regulations under it shall be exerciseable by statutory instrument, subject to annulment pursuant to a Resolution by either House of Parliament—that is to say, subject to the Negative procedure—except in the case of certain sections, including the section regarding shorthold notices. They would just be brought into force by statutory instrument, without the Negative procedure. From the noble Lord's reply, I was not quite sure whether we had the same understanding. Having said that, I accept the undertaking to consider this matter and I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 269A:
Page 93, line 26, after ("51(3)") insert ("55(7)").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor consequential amendment to the Government's Amendment No. 124A to the assured tenancies scheme in Clause 55. It relates to the notice which, as a consequence of the earlier amendment, an approved landlord will be able to serve in order to create a protected or housing association tenancy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 270:
Page 93, line 29, after ("under") insert ("section 51(4) or").
The noble Lord said: We have already discussed this amendment and in the circumstances I shall not move it.
Clause 140, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 141 agreed to.
Schedule 23 [Minor and consequential amendments: transitional provisions and savings]:
2.37 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 271:
Page 151, line 28, at end insert—
(". For section 4(1) of the 1957 Act (matters to be taken into account in determining
814
fitness for human habitation) there is substituted the following sub-section:—
"4(1) In determining for any of the purposes of the Act whether a house is unfit for human habitation, regard shall be had as to its condition in respect of the following matters, that is to say—

(a) repair;

(b) stability;

(c) freedom from damp;

(cc) internal arrangement;

(d) natural and artificial lighting;

(e) ventilation;

(f) water supply;

(gg) drainage and sanitary conveniences; (gg) standard amenities as described in Schedule 6 to the 1974 Act;

(h) facilities for preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water.").

The noble Lord said: I put down this amendment at the suggestion of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities of which I am a vice-president. This might be an improvement on the present standard of fitness defined by Section 4 of the Housing Act 1957. This section is in need of revision, having been in operation virtually unchanged for 26 years since it was enacted in the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954. Expectations have arisen among tenants and the nature of the housing problems has changed significantly since that time. This amendment seeks to introduce two new factors in fitness standards. The standard of amenity—baths, inside toilets and artificial lighting and so on—is related to other proposed amendments which your Lordships have considered or will be considering to improve the physical environment mainly in inner urban areas of our great cities.
The Denington Report in 1966 recommended that the presence of the standard amenities should be taken into consideration when assessing a dwelling's fitness for habitation. This view is now commonplace and the recommendations of the report should he implemented because, besides being in keeping with the contemporary greater expectations of the average tenant, such a revised definition would have the advantage of consistency with the legislation for renovation grants.
It is also considered that suitable and sufficient artificial lighting should be a requirement of fitness, although exceptions may have to be made to houses without main electricity when none is available. At present, compulsory improvement

815
procedures (the installation of basic amenities at the request of the tenant) are cumbersome, to which many noble Lords will bear witness. One of the effects of changing the definition of fitness to include basic amenities will mean simplification of the procedure where an authority wish to improve a dwelling. Lacking of basic amenities alone is unlikely to render a dwelling suitable for demolition or closure. Hence, this amendment will have the effect of streamlining and consolidating the improvement and repair conditions of the Housing Act. It is not intended to mean, nor will it inevitably mean, more demolition.
I think, therefore, that the effect of these changes would be threefold. First, a revision of the standards will allow authorities more readily to seek to improve housing conditions or prevent deterioration by extending and simplifying the procedure whereby a local authority can make a house fit; reasonable expenditure should be explicitly defined to refer to the vacant possession value of the property thereby eliminating much of the confusion arising from the interpretation of this section. Secondly, the integration of the fitness standard with renovation grant legislation will have the major effect of making any work required under a Section 9 notice grant-eligible. I have mentioned the principal points. There is quite a lot more I could say.
The third reason is that in areas where there is poor housing, again inner urban areas, it would allow an authority more discretion in its decision to demolish either individually or by declaring a clearance area or to retain substandard houses which have been improved. I suggest this is a useful amendment. It has the support of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It would go a long way to ensuring higher standards living up to modern expectations, and go some way to improving the environment in the at present very unpleasant inner urban areas in which many people have to live. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: I have crossed swords with the noble Lord, Lord Evans, at quite a number of points during the passage of this Committee stage. The Association of District Councils has not always seen eye to eye with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. But in this
816
particular amendment we are at one and we are broadly in agreement with the next two amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, Amendments Nos. 273 and 274. It is time that the criterion of unfitness were re-examined. The Denington Report is waiting, as it were, to be implemented and this seems to be a good opportunity to do it. I should like to confirm to my noble friend who is going to reply that both associations would like to see changes of this kind. I agree they are of more significance and importance to the housing authorities in the great conurbations. They would be valuable to housing authorities everywhere. I hope therefore- that my noble friend can give us some reason to hope that this amendment will be acceptable, another like it can be tabled by the Government for the next stage, or these changes will soon be made in some other form.
Lord JANNER: I hope that the Government will accept this amendment. It has been most excellently put by my co-vice president of the Association and supported by the Government Benches. This has been carefully considered by the Association, which represents a large section of official bodies who represent the public. From this side of the Committee we hope that this proposal will be acceptable.
2.44 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: As my noble friend, Lord Sandford, said, this amendment hangs with the other two and it might shorten our debate if I were to speak to Amendments Nos. 271, 273 and 274. Taken together, they would fundamentally change the existing statutory provisions relating to unfit housing. The first amendment would add two new items to the list of factors which are to be taken into account in determining whether a dwelling is unfit; namely, artificial lighting and the provision of standard amenities; that is, a WC, a bath, a sink, a washbasin, a hand basin and so on, and the necessary hot and cold water supplies.
On the face of it, this does not seem unreasonable but it has to be seen in its context. Section (4) of the Housing Act 1957, which is the section in which this list appeared, provides that a dwelling-house must be:
"so far defective in one or more of the said matters".

817
These are the various factors which the section provides are to be taken into account. A second provision is:
"that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition".
Let me emphasise the words "so far defective" in "one or more" of the listed items. It is clearly possible, therefore, for a dwelling to be declared unfit on any single ground.
Given this, one is entitled to look fairly closely at the underlying objective. Simply declaring a dwelling to be unfit does not in itself achieve anything positive. However, it may well have considerable implications for the owner. The local authority is given very wide-ranging powers, including the power of compulsory acquisition and demolition and the owner's right to compensation can be dramatically reduced. Clearly, therefore, an extension of the present unfitness requirements is not something to be undertaken lightly.
I can only assume that the objective behind this amendment is to widen the powers available to local authorities to tackle the problems of what might be termed "substandard" housing. I take note of what the noble Lord has said, but I must point out that provision already exists in the 1974 Housing Act for local authorities to require the installation of missing standard amenities in tenanted dwellings. These powers do not generally apply to owner-occupied dwellings, where the choice clearly lies with the owner, and I can see no sufficient reason why they should. If enacted, this amendment would apply to owner-occupied houses just as it does to any others.
Let me turn now to the somewhat curious provisions of Amendment No. 273, the effect of which is to treat one particular category of unfit dwelling differently from all others. The provision has been changed since it was considered in another place, but the change does not remove the basic objection. The amendment now provides that if one of the grounds for the unfitness notice is the lack of standard amenities then the local authority is required to consult—not merely notify but consult—the occupying tenant.
818
Why a tenant should have a right of consultation if his home is being judged unfit because it is, let us say, in serious disrepair and has no bathroom, but not if it is in serious disrepair and is unacceptably damp, I do not know. Nor am I clear what the purpose of the consultation is. If it means that the tenant is effectively to have the right to say that he does not want anything done, where does that leave the local authority? Let me repeat the point made by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place—if these dwellings are really unfit to be lived in, why are they to be treated differently from any other unfit dwelling?
Finally, my Lords, I come to Amendment No. 274, which would give the person on whom a notice is served a right to require the local authority to purchase his interest in the dwelling. My first point on this particular provision is that the person on whom notice is served may in fact have no interest in the property—he is perhaps an estate agent or manager. The requirement is for the notice to be served on the person having control of the property and this, in many cases, would be an agent. Thus, the amendment would not secure what I take to be its objective—namely, the right of the owner of the property to require the local authority to buy it.
My second point is that, as it stands, this right to require a local authority to purchase the dwelling would apply to all cases in which notices under Section 9 are served. Section 9 now covers a wide range of circumstances, from making fit a house which is unfit, through the remedying of serious disrepair to action to put right a specific defect, perhaps no more than a broken gutter or a minor roof problem.
The amendment confuses the terms "dwelling" and "house" and is defective on those grounds alone. Admittedly, they are technical: I accept that. But there is a much more significant issue—namely, whether this vast extension of the obligation placed on local authorities to buy substandard housing can be justified. Where the Section 9 notice refers only to the remedying of relatively small defects under the provisions now contained in Clause 138 of this Bill then I can see no place for a purchase notice provision at all. When more substantial works are required

819
the effect could well be to limit the effectiveness of local authority action against unfit housing, or to consume a considerable quantity of local authority housing resources in acquisitions which, in themselves, will add nothing, to the quantity or quality of the nation's housing.
These amendments will, of course, be studied closely, and my advisers and other Ministers in the department will also study closely what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and my noble friend Lord Sandford have said. They will also note that it has been pointed out that the councils of the various associations would like to see something along these lines implemented. Rut, as things are at the moment, I regret to say that we do not find the amendments acceptable.
Lord AIREDALE: The Minister has been rather severely criticising two of my noble friend's amendments without my noble friend—I shall not say without his having had a chance to move them, but without his having, in fact, moved them. It may very well have been convenient for these three amendments to be discussed together but, if that is going to be done, I think one ought at the outset to have an agreement that the three shall be moved together, so that the noble Lord w ho is moving them has at least an opportunity to point out the merits of his amendments before the Government have a chance to come in with such rather strong criticisms.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Yes, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, if I was remiss. But, of course, when the two other amendments are moved he will then have ample time to put his case.
Lord AIREDALE: Yes, but the whole purpose of moving amendments is, surely, that people have a chance to demonstrate their merits before the Opposition or the Government, as the case may be, have their chance to point out the demerits.
Lord SANDFORD: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Evans, would like me to reply before he takes a final decision on what to do about this amendment. My own feeling would be—
Baroness BIRK: With respect, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, should
820
have a chance to speak to his own amendments first. I think he is trying to do so.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: I am perfectly happy. It is very good of your Lordships to be so kind to me, but I am perfectly happy that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, should speak now.
Lord SANDFORD: I thought, in the circumstances, that it was better for the noble Lord, Lord Evans, to have the final say, but I am very happy for him to lead off, if he would prefer it. All I want to say is that I think my noble friend has answered Amendment No. 271 in detail, and given a technical answer which I should like to study with care. I do not think he has, in fact, answered the main point which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and I were making; namely, that it is high time that the whole criteria for unfitness were looked at again, and that this is a good opportunity to do it. I therefore feel that it would be better to set aside all these technical matters, which we can look at in detail, and I hope that my noble friend can agree—if the noble Lord, Lord Evans, would like it this way—to have some further discussion with the two associations and see whether an amendment can be tabled for the next stage, preferably by the Government, which will have the effect of taking this opportunity to adjust the criteria in one way or another.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: am grateful to my noble friend Lord Airedale and others who have been so helpful in this matter. The position here, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, is that one is seeking to change standards which, with the different expectations that people now have, have become totally outdated since 1957. We thought that this might be a convenient time to do this, and I gather that attempts were made in another place to do it there, too.
Those advising us feel quite strongly that this, in itself, will not increase the number of unfit houses, a matter which seems to worry the Government, nor will it necessarily lead to more demolition. I feel very remiss because of the interpolation of the next amendment, but what I should have said—I think that this is the better way to deal with the matter,

821
if I may make this suggestion to the noble Lord the Minister—was that, in moving Amendment No. 271, I wanted Nos. 273, 274, 275, 276 and 277 to be considered at the same time.
If the Government are willing to have a look at this area of unfitness and improvement, and at changing the basis, as in Amendment No. 277, for unfitness, smells and noises—which again are very important matters—and can tell us that they will do nothing or that they will put something down later, that will be acceptable. If they are not willing to do anything, then 1, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, might at Report be able to put down something to meet some of the criticisms which the noble Lord the Minister has made in his reply. If that is acceptable, I should be willing to consider withdrawing this amendment and the other amendments before they are even moved.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: In principle, we are totally willing to have conversations with the associations and it would be our duty to do so. However, I am almost certain that the time scale for this Bill to go through your Lordships' House is insufficient for conversations. Although the answer is, Yes, in relation to the Report stage and Third Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House I do not think I can give any promise of hope.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: I quite understand that. I do not think that two days for the Report stage of the B;11 will be sufficient, in any case. But, in the light of what the Minister has said and in the light of our freedom, if we wish, to take some action at Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.57 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 151, leave out lines 29 and 30.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deletes the provision in the Bill that takes off the prohibition, which has existed for some time, of building back
822
to-back houses. I know that the Minister will remind me, so I shall get in first and say that I am absolutely aware that this provision was contained in the 1979 Bill which was published by the last Government. It did not go any further than that so it was never debated. If it had been, I expect that the debate would have been heated. This provision appears to have been taken into the Bill. It is probable that somewhere in my old department there is a "gnome" who has this particular point on his or her mind and who is intent upon seeing that it goes back into the various Bills. So it is now back in this Bill.
There are several concerns about this. First, there is concern about the safeguards. It is true that since back-to-backs were first dealt with in the 1909 legislation there have been a great many improvements. There has been the tightening of the health regulation standards, and also of other regulations, planning legislation and so on. Nevertheless, even with all the artificial ventilation that can be put in, and lighting and so on, I wonder whether or not, with no possibility of a rear exit, there will be a fire hazard in these buildings. Some of our amendments deal specifically with that very hazard.
There is also a danger that this will become another architectural fad or fashion, which after a time will be seen to have been a mistake. I am referring here to the great acclaim that there was at the time for tower blocks. It was felt that they were the answer to the tremendous number of housing problems that there were because they could increase density without taking up too much space. As vice-president of the Council for Children's Welfare, about 15 or 20 years ago we carried out some research which showed that tower blocks were very bad for families, particularly where there were young children. Despite that, tower blocks continued to be built. I am not saying that tower blocks may not be of some advantage to single people.
Everybody has fastened on to this. It is quite possible that as a result of this new fad of returning to back-to-backs, the same thing may happen again. The quality of housing being built today —and this Bill loosens the hold of the Parker-Morris standards—is not always

823
up to standard because of the materials used, the need to cut costs and the reduction in housing expenditure. In the economic situation in which we are at the moment, it seems to me to be a mistake to reintroduce something which we had thought was part of the last century. Even if it is brought in with new ideas and perhaps with new architectural whims, it does not seem to be the right time to do it.
If and when private developers and local authorities have the money to build the houses, the Minister might perhaps consider one or two being built in Leeds to see whether people ask to buy them. Then we should have some idea as to whether there was any demand for them. I know there has been talk of the Barrett experiment. That is one thing, but this makes me rather nervous. There will be people who will be carried away over this, and we may have a lot of poor quality housing which people will not be very happy to live in. I do not intend to press this amendment, but I should like the Government to think it out again. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I have in front of me a very impassioned speech which I was to make on this subject, but I do not intend to make it. I hope that will comfort the noble Baroness. I think it is an excellent idea that in Leeds they should put up any type of experimental housing. It is the only way forward in housing. I am glad to know that the noble Baroness recognises that Leeds, as always, is in the forefront of these things. I will refrain from what I wanted to say about this. There really can be no question of back-to-back houses in the old sense being built. That is not the intention and it would not happen at all. But it is also wrong, surely, that we should use an archaic provision to deem unfit dwellings which, in a free market and chosen by owner occupiers, would satisfy all our regulatory requirements and which are capable of meeting perfectly satisfactorily the needs of many people. Of course not for everyone, but there are sections of the communiity who would be delighted to have this kind of accommodation which today would not be built by any means in the style specifically in which these were built in the past.
I do not want to say much more about this. The noble Baroness was kind enough to say that she was not pressing the amendment,
824
and I thank her for that because it means that I do not have to go into the whole subject. I think we shall have to differ on this. I will even refrain from mentioning the intentions of a previous Administration—I am sorry, I have done it now.
Clearly we cannot accept the amendment. One could have a philosophical argument about it. Actually, I have a lot of confidence in the novelty—if that is the right word—of what might be built in the future. I think it is one of our hopes in the long term, and therefore I hope the noble Baroness will understand why we cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness BIRK: I entirely take the Minister's point about experimentation and I would be the first to believe that we should do that. What I want to do is to find a way, whether it is in the legislation or the way in which it is carried out, to have this monitored so that experiments are made but at the same time it does not "take off" as a general feature of housing, so that the faults are found much later when a great deal of money and manpower has been put into it. If something wonderful results from this, that is very good, but I did not want it to be a general thing without the experiment being looked at and checked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 273 to 277 not moved.]
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 151, line 40, at end insert—
("7A. In Schedule 3 to the 1957 Act (procedure for authorising compulsory purchases under Part Ill) for sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 3 there is substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(4) Where any objection not withdrawn has been made on the ground that a building included in the order is not unfit for human habitation, the local authority shall not later than 28 days before the date of the enquiry or hearing—

(a) serve upon the objector a notice in writing stating what facts have emerged as their principal grounds for being satisfied that the building is so unfit; and

(b) send a copy of the notice to the Secretary of State."

825
This paragraph does not apply in relation to an order under sections 43 or 51 of the 1957 Act made before the commencement of this paragraph.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment alters the procedure by which local authorities who have made compulsory purchase orders on clearance areas under Part III of the Housing Act 1957 must serve notice on objectors of their principal grounds for being satisfied that their houses are not fit for human habitation. It brings the procedure into line with the provisions of Rule 4(4) of the Compulsory Purchase by Local Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1976 which relate to the serving by councils on objectors of their reasons for making such orders, by requiring that the notice be served not later than 28 days before an inquiry is held and that copies shall be sent to the Secretary of State. It relieves the authorities of the specific duty to satisfy the Secretary of State, not less than 14 days before the inquiry, that all such notices have been served. The amendment therefore simplifies procedure, secures consistency with the corresponding provisions for most other compulsory purchase orders and provides objectors to Part III orders with a longer period of notice of the case against them. I beg to move.
Lord MONSON: May I say how much I welcome this amendment. It was a great scandal during the 1950s and 1960s that so many houses which were only technically unfit for human habitation, because the bedroom ceiling was perhaps two inches too low or the kitchen one half of a cubic foot too small, were declared unfit for human habitation by local authorities zealous to pull down and redevelop an area and erect tower blocks. Consequently thousands of people, many of them extremely humble people, lost their last asset. They were given compensation of perhaps no more than £150 for houses which might today be worth £20,000 or £25,000 if they still stood. I know that compensation was subsequently improved by a Labour Government—I cannot remember whether it was the most recent one or the previous one—but compensation is still not as good as it ought to be. Anything which increases the safeguards against unnecessary demolition, compulsory purchase and demolition, is to be very much welcomed.
Baroness BIRK: May I add my welcome to this amendment, to show that we do appreciate some of the good things when they are occasionally put before us.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.8 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 152, line 3, at end insert—
("Housing Act 1961 (c. 65)
10. For section 16 there is substituted—
16.—(1) Where a local authority upon consideration of a report from a proper officer, or a complaint from a private tenant, are satisfied that any house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household is not provided with such means of escape from fire as the local authority consider necessary, then the local authority shall, subject to this section, serve on the person having control of the house, a notice specifying—

(a) the works which, in the opinion of the local authority, are required to provide such means of escape; and

(b) such reasonable time, or times, within which the works are to be executed; and

(c) requiring the person on whom the notice is served to execute those works within the specified time or times.

(2) A local authority who are not, under the Fire Services Act 1947, the fire authority for the area in which the house is situated, or who have under section 12 of that Act, delegated all their functions in respect of that area to another fire authority, shall, before serving a notice under this section, consult with the fire authority concerned.
(3) Within seven days of the service of a notice under subsection (1) of this section, the local authority shall post a copy of that notice in some conspicuous part of the house, and it shall be an offence (other than on the authority of the local authority) for anyone to remove, damage, deface or obscure that notice, punishable, on summary conviction, by a fine not exceeding ten pounds for a first offence, and a fine not exceeding fifty pounds for a subsequent offence.
(4) Where a local authority receive a complaint from a private tenant that a house occupied by persons who do not form a single household is not provided with the necessary means of escape from fire, then a proper officer shall forthwith inspect that house and report to the local authority stating all the facts in the case and whether or not, in his opinion, the house is provided with the necessary means of escape from fire. Copies of that report shall be available to the private tenant (or his authorised representative) at all reasonable times, for a period of 28 days from the date of inspection, at the principal office of the local authority.
(5) In addition to serving a notice under subsection (1) of this section on the person having control of the house, the local authority may, at any time after the service of that notice and before the execution of the

827
works, serve a copy of the notice on any other person having a interest in the house, and, where such a person, or a private tenant who has made a complaint to the local authority under subsection (1) of this section, gives notice to the local authority, the local authority shall provide him with a copy of any notice served under this section.
(6) The person on whom the notice was served may, within 14 days of the service of the notice, serve a counter-notice on the local authority—

(a) undertaking to carry out the works specified in the notice within the periods specified in the notice, and also stating the date upon which he intends to commence those works; or

(b) he cannot, or does not intend to, carry out the works specified in the notice within the periods specified in the notice; or

(c) undertaking to provide necessary means of escape from fire, and providing to the local authority an alternative specification of works and specifying alternative periods within which those works will be executed.

(7) Where—

(a) no such counter-notice as mentioned in subsection (6) is received by the local authority; or

(b) a counter-notice under subsection (6)(b) is received by the local authority; or

(c) a counter-notice under subsection (6)(a) is received, but specifies a commencement date which, in the opinion of the local authority, will cause an unreasonable delay; or

(d) a counter-notice under subsection (6)(c) is received but, in the opinion of the local authority, the alternative specification is unsatisfactory;

then the local authority shall themselves execute the works specified in the notice.
(8) Where a local authority have accepted an undertaking under subsection (6)(a) or (b) and the undertaker has failed to comply with any of the terms of his undertaking, then the local authority shall themselves complete the works specified in that agreed undertaking.
(9) Where the local authority are about to enter upon a house under the provisions of either subsection (7) or (8) of this section for the purpose of carrying out any works thereon, they shall serve on the person having control of the house a notice of their intention so to do, and if at any time after the service of such notice any person upon whom the notice was served, or any workman or contractor employed by him, is in the house for the purposes of carrying out any work, such persons shall be deemed to be obstructing the local authority in the execution of this Act, and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds for a first offence, and to a tine not exceeding two hundred pounds for a subsequent offence, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the
828
court that there was an urgent necessity to carry out the works in order to obviate danger to the occupants of the house.
(10) Any expenses incurred by the local authority under this section, including administration expenses and expenses incurred under subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) or (9), together with interest (at the rate fixed by section 171(2) of the Local Government Act 1972) when a demand for the expenses is served until payment is made, may he recovered by the local authority in accordance with the provisions of section 10(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) of the Housing Act 1957.
(11) For the purposes of this section, private tenant ' has the meaning given to it in section 17 of the Rent Act 1977.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. Under present legislation local authorities have power to require owners of multi-occupied premises to install means of escape from fires. When a local authority uses this power and serves a notice on the owner considerable delays can occur before these works are finally carried out. During that time the occupants are left at great risk. For example, the local authority must leave a "reasonable time" for the works to be completed before it can even begin to consider serving a further novice that it intends to do the work itself if the owner has not complied with the order. In metropolitan areas this could mean that the premises are left unprotected for a minimum of nine months.
This power is only one of the statutory responsibilities at the disposal of local authorities in relation to fire precautions, and often confusion can arise about the related role of the local fire authorities. Thus the Brent Council inquiry report on the Kilburn hostel fire described the legislation as a "tangled web". Under existing legislation local authorities have a range of powers, complex and unwieldy, for dealing with overcrowding and for forcing closures. There is an urgent need for simplified procedure. Local authorities have no obligation to secure that people made homeless when the closures occur have any alternative accommodation. Yet for years the local authorities have been able to secure alternative homes for those displaced by their own slum clearance.
This amendment is intended—and I hope that its intentions are correct—to provide authorities with a simplified procedure (based on existing closing orders)

829
by which, after both the owner and the authority have agreed that premises could not be made to comply with required minimum standards at reasonable expense, the premises must cease to be used after six months. It penalises anyone so using premises after that time, except for approved use, and also places on the authority the duty to secure alternative accommodation for anybody displaced. It also should replace the clause in the Housing Act to put the duty on local authorities to ensure means of escape. It includes the duty to consult with the local fire authority and allows an authority to carry out works in default within six weeks of serving an initial notice, if the owner fails to comply or cannot comply. It gives the tenants of multi-occupied premises the right to complain about unsafe conditions in line with the rights that tenants have in the private sector. I understand that if one is in a hostel, for example, or a house owned by a local authority, one has no right to complain. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether that is correct?
I feel sure that my noble friend will agree that there is need for reform in current legislation and it is occasioned by the considerable delays—which I have mentioned already—which its implementation can involve and by the overlapping of powers and responsibilities enjoined on the local authority and the fire authority under different legislation. In fact, the Brent Council Inquiry Report into the Kilburn hostel fire, in which your Lordships may remember 11 women died, lists the legislation that might be used: Section 60 of the Public Health Act 1936: Section 238 of the Public Health Act 1936; Section 16 of the Housing Act 1961: and Section 1 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the Fire Services Act 1947. In the House of Commons the Minister, Mr. John Stanley, undertook to consider whether the statutory duties of local authorities needed to be strengthened. The reference in Hansard is Volume 985, column 85, 19th May 1980.
I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, present because he knows about the Department of the Environment's Housing Services Advisory Unit. I gather that it conducted a survey of some 35 local authorities—covering 74 hostels and small houses in multiple occupation—in January and February of this year. I
830
I gather that the unit's report has been considered by the Minister and he has said that it will he publicised, and we are waiting for that with great interest. It was promised by the Minister on 19th May in the House of Commons.
The survey form sent to local authorities included certain questions. In fact, I was going to ask the Minister to reply, but I gather from what he has just said that he does not have full knowledge of the matter I should like to mention three of the questions. First, does a local authority inspect its local houses in multiple occupation only after receiving a complaint or on a cycle? What is the cycle? Secondly, what are the local authority's standards, set locally, for means of escape from fire? Thirdly, will authorities use the new fire grant in the Bill to aid owners? I think that those are three very important points which I hope will receive a satisfactory answer when the unit's report is published. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: Again, I had intended to make a number of points in some detail because the amendment that is in front of us creates a lot of problems and, as such, would not be acceptable. However, I should like—and I think this is the general feeling in the Committee—to remind your Lordships that my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction undertook in another place to consider whether the responsibilities of local authorities should be strengthened in this area and to ensure that a Government amendment was tabled if it was felt to be necessary. I am now able to assure the Committee that a Government amendment will be tabled for consideration at Report stage. In the light of that undertaking, I wonder whether we may let this amendment go at the moment and we shall be able to consider that which I bring back at Report stage.
Lord SANDFORD: May I ask the noble Lord to consider two further points when he is formulating his own amendment? When drafting an amendment it would be as well to refer not only to fire escapes, which are of course important, but to fire precautions generally; such things as an adequate number of extinguishers, proper provision of fire doors, et cetera, which are important as well. The second point I should

831
like him to bear in mind when he comes to tighten up the duties of the local authorities is the desirability of having some consultation with them so that those greater duties are realistic in the light of the manpower constraints and financial constraints to which they are now subject.
Baroness VICKERS: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 279A not moved.]
3.17 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 280:
Page 152, line 6, leave out from ("3(1)") to ("and") in line 7 and insert ("for" local authorities "substitute" bodies"").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a consequential amendment designed to amend the descriptive words in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 3 to the Building Societies Act 1962 so that they are sufficiently general to reflect the fact that not only will local authorities and the Housing Corporation be empowered to enter into agreements under Clause 106 (indemnities for building societies) but parallel provision will be made under Northern Ireland legislation enabling such agreements to be entered into by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness FAITH FULL Baroness FAITH FULL moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 153, line 28, leave out ("are hereby repealed") and insert ("shall be replaced by the following words" and every authority shall submit a report to the Secretary of State not later than 31st August each year in such form as the Secretary of State may direct of the action it has taken in the year ending the previous 31st March whether by the provision of new housing or otherwise to meet the needs of such persons".").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 281 standing in my name. This concerns the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, under which local authorities have to make a report to the department of alterations, adaptations, which they have carried out, and houses which they have built in their areas for the disabled. Under this Bill I see on page 153 paragraph 21 that this has been deleted. I would recommend that
832
this is not deleted. Not because Big Brother Westminster must look after and watch small brother local authorities—not in that spirit at all—but because this Act is still, comparatively speaking, a new Act.
A great deal of monitoring of houses and adaptations and alterations for the disabled has to be carried out. Under Amendment No. 180 the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, recommended that different costs should be looked at for houses for the disabled. I have not been able to read Hansard because, of course, it has not yet been printed, but I think I am right in saying that at that time the Minister said that they would have to look at this whole problem. It is important that adaptations, alterations, and buildings for the chronically sick and disabled should, at any rate for the next decade, be monitored. Therefore, not because we want to watch local authorities but because we want to monitor the facilities of the disabled, I move this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: The purpose of paragraph 21 of Schedule 23, taken with Clause 80, is to remove a statutory obligation on local government which has been found to be redundant, an obligation to prepare and submit proposals to the Minister for the provision of new houses, distinguishing among other things houses to be provided for the chronically sick and disabled. It is redundant because authorities have provided voluntarily in their housing investment programmes all the information successive Governments have required about their house-building proposals, including those directed at special needs.
The effect of the amendment would be to replace the old obligation with a new one, which is to report to the Secretary of State each year on the action taken in the previous year to meet the housing needs of the chronically sick and disabled. It is our experience that local authorities are always ready to meet voluntarily any reasonable central government request for information. Indeed, the Department of the Environment already collects and publishes information about, for example, local authority provision of dwellings designed for the chronically sick and disabled and mobility dwellings. In view of the success of these voluntary

833
arrangements, we cannot think it right to impose a new statutory requirement on local government. I hope that, with this explanation, my noble friend may see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I cannot but say that I am disappointed with the Minister's reply because I believe that at this stage we need to monitor what we are doing for the chronically sick and disabled. However, I shall consider what he said and, at this stage, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 282:
Page 153, line 33, at end insert—
("Land Compensation Act 1973 (c. 26)
. In section 29(7) of the Land Compensation Act 1973, after paragraph (c) there is inserted the following paragraphs—
"(d) a notice under section 78(5)(a) of the Housing Act 1957;
(e) a notice served under section 16 of the Housing Act 1961;
(f) an order made or an undertaking accepted under a relevant section of the Housing Act 1980.".").
The noble Lord said: This is part of the package of amendments which sought to deal with multi-occupied housing. I need not move it at length, although it deals with a very important point—that is, whether people displaced as an result of overcrowding or as a result of other controls on multi-occupied housing should be rehoused as a duty by the local authority. In response to other amendments which have been moved on this subject, the Minister said there were considerations and consultations going on. If those considerations and consultations take in the matters raised by this amendment, I certainly would not wish to press it or describe it any further. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I am sure the House would agree that as a general principle people who for good reason are required by local authorities to leave their accommodation should have an alternative to go to. It might be simplest for me to take paragraph (e) first. Section 16 of the Housing Act enables local authorities to require means of escape from fire to be provided in hostels and other houses in multiple
834
occupation. But there is no requirement in that section for anyone to leave the house; therefore there is no need to arrange suitable alternative accommodation. The noble Lord may have in mind Section 60 of the Housing Act 1969, which complements the power to require means of escape with a power to close part of the house if means of escape cannot be provided at reasonable expense. Here people may be displaced, but the Land Compensation Act already provides for suitable alternative accommodation to be offered to them. I cannot see that anything more is needed.
Now we have two overcrowding provisions. To take paragraph (f) first, the only relevant provision under consideration for the Bill is Amendment No. 267, which revises Section 90 of the Housing Act 1957. Under Section 90, whether or not revised, authorities may require excess residents in a house in multiple occupation to leave at once. Authorities also have an alternative in the revised revision whereby they can allow excess residents to leave of their own accord and stop replacements moving in until the overcrowding is relieved.
I understand that in practice excess residents are rarely required to leave at once, and when they arc, authorities accept a moral obligation to rehouse them. Under Amendment No. 267, authorities would always be able to use the alternative of natural wastage—allowing people to leave of their own accord—so that no rehousing obligation would be incurred. It would seem therefore to make little difference in practice whether the noble Lord's paragraph (f) is accepted. However, we are prepared to consider, without commitment, whether a Government amendment could be tabled at Report stage, providing that if excess residents are required to leave at once, the local authority would have a duty to secure alternative accommodation for them.
Lastly, we come to paragraph (d). This deals with overcrowding in single household dwellings. Here the local authority do not have the alternative of natural wastage. If they serve a notice, overcrowding becomes an offence at once. The burden on local authorities of rehousing could therefore he onerous. Furthermore, the duty would be open to

835
abuse, if, for example, a landlord took in a succession of single people, knowing that they would be rehoused, despite the fact that they would not be entitled to rehousing under the homelessness legislation. I think that this could be a recipe for queue-jumping. I conclude therefore that we cannot accept paragraph (d).
Paragraph (d) must be resisted, and paragraph (e) is unnecessary, as I have said. We are prepared to consider paragraph (f), though, as I have said, it would have little, if any, practical effect. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I apologise for the muddle at the beginning of my reply, but I had not planned to deal with this amendment, and therefore it had not been included in my brief.
Lord GIFFORD: During the course of the Committee stage there have been raised from various parts of the Chamber a number of positive and constructive points on the problem of those who live in multi-occupied houses. I am pleased that the Government have responded in a positive way, and I thank the noble Lord in particular for his constructive reply on certain aspects of this amendment. Clearly on Report we shall be able to look at all the various problems regarding multi-occupied houses which have been raised in the Committee, and in the light of that, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 282A:
Page 157, line 32, at end insert—
(" .—(1) Section 102 of the 1977 Act (Compensation for misrepresentation or concealment in Cases 8 and 9) is amended as follows.
(2) After "Case 8" leave out "or" and after" Case 9 "insert" or Case 19".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 118, and is not moved.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 158, line 21, at end insert—
("49A. Section 138(3) of the 1977 Act (effect on furnished sub-tenancy of determination of superior unfurnished tenancy) shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if for the words from "meaning"
836
to the end there were substituted the words "same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 137(2) of this Act".").
The noble Lord said: I must again ask a moment's indulgence of the Committee, since this amendment was on the brief of another Minister. This amendment is designed to correct a small error that was made during the consolidation process that resulted in the Rent Act 1977. It is a somewhat complex legal point, but I shall be glad to explain it if any noble Lord so wishes. The amendment remedies this error by providing that Section 138 of the 1977 Act will also apply to long tenancies at low rents. I can say more about the amendment if the Committee wish, but I hope that what I have said will suffice. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 159, line 37, at end insert (", at the end of paragraph (a) there are inserted the words" (other than one under which the landlord might recover possession of the dwelling-house under one of the Cases in Part II of this Schedule)", and at the end of paragraph (b) there are inserted the words "of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a) above".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to make clear that a shorthold tenancy would not qualify as suitable alternative accommodation for a fully protected or statutory tenant under Part IV of Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977.
Several noble Lords: No.
A noble Lord: This is Amendment No. 284, not 285.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: It is 284 that I am reading. It is designed to make clear that a shorthold tenancy would not qualify as suitable alternative accommodation for a fully protected or statutory tenant under Part IV of Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977. It was never the Government's intention that this should be the case. It has always been made quite clear that shorthold would in no way affect the security of existing statutory and protected tenants. This amendment puts the matter beyond doubt. It explicitly spells out that neither shorthold nor the other mandatory cases under Part II of Schedule 15 would constitute suitable alternative accom-

837
modation for a fully protected or statutory tenant. I recommend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord GIFFORD: I think this amendment precisely covers the point which was sought to be covered by Amendment No. 285. It is an important little point, and I am very pleased that it has now been covered by the Bill. We support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 285 and 286 not moved.]
Schedule 23, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 24 [Repeals]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 287:
Page 162, line 35, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 65(1A).").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment concerned with penalties in connection with houses in multiple occupation. It adds to the full list of repeals that are referred to in paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 163, leave out from beginning of line 38 to end of line 41 and insert—
("In section 20, in subsection (5), paragraph (d) and the words" or (d)(ii)", and in subsection (7) the words from "section 19(8)" to "Schedule 3 to this Act".
In section 24(5), the words "or their allowance scheme, as may be appropriate" and the words from "of Housing Revenue" to "housing account dwellings".
In section 26(1), in the definition of "allowance" the words from "but also" to the end, in the definition of "allowance scheme" the words from "and includes" to the end, and the definition of "housing account dwelling".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to list in the repeals Schedule to the Bill repeals which have already been made by Schedule 14. This is to meet the editing requirement of the Statutory Publications Office that all repeals made elsewhere in a Bill should be listed in the repeals Schedule. I could say more, but I think that will be enough
838
to explain what this is about. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 163, line 44, after ("4") insert ("in paragraph 1(3)(a) the words from" Housing "to" account".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, like that of No. 288, is to insert in the repeals Schedule a repeal already made in Schedule 14, paragraph 9, in order to meet the editing requirements of the Statutory Publications Office. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 290:
Page 165, line 142, at end insert—
("In section 19(5)(b), the words "or of the Duchy of Lancaster or to the Duchy of Cornwall".").
The noble Lord said: This is the last of the minor amendments consequential upon the Government's earlier Amendments Nos. 150 and 152 applying the Rent Acts to the Crown Estate and Duchies. It merely records the repeal already made by subsection (2) of the new clause. The reference to the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster in Section 19(5)(b) of the Rent Act 1977 previously excluded the Duchies from the restricted contract provisions contained in that section. Those provisions are now applied to the Duchies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 291:
Page 167, line 59, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 12, the entry relating to section 65 of the Housing Act 1964.")
The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment related to Amendment No. 287, and also concerns penalties in connection with houses in multiple occupation. It adds a repeal referred to in Schedule 22 to the full list. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 142 (Commencement]:
3.35 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 292:
Page 94, line 7, leave out ("eight weeks") and insert ("one year")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment, by leaving out "eight weeks" and inserting "one year", seeks to cause Part I of this Act to come into operation on the expiry of a period of one year from the day on which this Bill is passed. Apart from putting off the evil day, which is justifiable in itself, there are other reasons for delaying in this case. The House of Commons Environmental Select Committee is still considering the whole subject of council house sales and has not yet made its report; the rural areas are not yet defined in the Bill and as yet we do not know what are the criteria by which the Secretary of State will define those areas. Furthermore, the Bill when fully implemented will put extra burdens on local authorities at a time when staff cuts are being made. It seems to me to be absolutely absurd, at this particular time, when local authorities are being asked daily by the Secretary of State to cut their expenditure, for the Bill to come into operation almost immediately. This Bill must involve increased expenditure and, as the Government themselves have said, in some areas increased manpower.
This is recognised by Clause 142(3), which say that other sections will move in at later stages. It would be better if Part I, Chapter II, Security of Tenure and Rights of Secure Tenants could come in the same way as the late Barts. I quite understand that the Minister has had to leave, and it was courteous of him to inform me about it. Perhaps, too, if the Bill is delayed, we may be able, by the time it comes into operation, to see the Notes on Clauses, which will then explain the Bill to us. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Yet again, like my noble friend, I am putting sackcloth and ashes to the noble Baroness for her not having her Notes. I know that she will not be surprised to hear me say that we cannot go along with her on this amendment. It might almost be called "wrecking" if this were not such a polite Committee. To delay the right
840
to buy for a whole year after the enactment of the Bill would mean that a lot of people who have hopes of this Bill would be let down. They expect us to enact this and I think that the layman would find the delay incomprehensible.
The noble Baroness has said that this year's delay is necessary, among other things, to allow landlords to prepare themselves to implement the Bill. But many local authorities in partiuclar already have experience of sales. Even where an authority may not have sold in the past, there is plenty of experience and information about best existing practices to be drawn on in local government generally. It is not really breaking new ground. All the procedural steps are provided in the Bill itself; there is no question of landlords having to design their own administrative procedures from scratch. Most statutory notices and forms will be prescribed and produced by the Secretary of State. More general guidance will also be given after enactment. We have been at pains to give landlords the most workable and administratively convenient scheme that we could. I could say more about this; but perhaps we may leave it to the next stage of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness BIRK: When the noble Lord says that many people will find the delay incomprehensible, I would reply by suggesting that many more will find many parts of the Bill completely incomprehensible. Nevertheless, the reply did not surprise me and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 142 and 143 agreed to.
Clause 144 [Short title, extent, etc]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved amendment No. 293:
Page 94, line 25, after ("126") insert (" (Landlord's failure to disclose identity or give notice of assignment increased penalties.)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to by my noble friend with Amendment No. 266. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 144, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord GIFFORD: May I raise one small point? Clause 144 includes among other things the title of the Bill as the Housing Act. We really have had in this Committee two Bills: a Housing Act and a Rent Act. While I do not seriously suggest that the title needs to be changed, there is one rather more serious point that ought to be raised on that fact. A private tenant who wants to find out what his rights and remedies may be will have most of it set out in the Rent Act 1977 but will have small parts of it tucked away in the middle of the Housing Act 1980.
For instance, if you are a shorthold tenant to find out what the law is about the grant of the tenancy, you have to look at the Housing Act. If you want to find out how you can be evicted, you have to look at the Rent Act because the amendment has been put into that Act. Serious consideration ought to be given before we pass this Bill into law as to whether the Rent Act provisions ought not to be put into the Rent Act by way of amendment instead of still being tucked away in the Housing Act as some of them will be. I hope that is a matter to which the Government will give serious attention.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I will certainly undertake that serious attention will be given to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has raised.
Clause 144, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) No. 2 BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  MANAGUA: BRITISH REPRESENTATION
  MANAGUA: BRITISH REPRESENTATION
  STONEHENGE POP FESTIVAL: POLICE ACTION
  STONEHENGE POP FESTIVAL: POLICE ACTION
  THE INLAND REVENUE COMPUTER PROJECT
  THE INLAND REVENUE COMPUTER PROJECT
  FAT LAMB: GRADING STANDARDS
  FAT LAMB: GRADING STANDARDS