Sitting of 22 July 1980

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
UNITED REFORMED CHURCH LION WALK COLCHESTER BILL
Read the Third time and passed.

SMALLPOX
Address for Return,
of the Report of the Investigation into the Cause of the 1978 Birmingham Smallpox Occurrence.—[Sir George Young.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. Radiceasked the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has increased since May 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): Between May 1979 and July 1980 the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, increased by 299,900. The figure is provisional.
    Mr. Radice: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he includes school leavers, as he ought to, he will find that the number is nearly 600,000, which is the highest total since the 1930s? Nobody knows when it will end. Does the Secretary of State also realise that if he wants to avoid going down in history as the man who led Britain into mass unemployment he must either use his political muscle to get some change in Government policy, or have the grace and honour to resign?
    Mr. Prior: On a day of very serious unemployment figures the country will expect more from the House than just a brawl. The figures are bound to cause deep concern, particularly among school leavers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are increasing the school-leaver programme by about 50,000. The loss of many jobs can be avoided only if excessive pay deals are matched by increased productivity, and if we do not price ourselves out of markets, both at home and overseas.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of unemployment is distressing to all hon. Members and that the true answers are likely to be those rehearsed in 1975, and in other years, by the present Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition? Does he agree that we must reduce inflation and ensure that pay increases are in line with increases in productivity?
    Mr. Prior: I think that the whole House knows that spending our way out of the recession is an option that no longer exists. Experience of the past 15 years shows that each recession has started with unemployment at a higher level. We start this recession with about 700,000 more unemployed than existed at the beginning of the previous recession.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Does the Secretary of State realise that the figures announced today represent a 2 per cent increase in the North-West, and that much of that increase has occurred among textile workers, who are some of the lowest-paid workers in the country? How does he square a low-paid industry and rising unemployment with the Chancellor's belief that low wages mean more employment, which is what the right hon. Gentleman has just stated? If the country expects more than a brawl this afternoon, what can the right hon. Gentleman offer it?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that one of the great problems with Britain in recent years—including, unfortunately, the textile industry—is that our competitive position has declined. We are 50 per cent. less competitive as a nation in the things that we produce and have to sell than we were three years ago, and 70 per cent. of that is due to the fact that our wages have

    249
    increased faster than productivity. There is no escape for anyone in the House or in the country who believes anything else.
    Mr. Needham: Does my right hon. Friend accept that among the main reasons for these appalling figures are the lack of competitiveness and productivity in British industry, and that the present situation is just as much, if not more, the responsibility of the previous Administration as it is of the Government?
    Mr. Prior: All of us in this House, particularly those of us who have been here for a number of years, must accept our share of the blame for what has happened. I suggest that this afternoon we conduct our affairs in that manner.
    Mr. Varley: Is not the tragedy of today's unemployment figures the inevitable outcome of the dogmatic and doctrinaire policies which the Government have been pursuing over the past 14 months? It is no answer to tell the House of Commons that mass unemployment is the crude remedy for keeping wages under control. The Secretary of State professes to be very sorry about the situation, but the bleeding heart which he has displayed today will not provide the jobs for the people whom the Government's policies have thrown out of work.
    Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the unemployed—[Hon. Members "What has the Secretary of State done?"]—when he pretends that the problem can be put right simply by Government spending and changes in policy. To produce a few extra jobs now at the expense of prolonging our industrial weakness and producing fewer real soundly based jobs in the future is no help to the country or to the unemployed. Nor is it any help to this country for the right hon. Gentleman to throw accusations such as that across the Floor of the House when his record in government, whether he likes it or not, was no better than ours.
    Mr. Varley: Does the Secretary of State not accept that it is the responsibility of the Government—any Government, no matter what their ideology—to take some responsibility for the appalling figures that have been announced today? When will he use his minority voice in the Cabinet to ensure that these policies are changed?
    Mr. Prior: Of course it is the Government's responsibility, and I am prepared to accept that responsibility. However, I am also prepared to say to the country that I believe that this problem goes back further than 15 months. It probably goes back 15 or 20 years, and Labour Members know that as well as we do.

    Unregistered Vacancies
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the proportion of employment vacancies not registered at job centres; and what further proposals he has for reducing the proportion.
    Mr. Prior: The latest estimate I have of the proportion of employment vacancies not notified to the public employment service is based on a survey carried out by the Manpower Services Commission in 1977. The survey showed that over the period 7 April to 8 July 1977 about 34 per cent. of all vacancies were notified to the public employment service. The proportion of vacancies notified in areas served by jobcentres was about 42 per cent. compared with 30 per cent. in areas served by employment offices. Any increase in this proportion must depend on voluntary co-operation between local employers, jobcentres and employment offices, and I welcome efforts made by the MSC and hon. Members to encourage this.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that informed reply. Because of the importance of matching people to vacancies, will he personally supervise a continuing campaign to get many more employers to register vacancies—[Hon. Members: "What vacancies?"]—at jobcentres and other employment agencies? Do the statutory undertakers register their vacancies at jobcentres?
    Mr. Prior: Every encouragement should be given to employers, and I shall see what else can be done to register any vacancies at jobcentres. My hon. Friend will know that the number of vacancies in the economy at any time is about three times the number that is notified to job-centres. That shows that a good deal more can be done in this direction.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: What message would the right hon. Gentleman send to

    251
    the 597 platers and about 400 riggers in the Tyneside travel-to-work area, for whom in March there were three and nil registered vacancies respectively? What hope does he hold out for them and the other one in four males in my riverside wards who are currently unemployed?
    Mr. Prior: While recognising how serious the position is, particularly in places such as Newcastle, I must tell the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that, in the long run, the only way in which we can help places such as Newcastle, where there is high unemployment, is by getting more real jobs into the economy. That means getting Britain more competitive than it has been in the past 20 years.
    Mr. Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this question raises a paradox, because while there is a serious unemployment situation, the reason why many vacancies are not advertised at job-centres is that the skills are not available, and the employers know it? Will he do more to encourage people to be trained for particular tasks for which there are vacancies, especially to enable younger people to gain experience in the skills for which there are jobs?
    Mr. Prior: We ought to do everything that we can to make certain that the opportunities that are available in one area are transmitted to other jobcentres so that that information can be conveyed to such people. That we are seeking to do.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: As there are now nearly 1,900,000 people unemployed, and as there are likely to be 2 million next month, will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Prime Minister, who went to Wales on Saturday and told people to leave home to find jobs? Where in Britain can they find those jobs?
    Mr. Prior: No one is underestimating the problem of finding jobs. This situation has been with us now for a number of years—[Hon. Members: "No".]—and will remain with us for a number of years unless we tackle the basic problem in an old and at present decaying economy. We must do a great deal more if we are to get it right.

    Leicester
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is
    252
    the latest level of unemployment in the city of Leicester; and by what percentage it has increased since the same date in 1979.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): At 10 July the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the Leicester employment office was 14,084, an increase of 19.4 per cent. since July 1979.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that these are the worst figures since 1932? Is he aware that the Government are destroying the prosperity of cities such as Leicester throughout the country, which depend upon traditional industries such as hosiery, knitwear and footwear? Will he take steps to help all those cities that are suffering from these intolerable levels of unemployment, which demoralise their people, both young and old?
    Mr. Lester: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is also aware that these figures reflect the 178 per cent. increase in unemployment in his own city, which took place under the previous Government. If he does not like percentages, it represents 6,801 people. Of course we recognise that cities such as Leicester, which is part of the East Midlands have suffered considerably because of changes in the hosiery and knitwear industries. Schemes in the East Midlands have already cost £ 1.6 million in subsidising 99 projects. The simple fact is that that has not helped the hosiery industry. As my right hon. Friend said, the only thing that will help the hosiery and knitwear industries is if they produce the right products at the right price and market them effectively.
    Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the main causes of increasing unemployment in the Leicester area is the big increase in imports from unfairly competitive areas? Will he undertake to meet a deputation from the Leicester area, perhaps in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, so that these points can be put to him carefully, to ensure that the position is fully appreciated?
    Mr. Lester: I am prepared to join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade who, I think, is the best person to see, on the question of unfair trading,

    253
    dumping and import controls. The Secretary of State has made it clear that we shall act quickly and firmly on proven cases of dumping. We shall also act in cases of mis-labelling and similar types of cheating within the international market. Import controls, however, involve many problems. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the textile, hosiery and knitwear industries export £ 2,000 million worth of goods a year, and they could be affected by import controls.

    Birmingham
    Mr. Severasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are registered as unemployed at the Birmingham Soho Road employment office; and what percentage of that figure is constituted by ethnic minorities.
    Mr. Jim Lester: At 8 May, the latest date for which unemployment figures for ethnic minority group workers are available, the number of people registered as unemployed in the Handsworth employment office area was 4,729 of which 43.3 per cent were of ethnic minority origin.
    Mr. Sever: The Minister will be aware that this figure represents a substantial proportion of the local population on the dole in that area. Will he, with his right hon. and hon. Friends, undertake to introduce immediate policies designed to create jobs and employment opportunities in the centres of our big cities, especially to take in those who are disadvantaged in many respects, other than job opportunities, in the ethnic minorities?
    Mr. Lester: Yes. We take this matter seriously. One has to put this figure against the actual number in the ethnic minorities living in the community. The most reliable figure that I can obtain for the Handsworth area is that the ethnic minorities represent about 50 per cent. of the population. One has to judge the figures against that.
    The hon. Gentleman asks what can be done in inner cities to ease the problem. We are spending £ 16.1 million this year on the inner city programme for Birmingham of which this is part. Special schemes are being run by ethnic minorities in areas to help meet the problem. The TOPS measure is used considerably by ethnic minorities. In fact, 81 per cent. of those finishing TOPS courses in
    254
    March 1980 came from the ethnic minorities. All our measures, including the youth opportunities programme and the STEP programme, are designed for all races. [Hon. Members: "They are being cut."] They are not. The are being expanded in inner city areas.
    Mr. Snape: Is the Minister not aware that unemployment among black youths is the greatest social problem facing Handsworth and the adjacent borough of Sandwell? His reply is complacent. to say the least. The National Front is again rearing its ugly head in an attempt to stir up racial problems in the area. The hon. Gentleman should consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see what action the Government can take to solve the problem. At present, the Government appear to be contributing to it.
    Mr. Lester: I reject the charge of complacency. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear where we stand on the question of ethnic minorities within the community. The report on Handsworth, in terms of criminal acts and vandalism, was produced in 1977, during the period of the hon. Gentleman's own Government. I did not see any great action following that report.
    Mr. John Grant: A month ago, before today's appalling unemployment figures were announced, the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he would be taking new initiatives in this area. What has he been doing for the last month? Sleeping? Where are these new initiatives? What is he doing about the points raised with him by the Commission for Racial Equality on what is probably the most potentially explosive social issue arising over unemployment?
    Mr. Lester: The hon. Gentleman should know that instant solutions are not the answer. We met the Commission for Racial Equality and we are considering the paper that it put before us. It is essential that any schemes that are introduced are not racially orientated, but are available for all people.

    Industrial Training
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received the review of industrial training arrangements from the Manpower Services Commission.
    Mr. Prior: I understand that the Manpower Services Commission has today decided to publish next week the report of the review body on the working of the Employment and Training Act so far as it relates to the arrangements for the promotion of training for employment in industry and commerce.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the standard of industrial training leaves a great deal to be desired? Will he ensure that the proposals in the review are implemented speedily?
    Mr. Prior: We need to have consultations on the proposals in the review, which I hope will take place during the summer. I agree with my hon. Friend that training in this country leaves a lot to be desired. This covers young people, the whole apprenticeship system, the retraining of the unemployed and the up-training of people in work. We must ensure that when we get out of this recession we have enough skilled people to enable us to expand.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the industrial training boards have the powers and the funds to carry on the training of apprentices made redundant by firms that close during the recession?
    Mr. Prior: Three of the main boards—the engineering industry training board, the road transport industry training board and also, I think, the construction industry training board—have ample funds which they can use to continue the training of apprentices whose apprenticeships are interrupted by redundancy. In addition, the Government are increasing the number of apprentices whom they are helping to 25,000 this year. I shall be giving further details in answer to a later question.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State realise that unemployment in Scotland is twice that in South-East England, and 50 per cent. above that for the United Kingdom as a whole? While retraining is important—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to ask his question.
    Mr. Wilson: People in Scotland will draw their conclusions from the ill-mannered observations such as those that
    256
    have just been made by the Labour Party, showing its sensitivity and guilt.—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that provocative questions help no one. Questions on the issue will be welcomed.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Secretary of State realise that economic solutions are necessary? It is for the Government to come forward with those solutions, including the reflation of the economy of Scotland. Otherwise, the Government and their predecessors will be damned as having no interest in the Scottish people.
    Mr. Prior: I recognise the seriousness of the position in Scotland. I recognise too, that we have to put forward economic solutions. That is why it is no good simply pumping more money into the economy to add to the rate of inflation and, two years later, to add to the rate of unemployment. We have been down that course for too long. It simply will not work.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend initiate early discussions with the TUC and the CBI to improve the flexibility of training arrangements, as that might lead to an extension of the number of places available?
    Mr. Prior: The TUC and the CBI are, of course, represented on the Manpower Services Commission. I hope that in the autumn there will be an opportunity for a discussion in NEDC on the whole subject of training. Everyone recognises that it is unsatisfactory at the moment More needs to be done, and money needs to be spent in a more cost-effective way. That is what I am determined to see.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people will find it difficult to reconcile his professed concern at the Dispatch Box over the level and quality of training with the savage cuts that he has made in the money available for apprentice awards and the savage cuts in the training opportunities programme, which has been cut back from 99,000 in 1978 to 60,000 next year? Is it not the case that these cuts, like those in the job release scheme, in community industry, and in the special temporary employment programme have all contributed significantly to the disastrous unemployment figures?
    Mr. Prior: The cuts were in the proposed expenditure of the last Government, which they were never able to implement. They would never have done so. On the question of TOPS, the main cuts have been in clerical and commercial courses. Courses in computer and technical grades have been increased. The right hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong.

    Northern Region
    Dr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest unemployment figure for the Northen region.
    Mr. Jim Lester: At 10 July the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the Northern region was 157,198.
    Dr. Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that that means that for every two people out of work in the Northern region in May 1979 there are now three people out of work? Will the Government refrain from their Pontius Pilate act and start announcing new initiatives? If they cannot do that, will they move over and let someone else do the job?
    Mr. Lester: I realise that the figures are bad. As the hon. Member knows, I answered his Adjournment debate on this matter, and I have visited the North-East frequently. Perhaps the hon. Member does not realise that the employment service department placed 92,447 people in jobs. The Northern region gets more regional aid, in both absolute and per capita terms, than either Scotland or Wales.
    Sir William Elliott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in the Northern region believe that the greatest hope for increasing employment is for the Government to adhere to their anti-inflationary policies?
    Mr. Lester: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. There is no question but that inflation is the real job killer that puts the manufacturing sector in the Northern Region, as well as elsewhere, out of competition in world terms. That is why the jobs have gone from shipbuilding.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that last Friday 3,000 boys and
    258
    girls left school in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne? Is he also aware that 14 vacancies are recorded in the careers office? What crumb of comfort can he offer to the other 2,986 boys and girls? How can they increase their productivity?
    Mr. Lester: The crumb of comfort is the expansion of the youth opportunities programme. One of the reasons why the numbers of vacancies are falling is that those employers who are taking part in the youth opportunities programme and offering work experience are no longer advertising vacancies.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister tell his colleagues in the Department of Industry that these figures include big increases in rural areas of the North-East, from which development area status has been taken away? Will that removal of development area status be reviewed in the light of the high unemployment figures in areas such as rural Northumberland?
    Mr. Lester: The regional changes are designed to concentrate aid in the very areas that the hon. Member has mentioned. Changes have always been subject to review before being finally implemented.
    Mr. Lyell: Despite the well-known difficulties in the North-East, is there not a need for competitiveness? Is that not well illustrated by the efforts of British Shipbuilders in getting out and selling abroad and thereby managing to achieve orders equal to the hoped-for base load of 45 ships three months ahead of time?
    Mr. Lester: We are talking about the Northern region, not just Newcastle. I could add to the record of the shipbuilders that of Carreras-Rothman, which is building a second factory and expanding in the Northern region, British Nuclear Fuels, Spillers in Cumbria and Findus in Newcastle. In spite of all the difficulties, things are moving.

    Pickering and Closed Shops
    Mr. Needhamasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to issue the code of practice on picketing and the closed shop.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr Patrick Mayhew): My

    259
    right hon. Friend expects to publish consultative drafts of these codes as soon as the Employment Bill receives the Royal Assent. After consultations he intends to seek Parliament's approval for the codes as soon as it reassembles after the Summer Recess and to issue the approved codes as soon as possible thereafter.
    Mr. Needham: Will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House what process of consultation he intends to undertake, and with what parties, before the introduction of the codes?
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend intends to follow the process of consultation that he followed on the working paper on which the Bill is based. He will consult bodies such as ACAS, the CBI, the TUC and all bodies representing the police. We hope that as many people and organisations as possible will advise us on these codes.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that if a code of practice appears to the work force to be patently biased, and if it is backed by the powers of law and order, that will quickly bring the powers of law and order into disrepute with the ordinary person who is trying to operate successful relationships with management?
    Mr. Mayhew: Of course if a code practice appears to be patently biased people will not pay much attention to it. We are determined that the codes will not be biased but will provide greatly needed guidance about the conducting of picket lines. Picket lines with mass pickets are intimidatory.
    Mr. John MacKay: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in the Central region of Scotland employees have had two ballots on the closed shop? In the first one, all the employees who were balloted rejected the closed shop. The union leaders and the Socialist council did not like that so they held another ballot, concentrating on the NALGO members only. The second ballot also rejected the closed shop. Will the code of practice stop that kind of gerrymandering, with one ballot after another until the unions get the result that they want? Will that not put even more people in the dole queues because they do not want to join a union?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am well aware of the ballots to which my hon. Friend has referred. I am glad that the second attempt, which restricted the ballot to existing members of the trade union only, was rejected by the members of that union. We have, in another place, amended the Employment Bill to prevent that stratagem of taking the ballot only from the members of the trade union. We shall consider very carefully the provisions in the codes of practice.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Why is the Minister worried about the closed shop? If the present rate of unemployment continues all the workshops will be closed anyway.
    Mr. Mayhew: The Government worry about the closed shop because they dislike it as a particular illustration of the dangers of infringing personal liberty—[Hon. Members: "What about the right to work?"]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must listen to the reply.
    Mr. Mayhew: In that context the Government share the concern of large numbers of trade union members.
    Mr. Varley: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that the people who are destroying liberty are himself and his colleagues in the Government, who are destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This only wastes Question Time.
    Mr. Mayhew: I believe that Parliament's proper concern for unemployment and for jobs should extend beyond the unemployed to those who have jobs to go to and only need to be allowed to get to them. [Hon. Members "Out, out."]

    School Leavers
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will instruct the Manpower Services Commission to make use of surplus places in training establishments for short courses of instruction for unemployed school leavers where such courses leads to the employment of such young persons; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Prior: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission—[Interruption.] May I continue, Mr. Speaker?

    261
    I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that substantial use—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we must protect our parliamentary traditions. [Interruption.] In all circumstances we should protect our parliamentary traditions. The Minister should be heard.
    Mr. Prior: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that substantial use is already made of surplus places in training establishments for short training courses under the youth opportunities programme. I hope that it will be possible to do more.
    Mr. Dempsey: Does the Secretary of State realise that thousands of school leavers in Scotland who have never had a job are applying for short courses of instruction and are being turned down on the ground that the Manpower Services Commission does not have the resources to train them? Is the Secretary of State further aware that the evidence shows that 70 out of each 100 who are trained find jobs? Is it not about time that he ended this outrageous state of affairs by investing in the most important capital of all—human capital?
    Mr. Prior: We have increased the youth opportunities programme this year by 50,000 places. If more needs to be done, we shall do more. The increase will involve a large element of training including, for most young people who are unable to get a job and therefore have one of the programmes available, at least one day a week in training in further education colleges or training establishments.
    Mr.Madel: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that every effort is made by the Manpower Services Commission to ensure a 100 per cent. take-up of the expanding youth opportunities programme? Will he also ensure that the quality of the programme is improved, particularly in relation to work experience on employer's premises?
    Mr. Prior: Yes. The Manpower Services Commission has learnt a great deal in the last two years about how to improve its schemes, their quality, and the length of time that young people are involved in them. It is aware of the need for the second guarantee, which is that
    262
    people who are unemployed for a year or more have a chance to take part in a further scheme. We are looking to see whether there are other ways in which we can improve the schemes for young people, and whether we can improve the content of the schemes.
    Mr. Woolmer: As nearly 2 million people are unemployed and the CBI has predicted that up to 3 million will be unemployed in the next two or three years, is it not obvious that the only hope for our young people is for the Government to stop blaming other people, face their responsibilities and change their disastrous economic policies, in order to create real jobs that will last?
    Mr. Prior: Did the hon. Gentleman read what the CBI said? If he had he would have noted that it said that 2,500,000 could be unemployed if we continued to pay ourselves more than we earn and become less competitive?
    Mr. Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend begin discussions with the trade unions to try to persuade them to change their nineteenth century attitude to people who have been trained or retrained in skill-centres, but who they refuse to accept as skilled men?
    Mr. Prior: In most cases there is good co-operation with the trade unions in the use of people from skillcentres. In some cases that is not so. Generally, in training, work experience and employment we shall need all the co-operation that we can get, even from the Opposition, in the next year.

    Inner London Area
    Mr. Dabsasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in the inner London area compared with one year ago.
    Mr. Jim Lester: For inner London, taken as the employment office areas in the Inner London Education Authority area, the numbers registered as unemployed at July 1980 and July 1979 were 89,682 and 73,208, respectively. The July 1980 figure is provisional.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that in the South-East as a whole, according to the figures published today, unemployment is 30 per cent. above the figure for

    263
    last year and that unemployment among school leavers is 55 per cent. above last year's figure? Does he accept that behind the figures there is the reality of a generation of young people who have been rejected by this society?
    Mr. Lester: I do not accept that the reality is that society has rejected these young people. I accept that we must deal with an enormous bulge in the birth rate in the next four to five years. We cannot expand industrial production to match the birth rate. That is why we have expanded the youth opportunities programme and the training programmes.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that, even though the increase in unemployment in London is distressing, young people in London are better placed than many people in the Midlands and the North? Since unemployment is likely to take up a large part of Prime Minister's Question Time, would it not serve the House if the Leader of the Opposition came in at the end of Prime Minister's Questions, rather than at the beginning?
    Mr. Lester: I support what my hon. Friend says. In London there are 29,062 vacancies advertised in jobcentres, and that represents only one-third of the vacancies.
    Mr. John Grant: Do Ministers realise that they may have succeeded beyond all expectations in creating one nation—one nation that is now undivided by the misery of mass unemployment? Is he aware that that extends to London and the South-East? Is he aware also that in Islington unemployment is 16 per cent. up on last month and that more than 9,000 people are registered as unemployed? When will the Secretary of State stop posing as the "Mr. Clean" of the Cabinet and realise that if he is to cleanse himself he must publicly dissociate himself from the Government's policies and quit the Cabinet?
    Mr. Lester: Nobody underestimates the seriousness of the unemployment figures. One would think, from the figures given, that we had forgotten that 22 million people are still in work.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 July.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)rose—
  Horn. Members: Resign. Disgraceful.
  The Prime Ministerrose—
  Hon. Members: Resign.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that we serve ourselves much better if we listen to answers before we start shouting.
  The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience with Her Majesty the Queen after attending the garden party at Buckingham Palace.
  Mr. Baker: Deeply distressing though today's unemployment figures are, are they not due largely to the fact that wage costs are rising at a much faster rate than those of our competitors? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a reduction in unemployment will come only when the level of wage settlements has been substantially reduced and output increased?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the main reasons for today's distressing unemployment figures is that we have paid ourselves far more than other countries—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish."]—for doing the same job. Consequently, we have lost some of the business and they have some of the jobs.
  Mr. David Steel: In the light of today's unemployment figures, does the Prime Minister still stick to the view that she proclaimed at the weekend, that her Government are not deliberately creating unemployment? If that is her view, is not the only alternative explanation that she does not understand the consequences of her actions?
  The Prime Minister: The Government have made fighting inflation their top priority. [Hon. Members: "At what cost?"] Inflation has peaked at a very much lower level than it did under the

  265
  previous Labour Government. It is inevitable that in fighting inflation a short-term increase in unemployment is involved. The alternative is to print money and have a very much bigger increase in unemployment in the long run, which we will not do.
  Sir Paul Bryan: Has my right hon. Friend noted that one in four of the resolutions submitted to the Labour Party conference advocates nuclear disarmament? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the Labour Party's most recent document—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is right. The hon. Gentleman must question the Prime Minister on those matters for which she is responsible. I do not think that the right hon. lady claims responsibility for anything that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned so far.
  Sir Paul Bryan: Under the circumstances, is my right hon. Friend relying for the success of the Trident missile policy, which goes over 20 or 30 years, on the hope that future Labour leaders will, once they are in office, support the nuclear deterrent, as the Leader of the Opposition did when he was in office?
  The Prime Minister: We have made our announcement that we intend to purchase the Trident missile from the United States. That is in redemption of a pledge made at the last election that our independent nuclear deterrent must be kept continuously effective. We believe that that is the best way of defending those values which we all hold dear.
  Mr. Golding: Is the Prime Minister aware that not only the appalling rise in unemployment but the increase in short-time working is bringing deep anxiety and insecurity throughout the country? Is she aware also that there is no possiblity of increasing productivity on the shop floor against that background of anxiety for jobs? Consequently, will she restore the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, the job release scheme, the special temporary employment programme and the other special measures to the levels at which they were 15 months ago, when there were much lower levels of unemployment?
  The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's basic premise. We have to reduce unit labour costs in this country if we are to reduce unemployment, and the best way is to increase output per person. The only way to do that is on the shop floor by arrangements between management and work people. Unless we do it, we shall not recover competitiveness. It is no earthly good looking for some miracle formula. There is none, except increasing productivity.
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I recognise that the latest unemployment figures are very grave, not least for my constituency, which is an engineering city, but will my right hon. Friend impress upon the nation that any real, lasting and fundamental improvement must depend on us, as a trading nation, competing with the best industrial nations in the world?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the problems in the past three years has been the loss of competitiveness of our manufacturing industry. We have become 50 per cent. less competitive than those other industrial countries, and the main factor in that is high increased wages not matched by increased output.
  Q2. Mr. Dormandasked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 22 July.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.
  Mr. Dormand: When the Prime Minister visits Buckingham Palace today, will she submit her resignation, before her policies turn the Northern region into an industrial desert? Has the right hon. Lady seen today's figures, which place the region even more firmly at the top of the unemployment league? Before she starts blaming the world recession, may I ask whether she is aware that it is her Government's regional policies that are causing a collapse of business confidence in the region, that it is her Government who have stopped the dispersal of civil servants to the North, and that her Government have not given any encouragement to establish an Inmos manufacturing unit in the region? Will the Prime Minister show not only some compassion but intelligence in dealing with the North?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is "No, Sir". We have put as our top priority fighting inflation. That means short-term unemployment. That unemployment is made worse in so far as people pay themselves more than the value of goods that they produce. Until we stop doing that, and pay ourselves approximately the value of goods that we produce, we shall not cure unemployment and get genuine lasting jobs.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I support my right hon. Friend's overall economic strategy, and an eminent economist has today predicted that inflation in this country will come down to single figures in 1982, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to allow our industrial base to be undermined and destroyed before her policies come to fruition? Will she, therefore, if the unemployment position continues to deteriorate, consider introducing selective temporary import controls to ensure that we have a lasting industrial base upon which to build?
  The Prime Minister: Where there is a case against dumping, we take it up vigorously in Brussels, and we shall continue to do so. In textiles, we operate 400 quotas on exports from other countries. But in general there are many jobs in exports in this country, and if we were to have general import controls, which I realise my hon. Friend is not asking for, we should lose more jobs than we should gain.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Lady take the opportunity today and every day to make clear to the country, as only she can, that the courses that are being commended to her by the official Opposition and by many other voices mean nothing but a deliberate return to hyper-inflation?
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that hon. Members have got over their surprise, they should listen quietly.
  The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. One cannot create genuine jobs on printed money. That way, one produces only suitcase money and even higher unemployment.
  Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the high level of the exchange rate is damaging exports at present, and will she therefore consider using methods which have been used in Switzerland? Will she consider having in this country either a different level of interest rates or an investment surcharge against large-scale financial deposits in this country, which are driving up our exchange rate? She would thereby stimulate more exports and more jobs.
  The Prime Minister: I accept what my hon. Friend is saying, that a number of manufacturers are worried about the high exchange rate. I do not believe that it is possible for us to follow the same scheme as the Swiss. Ours is a considerable trading currency, and theirs is not, Here there would be ways round the methods that my right hon. Friend proposes which are not available in Switzerland. I believe that we shall have to use the high exchange rate to become more and more competitive.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you ensure that all hon. Members, however exalted they may think they are, address the Chair, so that other hon. Members may hear?
  Q3. Mr Dubsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 22 July.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some time ago.
  Mr. Dubs: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in the light of the unemployment figures, this day will be called "Black Tuesday" throughout the country? Can she tell the House when the increase in unemployment will cease?
  The Prime Minister: I have steadfastly set my face against forecasting either unemployment or inflation reductions, except for the inflation reductions that come from reduced VAT. I do not wish to depart from that practice.
  Mr. James Callaghan: In view of the seriousness with which everybody views the situation, does it not appear that the failure of the Government's policies, at any rate over their first 15 months, and the unprecedented rapidity of the growth of unemployment, should lead the Prime

  269
  Minister to consider alternative policies? Does she not recognise that a reduction of interest rates, as suggested by her hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), an expansion of the economy and an increase in public expenditure could avoid much of what is happening? Is she aware that if only she could bring herself to co-operate with the trade unions she could get a response that would enable her to achieve the success that the Labour Government achieved in their period of office?
  The Prime MinisterWhat the right hon. Gentleman is advocating is deficit financing to produce artificial jobs, leading to higher unemployment. That is a course which he rejected when in office, until his final year, and it is a course which I reject, because it would lead to hyper-inflation and hyper-unemployment.
  Mr. Callaghan: Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that she has deficit financing now, to the tune of £ 10 billion, and that it should be increased Does it ever occur to her that she is, or possibly could be, wrong about these matters? In the interests of all concerned, I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider her policies. As we have been warned by the Secretary of State for Employment, unemployment will increase even further, and the right hon. Lady should depart from the policy that she has adopted of attempting to control prices simply by closing factories and throwing people out of work.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has rejected every fundamental tenet that he espoused in office about how to tackle inflation and unemployment. He said that we could not spend ourselves out of a recession. I recognise that he is concerned, as I am, about the increase in unemployment over the past 14 months. I must remind him that it is not the largest increase in unemployment between May and July of successive years. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to hear the Prime Minister's reply. The House is entitled to hear her reply.
  The Prime Minister: The largest increase in unemployment between the May of one year and the July of the next year came between May 1975 and July
  270
  1976, when unemployment rose by 613,000 or 72 per cent. Shortly after that, the right hon. Gentleman went to the Labour Party conference and said:
  "Quite simply and unequivocally, it is caused by paying ourselves more than the value of what we produce."
  That was true then. It is true now.
  Mr Callaghan: After all the cheering by Conservative Members, the plain truth is that there are 1.9 million people out of work in this country, and the figure is going higher. The House must have an opportunity to debate the matter. Is it not the case that men and women and young boys and girls are being thrown out of work through no fault of their own? They are being abandoned by the Government as a result of their policies. The Opposition will put down a motion of censure on the Government shortly.
  Hon. Members: Resign.
  The Prime Minister: I am as concerned as is the right hon. Gentleman, particularly about the increase in the number of young people who are unemployed. That is why we have increased expenditure on the youth opportunities programme from £ 69 million during the right hon. Gentleman's final year of office to £ 183 million this year.

MEMBERS' SALARIES AND PENSIONS (DEBATE)
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about our proceedings last night. I have been asked by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) for an explanation of how the Question came to be put on his amendment to the motion on Members' salaries and pensions. I think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to such an explanation.
After the conclusion of the first four speeches in the debate on the motion it was clear that there was a strong desire on both sides of the House to proceed to decide on the various propositions before the House. It was not a unanimous desire, and on two occasions I refused to accept a motion for the closure. On the third occasion, since the calls for a vote continued strongly, I agreed that the matter should be put to the vote, and the closure was carried by the convincing margin of 257 votes to 33.

271
Since the Question formally before the House was the main Question, strictly speaking that Question should thereupon have been put to the vote. However, to have done so would have excluded a vote on all the amendments to the motion that I had selected. I therefore felt justified in deeming that the hon. Member for Fife, Central had moved his amendment, being the first due for decision, and I put the Question on that amendment. In that way, it was possible for the House to proceed to decide on all the subsequent amendments in the way originally intended.
The circumstances last night were unprecedented. I took a decision on my own responsibility, as the House expects its Speaker to do. I consider that what I did was justified. It gave the House an opportunity to register its opinion. In a similar situation I would do the same again.
Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that the House is much more concerned about the serious matters that we have just been discussing, but our procedures are also matters of considerable importance.
You said, Mr. Speaker, that in similar circumstances you would make a similar decision, namely, put the closure motion to the House, but may I suggest, with the greatest respect, that you should consider making a fresh statement to the House on that matter? If you propose to do as you suggest it will be an incitement to hon. Members to produce a closure by creating a considerable din—and din can be created in various ways in the House.
I am in favour of protecting the rights of Back Benchers, and some other hon. Members should also wish to protect them. I suggest that the way to protect the rights of Back Benchers and the House as a whole is to stand by our normal procedures on the operation of the closure.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) for what he said. I shall consider his remarks.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of those who did not want the closure to be carried last night, my view is diametrically opposed to that of the Shadow
272
Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot). The flexibility shown last night was welcomed by most of the House. If similar circumstances arise again I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether it might be possible for the occupant of the Chair to obtain an indication from the deemed mover of the amendment whether he would be willing to move it formally before the closure is put.
Mr, Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for making that statement, although I am dissatisfied with it. In my long years of service in the House it has been unknown to me for any Speaker to deem that an hon. Member has moved something that he has not moved. That denied me my fundamental rights in the House. The prime duty of Mr. Speaker is to protect the interests of Back-Bench Members. That was not seen to be done last night. I wrote to you because I wished to prevent that action from becoming a precedent. Your statement seems to imply that you will create a precedent. You said that you would repeat the process on a similar occasion. That would be regrettable.
Mr. Speaker: I considered last night, and I still consider today, that in view of the circumstances it was my duty to ensure that the House had an opportunity to vote on the issues on which it was anxious to vote. To that extent I did what my predecessors, Speaker Dennison, Speaker Brand, Speaker Gulley and others did when faced with an entirely new position—I reacted in the interests of the House as I believed them to be.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I see that five hon. Members wish to raise points of order. I shall take those points and reply to them collectively.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not procedure the instrument of the House and not its master? When it became plain, as it did last night, that the House wished to pursue a certain course—a course that was not oppressive to those moving amendments, because three out

273
of the five amendments were carried—was it not right to act as you did and set that precedent, which need not be slavishly followed in future but should be an instrument whereby the wishes of the House could be adhered to?
Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While understanding that your statement related to what happened last night—we all hope that such a necessity will not recur—I point out that Standing Order No. 30 states that the Question "That the Question be now put" shall be put forthwith unless it appears to the Chair
"that such a motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority".
A Question accepted before an amendment that has been selected by the Chair is moved could be an infringement of the rights of the minority. Until the Question is put one does not know the minority view. I ask your assurance that, in all normal circumstances, that will be your interpretation of Standing Order No. 30.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. We must seek to protect the rights of minorities. Those in the House last night—and there was a good attendance—knew that there was an overwhelming feeling, which was reflected in the Lobby. I hope that the circumstances described do not arise again.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a different point of order, based on two points. First, we heard a statement that I would have challenged had I been given the opportunity of questioning the Prime Minister about the statement of the Northern Ireland Member supporting the Government's public expenditure cuts and other
274
policies, which have created havoc in the economic life of Northern Ireland.
Secondly, we heard the outrageous statement that nearly 85,000 are unemployed in Northern Ireland—the most depressed region of the United Kingdom. Should not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have been here to answer to the House for that disgraceful position? So many people are unemployed, and many more face the prospect of unemployment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot instruct Ministers to attend the House.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of the House, will you provide a set of statistics about the amounts of grants given to Northern Ireland? The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made it clear that he is against any pump priming of public expenditure. We have never been impressed by his attempts to stop money going to Northern Ireland. I would like that list to be placed in the Library.
Mr. Speaker: I have been tolerant. The hon. Gentleman knows how valid is his point of order.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 8) Regulations 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc.
That the draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (REFERENDA)
3.47 pm
Mr. Archie Hamilton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer a right on a specified proportion of a local government electorate to demand referenda on local government matters.
The purpose of the Bill is to allow district and regional local authority electors in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to put forward propositions that become subject to referenda held at the same time as local elections. I do not have to remind the House that referenda have already been held at national level on such subjects as devolution and our membership of the Common Market. In Northern Ireland a referendum was held about the future state of the Province. The subject of the polls has, quite rightly, been restricted to matters of constitutional importance, but, in addition, parish councils have the right to hold opinion polls on matters of local concern. That right was granted under the Local Government Act 1972.
Local government referenda would be a natural extension of existing provisions. They would give electors at all levels the opportunity to vote in referenda, and would considerably enhance the democratic process. Some people are worried about the cost of the referenda. It would be kept to a minimum by having propositions listed on ballot papers at election times. The referenda would not be held in isolation, but would limit the expense to extra stationery and the additional time spent by officials at the count.
I recognise that that would give an unfair advantage to electors who vote for a percentage of their councillors in each year. That is something with which we shall have to live. There is clearly a risk that the returning officer will be swamped with a large number of propositions, including many that may be thought frivolous. To control that, and to avoid great administrative problems, the Bill requires that propositions shall be petitioned by at least 10 per cent. of the electorate concerned. That means that petitions will have to be signed by between 2,000 and 20,000 electors in district councils, between 10,000 and 20,000 electors in Lon-
276
don boroughs, and 500,000 electors in the Greater London Council.
Another problem that has to be overcome is the wording of the proposition. Much in the same way as hon. Members need to seek advice from the Table Office on the suitability of questions to Ministers, or the wording of petitions, so we would have the same problem with propositions. It is important to ensure that the propositions are worded in such a way that they apply to local authorities and ask them to do things that they are capable of doing. The wording should be agreed with officers of the local councils, but, perish the thought, it might be that those local councils would fail to agree on the wording of the proposition simply to delay its passage. In these circumstances there would be a right of appeal to local ombudsmen, who would then decide.
I have also given great thought to the question whether the results of these referenda should be binding and compulsory, but I have been very much influenced by the fact that at national level referenda are not binding, and I feel that in practice it would be better if councils were not bound by the decisions of referenda, as they would feel compelled to meet the wishes of the electorate. The Bill, therefore, will not make the results of referenda binding. In the case of this privilege being abused, there is always the opportunity to legislate further at a later time.
Hon. Members may ask why it is necessary and why the existing local electorate system is not adequate. The reality is that in this country there is much more interest in Parliament than there is in local government. Such is the loyalty inspired by the political leadership in this place that people are liable to vote along party lines. Such is the interest held in what happens in this place that people who join in local elections use them to express their approval or disapproval of central Government. Indeed, the turnout in local elections has only once averaged more than 40 per cent. in the last 15 years.
This lack of interest in local government does not extend to other local things. Local newspapers and local radio stations have demonstrated their outstanding success, and the sense of community in this country is undoubtedly

277
growing. If people feel more involved in the process of making decisions on local issues that affect them they will take their democratic responsibilities more seriously. Referenda will improve communication between local councillors and their electors. If the decision, for instance, to spend millions of pounds on a new town hall in Southwark, one of London's poorest boroughs, had been put to a referendum, it would have provided a great opportunity to debate the subject with the people who would have to foot the bill.
One wonders what the electors of Lambeth feel about Mr. Ted Knight spending their money like one of Queen Victoria's maharajas. They might not like the fact that Lambeth has a similar population to Wandsworth but spends £ 83 million to Wandsworth's £ 51 million, and that Lambeth employs 10,200 people—500 more than a year ago—while Wandsworth employs 7,200, which is 1,000 down over the last two years. On the other hand, Lambeth electors may enjoy paying rates that are 50 per cent. higher than the rates of their neighbours in Wandsworth. They may like to see their town hall well staffed. I do not know, and nobody knows, but

Division No. 420]

AYES

[3.53 pm

Adley, Robert

Freud, Clement

Penhaligon, David

Alexander, Richard

Fry, Peter

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Alton, David

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Rhodes James, Robert

Ancram, Michael

Greenway, Harry

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Arnold, Tom

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

Banks, Robert

Grylls, Michael

Rost, Peter

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Beith, A. J.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Skeet, T.H. H.

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Hastings, Stephen

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Biggs-Davison, John

Haynes, Frank

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Heddle, John

Speller, Tony

Bowden, Andrew

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Stainton, Keith

Bright, Graham

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Brotherton, Michael

Kilfedder, James A.

Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Knight, Mrs Jill

Temple-Morris, Peter

Butcher, John

Lawrence, Ivan

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Lee, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Canavan, Dennis

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Cockeram, Eric

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Colvin, Michael

Loveridge, John

Wall, Patrick

Costain, Sir Albert

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Ward, John

Dickens, Geoffrey

McQuade, John

Whitney, Raymond

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Winterton, Nicholas

English, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Fell, Anthony

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Mudd, David

Mr. Bob Dunn and

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Mr. Viscount Cranborne.

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Pawsey, James

NOES

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Ashton, Joe

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Brinton, Tim

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

Bennett. Andrew (Stockport N)

Brown, Robert C (Newcastle W)

nobody ever will know until local government referenda give people the opportunity to make their wishes clear.
Mr. Stan Thorne Mr. Stan Thorne (Preston, South) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Member risen to oppose the Bill?
3.53 pm
Mr. Thorne: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is not my intention to make a lengthy speech. It seems to me that we either accept that we ought to be governed by a Government—local or national—who are elected through the ballot box on a democratic basis, or that there is some way, from time to time, through some sort of political contrivance, by which we can resort to referenda. I happen to believe that the latter method is not desirable and that the former must be upheld. On that basis, I suggest that the House ought to reject the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 124.

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Goodlad, Alastair

Newens, Stanley

Campbell, Ian

Graham, Ted

O'Halloran, Michael

Cartwright, John

Grant, George (Morpeth)

O'Neill, Martin

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Cocks.Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Palmer, Arthur

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Hardy, Peter

Parry, Robert

Corrle, John

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Heffer, Eric S.

Radice, Giles

Oyer, Bob

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Richardson, Jo

Dalyell, Tam

Hooley, Frank

Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)

Davidson, Arthur

Hudson Davies, Gwllym Ednyfed

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Shearman, Barry

Dempsey, James

Janner, Hon Greville

Short, Mrs Reneé

Dewar, Donald

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Skinner, Dennis

Dixon, Donald

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

Dobson, Frank

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Speed, Keith

Dormand, Jack

Kinnock, Neil

Stevens, Martin

Dubs, Alfred

Litherland, Robert

Stoddart, David

Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

McCartney, Hugh

Straw, Jack

Eadie, Alex

McElhone, Frank

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Eastham, Ken

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

McKelvey, William

Trippier, David

Eggar, Timothy

McNamara, Kevin

Varley, Rt Hon Eric Q.

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

McWilliam, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Emery, Peter

Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)

Watkins, David

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Watson, John

Evans, John (Newton)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Weetch, Kan

Ewing, Harry

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Welsh, Michael

Farr, John

Maxton, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Flannery, Martin

Mikardo, Ian

Woodall, Alec

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Miltan, Rt Hon Bruce

Woolmer, Kenneth

Forrester, John

Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

Wright, Sheila

Foster, Derek

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Molyneaux, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Mr. Russell Kerr and

George, Bruce

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Mr. Stan Thorne.

Golding, John

Morton, George

Question accordingly negatived.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 7

  EXECUTION IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF WARRANTS FOR IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF FINE.
  'After section 38 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 there shall be inserted the following section—
  " Execution in different parts of United Kingdom of warrants for imprisonment for non-payment of fine.
  38A.—(1) Subject to subsection (6) below, a person against whom an extract conviction is issued in Scotland for imprisonment in default of payment of a fine may be arrested—

  (a) in England and Wales, by any constable acting within his police area;

  (b) in Northern Ireland, by any member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve;

  and subsections (4) and (5) of section 159 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (execution without possession of the warrant and execution on Sunday) shall apply to the execution in Northern Ireland of any such extract conviction as those subsections apply in relation to the execution of a warrant for arrest.
  (2) Subject to subsection (6) below, a person against whom there has been issued in England, Wales or Northern Ireland a warrant committing him to prison in default of payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction may be arrested in Scotland, by any constable appointed for a police area, in like manner as if the warrant were an extract conviction for imprisonment issued in Scotland in default of payment of a fine.
  (3) A person arrested by virtue of subsection (1) above under an extract conviction or by virtue of subsection (2) above under a warrant of commitment may be detained under it in any prison in the part of the United Kingdom in which he was arrested; and while so detained he shall be treated for all purposes as if he were detained under a warrant of commitment or extract conviction issued in that part of the United Kingdom.
  (4) An extract conviction or a warrant for commitment may be executed by virtue of this section whether or not it has been endorsed under section 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act 1881 or under section 27 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851.
  (5) In this section 'fine' includes any sum treated by any enactment as a fine for the purposes of its enforcement and sum to be found as caution; 'imprisonment' includes,
  282
  in the case of a person who is under the age of 21 years, detention; 'part of the United Kingdom' means England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland; 'prison' means—

  (i) in the case of a person who is under the age of 21 years arrested in Scotland, a young offenders institution; and

  (ii) in the case of a person under that age arrested in Northern Ireland, a young offenders centre; and

  'sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction' has the meaning given by section 150 (3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 or, in Northern Ireland, section 169 (2) of the Magistrates* Courts (Northern Ireland) Act 1964.
  (6) This section shall not apply to the arrest of persons under the age of 17 years.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.4 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 132 to 135 and Government amendment No. 171.
  Mr. Rifkind: This new clause and the associated amendments seek to make reciprocal provision between Scotland and England and Wales, and between Scotland and Northern Ireland for two purposes which I think will be acceptable to the House.
  First, it is proposed that warrants of apprehension and imprisonment in respect of defaulters may be executed in the other jurisdiction without the procedure of backing that would otherwise be required. Secondly, it is proposed that imprisonment following thereon may be served locally in a prison of the jurisdiction in which the defaulter is apprehended. In other words, if a person is fined in Scotland and does not pay that fine and is apprehended in England, at present he is often required to be brought back to Scotland, which obviously involves considerable expense and complexity. It is more sensible that, wherever the offender is found, the penalty should be imposed in that jurisdiction. The new clause and the associated amendments provide for that.
  These proposals could have been put before the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but as they have an indirect effect on other parts of the United Kingdom it is clearly appropriate

  283
  that they should be dealt with at this stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House. I hope that these amendments, which are largely technical and non-controversial, will be acceptable to the House as a sensible improvement, in line with the Thomson recommendations on the matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

  HOMOSEXUAL OFFENCES
  '(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a homosexual act in private shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of twenty-one years.
  (2) A male person who is suffering from mental deficiency which is of such a nature or degree that he is incapable of living an independent life or of guarding himself against serious exploitation cannot in law give any consent which, by virtue of subsection (1) above, would prevent a homosexual act from being an offence, but a person shall not be convicted on account of the incapacity of such a male person to consent, of an offence consisting of such an act if he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that male person to be suffering from such mental deficiency.
  (3) Section 97 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 (prohibition on men on the staff of a hospital, or otherwise having responsibility for mental patients, having sexual intercourse with women patients) shall have effect as if any reference therein to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman included a reference to committing a homosexual act
  (4) Subsection (1) above shall not prevent a homosexual act from being an offence under any provision of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957.
  (5) In this section, "a homosexual act" means sodomy or an act of gross indecency by one male person with another male person.
  (6) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) above, it shall be an offence to commit or to be party to the commission of, or to procure or attempt to procure the commission of a homosexual act—

  (a) in public,

  (b) without the consent of any party to the act;

  (c) with a person under the age of twenty-one years; or

  (d) where the act is committed on board a United Kingdom merchant ship wherever it may be, by a male person who is a member of the crew of that ship with another male
  284
  person who is a member of the crew of that ship or any other United Kingdom merchant ship.

  (7) In this section, "member of the crew" in relation to a ship, includes the master of the ship; "United Kingdom merchant ship" means a ship registered in the United Kingdom habitually used or used at the time of the alleged offence for the purposes of carrying passengers or goods for reward.
  (8) It shall be an offence to procure or attempt to procure the commission of a homosexual act between two other male persons.
  (9) From the commencement of this section a person who commits or is party to the commission of an offence under subsection (6) of subsection (8) above shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both and on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 289B of the 1975 Act).
  (10) It shall be a defence to a charge of committing a homosexual act under subsection (6) (c) above that the person so charged being under the age of 24 years who had not previously been charged with like offence, had reasonable cause to believe that the other person was of or above the age of twenty-one years.
  (11) A person who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of another from male prostitution or who solicits or importunes any male person for th purpose of procuring the commission of a homosexual act within the meaning of subsection (5) above shall be liable:

  (a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or

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

  (12) Premises shall be treated for the purposes of sections 13 and 14 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 as a brothel if people resort to it for the purpose of homosexual acts within the meaning of subsection (5) above in circumstances in which resort thereto for heterosexual practices would have led to its being treated as a brothel for the purposes of those sections.
  (13) No proceedings for an offence to which this subsection applies shall be commenced after the expiration of twelve months from the date on which that offence was committed. This subsection applies to:

  (a) the offences mentioned in subsections (6) and (8) above; and

  (b) any offence under subsection (11) above which consists of soliciting or importuning any male person for the purpose of procuring the commission of a homosexual act.'.—[Mr. Cook.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may take amendment No. 131, in schedule 8, page 101, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 7.'.
  Mr. Cook: The effect of the new clause and the associated amendment will be to remove from the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 the section that makes homosexual acts a criminal offence in Scotland. The objective of the clause is to end the absurd situation where what is accepted behaviour in one part of the United Kingdom remains a criminal offence in another part of the United Kingdom. The new clause is based on the Bill that was introduced by Lord Boothby in another place in 1977. In the course of its Committee stage that Bill became the object of a number of amendments that were moved by the then Labour Government and that were intended to tidy up the drafting of the Bill The Bill also received a substantial endorsement from their Lordships on Second Reading.
  We can be reasonably confident that the drafting of the new clause is competent, because it received the attention of Government draftsmen at that time. I assure the House that this new clause is already acceptable to their Lordships, and if the House endorses it today we shall not witness a repetition of yesterday's unfortunate scene, when their Lordships rejected an amendment passed by this House and the roof promptly caved in on them.
  The terms of the new clause are modest. I believe that if they prove controversial it will be because they do not go far enough, rather than because of what they attempt to do. I refer particularly to one detail of the new clause about which I have some reservations. In the new clause we have adopted the age of 21 as the age of consent. I have doubts whether 21 is an appropriate age of consent in this day and age.
  In its report 25 years ago, the Wolfenden committee chose the age of 21 because it was the age of legal majority. Since then, the House, in its wisdom, has adopted the age of 18 as the age of legal majority, and on the same criterion it would seem appropriate to reconsider the age of consent in the new clause on the
  286
  same basis. However, I recognise that that would be a controversial move, and therefore I confine the new clause to the age of consent of 21, because I am anxious to present the House with a clause that will receive support.
  The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks.
  We have tabled the clause because we firmly believe that what happens within the privacy of bedrooms is no concern of ours as Members of Parliament, perhaps mercifully. A minority of men, but a significant minority, is attracted only to other men. It is oppressive and impractical of Parliament to say to that large body of citizens that they must choose between lifelong continence or committing a criminal offence. That choice is unsatisfactory. It obliges many otherwise law-abiding citizens in all parts of the community to choose to commit a criminal offence.
  The propositions are not particularly controversial. As far back as 1968 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland went on record demanding the same change in the law. It is instructive to recall why the General Assembly called for the change. It recognised that so long as homosexual acts were a criminal offence homosexual men would inevitably be inhibited from coming forward and seeking the pastoral care of the Church.
  I understand that the Minister may seek to rebut the new clause on the ground that since there are no prosecutions under the section that I am seeking to delete, no damage is done. However, the fact that no prosecutions are taking place does not mean that no damage arises from the fact that homosexuality is a criminal offence in Scotland. Hon. Members will be familiar with the recent case of the gardener-handyman who was dismissed by his employer on the specific ground that he was a homosexual. His subsequent appeal to an employment tribunal was dismissed on the ground that the decision of the employer was a reasonable one.

  287
  I do not propose to trench on the merits of that case, because it is subject to further appeal and is therefore sub judice, but two general truths emerge. First, no hon. Member could argue that the tribunal was not influenced, perhaps unconsciously, by the knowledge that homosexual acts in Scotland are criminal offences. It has reflected in its judgment the prejudice that is sustained by the present state of the law. Secondly, since that judgment there has been a campaign to end discrimination against homosexuals in employment and other fields. A month ago many hon. Members attended a meeting in this House addressed by the leaders of that campaign. It is illogical and impractical to mount a campaign against discrimination against homosexuals, in employment laws or whatever, so long as it is proscribed in our criminal statutes. We therefore tabled the new clause.
  I hope that the clause will not be rebutted on the basis of the curious and dangerous constitutional argument that because the Government have decided by executive action that they will not implement the law there is therefore no urgency to change it. We debated the issue when the consolidated Sexual Offences Bill was before the House in 1976. The present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland made vigorous attacks on that argument. He said:
  "The basis of my opposition to the clause is that it is totally wrong as a matter of basic constitutional principle that Parliament should be asked to approve a consolidation measure of an activity's continuing to be a criminal offence while at the same time the Lord Advocate informs the House that the Crown has not the slightest intention of treating such activity as a criminal offence … Parliament should not be asked to make a fool of itself or to stand on its head."— [Official Report, 3 November 1976; Vol. 918, c. 1571-2.]
  I am against Parliament being asked to stand on its head or any hon. Members being asked to stand on theirs. I therefore hope that if the hon. Gentleman is replying to the debate he will not stand on his head and reverse the arguments that he put forward when the House last debated the matter. I trust that he will not rebut the new clause on the basis of the arguments that he rejected in 1976.
  4.15 pm
  It is ironic that we should debate the new clause on a day when the papers report in a critical vein the arrest by Soviet policemen of Western journalists who were covering a demonstration in favour of human rights for Russian homosexuals. The House is given to developing a strong line in criticising the neglect of human rights in the Soviet Union. Those criticisms are well deserved. However, in this instance the state of our law is no better than that in the Soviet Union. It would be more constructive to put our own house in order first. I therefore hope that the House will seize the opportunity to expunge from the statute book what has long remained an anomaly in Scottish law.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: John Watson. I am sorry, Graham Bright.
  Mr. Martin Stevens: I am happy to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, under any name that you care to select.
  I support the new clause. It is a relief to be able to discuss such matters without the prurient winks and nudges that accompanied discussions of homosexuality, or even wearing suede shoes, when I was a boy. I hope that this modest little clause can be discussed not on the basis of whether, as individuals, we are pro, anti or indifferent to that sexual manifestation. Like many who have spent their lives in the Metropolis, I do not consider it to be of great interest what my friends do, provided that they do not make a nuisance of themselves. Many hon. Friends feel differently, and view such practices with horror and execration. However, what we are seeking to persuade the House to do should not be influenced by such personal feelings.
  It is unacceptable to have one law for the rich and another for the poor; one law for the English and another for the Scottish. We are not debating the fact that one has to change one's sleeping car in Belfast. I accept that the Scottish legal system is different from ours, but this is more an argument about civil rights than about the traditions of a legal system. In any case, the legal system to which Scotland adheres is far

  289
  closer to the Code Napoleon than ours. That code accepted homosexual conduct in private between consenting people of all ages much sooner than ours. It is absurd that there has never been any legal inhibition on women behaving as they wish. Before the Sexual Offences Act 1967, people could say that they did not care what women did but that we must stop men from doing the same. At that time I used to say "I do not care what you do. You can make it a crime for women, or not a crime for men, but you cannot indefinitely carry on with this difference in responsibility between the two sexes." Today, 14 years later, when the rights and duties of men and women are even closer than they were then, I should have thought that the argument in favour of the clause was even stronger.
  My purpose is twofold. First, I support the hon. Gentleman and assert that this is a non-party matter. Secondly, when we divide on the issue, I hope that hon. Members will not make their decision on the basis of their personal feelings or philsophy of life associated with homosexuality, the suffering and deprivation from which it may be said that some people suffer, or the unfairness involved. There will be other opportunities to discuss the ethics and morality of the subject. I hope that hon. Members will make up their minds simply on the basis that it is not equitable to permit a form of congenital conduct which may be legally permitted in certain clearly defined circumstances in England and yet, whether or not the Solicitor-General for Scotland acts, to make that same conduct a serious and disgraceful crime in Scotland. It is fair and reasonable, whatever our personal feelings, to accept the provisions of the clause.
  Mr. David Steel: I attached my name to this all-party clause, although with some reluctance on one point, to which I shall come in a moment. None the less, I hope that the House will pass it.
  I remember our debates in the 1964-66 Parliament, when I came into the House, and again in the early stages of the 1966 Parliament, when the present statute for England and Wales was
  290
  passed, in which the position of Scotland was thoroughly debated. The atmosphere today has changed completely from the atmosphere then. I remember a conversation with the then sponsor of the Bill in 1965, Mr. Humphry Berkeley, in which I asked him why he proposed to cover only England and Wales. He was open about it. He said that the Bill was discussed on a Friday and that if he included Scotland in it most of the Scottish Members would stay to vote against it. Probably that was wise and sound judgment on his part. However, I am not sure that that is necessarily the case today.
  As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said, for a start, the Church of Scotland, in common with many of the other Churches, certainly the Methodist Church and the Church of England, has since considerably changed its view on the moral issue behind the new clause. However, we should be aware that it was not a fine point of law which led Scotland to be excluded from the 1966 legislation in the first place.
  I recall some of the rather ribald debates that we had on the Report stage of the 1965 Bill, when hon. Members moved amendments about sleeping cars and what happened when passengers reached Berwick. There was a great deal of hilarity on the subject. In the last election I came to the view that this was no longer a laughing matter. I came to it very sharply.
  One of my constituency boundaries is the border between England and Scotland. In the election, in the unlikely atmosphere of the High Street of one of the towns of my constituency, where this is not normally an everyday topic of conversation, a young man accosted me in the course of a walkabout and said that he and his friend were homosexual and lived partly in my constituency and partly in England. He wanted to know what I was prepared to do about the state of the law in Scotland, as although their conduct was legal in England it was not so in Scotland. I said that I was sympathetic to the case for bringing the law into line.
  At the same time, I repeated parrot-fashion the explanation given by successive holders of the office of Secretary of State and the Law Officers in Scotland,

  291
  that it was the administrative or executive policy not to prosecute for homosexual offences—which are still offences in Scots law—if they took place between consenting adults in private, and that therefore they had no grounds for anxiety. They gave me a compelling answer, that none the less this remained on the statute book. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central indicated, this may well colour attitudes, for example, of society and employment tribunals, as in the case to which he referred. In addition, Law Officers and, for that matter, Secretaries of State for Scotland, come and go. It is not enough to rest the law, on a matter which affects individuals in this way, on the diktat of any one temporary holder of these offices.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the officer for the time being cannot bind his successors on a matter of policy of this kind and that we might well find that his successors take a different view and prosecute?
  Mr. Steel: That is my point.
  The two subjects are in no way aligned, except that they both involve moral as well as legal judgments. When I was piloting through the House my Private Member's Bill on abortion, I remember discussing with a Scottish gynaecologist the question whether the law should apply to Scotland. It had been the policy of the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland of the day not to prosecute in Scotland for abortions where they were carried out for medical reasons. The gynaecologist said firmly that we should create a positive statute law in Scotland. In his younger days he recalled a Lord Advocate, who had a particular view on abortion, writing—I cannot remember whether it was a specific letter to the gynaecologist or a circular, but that does not matter—to him, saying "The practice in which you are indulging is against the law and I must warn you to take account of this in your future practice." The next time that he had an abortion before him the gynaecologist telephoned the Crown Office and said "I have a patient waiting to come into the theatre and I wish to know whether I may proceed with the abortion." The reply given by the Crown Office was "That must remain a matter of judgment for you", to which he replied "Precisely". He said that it was
  292
  not good enough to leave the law to the individual whim of the Law Officers and that we should be declaratory. That is a good principle regardless of one's individual views on abortion, homosexuality or anything else. It is not satisfactory to leave the law in its present state.
  I am sorry that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is not with us this afternoon. He answered a question from an Opposition Member 10 days ago in which he reiterated his policy. If I remember aright, he said that it was the policy of the Scottish Office and the Crown Office that prosecutions would not take place for homosexual conduct between consenting adults in private.
  That immediately raises the question "What is an adult in Scots law?" I hope that whoever replies will answer that question. This is where I have my slight query about the new clause. I am not sure that in introducing the age of 21, which is the English law, we are not making the law more restrictive in Scotland. I should like to know how "adult" is defined. Is it defined as in the general law of Scotland, or is it taken as in the English law on this subject? The age of 21 is extremely difficult to defend, especially in Scotland, as we have a different law on marriage. If we are to say, as we do in the law of Scotland, that a man of 16 is considered responsible enough to marry and bring up a family without parental consent, it is even more ludicrous to say that we deem a man of 20 to be not capable of deciding with whom he wishes to go to bed.
  There is a further inconsistency in the Government's position. As I understand it, the Scottish Office has just announced a small but welcome grant of public money for the work of a Scottish homosexual rights group. It would seem rather odd if the Government are giving a public grant to a body which is doing counselling work on a subject which remains criminal. That is an inconsistency that should be ironed out.
  This is a modest new clause and on balance I support it, but I hope that we shall return to this subject in a more general way in future.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. John Wheeler: I also support the new clause. It is extraordinary that in the last quarter of this century we should be debating this issue

  293
  with regard to Scotland. It seems only right and fair that the law which applies in England and Wales should apply also in Scotland. May hon. Members may ask why that should be so. I answer that by saying that this House is frequently concerned with human rights.
  We frequently criticise other Governments for the way in which they treat their minorities. Surely it is right that in the United Kingdom the same laws relating to personal conduct should apply to everybody. The time is long overdue when the rights enjoyed by the homosexual minority in England and Wales should also be enjoyed in Scotland.
  I need say little in support of what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). He is absolutely right. The new clause is simple and straightforward. It does not seek radically to change the situation. It seeks to apply the law in England and Wales to the kingdom of Scotland. I agree with the hon. Member that we might ask why the age of consent is not brought more into line with the age at which heterosexual behaviour is acceptable but that issue awaits a more general review of the law on sexual offences.
  In the meantime, it is merely a matter of fairness and justice that this new clause should be accepted in relation to the law in Scotland.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I may surprise some of my hon. Friends, and indeed some Conservative Members, by saying two things: first, I intend to support the new clause, eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook); secondly, I intend to make a short speech. It will probably be the shortest speech I have made in this place. That is for a good and simple reason. I sought advice and guidance on this matter from the only member of my family who knows anything about the law. He wrote six quarto sheets for me and I am bound to say that I had the greatest difficulty in making anything of them. That was not because of the handwriting. It was because I did not always understand the terms that were used.
  I support the new clause because, like the Secretary of State and others, I am a firm believer in law and order. I believe
  294
  that if someone does not obey the law he should be brought to trial and punished. I cannot for the life of me understand how a Minister of the Crown can say that he will introduce a law and keep it on the statute book, with all the backing of the law of Scotland, but that no one will be prosecuted under it. If the law is the law, it should not be left to the discretion of the Lord Advocate, or whoever is responsible, to institute prosecutions of this kind.
  In this quarter of the twentieth century many of us have moved a great deal further in this matter than I would have moved even 10 years ago. The reason for my present view is that I believe that if this law is to have respect it must be enforced. If it is not respected, it should be taken off the statute book. I believe in law enforcement. If the law is not enforced, it should be taken off the statute book. That is the advice that I strongly urge upon the Secretary of State and his colleagues.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) on this subject. It is objectionable in principle that the enforcement of prosecution for a criminal offence should be dependent upon the decision of a law officer for the time being. The enforcement of prosecutions for criminal offences should not be dependent upon the wishes of any individual. That is a matter for Parliament and no one else.
  Following what was said by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), I believe that it is important that we should not allow criminal offences to be determined by individual law officers who hold office for the time being, not least because they cannot bind their successors. It is wrong that an offence is enforceable during the term of office of one law officer and not enforceable during the term of his successor. Those things are objectionable in principle.
  Turning to the broader aspect of this measure, I entirely support the new clause. I have contrasted it carefully with the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1967. In all material respects it is the same. The House has, in relation to England and Wales, accepted that it is right that in private homosexual activities

  295
  between consenting adults should be lawful. That argument has already been accepted in England and Wales. Therefore, the argument prevails unless someone can bring forward a good reason to show why Scotland and Northern Ireland should be treated differently.
  Of course, I appreciate that there are major differences between the legal systems of Scotland and England. However, I believe that on fundamental human rights—this is a human right of a kind—there should be parity. I can see no reason why people should have a lesser right in Scotland than they have in England and Wales. That being so I support the new clause and, if I might add, I hope that we shall introduce a measure that will apply to Northern Ireland in due course.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I may be speaking somewhat out of turn when I say it, but so far nobody has suggested that he is in favour of prosecuting consenting adults who commit homosexual acts in private in Scotland. There is, therefore, no division of opinion about the merits of the new clause. It may be that a different view will be reflected later.
  That being the case, there is only the argument which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) suggested the Government will put forward for rejecting the new clause. The Government's argument is that the law is not prosecuted at the moment in Scotland as a matter of executive act, and therefore it is unnecessary to change the law.
  That is an untenable position as a continuing expression of the enforcement of law. It is not simply that there might be a change of Lord Advocate and, therefore, a change in principle of the outlook of the Lord Advocate. As I understand the position in Scotland, the Lord Advocate's advice need not be followed by the procurators fiscal, and sometimes they do not follow his advice. Indeed, the fiscals were carrying out this policy before the Lord Advocate first made the suggestion in the instructions that were sent out. It is therefore possible for a fiscal to take a different view even within the guidance laid down by the Lord Advocate.
  296
  It is wrong that the law should be administered differently in different parts of the country when we are discussing important personal conduct of this kind. I am talking not about the difference betwen England and Scotland but about different parts of Scotland. I accept the argument put forward by the Scottish National Party that Scotland has a law of its own and is entitled to take a different view about criminal penalties for particular conduct—that is, of course, the legal position—but I am a little reluctant to suggest that when we talk about personal human conduct of this kind, which bridges national boundaries, would be helpful—though I do not say that it would be right—if people who were moving between the two countries on a regular basis did not find themselves in breach of the law on one side of the border and outside the law on the other side. I accept that that might happen in certain circumstances. Obviously, it happens in marriage and divorce. It would be better if it did not. But I accept that the Scots are entitled to take their own view about this matter.
  Where I disagree with the Scottish National Party—I am coming on to what may be sensitive ground—is whether even in Scotland there is a consensus for a criminal law against homosexual acts in private. I should think that opinion in Scotland is similar to that in England, which is overwhelmingly against making this kind of conduct a criminal offence.
  If that be the case, what is left to the Secretary of State for Scotland? He does not believe in the merits of this argument. He rests upon this quibble whether we need to have a law that is not enforced. If that is the position, why can he not agree with the expressed wish of most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, namely, that the law of Scotland and England in this respect ought to be brought together? If so, perhaps he would say so now and we could pass on to the next new clause.
  Mr. Leo Abse: I have a feeling of dé jà vu when I listen to this debate. There is no novelty in it. There is no novelty in the point at issue—namely, whether it is right for the law to be administered at the caprice of a Lord Advocate or according to a defined rule of law.

  297
  From the time that the Wolfenden report recommended that we should end the criminality of homosexual offences committed in private to the time after I had attempted two or three times and others, including Humphry Berkeley, had attempted to put this law on the statute book on not a few occasions, the Government of the day came forward with the suggestion and, indeed, the practice of attempting to temper the law by administrative means and to avoid prosecutions except when cases were explicitly defined. The idea that we could shrink from having to deal with a substantive law was followed in England for nearly a decade, until in the end, with the help of 100 of my colleagues in the House, I managed to put the Sexual Offences Act on the statute book.
  There is something highly repugnant in continuing to have debates of this kind, because they will continue until the law is changed. They will go on as long as we have a law on the statute book which, at the whim of a Lord Advocate, is not enforced. In those circumstances, people are bound to be provoked into changing the law. Indeed, they will show contempt for the law and insist that if there is a law it must be enforced and that if there is not every man has a right to know his position.
  In my judgment, there are far more important views. Anyone who has seen the predicament of the homosexual in Britain generally cannot doubt that many have come to terms with their predeliction but that others, not surprisingly, find that the problem sometimes causes them great difficulties.
  4.45 pm
  Life is not easily lived for anyone. If there is the extra dimension of having to shoulder the predicament of homosexuality in a society which is hostile to it and expresses within its law that those who practise it are pariahs and outside the community, the difficulties grow. Therefore, is it surprising that again and again we see a paranoic element running through some sections of the homosexual community? It is a paranoic mood which means that these people are not as well integrated into the wider society as some would wish. When we passed the Sexual Offences Act 1967, the great hope was that we would bring them into the com-
  298
  munity and would leave them alone if they practised their predilection privately and with discretion.
  Is not extraordinary that in Moscow this week three photographers—British among others—have been arrested because a protest has been made by an Italian homosexual about the way that the homosexuality law is administered in the Soviet Union? We do not expect the Soviet Union to recognise human rights or to be sensitive to the needs of minorities. But what is the position in Scotland? Is Edinburgh to emulate Moscow? Is the Lord Advocate to become the ayatollah of Scotland? What sentence does it attract in Scotland? I do not know. I know what it attracted in England and Wales. Buggery was punishable with a sentence of life imprisonment until the 1967 Act. Who does the Lord Advocate think he is—the Lord himself?—to hold over the issue of life or death, according to his whim, upon men who have a perfect right to live their lives with their own difficulties provided that they do not impinge in any offensive way on the wider community?
  Even this miserable new clause—it is a miserable clause—carries over all the compromises and blemishes which I had to put into the 1967 legislation to get it through. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was right when he cited the reason why Humphry Berkeley's Act did not apply to Scotland. That was why my Act did not apply to Scotland. I had enough trouble on my hands without taking on the Scots. But there is a different mood about, and it has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). Change has come in Scotland, too. The Scots found that the passing of the 1967 Act did not convert England and Wales into a Sodom and Gomorrah. Cardiff is no longer regarded as a possible sin centre for the whole world.
  It is nonsense to suggest that Scotland dare not change the law. What are these prissy Lord Advocates so concerned about? Surely Scotland has had enough successive Lord Advocates put forward one excuse or another in proceedings on consolidated Bills, when many of us fought together, that it was not a suitable occasion. What is the matter with them? Do they not have confidence in their own

  299
  heterosexuality? Are they frightened that, unless a measure on the statute book says that homosexuality is criminal, suddenly the whole of Scotland will plunge into a new Sodom? Such rubbish is intolerable. I would not be surprised if an hon. Member were astonished that we should be debating this issue in the 1980s. It does no credit, and shows no respect or deference, to the law. It will do no credit to the Lord Advocate if he has to retain such an untenable position.
  We have an opportunity to get rid of some of the worst aspects. As the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said, the measure does not get rid of the problem of the age of consent. When I was responsible for my Bill, no one in England and Wales could sign an enforceable contract if he were under 21. A person who was under 21 could not buy a house. The law was subsequently altered, and it became possible to do so at 18.
  In putting forward the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central is being far too accommodating to the prissy prudes who apparently oppose it. I shall support him, but he is being far too accommodating to those who insist that the English and Welsh law should remain the same. He has included the risible clause that I was compelled to insert to deal with merchant shipping. I assume that the House understands the position.
  When my Bill was enacted, I was told that if we did not do something to protect the merchant seamen of Britain, and that if we did not ensure that buggery and any such offence in the Royal Navy or the Merchant Navy remained a criminal offence that attracted heinous penalties, the whole British fleet would be ruined. Winston Churchill once made some remarks about buggery and the Navy, but I shall not repeat them. In order to meet the folly of the day, I had to insert a stupid clause. I had to appease shipowners and some members of the National Union of Seamen. A man could go aboard a ship or a cruise boat and have an affair with a passenger. However, he would attract a heavy sentence of imprisonment if he had an affair with a fellow seaman. Having extrapolated the wisdom of my measure, and also its foolishness, my hon. Friend has given this weak little clause to the Lord Advocate.
  I hope that Scotland will not make itself the laughing stock of Europe. Since my Bill was enacted the whole of Western Europe has followed it in one way or another. If this situation were to remain it would be an affront to civil rights and an abuse of the Lord Advocate's position. The present law is an insult to thousands of our fellow citizens who commit no fault but who are born or are predisposed to a particular disposition. It is high time that a clause of this character was put on the statute book.
  Mr. John MacKay: My view of this general subject can be summed up by the words "What the eye does not see, the heart does not grieve over." I take that view, and it is embodied in the law of Scotland. I also believe that that was the intention of the House when it changed the law in England so that one not only obeyed the law as practised but obeyed it as written. In Scotland, the phrase is obeyed but the law has not been changed.
  My eye increasingly sees the present situation and my heart increasingly grieves over it. Many people in Scotland and England share that view. I hope that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will not mind my saying that his speech illustrated the way in which the gay society campaigns to convince us that if we are normal and heterosexual we are queer. Its members try to convince us that they are the normal gay people. Indeed, the very use of the word "gay" is an affront to the meaning of the word, and to ordinary, normal people.
  I find that I am out of step in Scotland, and even more so in England. I feel that I am not being fashionable, and that I am decidedly odd if I am heterosexual. I get that feeling a lot. Television increasingly pushes homosexuality down my throat and down the throats of my children. A fortnight ago, on a Saturday afternoon, I walked along one of London's streets with my children. We turned a corner, and saw a band of people advocating gay rights and pushing that point of view. That happened in the streets of our capital city.
  As I have said, I believe that what the eye does not see the heart does not grieve over. However, the gay society is increasingly forcing itself on us. The

  301
  speech of the hon. Member for Ponty-pool illustrated that. If anything, he destroyed the case made by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). He showed that this is just the beginning. The streets of our cities and television programmes demonstrate that a campaign is beginning to encourage more people to take such a route, and to imply that the other route is wrong.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to understand what my hon. Friend is suggesting. Is he suggesting rigorous enforcement of the existing law?
  Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend should listen. If he had listened to the beginning of my speech he would know that I said that I believe that what the eye did not see the heart did not grieve over. That is the situation in Scotland, and I believe that it should remain so. I do not believe that, at a time of a pro-the-gay society campaign, we should change the law in Scotland. The law should be left as it is.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose—
  Mr. MacKay: We accept that people are born like that, and that it is wrong to persecute them. Equally, we accept that it is not right that they should campaign to the effect that the rest of us should treat the gay society as a superior form of society. I want my children to watch television and to go down Victoria Street on a Saturday afternoon without having such matters thrust down their throats.
  A new clause that contains many lines is not the appropriate way to deal with this subject. If there is to be a change in the law it should be considered line by line in Committee. I shall certainly seek to divide the House on this clause.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I must confess that I had no idea that life in Victoria Street, Oban was as exciting as that. However, we learn something every day from our debates. Although I am on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I thought that his speech was unnecessarily emotive. It has been repaid doubly in kind. I should like to return to duller but more relevant arguments.
  I strongly believe that a Member of Parliament should not make personal moral judgments about the conduct of other
  302
  people. On occasions, moral judgments must be codified in the criminal law. However, that is only so in extreme and unusual situations, in which there is a total consensus about the essential danger of a line of conduct. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said. He doubted whether there was a consensus in Scotland. He thought that there might be a consensus against the present law. I am not interested in a consensus against the present law. The onus of proof lies the other way. If a law says that certain private acts that do not impinge on or hurt other people are so offensive that they should be made criminal offences, it must be supported by an almost unanimous public consensus. It is clear that that is not the position in Scotland, or in any other part of the United Kingdom.
  Whatever my views about homosexuality and homosexual practices, and how attractive or unattractive I may find them, I do not believe that they are a suitable subject to attract the sanctions of the criminal law. If something is to be the object of censure, in terms of the criminal law, it ought, by definition, to attract the sanctions. I accept the arguments of a number of hon. Members that to have a law on the statute book which, as an act of deliberate administrative policy, has not been used for many years—there have been no prosecutions in the last 10 years—seems totally nonsensical and positively damaging to the law itself. To say that whatever the circumstances and however flagrant the nominal abuse the sanctions of the law will never be invoked is wrong. We should put the situation right and bring the law into line with current social practice. It should be taken out of the ambit of the criminal code.
  5 pm
  The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) said with great eloquence and, no doubt, sincerity that he objected to the gay rights movement—he was the first hon. Member to use the word "gay"—campaigning. No doubt many hon. Members get tired of campaigns of one sort or another. I suggest to the hon. Member gently that one of the reasons why the gay rights movement feels that it has to campaign in areas such as Scotland is that it feels that it is under the threat of the sanction of the criminal law.
  If one insists on nominally saying "Although we are not going to move against you, we will keep the sword hanging over your head and keep you under the threat of the criminal law, and what you are doing is so abhorrent that it is illegal", one is encouraging people to adopt a campaigning frame of mind. If I were in that ludicrous legal limbo to which we have consigned the gay community I would be in a strong campaigning mood myself. There is no reason why we should not do the necessary deed and get rid of this criminal offence from the statute book.
  I have heard the argument in the corridors and the Lobbies that this Bill is not appropriate for the purpose and that hon. Members should not have popped in the new clause at this late stage of major legislation. I do not sympathise with that view. I welcome the fact that clearly there will be a free vote. I do not know how Ministers individually will vote. I have had some private indications, but I do not know whether there is an unofficial Whip for Ministers. For the House as a whole, there is a free vote. It seems appropriate, rather than waiting for private Members' legislation, with all the difficulties of the ballot and the chance of a Scot, who wants to take up this cause against competing causes, winning a high place, that we should take this opportunity.
  As long as we continue this strange position of having a criminal law that is not enforced we set up all sorts of tensions, prejudices and difficulties for those who find themselves in this position. I do not want to talk about blackmail in the direct sense, but there are pressures, and those in the gay community feel themselves driven by those pressures. I hope that the House takes a simple stand and repeals this criminal offence.
  I was interested in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). When the Minister replies he will presumably indicate his personal view rather than issuing instructions to his cohorts on the Conservative Benches. He will perhaps say a word about ministerial policy if the new clause were successful. There is an interesting area involving those aged between 18 and 21 who may carry out homosexual practices in private. At the moment, they are exempt from prosecution by executive
  304
  and administrative fiat. They will not benefit from the new clause because exemption starts at 21. It might be helpful if the Minister would indicate whether he intends, as I hope he will, should the new clause be passed, to continue the administrative proposals for those who fall into the gap between 18 and 21.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing against himself. I thought that this was the administrative action which he felt was the reason for putting down the new clause.
  Mr. Dewar: I see the force of what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that I am, to a limited extent, having my cake and eating it. Like the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, I should have preferred to specify the age of 18. It would have been neater and more logical in this whole area of Scottish law. We do not have that situation. In all honesty, I have to plead for an exception until such time as we can tidy up the law.
  I have spoken in this debate largely because there have been references to the fact that Scots have had a reactionary view in this matter and have not been forward in giving their opinion. I believe that there has been a considerable change in the climate of opinion in Scotland. I hope that it will be reflected in the Lobbies by my Scottish colleagues.
  Mr. Ancram: I had not intended to speak, but the House should take cognisance of the way in which the debate has developed. The speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) highlights the principle. The hon. Gentleman, at the beginning of his speech, and a number of other Opposition Members, stated that the reason for wanting to change the law is, that they did not believe that individual rights should be protected by administrative action, as happens at present. Yet, because they realise that the new clause will cause greater damage to human rights among a certain category of people in Scotland, the hon. Member for Garscadden says that he hopes that the Lord Advocate will continue to exercise that adminstrative action. In that last remark the hon. Gentleman admits that protection is afforded to people by the administrative action of the Executive and the

  305
  Crown Office. It is precisely that administrative action that is valuable and has been a principle of the law of Scotland for so long.
  I hope that the House will not accept English lawyers telling us what should be the law of Scotland. I hope that the House will recognise that Scotland has its own legal system. It has its principles. This is one of the principles upon which we have depended for a long time—
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will accept that I am a Scotsman, though not a lawyer. He will also accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) is both a Scotsman and a lawyer. If he reads speeches that we both made in 1976 he will see that we attacked the procedure and practice that, by executive action, one can set aside a particular law on the ground, echoed by his hon. Friend, who is both a Scotsman and a lawyer, that there is no principle in Scottish law that entitles the Lord Advocate to set aside a whole class of offences by his own decision.
  Mr. Ancram: And yet, if I may say so, the hon. Member for Garscadden was asking the Government for an assurance that this would be done for the group aged between 18 and 21. I rest my case on that fact. I, too, will be dividing the House on this issue.
  Mr. Bruce Millan: Although I am speaking from the Front Bench I should make clear, at least to people outside if not to hon. Members, that the vote on the new clause is a free vote, certainly on this side of the House, and, I assume, on the Government side. I am speaking for myself. My views, I believe, are shared by a majority of Opposition Members.
  It is a pity that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ponty-pool (Mr. Abse) did not extend to Scotland in the first place. I voted for my hon. Friend's Bill. I would have voted for it if it had applied to Scotland. The reasons why it did not apply to Scotland had little to do with the merits of the subject, although I do not take the view that the law of Scotland and the law of England should necessarily be the same in these matters. That is a matter of judgment, but there are a number of
  306
  areas in which the law of England and the law of Scotland differ. That has been so in the past and it is still the case. Sometimes the law of Scotland has been more liberal than that of England, and that is not a bad thing. My view is that, on the merits of the case, the original Act should have been extended to Scotland in the first place, and for that reason I shall vote for the new clause.
  The clause is drafted to make the law of Scotland the same as that of England. Although the law of England may not be completely satisfactory on this matter, I think that it is sensible that the new clause should be drafted in this way. I do not accept the argument that the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for such a reform, and I certainly do not accept that it is undesirable intrinsically that a matter of this sort should not arise on the Report stage.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: I understood that a version of the Bill was introduced by the right hon. Member and his hon. Friends in the last Parliament. If this kind of clause is appropriate to this kind of Bill, why was it not in his Bill?
  Mr. Millan: There has never been an appropriate or proper opportunity for the House to debate the position in Scotland, either in a Private Member's Bill or in any other way. There have been attempts to raise this matter on a consolidated Bill, but I do not think that that is an appropriate way to change the law.
  However, I do not want to go into those arguments now. We have a clause before us now and we should make a decision about it. Any suggestion from any quarter that this is not an appropriate occasion to make such a decision is simply avoiding the question.
  Mr. Henderson: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I am genuinely anxious to establish the facts clearly in my mind because I have a great deal of sympathy with the new clause. The Labour Government took a criminal justice Bill right through Committee stage and a clause of this kind was not introduced then. I want to know why it was not done then and why it should be done now.
  Mr. Millan: First, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill in the last Parliament did

  307
  not get as far as this one. But that is not the answer. The answer is that on these matters, for good or for ill, successive Governments have taken the view that the initiative should lie with Members and not with Governments.
  My purely personal view is that that is not a desirable way to proceed. I believe that Governments should be much more courageous in dealing with these matters—not on the basis of party whipping but on the basis of giving the House an opportunity to reach a decision on important matters. That is a personal view. The fact is that successive Governments have taken the view that these matters should lie within the initiative of Members, and that is precisely what has happened here. I am not complaining that the Government have not put this clause in their Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. I would not expect them to do so. But, equally, I do not accept that this is not an appropriate opportunity for the House to make a decision. Any suggestion that it is not is simply dodging the question.
  5.15 pm
  The position in Scotland is unsatisfactory because the law says one thing, but by administrative means and by using the discretion available to the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate, there are no prosecutions. There are historic reasons for this resting on the law of corroboration, but it goes beyond that. As a matter of public policy, successive Lords Advocate have not prosecuted this offence—as it still is in Scotland—for a number of years. I consider that to be highly unsatisfactory.
  I am all in favour of the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate having a certain amount of discretion in prosecution policy; that is perfectly sensible and reasonable. But to say that, regardless of the circumstances, there is an offence still on the statute book that will not be prosecuted goes well beyond any legitimate discretion of any Lord Advocate. That is highly unsatisfactory and the matter should be regularised. The way to do that is to vote for the new clause, and I hope very much that that is what the House will do tonight.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) that this is a
  308
  matter that normally has been dealt with on the grounds of conscience and conviction, and that the Government should not lay down any views. Therefore, speaking for the Government, I do not propose to express a view either way on the merits of the clause itself. This is a matter that should be the subject of a free vote and I make it clear that on the Government side of the House my right hon. and hon. Friends will be entirely free to vote as they wish.
  Perhaps I should spell out a little of the factual background, as a number of questions have been raised and it is best to get it on the record. The Sexual Offences Act 1967, which was piloted through the House by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), did not extend to Scotland. The reasons for that are not altogether clear, but suffice it to say that it did not. In mentioning this fact during the progress of that Bill the hon. Member said that there was rather less need for change in Scotland at that time than there was in England and Wales, because of the practice of successive Lords Advocate. He also mentioned the possibility of Scottish public opinion being somewhat different from English public opinion. That was a legitimate point. It has been suggested today that public opinion has changed in the interval, but I would not express a view on that.
  Mr. Abse: There was a third reason—the evidential requirements in Scotland were very different from those of England. The fact that one needed corroboration in Scotland meant that there were far fewer prosecutions. Most convictions in England and Wales came as a result of confessions. There were other reasons why I was persuaded that it was politic not to proceed, but they were all very bad reasons.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Member is very candid, and that is a valid point.
  The other point is that I do not adduce as an argument that it is necessary for the law of Scotland and the law of England to be identical at all times. I do not say that there is not some advantage in having similar laws—of course there is. But it is not part of my argument that the law of Scotland and England must always be the same, or that we must move to make it the same.

  309
  This clause is perhaps not the ideal form in which the reform could be made. It is merely a carbon copy of an English Act passed some time ago, when attitudes were, perhaps, a little different. However, I accept that the promoters have done this for a perfectly good purpose—that of getting this matter discussed on the basis of a measure that has already been passed for England and Wales. I make no criticism of the clause but merely record that it is not perfect, and probably not the measure that we would enact if we had a chance to do so properly.
  Mr. Cook: In my opening speech I referred to the fact that the new clause was indeed modelled on part of a previous Bill. But it was modelled on a previous Bill of Lord Boothby which was introduced in another place in 1977, and to which a number of amendments were moved by a previous Scottish Secretary following consultations with the draftsmen. Those amendments were intended to ensure that the Bill was in line with Scottish law. If the Secretary of State has any particular criticism and thinks that the new clause is defective I should like to hear of it. So far as I am aware we are proposing a competent measure which has received the attention of the parliamentary draftsmen in the past.
  Mr. Younger: I did not say and I do not say that it is defective. I do not believe that it is defective. I believe that it is not ideal. Certainly, the hon. Member for Pontypool thinks that it is not ideal.
  I do not rest my case on the argument that successive Lords Advocate have declared that their intention is not to prosecute consenting adults who indulge in homosexual practices in private, and have carried out that intention. Some argue that it is not necessary to change the law because in practice such activity is not prosecuted as a criminal offence. I do not adduce that as an argument for not making a change tonight. The House should not weigh that argument too heavily.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is the decision of the Lord Advocate binding upon individual procurators fiscal?
  Mr. Younger: I was just coming to that. The position in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales. In Scotland the Lord Advocate is the authority for prosecuting. He issues instructions to procurators fiscal. Such instructions are not known to have been disobeyed. Where the Lord Advocate wishes, he exercises without question the right to prosecute in person instead of the procurator fiscal. That emphasises his role as the source of prosecution in the Scottish system.
  Several right hon. and hon. Members referred to the definition of "adult". The new clause repeats the English definition of adulthood which, in this connection, is 21 years of age. I confirm that that is the practice which is followed by the Lord Advocate. If he were considering a case of this type and one of the persons involved was under 21 he would treat the case as if it involved somebody who was not an adult. Adulthood is achieved at 21 in the English statute and it is the age which is used in practice in Scotland. Any case which occurs in the interim period between any decision which might be taken tonight and the Bill becoming an Act would be dealt with as it is now.
  Mr. David Steel: I am grateful for that explanation, because it is the first time that the House has heard it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it means that the doctrine pursued by the Law Officers is not a Scots law doctrine but simply puts into administrative practice English statute law?
  Mr. Younger: The definition of adulthood is difficult and complex. Different ages are used for different purposes.
  My purpose is not to express a view on the principle. I have a personal and private view and I shall exercise it as I think fit. However, I must put one further view on behalf of the Government. I hope that hon. Members will bear it in mind before they vote. I refer to a matter which has not been properly aired. Hon. Members must ask "Is this the way to pass important Scottlish legislation?" Whichever way they lean, hon. Members should bear that question in mind. They should ask whether on any other issue they would be prepared to pass something so important with as little discussion as this measure will receive,

  311
  That is a serious point, which must be considered. I put it no stronger. I am not making any criticism of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook).
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Younger: I am sorry, but I must develop the argument. The hon. Gentleman may then see where it leads. He can then ask me questions. The hon. Gentleman should do me the courtesy of listening to the trend of my argument first.
  The new clause is of considerable importance. Most hon. Members who have spoken have taken a strong view on the main issue. Most hon. Members have expressed a strong preference for the new clause as it affects homosexuals. I understand that and make no comment. However, the subject causes strong feelings and opinions. People feel strongly about it. They are either strongly in favour of it or strongly against it. It is a strange fact that this evening there have been almost no representations against the new clause.
  We often pass measures about which people feel strongly. When we do that the measure goes through an elaborate series of parliamentary occasions when the issues can be aired. Plenty of time is given for representations to be made by bodies that are involved and others who feel strongly.
  Mr. George Robertson: What does the Secretary of State think?
  Mr. Younger: This matter is worthy of genuine consideration. I say to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who keeps interrupting, that I have not expressed my view on the main issue. Hon. Members should not assume anything either way. I am trying to put a parliamentary point of great importance.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: It would be more honest if the Secretary of State gave his view.
  Mr. Younger: That is an unfair remark. Some day perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can have a talk and I shall tell him my view. I am entitled to be heard on an important parliamentary point and I shall be heard.
  312
  When passing important legislation which affects many people Parliament must convince the people involved that it has given the public sufficient chance to make their views known. It is no criticism of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central to say that the public have not had that chance. They have not had the chance because the new clause was tabled on Report after the measure had been through another place.
  Mr. Cook: That is not my fault.
  Mr. Younger: It is not the hon. Gentleman's fault and I have made that clear. I hope that he will regard what I am saying as a genuine argument which is not connected with the main issue in his new clause. If the House agrees to the new clause there will be only one other opportunity for discussion before it becomes law. That will be in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Buchan: It will come back here.
  Mr. Younger: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it will not. It will go to another place, where it cannot be amended, and will either be passed or rejected. All I am saying—and I have not expressed my personal view—is that we shall be passing a measure about which many people in Scotland feel strongly. They will be able to say afterwards "That was passed without our being given a chance to express our views about it or to make representations about it."
  Therefore, all I am saying is that the House, mindful of its reputation, of its duty to represent people in the country, should think hard and long before it passes something so important without giving adequate time or opportunity for those whom we represent to make their views known.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State is postulating the case as though at no time in the past year, two years, three years or four years had there been any discussion about the position of the law in Scotland in relation to homo-sexualily. He is really saying that the House should not exercise its democratic right on an issue on which there has been great discussion, but that the Lord Advocate, with no public discussion, with no authority, without any debate, is right

  313
  to take that view. Either the right hon. Gentleman is wrong or we are wrong. He cannot postulate the view that it is wrong to discuss such an issue, which has been part of public debate for many a long year.
  Mr. Younger: All that I am asking the House to do is to take this matter into consideration. The question was last discussed in Parliament in 1977, when Lord Boothby introduced the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill in the Lords. It was discussed then and was substantially amended in Committee. That was about three and half years ago.
  That may be satisfactory. Hon. Members may think that to have such a discussion in another place three and a half years ago is adequate discussion for a measure to go through. My experienece of the Scottish Grand Committee over more than 15 years is not that it takes the view that because something was discussed in extenso, even last year, it can be passed on the nod this year. That is not a characteristic of the Committee, but it may be that there are new forces at work and that it will be the case from now on.
  Mr. Buchan: While saying that he is not prepared to give his own views, the right hon. Gentleman is giving a fairly clear direction to some of his hon. Friends that they should reject the clause on the technical ground that it has not been fully discussed. To introduce it in Committee, which was the only opportunity, would not have been particularly proper; we should have been told that there was a completely new principle, involving free votes and everything else, being introduced in Committee. The clause has been introduced on the Floor of the House, on Report. It can be debated for as long as hon. Members wish. The fact that hon. Members on one side have not come in is their responsibility. The clause has had a full discussion and could have had a fuller discussion if hon. Members had wished. There has been no deprivation of opportunity.
  Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, the clause has been the subject of discussion—and strong discussion—in a Scottish context for a long time.
  314
  Thirdly, there will be an opportunity for the other place to make its comments on the clause, to pass it or reject it. These are full parliamentary opportunities, certainly opportunities much more open than the kind of things that can happen frequently with a Private Member's Bill or a Ten-Minute Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is badly misdirecting the House in his position as Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman weakens what he wishes to say by overstating it. All that I am trying to do—
  Mr. Buchan: Is to misdirect.
  Mr. Younger: —is to ask hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, to bear in mind what I have said before they vote. I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to know that he will do his best to vote according to his conscience, and he will no doubt bear this point in mind. That is all that I am asking him to do. I believe that it is a genuine parliamentary point that we should all consider carefully.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I wish to intervene on the question of discussion. I think that the present Lord Advocate is the fourth Lord Advocate who has stated that there will be no public prosecution. He may be more than the fourth, but certainly within my recollection he is the fourth. One must assume that the Lord Advocate took that view as a result of some discussion, some debate, or on a point of principle. If it is good enough for him to take that point of view on the question of discussion, and it is not a mere personal whim—I do not believe that it is—that has meant successive Lords Advocate taking this view. If he has taken it as a result of informed discussion and debate, taking into account not just circumstances of the law and circumstances within St. Andrew's House, but public opinion and debate in Scotland, it is a bit much for the Secretary of State to argue that there is a serious point about lack of discussion within the House or elsewhere.
  Mr. Younger: I shall not go deeply into that question. The hon. Gentleman is making a totally different point. What the Lord Advocate does or does not do has no relevance to my argument. All

  315
  that I have been saying is that we are passing legislation which many people in Scotland will feel very strongly about, one way or the other, with far too little discussion and debate.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am trying to make up my mind on the issue. He surely cannot argue that insufficient time has been given to the people of Scotland and elsewhere to discuss the issue, so that Parliament may take lack of discussion into consideration when evaluating what the law should be, and at the same time argue that the Lord Advocate is correct, in the absence of the same discussion, to pronounce on what the law will be in actuality.
  Mr. Younger: That is a complete distortion. The Lord Advocate is carrying out his statutory function of prosecuting or not prosecuting. Incidentally, the right hon. Member for Craigton, who made some trenchant criticisms, including by implication criticisms of his own colleague, the then Lord Advocate, was for a number of years in a position in which he could have put all of that right if he had wanted to.
  I reiterate that the Government take no view either way. It is a matter of moral issue that should be decided by the House on an entirely free vote. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be deciding it individually, according to our own consciences, and shall be glad to work with whateyer decision the House takes.
  I hope that the House will bear in mind the points that I have made in advising it on how it should address itself to making this vote.
  Mr. James Dempsey: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's point about consultation. Have any Scottish bodies passed opinions on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman? For example, have the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, our social works departments, our Churches and our social organisations expressed any opinions? If the Secretary of State can guide me in this respect, I shall be grateful.
  Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The
  316
  position is that—I stress that this is no one's fault—the new clause was tabled only a few days ago, and no one living in Scotland has had an opportunity, because of lack of time and nothing else, to make the sort of representations that we receive on all sorts of Bills. That is the only point that I was making. I hope that the House will bear it in mind.
  Mr. Cook: I previously told the House that I was tired of having my amendments rebutted by Ministers who said that they were defective. I find it both frustrating and galling that on the one occasion when the Minister has confirmed that my new clause is not defective he has gone on to say "But it is not ideal". I shall pull my socks up and bend my mind to the matter in future, and attempt to table amendments that are not merely not defective but are ideal.
  However, the ideal is often the enemy of progress. While given a blank sheet and a pen to write my own legislation I might not have come up with this clause, I have tried to come up with a new clause that would maximise support and seek to be a consensus provision. I think that I have done that, and the House should support it.
  The Secretary of State sought to rebut the new clause by addressing himself to a question that was so extraordinary that I wrote it down exactly as he spoke it. He asked "Is this the way to pass important Scottish legislation?" The answer is that it is indeed the way. There is no other way of passing important Scottish legislation. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Bill is not important Scottish legislation.
  The Secretary of State made an even more remarkable deduction in support of his argument. He said that it was a "strange fact" that in the debate there had not been much opposition to my new clause. He appeared to deduce from that that he ought to recommend the House to oppose the new clause.
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot maintain that there has been inadequate debate tonight. The debate has gone on for about two hours. It has been open-ended and any Member with strong views, or, indeed, weak views, could have intervened. The House would not wish me to encourage any hon. Member to do so, but

  317
  anyone may speak, even after I have concluded. There has been ample opportunity for any hon. Member to take part in the debate.
  I also rebut the Secretary of State's argument that this is too late a stage at which to tackle an important issue. Was the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that when a Bill has been through another place before coming here we should not, as a general principle, attach to it important new clauses on Report? If so, I warn him that many hon. Members, not only on the Opposition side, would reject that as a general principle.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sympathetic to the new clause and I shall support it, but I should like to know how the hon. Gentleman answers the point that, because the new clause has been introduced at such a late stage—and that involves no criticism of him—bodies, associations and Churches in Scotland have not had sufficient time to make their views known to hon. Members.
  Mr. Cook: The position of the Church of Scotland is plain and has been on record since the General Assembly of 1968. That is another reason why I find it difficult to accept the Secretary of State's arguments.
  The matter has been well chewed over by various organisations. I am not aware of COSLA having discussed the issue, but it was discussed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for several years running and finally resolved, in favour of reform, in 1968. I am not aware that the Church of Scotland has resiled from that position.
  When the Bill came to the House I had discussions with many hon. Members about whether it would be more appropriate to raise the matter in Committee or on Report. I do not think that I am breaking any confidence if I say that I consulted one of the Ministers on the team handling the Bill. The unanimous view of those whom I consulted was that it would be more appropriate to raise the issue on the Floor of the House, because the House would then have an opportunity to reach a decision in principle, reflecting the views of the whole House and not merely the party political composition of a Committee.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is not the answer to any such criticism that for many years the Lord Advocate has adopted the policy of not prosecuting, and the Secretary of State has not supplied a list of people or organisations who have complained to the Lord Advocate that he is not implementing a law that they want implemented?
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend takes me on to a point on which I shall conclude. There is nothing short of organised hypocrisy in a system under which Government after Government tell us that they will not implement the law but simultaneously resist any attempt to change the law. That is not a system which the House should support. The House builds principles on the rule of law and it is not sufficient for the Government to say that the state of the law does not matter because they will give undertakings not to implement it. That cannot be tolerated.
  To those who have expressed concern that we are attempting to harmonise Scottish law with that of England I should point out that that is not the main reason why I tabled the new clause. It was tabled because the present law is oppressive of many Scots. It is an unreasonable oppression, which the House should lift from them. We have the opportunity to do it, and I advise the House to take that opportunity.
  Mr. Peter Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question raised by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)? It concerns those aged between 18 and 21 who would ordinarily be described as adults. The new clause includes an age limit of 21. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Lord Advocate should prosecute in cases involving people aged between 18 and 21?
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Cook: The position of those aged between 18 and 21 will be the same after the new clause is put on the statute book as it is at present. Anyone indulging in an act with such a person is guilty of an offence and would be guilty of an offence after the new clause gets on to the statute book. I understood the Secretary of State to say that the Lord Advocate uses

  319
  the age of 21 as a benchmark in determining whether an offence has been committed with a minor. There will be no difference in Crown Office practice when the new clause is on the statute book.
  I understand that the Crown Office and the procurator fiscals' offices take the view, though they may not formally admit to it, that when a person is between 18 and 21 it may be difficult to secure a conviction, because it would be open to the defence to claim that the accused had reasonable grounds for believing that the other person was over 21. Whatever age is adopted as the age of consent, there will always be a gap between that and the age at which an offence is brought to court. That will
  continue to be the position after the new clause is on the statute book.
  However, that is a detailed matter, to which another place will be able to address itself. I believe that we should address ourselves to the issue of principle, and I hope that the House will accept that this modest reform would lift oppression and repression from a number of Scots citizens who are otherwise law-abiding people playing a full part in the community and who are entitled to the same rights as other members of that community.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 80.

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Welsh, Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Wheeler, John

  Snape, Peter

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Soley, Clive

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Thome, Stan (Preston South)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Stainton, Keith

  Tilley, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Stallard, A. W.

  Tinn, James

  Winnick, David

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Woodall, Alec

  Stevens, Martin

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Stoddart, David

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Stott, Roger

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Straw, Jack

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Mr. Martin O'Neil and

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Mr. Norman Buchan.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pollock, Alexander

  Benyon, W.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rifklnd, Malcolm

  Blackburn, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lee, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

  Bright, Graham

  Loveridge, John

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  Campbell, Ian

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Speller, Tony

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  McQuade, John

  Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Marlow, Tony

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Corrie, John

  Mates, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Trippier, David

  Dempsey, James

  Mawby, Ray

  Viggers, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Waddington, David

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wakeham, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Moate, Roger

  Wall, Patrick

  Elliott, Sir William

  Monro, Hector

  Ward, John

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Watson, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Mudd, David

  Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Myles, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Goodhew, Victor

  Neale, Gerrard

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Gray, Hamish

  Needham, Richard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Neubert, Michael

  Mr. John MacKay and

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham

  Mr. Michael Ancram.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

  OFFENCES OF SOLVENT INHALATION AND SALES TO MINORS FOR THAT PURPOSE
  (1) The use of solvent adhesives for inhalation shall be an offence.
  (2) Any person convicted of selling solvent adhesives to a person under the age of eighteen for the purpose of inhalation shall be guilty of an offence.
  (3) Any person under the age of eighteen coming to the notice of the police as indulging in solvent inhalation shall be reported to a Youth Panel.— [Mr. Dempsey.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  6 pm
  Mr. Dempsey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
  New clause 3—Solvent abuse.
  New clause 5—Abuse of solvents.
  Mr. Dempsey: The purpose of the clause is to seek more effective ways of dealing with a problem that is becoming more and more serious, especially in the West of Scotland.
  The problem has been known for some years. I have been concerned with it for five or six years since I found that it was taking place in my constituency. Following what is known as solvent inhalation—more popularly acknowledged in my part of the country as glue sniffing—three young people, who got very high on glue sniffing, lit a fire. Two of them heaped the fire on to a 14-year-old constituent of mine, who died subsequently from the injuries that he received from that fire. There was no question but that it was the inhalation of the solvent that contributed to his tragic death.
  Since that time we have learnt of other tragedies. It is estimated that in the deaths of 17 persons a major contributor to the cause was glue sniffing, or solvent inhalation. The extent of the problem clearly gives great cause for concern, but

  323
  it is very difficult to know what more effective action could be taken. The overwhelming majority of those concerned are under 18, and a recently circulated report states that the largest single unit among them is composed of young people of 14 to 15. The estimate is that at the very least 10,000 are involved in this malpractice.
  What happened at a recent school council meeting indicates how little the authorities know of the problem. One teacher stated that no fewer than 114 schoolchildren in that small school were indulging in the practice, and that neither the police nor the social work department knew anything about them. It is obvious from what is known that only a minimum number of young people are involved.
  There are five health districts in Glasgow. Only one of them has a clinic. It is estimated that 800 young people are attending that clinic. If there were clinics in the other four districts we should have a better indication of the size of the problem. If there were clinics in the Lanarkshire district of the health board the size of the problem would surely convince people that it is not being tackled sufficiently seriously.
  Some hon. Members may not have heard the full details of the problem. The malpractice of glue sniffing affects the brain of the young person. It also affects the liver, the balance of the muscles, and the ability to concentrate. It affects the ability to resist illnesses, disease and troubles. That is the effect that the practice has on young people.
  I have been concerned for some time about how we should tackle the problem. I have to urge, first, that it be made an offence. It should also be made an offence for retailers to sell these commodities to young people.
  It has often been argued that there are so many offending items that it would not be feasible to draw up rules and regulations to deal effectively with the problem. I am not impressed by that argument. I grew up in the shop assistants trade and eventually became a branch manager. There were certain commodities in the shop that neither I nor any of the staff could sell to young people. There is nothing unusual about that. Indeed, there are many items which a
  324
  chemist, in his discretion, may feel should not be supplied to young people because of the fear that they may be misused. We should therefore disabuse our minds of the idea that it is impossible to introduce some sort of legislation to prevent the sale of these commodities on the scale that is taking place at present.
  There are some who may say "Why not try to get the voluntary co-operation of the shopkeepers?" That has been tried. We had a voluntary scheme only a few years ago, when the Coatbridge police canvassed all the shopkeepers. All except one co-operated. The one who did not co-operate was the nigger in the woodpile. He was involved in the bulk of the trade because he had no scruples about being involved in a problem affecting young people.
  There is always a bad apple in the box; therefore some sanction will always be necessary if we are to try to control the distribution of these dangerous commodities to young persons. I felt that this aspect should be mentioned in the clause, so that the Secretary of State and his colleagues would have an opportunity to consider it.
  There are more ways than one to make alcoholic liquor. In the working-class area to which I belong I have seen all sorts of gadgets and elements being used for making alcohol. I should not like to mention them here in case the publicity had a counter-productive effect, but if we were to decide that we could not control the sale of liquor to persons under 18 because of the other avenues available to them there would be no legislation whatever dealing with the sale of alcohol to such people. The same argument applies to cigarettes. There are dozens of ways in which young people can cook up something like cigarettes without having to buy them, but that is no argument against trying to introduce some type of restrictive legislation.
  Recently I was approached by a constituent who had a licence for a gun. He gave me all the details of the unlicensed materials that can be bought. I understand that 1 lb. of a particular powder will produce 200 bullets. That can be done without a licence and with no control whatever. If it were to be argued that because these avenues are available we should not license guns,

  325
  there would be no gun licences in this country.
  The mere fact that we might find it difficult to control numbers or to control the sale of these various substances to young people is no adequate reason why we should not apply our minds to the problem and try to do something about it.
  Under both Conservative and Labour Governments, the Department of Health has not gone far enough in its efforts to deal with the problem. It is too serious to be dealt with simply on the basis of health education. We are talking here of the lives of young boys and girls. I understand that one out of every six people indulging in the habit at present is a young girl.
  The tragedy is that by the time these young people become adults they are beyond the help that can be given through health education. They are in need of curative treatment. At an early stage they need to attend assessment centres, which should be set up in different parts of urban communities. In Scotland we require special hospital facilities, where strict and effective curative treatment can be administered to rescue those young people from a life that would otherwise be disastrous.
  The reason why I am anxious to air the matter today is that, above all, there should be legislation whereby the police, when they catch these young adherents, can send them to special centres for care and attention. They cannot do so at present in Scotland because they do not have the authority. Most of the police are placed in a position whereby they can only telephone the parents and say that they have caught their son or daughter indulging in glue sniffing, and that they would be obliged if the parents would take him or her home. Beyond that, they have no authority.
  The object of the new clause is to try to give the police the authority to refer those young people to the children's panel. I was advised that in order to have that objective placed on the amendment paper I had to go through the routine of the three subsections of the new clause.
  I am anxious to learn whether the Minister can give any advice, assistance
  326
  or direction whereby our police will be able to arrange for referrals of young people to children's panels, which can determine the most appropriate action. I am not anxious to make the youngsters criminals. I do not believe that prison sentences, fines or other punishments are needed. Treatment is needed, but the young people are not getting it, mainly because nine out of 10 cases are unknown. They never come to the notice of the authorities. The best that we can do is to prevail upon the guidance of teachers, voluntary services and nurses. Recently, a nurse approached me and offered to set up a voluntary clinic, with the service of a doctor, to try to help these young people and to cure them before it was too late.
  Few cases are discovered, because our legislation lacks the teeth to deal with the problem. I hope that from our deliberations will emerge a more concrete, effective and worthwhile procedure to enable young people to be given proper treatment, and to enable the problem to be minimised, if not eliminated.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. John MacKay: I know that over many years the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has conducted a campaign about this serious problem, and I pay tribute to him. Having been a member of the Committee and discussed the new clauses on this subject, I am sure that he will not be too surprised to hear from me that we do not yet have a solution that will be acceptable to the Law Officers or to the Minister.
  I shall not go over the arguments that we discussed in Committee—that would be tedious repetition, though not foreign to the Labour Members of the Committee. The proposition that we should try to make solvent inhalation an offence was dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland in Committee, and he pointed out the defects. He also said that at present the Strathclyde police were referring cases to the children's panel The instances of glue sniffing are not declining in the Glasgow conurbation, which tends to suggest that referral to children's panels is not the way forward. Although it may be part of the way forward, it will not solve the problem in any way.

  327
  The only possible solution must come from looking at and possibly stopping the supply of these inhalants. I refer the House to the case that was often quoted in Committee—that against the Glasgow shopkeeper Mohammed Malik. He was accused of selling glue to 12 children
  "wilfully, culpably and recklessly, knowing that they would inhale it to the danger of their health and lives."
  The sheriff said that either Parliament must outlaw glue or the High Court must use its declaratory powers.
  We are still trying to find a way in which the House can outlaw the supply of glue, if it is to be sniffed. In Committee there was total agreement on the question but we failed to find a solution. I took the view then, and I take the view in my new clause, that we must pursue the matter at source. Obviously we shall not stop glue or its derivatives from getting into the hands of children who want to sniff it. I have talked to children in the Glasgow conurbation about this problem, and I was more horrified by their comments than I have been by the press reports. It seemed to be common knowledge among the children as to the incidence of sniffing, the number of children who sniffed glue, where they did it and where they obtained the glue.
  This is a major problem. We are not merely talking about the odd tube of glue dropping out of father's cupboard or being bought. We are talking about fairly large amounts of glue that have to be bought from shops selling both over the counter and by self-service. The sale of glue in self-service shops would be more difficult to control, but if it has to be taken off the shelves that will be a small price to pay.
  Sheriff Irvine-Smith said:
  "If this court were to intervene and hold this complaint relevant the question still arises how the principle will be limited in practice. If it cannot be limited and it is the supply of the glue that is to be proscribed, it seems to me only Parliament could do so."
  Those remarks were directed at us. My new clause tries to do that.
  It was pointed out to me in Committee that to list the substances was tantamount to advertising, so I have removed that provision. It was also pointed out that
  328
  a parent who had unknowingly given glue to a child could be caught by my proposed clause. I have also dealt with that. I have tried to make the new clause as simple as possible. It is a genuine attempt to try to stop the sale of the glue at source.
  I shall be accused of putting the onus on the shopkeeper. I shall be told that a shopkeeper cannot know whether Jimmy Smith is buying a tube of "Stick-it" to sniff. However, if a shopkeeper finds that he is selling lots of tubes of glue to lots of little boys and girls, he should be suspicious. The clause is designed to deter rather than convict. The police should be able to tell a shopkeeper that they believe that he is the source of glue that is being sniffed and that he should be cautious to whom he sells it. He should be more guarded about selling it to older children who may pass it on to younger ones. The police should be able to ask him to accept his social responsibility. They should also be able to point out that Parliament has passed this legislation and that if, after such warnings, there is evidence that a shopkeeper is continuing to sell glue, he can be prosecuted. That may help the police to put an end to the large-scale manifestation of the practice.
  The purists will argue against having a law that will seldom be used. It may be difficult to establish a watertight case in law. However, legislation could make the task of the police easier. To water down legal principles slightly will be well worth while if we can prevent children from being drawn to the practice. If mothers and children can see that Parliament has made an effort, and if the police have some measure to help them, we shall have done the public a service. Therefore, I am tempted to press my new clause to a Division.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend says that his purpose is to assist the police. I am concerned that the new clause will make their task more difficult. The police are charged with enforcing the law. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to prove a criminal offence, which will complicate instead of ease their task.
  Mr. MacKay: That is a danger. In the case of Malik, the Crown considered

  329
  that it had sufficient evidence to prosecute, without the advantage of such legislation. In cases involving the most flagrant selling of glue to children, knowing that it will be sniffed, the police may well get a conviction. Legislation could help to encourage shopkeepers to tighten up. Supermarkets would be encouraged to remove such substances from their self-service displays to other less accessible areas, where they hold other dangerous items.
  I ask the Government to consider the proposal seriously. Young lives are being ruined. Let us dilute the legal purity if we can thereby improve the position of the authorities, parents and schools in Strathclyde.
  Mr. Dewar: This is a difficult problem, to which there are no obvious and easy solutions. If there had been we should doubtless have had legislation before now. We are dealing with the proliferation of various products, and not a small, neat, easily defined category of products that give off the fumes that produce incapacitating effects. We are not dealing with a specific system of outlets, as with the licensed trade, where certain shops are licensed to sell a category of products and where control is therefore easier. The products that children can, with ingenuity, use for glue sniffing are found in every corner grocery store and supermarket.
  With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), I do not believe that sending a child to a children's panel would help. I was once professionally involved with the children's panel system, and I believe that section 32 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 is sufficient to allow any child who is manifestly involved in glue sniffing to be referred and put under supervision if that is considered to be the best way of mobilising help and resources for him. There are no short cuts.
  I am conscious that by tabling new clause 5 we may be raising false hopes and expectations. The problem causes real fears. I believe that my constituents would like to think that Parliament was searching diligently for solutions and was involved and aware, rather than putting the problem to one side because trying to do something about it was
  330
  fraught with difficulties and could, at the margin, be counter-productive.
  I hasten to say that I do not believe that we should legislate for the sake of legislation. I shall listen to the debate with care. I know the substantial structural and administrative arguments that will be deployed. At the end of the day I might be convinced that we should not press new clause 5 to a Division.
  I do not wish to over-labour or over-dramatise the point, but in the housing schemes that make up the Garscadden constituency glue sniffing is a major problem, which is affecting the quality of people's lives. I hear that not only from the people who talk to me about the problem of glue sniffing but from mothers who are extremely anxious about the effect on their children. They recognise the importance of group pressure and fashion among young people. They are finding it harder and harder to persuade their own children to stand aside from what has become, in some areas, a prevalent activity among teenagers. I know how important it is, because I obtain insight into it when people write to me about different matters.
  Frequently, I receive letters from people asking for housing transfers because they have had trouble on stairways with youths sniffing glue. They have tried to clear them off the stairs and there has been continuing trouble and problems for them and their families. They complain about the difficulties of living in some areas of Glasgow—one or two of which are in my constituency—from which people want to move because of the multiplicity of social problems.
  6.30 pm
  This is a most unpleasant problem. Young people act to their own detriment, putting themselves at risk legally and physically because of their irresponsibility. Further, the problem affects others living in the area. I am conscious that this is a major problem. The big drive for the long-term solution must be in terms of health education and propaganda. I agree that specialised units are needed for extreme cases where intensive social and educational support can be given. I should like to see a much heavier investment than we have managed in the past and than I fear we shall manage in the present economic climate. Anything that I

  331
  say about the new clause must be seen against that background. I do not want it to be thought that I am suggesting that the new clause will make a major impact on the problem. However, it may make a marginal contribution, for reasons to which I shall come. My remarks may overlap those of others, and therefore I shall not dwell on arguments already advanced by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay). New clause 3, which stands in his name, is similar to new clause 5, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The clause with which I am connected is a little more restrictive, in the sense of making it.
  "an offence to supply as part of a commercial transaction to any person under the age of sixteen years".
  The clause of the hon. Member for Argyll has no such limitation. If we are to legislate at all, the slightly more restrictive category would make the concept more workable and manageable. It is the impact on young people, especially those of early teenage, which worries us.
  Let me explain why I think that this clause could make a marginal contribution. It goes back to the prosecution which was mounted in the Glasgow sheriff court, to which the hon. Member for Argyll referred. That is the case of the procurator fiscal of Glasgow against a Mr. Malik, a shopkeeper in Glasgow. He was charged with selling glue to people, who were named specifically in the complaint
  "well knowing that they were purchasing said cans and tubes intending to inhale the vapours of the said glue to the danger of their health and lives, and this you did wilfully, culpably and recklessly, and they did inhale the said vapour to the danger of their health and lives."
  That prosecution was brought with the permission of the Crown Office. It was the subject of an extremely interesting judgment by the learned sheriff of Glasgow, Sheriff Irvine-Smith. He gave a lengthy and valuable judgment. Basically, at the end of the day he upheld the plea that the complaint, on the face of it, disclosed no offence that was known to the common law of Scotland. He said that if the courts had a right to create new offences—and this is a matter of dispute—it was certainly a right that lay only with the High Court of the Justiciary, not with the Glasgow sheriff court. He went on to argue that if this were to be an
  332
  offence Parliament would have to do something about it.
  Apart from the interesting technical arguments, the part of his judgment that struck me was his summation. I quote from the last paragraph of the judgment. Sheriff Irvine-Smith said:
  "If what is alleged in this indictment is in fact happening it is a very grave matter indeed—what Mr. Carmichael called a grave social evil—and, accepting that"—
  it is clear that the sheriff accepted that—
  "it is a matter on which the law ought to be in a position to intervene."
  He went on to say, obviously regretfully in view of that, that the law did not allow for intervention and, therefore, he had to uphold the plea to the relevancy of the complaint and dismissed the matter.
  If Sheriff Irvine-Smith is right that this is a matter on which the law should be able to intervene, I contend that new clause 5 is worth seriously considering, as it is an attempt to give grounds for that intervention. It would be applicable only in a small number of cases. It is clear that a large number of the products which are used for glue sniffling are shoplifted. That is well known to those who struggle with the problem. Many others may be bought by adults and passed to youngsters later, or obtained by youngsters in the home. A large number will be bought by youngsters from innocent shopkeepers, with no idea of what they are going to used for, where prosecution would be a monstrous imposition and, in any case, would patently fail for lack of evidence.
  However, there may be occasional cases where it is clear that a shopkeeper over a period of time is acting irresponsibly in his selling policy, and this has been pointed out to him by community involvement and the police. The point has been driven home; he has been warned and asked, and has still proceeded to sell to children whom he knows are abusing the solvents. He must well know why they are purchasing them.
  If it is said that that may be difficult to prove, I accept that. However, cases may obviously arise where it is at least thought by the responsible Crown authorities that proof is possible. In the case of Malik that circumstance existed. We know that that prosecution was brought. If the Crown had managed to get over

  333
  the plea to the relevancy—over that preliminary hurdle—presumably it was in a position to adduce facts from which the sheriff would clearly have been able to deduce that the facts in the complaint had been proved to a satisfactory standard under the law of Scotland.
  If that were the situation, if the Crown Office felt keenly enough about it, and if it were satisfied that it had a case to present, it could bring that prosecution and consider the appeal.
  The document in my possession is a stated case which was requested by the procurator fiscal. The fiscal did not proceed with it, presumably because, when he read it, he concluded that the legal arguments used by the sheriff were unchallengeable as the law stood. The very fact that the Crown Law Office thought that it was worth starting the stated case procedure shows that it felt that this was a case which it was important to try in the interests of teaching this shopkeeper to take a more responsible line in dealing with children in an area of high risk.
  I unashamedly advance the new clause as going only to the margins of the problem. There is no way in which it will cut into the abuse of solvents. That will need a social change, propaganda, persuasion, social work support and education. It may be a long, slow and hard battle. On the analogy of the Malik prosecution, there may be in Scotland, perhaps in my constituency and perhaps in others, shopkeepers who are abusing—as that shopkeeper abused, in the view of the Crown Office—their responsibilities to the public and who are irresponsibly continuing to push their wares, well knowing the damage being done as a result.
  In new clause 5 I want to put upon the statute book a basis that would allow the intervention which Sheriff Irvine-Smith, in his judgment, said was so well justified in the circumstances which were, at least, alleged. He did not know whether proof would have stood up. As I say, it is not a great departure. However, of all the possible legislative initiatives it is perhaps the most modest in its intention. It seems to me to be the most practicable, and is well worth considering.
  334
  I have re-read what the Solicitor-General said in Committee. He was trying to be helpful. Indeed, he was helpful, because he pointed out many difficulties which were genuine and substantial. His last sentence was:
  "We shall certainly try to find a simple form of words which overcomes the major problems that I have outlined, one of which I have said that we shall excluded, namely, any attempt to list such substances as we regard as falling into the category."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 24 June 1980, c. 1545.]
  Like the hon. Member for Argyll I have tabled my new clause so as to exclude the drawing up of an exhaustive list of substances and I have tried to meet as many of the objections of the Solicitor-General for Scotland as possible.
  I hope that the Government have looked sympathetically at this possibility because I believe—I make no apology for this—that if we could legislate in this limited way we would advertise our concern. That would be appreciated by my constituents and by many other people. Such legislation would not be mere tokenism, because in its limited way it would make a real though modest contribution to the fight against a real social evil.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: It may be helpful if I intervene at this stage to speak to new clause 5. I should say to the Secretary of State straight away that new clause 5 is not meant as a criticism of any lack of action on the part of the Government. I speak as someone who has previously had responsibility for attempting to deal with this difficult matter, and I was never really completely comfortable—I suspect that this may well be the feeling of the Secretary of State—when I answered my hon. Friends on this vexed question.
  It is worthy of note that so important has this issue become that it is not the first time today that the House has debated solvent sniffing. It was the subject of the Adjournment debate that ended just after 2 o'clock this morning. My reason for commenting on that is to illustrate that glue sniffing is not only a Scottish problem. It would be a tragic error if we gave the impression that solvent sniffing is purely a Scottish problem. The problem has developed over the last three or four years, and is a United Kingdom problem.

  335
  Nevertheless, we are dealing here with Scottish legislation, and we are charged with the responsibility of attempting to do something to deal with this problem in Scottish legislation. I speak as one who once had to view the corpse of a young boy from Lanarkshire who had been found dead behind a gas holder, having taken part in solvent sniffing. Without painting a horrific picture, I can tell the House that that sight was something that will live with me for a long time.
  It is not generally appreciated that those who are unfortunate enough to get involved in solvent sniffing and suffer the fatal consequences suffer great bodily distortion. There is strong evidence that such sniffing causes brain damage, and I am sure that the identification of that young boy by his parents is an experience that will live with them for the rest of their lives.
  I do not wish to over-dramatise the position, but I think that we all accept that over the last six years a particularly serious problem has developed. Our concern is with what happens to those who sniff solvents. Though we have concentrated our comments on the matter of solvent sniffing, there is the added question of how a youngster moves from what we regard as a soft drug—if we may describe solvent sniffing as a soft drug activity—to hard drugs.
  When I had to deal with this problem I was advised that there was no strong evidence that those who sniffed solvents subsequently moved on to hard drugs. I suspect that that picture has also changed. It is for those reasons that I believe that Parliament has the responsibility seriously to consider taking the steps defined in new clauses 3 and 5. The difference between them has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The difference between those new clauses and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is that new clauses 3 and 5 seek to deal with those who retail solvent substances, and new clause 2 seeks to deal also with those who inhale the solvents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said—I join in the tribute paid to him by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay)—it is difficult, if not impossible, to deal with those who inhale solvents.
  336
  I hope that the Secretary of State will clear up the matter of referrals by the Strathclyde police. Referrals in Strathclyde are not made on the basis that a youngster is sniffing solvents. Sniffing is the basis for the police action, but the referral is made because the child is beyond parental control or for some other reason. The police may not refer youngsters to the children's panel on the basis of solvent sniffing. I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to clear up that matter.
  6.45 pm
  At one time I had a great deal of faith—I still have—in a project that was undertaken, I think, in the East End of Glasgow. There was a co-ordinated effort by the police, the social work departments and a host of other agencies, and a register was kept of those who were caught—to put it no higher than that—in the act of solvent sniffing. When the Secretary of State replies to the debate I hope that he will provide up-dated information on how that experiment is progressing.
  I think that it would be worth while for the House to hear whether the work done by Dr. Joyce Watson about five years ago has advanced to any great extent. I pay tribute here to one who has worked long and hard in this area. Dr. Watson has made a major contribution in seeking to solve this problem, and I chink that the House would wish to hear whether further progress has been made in her work.
  I do not wish to delay the House, since a number of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate, but I wish to say two things about the changes that have taken place. Hitherto there has been no demand by police forces in Scotland to make either the sniffing of solvents or their retailing for inhalation an offence. I think that that is an accurate statement of fact. There has been no demand to create these new offences.
  At the weekend, however, I got the impression that that position had changed. I noticed in a weekend newspaper that the chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway, Mr. Alex Campbell, said that the sniffing and retailing of solvents should be made offences. That is the first time that I have known a senior police officer go on record as saying that that

  337
  should happen. I do not know whether Chief Constable Campbell is still chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and whether he was speaking on his own behalf and that of his force. The Under-Secretary of State is indicating that Mr. Campbell is no longer chairman of that association. Nonetheless, he is a police officer of long experience and is held in high regard in police circles, and when a police officer of that standing makes that kind of pronouncement we must take the matter seriously.
  My final point relates to health education, which has a major role to play in dealing with this problem. I may be clutching at straws, and it may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), who has strong views on this matter, will take the view that we are merely tinkering with the problem by mounting an extensive advertising campaign. I do not speak of a massive advertising campaign, because that would be to overtax the ability of the Scottish health education unit in dealing with the problem, but the campaign is an attempt to bring home to youngsters and their parents the dangers of glue sniffing.
  I am aware of the counter-arguments about the danger of glamorising something when we want to achieve the opposite effect. I appreciate that by going in for such a campaign we may glamorise the problem and that youngsters who have not hitherto been attracted to this nasty habit of solvent sniffing may be attracted to it. However, if we are to have the involvement of the Scottish health education unit in an advertising campaign—this will probably be the only contentious point in the debate, but I do not apologise for making it—the Secretary of State will have to restore its budget.
  In this financial year the Scottish health education unit has had its budget cut to the extent that it will be able to purchase only 75 per cent. of the advertising space that it purchased in the last financial year. If the unit is to continue to deal with the problems of lung cancer derived from smoking and of alcoholic psychosis derived from over-drinking, and all the other social problems for which it is responsible, and in addition is
  338
  to take on this task, the Secretary of State must look at the financial resources available within new St. Andrew's House and restore the unit's budget and, if possible, add to it to enable it to go in for this extensive advertising campaign to seek to bring home the dangers of solvent sniffing not only to children but to their parents.
  I know that the Secretary of State will be anxious to give us cause for hope, because this problem concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is no divide between us. No one has the monopoly of concern about the consequences of solvent sniffing for children and their parents. My remarks are made on the basis that we are all equally concerned about this serious problem. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will at least give us cause to hope that something will be done to bring about a reduction in the numbers of children involved in solvent sniffing.
  I do not want an announcement that a working party has been set up. Governments of all political complexions have sheltered under the working party approach. Whenever a problem is difficult, their first race for shelter is to announce "We have set up a working party", and during the next four years Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and answer questions on the basis that a working party is considering this or that aspect of a particular problem. I hope that the Secretary of State will not lumber us with yet one more working party. We have been through all this before. This subject has been well debated. As I said, there is no monopoly of concern about this issue. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the budget of the Scottish health education unit and indicate any new thinking that has developed in the Scottish Office on this matter within the past two or three years. I hope, too, that he will be able to send out a ray of hope to those who are suffering from the disastrous effects of solvent sniffing.
  Mr. Bill Walker Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire) rose—
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Walker: I do not normally dress in this manner to talk about solvent sniffing.

  339
  I intervene briefly because in Committee we covered this matter thoroughly and deeply. Those who served on the Committee expected something to be done that would be meaningful and helpful. The new clause moved by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), which is not exactly the same as the clause that I moved in Committee, deals with those who partake of this obnoxious habit. I felt that there would be problems in prosecuting those who were vending the goods and I still believe that there are difficulties.
  Nevertheless, I should inform my right hon. Friend that in the absence of anything meaningful from him in reply to the debate I am prepared to support new clause 3 if my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) presses it to a Division. I am sure that many hon. Members want to feel that something has been done about this problem. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to remove my fear that we are about to shelve this matter for a further period.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I feel obliged to put on record a contrary view to that which has been put forward so far. I hope that the Secretary of State will not seek to take advantage of the fact that I may go into the Lobby with him tonight, because my reputation is going through a somewhat trying period now.
  I have always felt that it is wrong to leave the impression that legislation will solve this problem, knowing the apprehension and worry of parents whose children are involved in solvent sniffing. I make no allegation against any of my hon. Friends or Conservative Members on this occasion—I am tempted to do so at times—because I recognise that there is a genuine concern in the House to reflect the desire in the community that something should be done about this problem. However, I cannot support any of the three new clauses. They are contradictory. They express only the difficulty of trying to define the substances that cause the problem.
  I do not know what a "solvent" is in legal terms. Perhaps some of my legal Friends will be able to help me in this respect. People sniff other substances that cause trouble. Therefore, we must define them and make it an offence to sniff
  340
  them. The clauses do not say that. They say that it will be an offence for a shopkeeper to sell any substance that can be sniffed. There is confusion about the definition—or lack of definition—of the substances that can give rise to this abnormal behaviour. I am concerned about this lack of definition of the substances that can give rise to this problem and whether it should be an offence for an individual to indulge in sniffing such substances or for a shopkeeper to sell them.
  My information from contacts in my constituency is that youngsters are indulging in sniffing not only glue but paint remover, hair lacquer and petrol. Do they come under the category of "solvent"? How can we, in all conscience, ask the police to enforce a law such as this in the belief that it will cure this problem? I do not see how we could possibly prosecute a shopkeeper for selling lighter fuel, paraffin or petrol in legitimate circumstances which are known to all of us. Therefore, we have to fall back on the need to exhort, to encourage and to set an example.
  On a party point, I find it depressing that in my constituency there are closes of empty houses which form the breeding grounds or gathering places for youngsters wishing to indulge in this habit. It is also depressing that the Government have selected the sale of council houses as a top priority and that they can find a few thousand pounds to run advertising campaigns in favour of such sales.
  I feel strongly about this issue, because I know of parents who are worried sick. They write pathetic letters, hoping that I shall support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). In saying this I do not wish to reproach my hon. Friend, but it is pathetic that parents should think that by passing ill-defined and unthought-out measures their children will be reclaimed from whatever dangerous circumstances they may live in. For those reasons, I shall go into the Lobby tonight to vote against the three new clauses.
  7 pm
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It may seem effrontery for an English Member to enter the debate. However, I rise briefly to support the new clause. If it proves successful in

  341
  Scotland, I hope that it will spread to England. A problem exists throughout the United Kingdom. If the proposed legislation meets with success, we shall be only too happy for it to spread to the other part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: The contribution of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is very pertinent and is relevant to last night's debate on glue sniffing, which was raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). A year ago, in Committee, we debated glue sniffing during discussion of the previous Government's Bill. I participated in that debate. The same problems were mentioned, including those of identification of substance, of enforcement and of proving guilt. The Bill passed away, and we now have a successor to it. At the time, many of us hoped that glue sniffing would burn out just as fashions burn out. Fashions change for youngsters. Sometimes the best way to deal with such a problem is to hope that it will disappear in the course of time.
  The evidence is clear. Glue sniffing has become endemic. It is not confined to restricted areas but has become generalised. There is also evidence that it damages the health of young people. When the House debates such a subject it must consider whether glue sniffing is likely to continue and develop. If the House judges that glue sniffing is likely to continue, and to harm the physical health of our children, the balance must swing in favour of legislative action.
  There are plenty of examples of certain products being shielded from and prohibited to children for their sakes and for reasons of health. Cigarettes and alcohol are probably two of the most common examples. I accept that such products are, by their nature, specialised. They are easily identifiable and easily prohibited. However, it is not easy to stamp out the use of such substances among young people. Health education has had limited success in curbing tobacco smoking among youngsters. In recent years it has probably had little effect on the consumption of alcohol.
  I also accept that youngsters who are older than those who fall within the prohibited category go into off-sales premises to buy alcohol for the use of those who
  342
  are younger. The solution may be chemical. Methylated spirits were doctored to make the liquid less palatable. In the same way, chemical ingredients could be included in the more common solvents to make it improbable that children would sniff them. That involves technology, and there is no guarantee that such a solution can be found.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) raised some valid points. I concede that a legislative solution will not be completely effective. It may make only a slight dent in the problem. If it deters only one youngster from partaking in glue sniffing, or deters shopkeepers from selling the product, we shall have done something to cut down the problem. The balance has swung heavily in favour of action by this House. If there is something wrong with the drafting of a particular measure, the Government can take it to the House of Lords.
  I assure the Secretary of State that the problem is increasing. It is only a matter of time before a Government will be required to act. As the hon. Member for Lancaster said, we have an opportunity to take the first step If we make mistakes we can cure them, but that step must first be taken.
  Mr. David Marshall: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) put the case in support of new clause 5 extremely well. I hope that he will divide the House on the clause.
  I support the new clause. Glue sniffing is reaching alarming proportions in Glasgow and in many other cities throughout the United Kingdom. Every week horrifying reports appear in the press about its results. Even if we allow for the exaggeration of press reports, the problem remains worrying and it is not confined to one part of the United Kingdom. Glue sniffing occurs in all cities, particularly in inner city areas and among the older parts of cities.
  I am not concerned only about the harm that glue sniffers do to themselves. Our greatest worry is that glue sniffing leads to damage to property, and to the lives of innocent citizens being put at risk. Youngsters under the influence of glue are completely unaware of the effects of their actions. Sometimes they have no control over them and are unaware of

  343
  what they are doing. There have been disastrous cases involving loss of life and great damage to property.
  Like my hon. Friends the Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and for Garscadden, I am repeatedly asked by my constituents in the East End of Glasgow what Parliament is doing to tackle the problem. They ask when Parliament will do something definite to solve it. This subject is of great concern to parents and the police. The police are virtually powerless to combat glue sniffing, because of the lack of legislation. Although I appreciate that there are problems about the introduction of such legislation, I sincerely believe that we should make the effort. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said, if legislation makes it more difficult for younsgters to obtain glue and if it makes it less attractive to shopkeepers to sell glue indiscriminately—as some of them, to their shame, do—and if we can prevent even one youngster from suffering the horrible effects of glue sniffing, it will be worth while. I hope that the House will support the new clause 5.
  Mr. Jim Craigen: It is a sad reflection of the times that we have to debate this subject at all. Last night the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) raised an Adjournment debate on the subject. The problem is therefore not exclusive to Glasgow. I should like to emphasise that, because an hon. Member gave the impression that only Glasgow had that problem. Unhappily, it plagues several predominantly urban areas in the United Kingdom.
  This place is a constant source of education. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and I remembered arranging a meeting between him and Dr. Joyce Watson at the beginning of 1977.
  Perhaps there has been a change of attitude since. The view that was expressed then was that we could not legislate on this matter and that health education was the best approach. Frankly, there are limits to the extent to which leaflets or television advertising can alter the problem. My view is that such leaflets and television advertisements usually mean employment for the public relations
  344
  ment but do not do a great deal to help the parents and the youngsters who are up against the problem.
  Tonight we have an opportunity to make some inroads in an attempt to deal with the problem. I am not altogether happy with the drafting of the new clauses. My own view is that we are more likely to have success by tackling the problem through youngsters who are under the influence of solvent-based products rather than by trying to control the sale of the products. One must acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). The range of solvent-based products that can be used is mind-boggling. We are talking not only about petrol, but about boot polish, bicycle repair kits, nail polish, hair lacquer and all sorts of everyday products which it would be exceedingly difficult to ban, far less control, in the shops. We are more likely to have success if we tackle the problem from the point of view of youngsters under the influence of solvent-based products.
  From my discussions on this topic, and from the representations that have been made to me, it seems more likely that we shall succeed by going in that direction. The police are uncertain about their powers. Very often they do not receive the parental support that is necessary. The establishment of advice clinics for youngsters has been a useful development. It is one which I hope the Scottish Office will support, because many of these youngsters need help.
  At the same time, we must be realistic. Many youngsters do this once and never do it again. Therefore, we are trying to get at the ones who become addicted to the practice, because they are the ones who really need help. I do not want to turn them into criminals. They require support which, for reasons which we cannot determine here, is not always available, be it at home or among their peers. Unfortunately, the police are usually able to act only when another crime takes place, such as results in vandalism or anti-social behaviour.
  We have an opportunity to do something tonight. I am not altogether happy with the wording of the new clauses. However, if we do not take this chance to do something, we shall simply allow the

  345
  problem to grow. One thing is certain, and that is that it will not go away.
  Mr. Younger: This has been a thoughtful debate, as befits a subject which deeply concerns hon. Members in all parts of the House and, indeed, hon. Members from both sides of the border. We are very much indebted to the hon. Member for Coatbridge ad Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and his hon. Friends, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay), for tabling the new clauses. It concentrates our minds when we address ourselves to specific proposals, and this has been a valuable way of using the time in this debate. I am grateful to all those hon. Members.
  I reiterate that this problem will not go away. It is becoming more serious, not less. It is evident from what has been said tonight that none of us has an easy, quickfire, simple solution to the problem. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) for giving us the benefit of his experience at the Scottish Office, making it clear that he also has done a great deal to solve this problem and that he was as baffled about it as everyone else.
  7.15 pm
  Therefore, I hope that those hon. Members who have tabled the new clauses will not take it amiss if I say that I honestly do not think that any of them would stand the light of day as legislative provisions. I think that probably all hon. Members would agree with that view.
  We must be careful about creating a statutory offence of any kind, particularly in this instance. As the new clauses suggest, in order to create a statutory offence—to sell these substances to people under a certain age, or whatever variant of that we produce—one must start by defining what the substances are which it will be a statutory offence to sell. One must define what the offence is to be—whether it is to be purchasing it or inhaling it. One must define what inhaling is, and one must spell out the conditions under which that would be an offence. I do not think that any hon. Member who has listened to the debate will deny that all those questions remain unanswered by what has been said this evening.
  As many hon. Members have pointed out, it is not just a question of glue. A
  346
  multitude of different products is involved. Even if I were to try to list them, which I have no intention of doing, I would be deficient in many of them, and there are many others which might also be invented or used for the purpose. Therefore, in that sense we are miles from being able to define the problem.
  It would also be difficult to put an onus on the shopkeeper, even supposing that we knew what the products were. It would be difficult to put an onus on the shopkeeper to make a judgment as to whether the child asking for glue, or for one of the many other substances, was doing so with the intention of using it for sniffing or inhaling. That would be difficult in respect of any shop—even the corner shop, where the people concerned might be known to each other. However, it is absurd to imagine that the girl at the checkout desk at the supermarket will be able to make a judgment of that kind. We know that some of the substances used for inhaling are shoplifted. Obviously that cannot be legislated for, in this sense anyway. In other cases, they are bought for perfectly legitimate purposes and picked up in the home or transferred from one person to another, such as the purchaser to a friend.
  Without labouring any of these points, I suggest that the drawing up of a statutory offence, supposing that we had a clear idea of exactly what was involved, is far removed from the provisions of any of the new clauses, admirable though they are. That is not to say that there is nothing which can be done. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) was absolutely right and courageous to point out the truth of the matter, which is that it is no kindness at all to lead people to think that there is a quick, easy legislative way of removing their genuine worry. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) made the right approach in defining the much more difficult and less precise ways in which we shall have to work carefully and with much deliberation to reduce what is a growing evil.
  We believe that we have to start with comprehensive health education. This view was conveyed in a number of circulars by the previous Administration. The circulars were sent to directors of social work, chief administrative medical officers, chief constables and directors of education. They stressed the value of

  347
  health education and focused attention on the need for earlier recognition of the problem by those likely first to come into contact with those affected by the practice of inhalation or sniffing. This point was made by the hon. Member for Mary-hill.
  The circulars mentioned the assistance available, the need for co-ordination of local effort to provide information and services and the case for the formation of joint liaison committees by local authorities in the areas where this is a major and growing problem. Much is already being achieved at local level by the cooperation of doctors, teachers, social workers and police and through the Scottish health education unit, which maintains a lively interest in the matter. More recently, solvent abuse has been further considered by an ad hoc group of the advisory council on social works. This group recommended that the abuse is best dealt with by continuing education about its dangers rather than by the mirage of legislation that is not practicable.
  Nor is it right to suggest that the police are hamstrung becaus solvent sniffing is not a criminal offence and that there is nothing that the police can do about it. Nothing could be further from the truth or reality. If a child comes to the notice of the police as having indulged in solvent inhalation and no other offence is committed, it is considered important that the parents should be made aware of the circumstances. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland conveyed this view to all chief constables in a circular last year. He drew attention particularly to the effective co-ordination procedure developed by Strathclyde police for dealing with solvvent abuse. As some hon. Members will know, this procedure was described in some detail in Committee. I do not propose to go over the matter again. It is recorded in the Hansard reports of the Committee. It is interesting to note that, following the inspector's circular, similar procedures have been adopted by other police forces, notably Lothian and Grampian. I firmly believe that this is a proper, fair and most effective way of handling the problem.
  Mr. Dempsey: The right hon. Gentleman is only confirming what I said—that police powers are limited to notifying
  348
  the parents. What he overlooks, very badly I regret to say, is the large number of parents who are unco-operative. Some parents are irresponsible. Some parents could not care less. What happens in those circumstances when there is no co-operation?
  Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is right. This is a baffling problem for social workers and those involved.
  There is the further step that can be taken, and which is taken, in appropriate cases for those who continue the practice despite the warnings and advice. That is the situation that arises if the parents, as the hon. Gentleman says, are irresponsible, disinterested or not prepared to help. In these cases a child can be, and is, declared to be beyond parental control. This can mean consideration of proceedings by the reporter of the children's panel under section 32 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. It would be referred as a child beyond parental control. In that context, the question of an offence does not enter into the matter. It is a matter of the child being beyond parental control.
  I propose to continue to keep this problem of solvent abuse under active review and to continue to encourage local arrangements to ensure that outbreaks are quickly identified and dealt with by the police, teachers and social workers and, where necessary, by doctors and with the help of the children's panels.
  Mr. Craigen: What does that mean? The right hon. Gentleman is simply watching the problem. Teachers, doctors and others are already involved at individual level.
  Mr. Younger: That is a fair question. There are numerous ways in which the Scottish Office, through all its parts, can keep pressure on those concerned in areas of difficulty to examine the circulars, to follow the advice and to consult others. We are also prepared to give a great deal of advice. This is not, of course, the most glamorous, dramatic and quick solution. It is, however, the way in which difficult problems are tackled and solved. The chief constables are working to this end. We have many contacts through the health department in the Scottish Office and much expertise

  349
  to contribute. This will be done by putting pressure on those concerned to follow the guidance that I have mentioned.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), I am not sure what that statement adds up to, except an expression of good wishes and personal control. I accept the difficulties of definition in relation to the supply of solvents. How does the right hon. Gentleman reply to the fact that the Crown Office, presumably through the procurator fiscal in Glasgow, felt that it may have had sufficient evidence on which to base the invention of a charge to deal with the problem? If the Crown Office, a Government office parallel with that of the right hon. Gentleman, felt that there was a case where something could be done, it is surely not beyond his own Department, which has responsibility for legislation relating to these matters, to come up with a formula that would allow the Crown Office to bring a charge that might stick in circumstances where the police, the procurator fiscal and the Crown Office believed that there was sufficient evidence on which to proceed.
  Mr. Younger: The Crown Office can no doubt respond to that question if it is put down. Obviously the Crown Office felt that it had to make a deliberate attempt to bring a prosecution to see whether it was possible to do so. In that particular case, it tried but failed. I understand that it failed—I have not studied the case in detail, although the hon. Gentleman may have done so—because it was not able to make the charge stick. This suggests that the sort of difficulties that I have outlined are real and can be obstacles to taking legal action.
  Mr. Dewar: I accept that there are many problems. I understand that in the Malik case there was a plea on relevancy. The stage was never reached of deciding whether the case would stick in terms of proof. Counsel appeared on behalf of the shopkeeper and said that there was no such offence known to the law of Scotland. That was upheld by the sheriff. The Crown Office, which presumably took the decision that the pro-
  350
  secution could proceed, obviously thought that it could make it stick in terms of evidence or it would not have mounted it.
  Mr. Younger: The Crown Office did the proper thing in trying to bring a prosecution, but it did not succeed. I am reminded of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll in one part of his excellent speech. He said that he did not want the legal purists to prevent action from being taken. I am not worried about legal purists. The problem is that the pragmatists cannot find a way that will make such a law, if introduced, produce the result that we all desire. That is why I have listed the difficulties in defining the substances and taking the measures that have been suggested.
  Mr. Tarn Dalyell: I believe that those of us who did not take part in the Committee proceedings should not detain the House now. But as the Secretary of State knows, I have had lengthy correspondence about Mr. David Cook of the EIS with his ministerial colleagues. I have not heard the Secretary of State say that there will be any discussions with the manufacturers. Many of us understand that by adding certain chemical substances one can cause vomit and distaste. Perhaps through the manufacturers—by introducing certain regulations about the manufacture of the glue itself—we can best approach this difficult problem.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Younger: That is a very interesting suggestion and I shall certainly look into what the hon. Member has said. But it still does not solve the problem. We are dealing with very many different sorts of substance. It is a massive job, but that does not mean to say that we should not look at the hon. Member's suggestion.
  I think that I have detained the House long enough. I am grateful to hon. Members who have tabled these new clauses. I applaud their wishes in doing so but—
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The Secretary of State has just given a very helpful reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Therefore I think that I should give notice that I certainly do not intend to press new clause 5.
  Mr. Younger: I am very grateful to the hon. Member. I recommend the House not to support any of the new clauses. I applaud the reasons for which they were tabled and I can assure hon. Members that my hon. Friends and I will do all that we can to keep this problem under review. We want to improve our methods of dealing with it, but I really do not think that legislation of the type suggested here is practical.
  Mr. Dempsey: The debate has been very informative. My only request to the Secretary of State is that he should not concentrate on the difficulties but should get down to the possibilities. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

  DETENTION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS
  '—(1) After the commencement of this section, it shall not be competent to impose detention in a detention centre or in a young offenders institution or a sentence of borstal training, but detention in a youth institution may be imposed on an offender who is of or over 16 and under 21 years of age in accordance with section 207 or 415 of the 1975 Act.
  (2) Any reference in any enactment to any of the following sentences in Scotland—

  (a) detention in a detention centre;

  (b) detention in a young offenders institution;

  (c) borstal training,

  shall be construed as a reference to detention in a youth institution.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall prescribe certain institutions as youth institutions for the purposes of this section.
  (4) For each of sections 207 and 415 of the 1975 Act (restriction on imprisonment of persons under 17) there shall be substituted the following section—
  " Detention of young offenders.
  (1) It shall not be competent to impose imprisonment on a person under 21 years of age.
  (2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a court may impose detention in a youth institution on a person of or over 16 and under 21 years of age where—

  (a) that person has been convicted of an offence which but for this section would be punishable with imprisonment; or

  (b) the court would have power but for this section to impose imprisonment, otherwise than by sentence, on him;

  but the period of detention imposed under this section on any person shall not exceed the period of imprisonment which could be
  352
  imposed on him if he were of or over 21 years of age.
  (3) A court shall not impose detention on a person under this section unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate; and the court shall state its reason for that opinion, and the reason shall be entered in the record of the proceedings.
  (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the court shall obtain information about the offender's circumstances from an officer of a local authority or otherwise, and shall take into account that information and any other information which is relevant to his character and to his physical and mental condition.".
  (5) The following enactments—

  (a) section 20 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 (remission for good conduct); and

  (b) sections 59 to 62 and section 64 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (release on licence),

  shall apply to a person who has been sentenced under section 207 or 415 of the 1975 Act to a period of detention in respect of an offence as they apply to a person who has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment.

  (a) section 9 (transfer of young offenders between institutions);

  (b) section 10 (transfer to prison of persons over 21 etc.);

  (c) section 12 (supervision of persons released from young offenders institutions);

  (d) section 51 (interpretation),

  shall have effect subject to the amendments set out in Schedule (Amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963) to this Act.'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 63, in page 38, line 39. leave out clause 45.
  No. 74, which is a new schedule entitled Amendments of Sections 9, 10, 12 and 51 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 (c. 39)
  1. In section 9—

  (a) in subsection (3) for "has been" substitute "is", and for "young offenders" substitute "youth";

  (b) in subsection (4), in paragraph (a) after "1957" insert "the Armed Forces Act 1976", and in paragraph (b) for "young offenders" in both places where it occurs substitute "youth".

  2. In section 10, at the end of subsection (3) there shall be added the following

  353
  proviso—"Provided that section 12 of this Act and section 212 or 421 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall continue to apply to a person so transferred to prison."
  3. For section 12 there shall be substituted the following section—
  "Supervision of persons released from youth institutions
  12.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person on release from detention in a youth institution in pursuance of a sentence shall, where the term of that detention was 6 months or more, be required to be under the supervision of such person as may be specified in the notice to be given to him by the Secretary of State on his release—

  (a) where he has been released on licence under section 60 (1) or section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, until the expiry of a period of 12 months from the date of his release on licence or until the expiry of the licence, whichever is the later;

  (b) in any other case—

  (i) where the term of the detention was 6 months or more, but less than 18 months, until the expiry of a period of 6 months from the date of his release from detention, or

  (ii) where the term of the detention was 18 months or more, until the expiry of a period of 12 months from the date of his release from detention, and shall, while under that supervision, comply with such other requirements as may be specified in the said notice.

  (2) The requirements specified by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above shall be in addition to any conditions specified in any licence granted under the said section 60 (1) or 61.
  (3) Without prejudice to any conditions specified in any licence granted under the said section 60 (1) or 61 and subject to subsection (5) below, any period of supervision mentioned in subsection (1) above shall terminate when the person under supervision attains the age of 23 years.
  (4) The Secretary of State may by order extend the provisions of subsection (1) above to persons detained as aforesaid whose term of detention is less than 6 months but not less than 3; and, subject to subsection (5) below, such persons shall on release from detention be required to be under supervision until the expiry of a period of 6 months from the date of their release from detention.
  (5) The Secretary of State may at any time modify or cancel any of the requirements specified by him under subsection (1) above or order that a person who is under supervision shall cease to be under supervision.
  (6) If, before the expiration of the period for which a person is required under this section to be under supervision, the Secretary of State is satisfied that that person has failed to comply with any requirement for the time
  354
  being specified in the notice given to him under subsection (1) above, he may by order recall him to a youth institution; and thereupon he shall be liable to be detained in that institution, and if at large he shall be deemed to be unlawfully at large:
  Provided that—

  (i) any such order shall at the expiration of the said period cease to have effect unless the person to whom it relates is then in custody thereunder;

  (ii) the Secretary of State shall not make an order under this subsection where the person concerned is also subject to a licence granted under the said section 60 (1) or section 61.

  (7) The period for which a person may be detained in pursuance of an order under subsection (6) above shall not exceed 3 months.
  (8) The Secretary of State may at any time release a person who is detained under this section; and the provisions of this section shall apply in the case of a person so released subject to the following modifications—

  (a) in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and in subsection (4)'release on licence' and 'release from detention' shall mean respectively 'original release on licence' and 'original release from detention';

  (b) the period during which he shall be liable to be detained on further recall shall be the period referred to in subsection (7) reduced by any time during which he has previously been detained under this section.".

  4. In section 51 (5), for the words from "section 1" to "of age)" substitute "section 207 or 415 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975".
  No. 119, in page 82, line 3, leave out Schedule 5.
  Mr. Ewing: At the outset I should say that this is an undisguised attempt to give the Government an opportunity to reconsider their penal policy for offenders aged between 16 and 21. Amendment No. 63 would leave out clause 45. This would be replaced by new clause 4, if it were accepted. Amendment No. 74 is the new schedule that would be required to go with new clause 4, and amendment No. 119 would leave out the present schedule 5 which would be replaced by the new schedule created by amendment No. 74.
  The penal policy for young people between 16 and 21 in Scotland is something that has caused some concern and given rise to a great deal of debate. We went through this subject at length in Committee. The Government's proposals are to have a young offenders' institution and a detention centre only. The institution of borstall would be abolished. Our new clause 4 would also

  355
  abolish borstal but it would also abolish the young offenders' institution and the detention centre. We would have one single youth institution where youngsters between 16 and 21 would be sent by the courts on conviction. The arguments in favour of this are very strong. That is why we have brought the subject to the Floor of the House. We want the House to have an opportunity to decide the matter.
  Our proposition would mean that young offenders between 16 and 21 convicted by the courts under the circumstances defined in new clause 4 would be sentenced to serve a term in a youth institution. We argued long and hard in Committee that in order to achieve this we would have a series of youth institutions with one or two being reception centres to which the youngsters would be sent from court to be allocated to the various parts of the penal system.
  It is not really necessary for me to rehearse all the arguments again but it is important for me to place on the record that the proposal contained in new clause 4, with a slight variation, is a replica of the provision in the Labour Government's Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which fell at the last general election. That proposal is based on the working party report that was published by the Scottish Office in 1969 when my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was Under-Secretary with responsibility for penal affairs.
  We consider that it would be a great tragedy if at this late stage the Government did not change their mind about their approach to young offenders. We know all the arguments that the Government have submitted in favour of short, sharp sentences. However, we have not heard that policy justified. In Committee we explained the effect that these short, sharp sentences would have on young people. We explained at great length that among those youngsters who are determined to pursue a life of crime, the short, sharp, shock treatment of a detention centre would become a sort of virility symbol. They would go around wearing the Glé nochil badge on their sleeves so as to boast to their fellows that they had been in that delention centre and that this was one more step along the road that they were following. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim
  356
  that the short, sharp, shock treatment would do any good or reduce crime among youngsters.
  We are all interested in reducing crime among young people, but the treatment of young offenders is probably the most important aspect of penal policy. I have argued not only here in the House but in Committee and outside as well that youngsters, of all people, have a right to the rehabilitation process. They have a right to an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves into society. As an Opposition, we consider that the proposals contained in our Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, and now contained in new clause 4, are much more effective in two respects.
  First, they would be more effective in protecting society. We accept that society is entitled to protection. Secondly, they would also be more effective in giving the youngsters the opportunity of rehabilitation—of coming back into the community and playing a more meaningful role in society. For these reasons, and having considered the arguments made in Committee, I believe that the House should accept our amendments.
  No doubt the Under-Secretary, in his leisure time between the last Committee sitting and the Report stage, has had a great many hours to read the Committee proceedings. He may well be persuaded that our approach is far better. We have seen some movement by the Government today in relation to one or two aspects of the Bill. Perhaps I am over-stating the feeling that there might be a bit more generosity shown by the Minister tonight than there was in Committee. Perhaps I will be disappointed in my feeling that the Minister is in a generous mood. Hon. Members have already referred to the fact that this morning the Government conceded seven new clauses in another Committee in which we are involved and that seems to indicate that the Minister is in a generous mood.
  Not only would the Secretary of State do the Opposition a favour by accepting the new clause; he would do the Government a favour. Certainly, he would be doing penal policy a favour. The Government have taken the wrong road. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this fifty-ninth minute chance to come back from the brink he will have to return to the subject in the not-too-distant future and ask the House to accept that

  357
  he made a mistake. He will have to accept that the better road is that suggested in the new clause.
  The issue was discussed in great detail in Committee. Many examples were given of how youngsters respond to the regime and treatment which we suggest. I hope that the combination of arguments made in Committee and on Report will convince the Government that new clause 4 is the correct road. I look forward to the Minister accepting the new clause. I warn the House that if he does not accept the new clause we shall push the issue to a Division.
  Mr. Buchan: The new clause is important and significant. It should be discussed, and if it is not accepted we should vote upon it. The Bill is punitive. We must bear that in mind. The main thrust of the Bill is concerned not with the rehabilitation or checking of offenders but with their punishment. The type of punishment is contained in clause 45, which we discussed at great length in Committee. It would take too long to repeat the arguments. I had hoped that the Government would have a change of heart, but if they have not, no reiteration by me will change their attitude.
  Several things must be said and clearly understood. The Government are shifting the treatment of young offenders away from the people who are best equipped to treat them—away from those who have been trained and have some understanding of youngsters who have erred or sinned and committed a crime. Such youngsters must, one way or another, find their way back into society. Rehabilitation has become a hackneyed term However, re-habitation is necessary.
  The Government propose to leave the judgment of how an offender should be treated to the court and the judge. They are reducing flexibility of treatment. Treatment and custodial care are to be based on the length of sentence. The Government are making a fundamental error. They say that if the sentence is four months or less the offender will go to a detention centre, and if the sentence is over four months the offender will go to a young offenders institute. The length of sentence imposed by the court because of the nature of the offence will determine the type of custody and treatment.
  358
  7.45 pm
  There is a distinction between the nature of an offence and the nature of an offender. A wide range of people might commit the same offence. Young people should be given the opportunity to have a wide range of treatment in tailored institutions. Instead of providing that, the Government have made the crucial error of deciding that the type of treatment—not the length of treatment—will be determined by the length of sentence, which is based on a judgment by a court in relation not to the nature of the offender but to the nature of the offence. That is a flaw in the Bill.
  Reference has been made to the work that I did when a paper was produced advocating such a flexible method. The new clause is an attempt to introduce such a method so that the prison section of the Scottish Office will have a range of institutions to provide the correct treatment for offenders.
  Our only vision of a detention centre is that which was greeted with applause at the Tory Party conference, when the Home Secretary announced that he would be tough with crime and young offenders would receive a short, sharp shock. Clause 45 is the fulfilment of that pledge to the blue-rinsed set of woman brainpower at the Tory Party conference. It has nothing to do with the mature judgment of society.
  The short, sharp shock has failed. In the fifteenth report from the Expenditure Committee the Home Office is reported to have said that there is
  "evidence to show that reconviction rates are improved by longer sentences, shorter sentences, or alterations in regime of any kind so far attempted. On the contrary, such evidence as there is suggests that these factors are irrelevant as far as reconviction rates are concerned."
  That is a portmanteau statement. It says that custodial treatment has not been successful in rehabilitation. What are the Government doing? They are returning to the worst and most primitive kind of custodial treatment—the short, sharp shock.
  The Expenditure Committee report went further, and said that the short, sharp shock regimes often failed because, from ordinary humanity, prison

  359
  officers were unwilling, in sufficient numbers, to take on the role required, precluding as it does any pretension to helping or caring.
  The report stated that
  "it is hard on officers to be hard on prisoners; it is not their job to treat inmates harshly; being in prison is the punishment."
  There is a theoretical error, and an error in practice that is being repeated. In Committee and elsewhere I quoted figures which showed that in 1978 about 900 young people were admitted to existing detention centres. In the same year about 3,400 inmates were reconvicted. The system does not seem to work. Even within the regime the system does not seem to be successful. In 1978, 350 inmates committed 743 internal offences. So much for the success of the short, sharp shock. The Government are taking a backward and regrettable step. They have an opportunity to rescind their decision.
  I shall not discuss at great length the new clause, which is a substitute for the wrongly headed clause 45. We discussed elements of it in Committee. The new clause would enable us to tailor the institution not to the offence but to the offender. After the court has dealt with an offence and determined the length of sentence, the offender will be put in care with the aim not only of ensuring the security of society but of putting the offender on the road to rehabilitation. The short, sharp shock prevents a return to society and rehabilitation.
  The Government are wrong. They should withdraw their clause and replace it with ours, because it gives hope to the inmate and to the prison service. The one thing that cannot be missing in any prison regime is the element of hope. If the prison officers also lose hope, the short, sharp shock applies equally to them. It is hardship, cruelty and inhumanity. I hope that the Government will think again.
  Mr. John Maxton: Clause 44, which the new clause and the amendments seek to replace, is part and parcel of pure Conservative political dogma and ideology, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has just said. It is designed to satisfy the blood lust of the blue-rinsed, twin-setted and pearl-laden ladies of the
  360
  Tory Party. It has no valid reason in terms of trying to solve the problems of crime, particularly juvenile crime, in Scotland. It does not work, and it will not work.
  In fact, the clause goes against one of the Conservatives' ideologies—the spirit of individuality, a person's right to be looked at and dealt with as an individual. The clause tries to institute a regime which is the opposite of that. It tries to destroy individuality. It gives all young offenders who have committed offences for which they will be given a sentence of less than four months exactly the same treatment—and harsh and hard treatment at that. It does not take into account their weaknesses, whether physical, psychological or mental. It gives them all a hard, harsh regime.
  We have an example in the Glenochil detention centre of how the regime is applied. There are normally 109 young men always being given chores with no valid purpose. They have to work long hours, sweeping up floors, cleaning their rooms and making their beds, but doing nothing which is purposeful towards their coming out afterwards and getting a job in whatever career they may have. It destroys individuality and reinforces the violent nature of those who are violent and the inadequacies of those who are inadequate in the first place.
  The regime makes those who are inadequate hate it, but it will not stop them from going back. My hon. Friend has given figures on that. In Committee I gave some figures from an organisation called "Cast Iron" and the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties on the number of people who, having been in the Glenochil detention centre, recommitted crime thereafter. I was mocked from the Conservative Benches, because Conservative Members believed that my sources were unreliable. It was not giving figures that they accepted, because they considered them to be from the "trendy Lefties" of the civil liberties movement.
  The simple fact is that the Solicitor-General for Scotland would not or could not produce any figures to refute those that I gave. He never produced any to show that my statistics and those of "Cast Iron" or the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties were wrong. All that he could do was to pooh-pooh us and say that the sources were wrong, and that

  361
  therefore the figures must be wrong. That is no basis for a reasonable argument.
  In Committee, several of us asked the Solicitor-General for figures. I said that if he were prepared to produce statistics that refuted my arguments I would look at them seriously and reconsider how I regarded the matter, but on no occasion was he prepared to do so. I hope that even at this late stage he will be able to produce one or two statistics.
  All the evidence suggests that the regime does not work. It does not stop youngsters from recommitting crime if they have been put into a detention centre. We believe that the regime has an effect that makes many youngsters commit crime again. It has a bad effect on the staff, as my hon. Friend also said. I am sorry that he put most of the arguments that I had intended to use. It has a bad effect on the staff in two ways. My hon. Friend gave one, which was that the members of staff feel that it is an inhumane regime and therefore are not prepared to carry it out. Arguably, the reason why we now have only one detention centre in Scotland, at Glenochil, is that many prison officers were not prepared to apply that sort of regime.
  The regime has another effect. Many prison officers, particularly those dealing with juveniles, are qualified and trained in psychiatric nursing and other specialties to try to help the young offender. Those people, who are genuinely seeking to rehabilitate the young offender, will find such a regime very offensive and will not find it easy to fit into. There may therefore be a decline in numbers of prison officers and problems of recruitment if the regime is carried on.
  The regime is wrong from that point of view, and it does not work. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will take out clause 44 and accept our new clause, which tries to deal with each juvenile offender on the basis of that person alone, and tries to give him the sort of guidance and help that is required.
  Mr. Rifkind: Essentially, two points have been raised in the debate. I shall try to answer both.
  First, while both sides of the House recognise that the existing sentencing policy for young offenders is inappropriate and inadequate, and should be re-
  362
  placed or reformed, there is a difference between us about where to draw the dividing line between the proper responsibilities of officials and the administration in regard to the proper place for youngsters to be sent to, and the proper role of the judiciary.
  In effect, what the Opposition are saying—they said it in their own Bill in the previous Parliament—is that once a youngster has been convicted and the judge has determined the length of the sentence, the court should have no further interest in what happens to him, and that it should be purely an internal administrative decision as to which establishment he should go to—whether a borstal, a young offenders institution or a detention centre.
  We go some of the way with the Opposition in that, because we accept that nowadays—although perhaps not 20 or 30 years ago—the form of treatment in a young offenders institution and a borstal is so similar in many respects that it is not necessary or appropriate to predetermine that matter at the time of conviction. Therefore, to that extent we think it right that those two should be combined.
  It is when we come to the question of sending the offender to a detention centre or a young offenders institution or other establishment that we draw a distinction. They are two very different forms of treatment, and we think it appropriate and right that there should be a role for the judge to determine not merely the length of sentence but the type of regime that is suitable for the offender. There is no doubt that the judiciary also takes that view, because it made strong representations to the previous Government to that effect. There is a clear distinction between us on this matter.
  Mr. Buchan: Why should the judge decide? What knowledge or experience does he have to suggest that he can determine what kind of treatment an offender should have?
  Mr. Rifkind: What is certainly appropriate and legitimate for a judge to decide is whether the sort of regime that is suitable and appropriate is to be found in a detention centre or in a more training-oriented regime in a borstal or, to some extent, a young offenders institution.
  Many youngsters prefer to have that matter determined in open court when

  363
  they are convicted rather than leave it to the internal administrative mechanism, under which they have little opportunity to express their own view at the time of decision. Once a youngster has been convicted, the person appearing on his behalf can make representations in open court as to what the defence thinks an appropriate form of allocation. It should not be assumed that the youngsters involved would necessarily prefer the Opposition's proposal on the method of sentencing.
  8 pm
  It would be possible for someone who had wandered into the debate without knowing the situation in Scotland to believe that detention centres had not existed in Scotland and that the Government were contemplating the introduction of a new form of treatment. In fact, we have had detention centres working for many years in the way that they will continue to work over the next few years. The criteria for sending a youngster to a detention centre may be changed, but, although there may not have been such centres south of the border, the short, sharp shock treatment is available in Scotland and has existed for many years, under a number of Labour Governments, without anyone suggesting that it should be discontinued. When the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was responsible for these matters we had no proposal from him suggesting that it was an improper, obscene or barbaric form of treatment.
  Mr, Buchan: May I state the facts? The whole purpose of my paper of that period was related precisely to that fact.
  Mr. Rifkind: We do not know the internal discussions that the hon. Gentleman had with his colleagues at that time, but we know that the Government of which he was a member did not make any changes. The detention centres continued and the hon. Gentleman was responsible for them until the end of his term of office. It is worth mentioning that fact to put the matter into perspective.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was wrong to suggest that medical, physical or psychological circumstances of an offender would not be taken into account when the form of treatment was being
  364
  determined. I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that if there were special medical, physical or psychological factors, a judge would not send a youngster to a detention centre in the first place.
  There is a provision in clause 45 that if during a youngster's period within a detention centre the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are physical or psychological factors that make it inappropriate for him to continue in the centre, he has a specific power to ensure that the young person is transferred to a young offenders institution. The circumstances that concerned the hon. Member for Cathcart are met in the Bill.
  Mr. Maxton: My point was that the mental, physical and psychological differences between individuals are not taken into account in the regime carried out in the centre.
  Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is a high degree of regimentation, he is correct. If he had visited a detention centre—he indicates that he has not—he would appreciate that recognition is given to the individual circumstances of offenders. They are not treated like a row of mechanical objects. There is a greater degree of uniformity than one would find in a young offenders institution, but it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to go to the opposite end of the spectrum to try to demonstrate what happens in a detention centre.
  The hon. Member might like to visit Glenochil before he comes to a firm conclusion.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): Send him there.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's age would justify that form of disposal.
  Mr. Maxton: I asked in Committee and earlier today whether the Minister could give us figures from Glenochil to show whether, it works as a method of solving the problems of juvenile crime.
  Mr. Rifkind: The Government have made it clear on every occasion that the matter has been discussed that we accept that there is no hard scientific evidence

  365
  to prove that the short sharp shock regime is a magic formula to deal with young offenders. However, we maintain that it is one of an alternative series of punishments and that detention centres are particularly appropriate for those serving sentences of between one and four months, because that is the normal length of regime in a detention centre. We have the advantage in Scotland of having seen the system operate over the years. I cannot accept the contention that it has been less successful than other forms of disposal of young offenders.
  Mr. Buchan: The burden of proof is on the Minister. The short, sharp shock was to be the solution. The hon. Gentleman must have had something on which to base that belief. He now claims that the Government never suggested that that would be the solution. After that glorious Tory Party conference when they all cheered and cried "We have the answer; the short sharp shock will put down the young vandals", the Under-Secretary tells us that they do not know whether that will work.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman purports to quote remarks that I never made and uses them as a basis for disagreeing with the Government's policy. That may satisfy his sense of reason, but it does not satisfy mine.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the onus of proof was on the Government. There is no such onus in Scotland. We have had detention centres for a number of years and there is no intention of changing the sort of regime that is carried on there. Detention centres existed in Scotland throughout the time of the Labour Government. I do not accept that we are changing the sort of treatment received by youngsters in Scotland.
  No new issues have been raised in this debate. The matter was fully debated in Committee.
  Mr. Maxton: The Minister insists that as there is a detention centre in Scotland he is not changing anything, yet he also claims that he cannot produce the statistics that show whether the centre works. If it has been in existence for all this time, the hon. Gentleman's civil servants must surely have collected some figures to prove whether it works.
  Mr. Rifkind: Various figures have been used by various people in support of various arguments. I know that the hon. Gentleman's views will not be changed by various figures that have not satisfied him in the past.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The Minister goes on at length about nothing changing. In that case, why do we need clause 45?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill makes changes in relation to which youngsters go to detention centres. Instead of that matter being decided in one way, it will be decided in another, and all sentences of between one month and four months will in future be served in a detention centre. I hope that it is not a matter of surprise that that fact is explained in that way.
  I was seeking to respond to the suggestion that the form of treatment provided in a detention centre is a new form of treatment in Scotland. We have had detention centres for several years. The previous Government did not attempt to abolish detention centres or the regime carried on in those centres.
  The Opposition cannot say that because a Conservative Government wish to use the same establishment that was considered suitable for penal purposes under a Labour Government that has become a wicked and irresponsible policy, which should not be accepted. They may say that, but I do not believe that they will convince the House or the people of Scotland that it is a logical, rational or sensible approach.
  Mr. Ewing: When the Under-Secretary reads his reply he will realise that it has been unsatisfactory and, in many parts, misleading. The Bill removes flexibility from the treatment of young offenders aged between 16 and 21. There has been considerable flexibility over the years. The Minister has told us and the country that all young offenders who are sentenced to periods of imprisonment of between one month and four months will serve that time in a detention centre. That has not previously been the case. That is a major change in the penal system for youngsters of between 16 and 21 years of age.
  On the point about judges and their knowledge of the treatment best suited to young offenders, it seems astonishing

  367
  that the Minister should call in aid the point that the judges are best fitted to decide the treatment. In Scotland the range of treatment available to the judges over many years has now been reduced not to two choices but, in the case of a one to four months' sentence, to only one course. Unless the youngster has some physical or mental defect the judge cannot decide that he should go to some other part of the youth penal system. He has to go to a detention centre whether or not the judge wants that—
  Mr. Rifkind Mr. Rifkind rose—
  Mr. Ewing: I wish to finish my point before the Minister intervenes. He said that all young offenders serving sentences of between one and four months would serve them in a detention centre. If the Minister wishes to intervene to change that statement I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee and, presumably, read clause 45. It states specifically that if the judge feels that there are special reasons why the youngster should not go to a detention centre, he may order that he should not go there, and that his reasons accordingly.
  Mr. Ewing: That is right. I fully accept that. But the Minister has gone to great lengths, not only in clause 45 but in his public utterances, to explain what the special reasons are expected to be.

  Division No. 422]

  AYES

  [8.13 pm

  Adams, Allen

  Dewar, Donald

  Hooley, Frank

  Allaun, Frank

  Dixon, Donald

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

  Alton, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Anderson, Donald

  Dormand, Jack

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  John, Brynmor

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

  Dubs, Alfred

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Eadie, Alex

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Blown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Eastham, Ken

  Kerr, Russell

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Buchan, Norman

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Lambie, David

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Ewing, Harry

  Litherland, Robert

  Campbell, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  McCartney, Hugh

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Field, Frank

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Canavan, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

  McElhone, Frank

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Foster, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Freud, Clement

  McNamara, Kevin

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  McWilliam, John

  Crowther, J. S.

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shattles'n)

  Cryer, Bob

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Maxton, John

  Dalyeli, Tarn

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Maynard, Miss Joan

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

  Haynes, Frank

  Mikardo, Ian

  Deakins, Eric

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dempsey, James

  Home Robertson, John

  Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

  Far from the judges having greater discretion and more flexibility under the Bill, they will have less and less. Except in special circumstances they have no alternative but to send those serving between one and four months to a detention centre. It is important to put on the record that that does not apply only to youngsters serving between one and four months. When a youngster is sentenced to a period of treatment in excess of four months, up to four months of that sentence may be served in a detention centre and the balance in the other part of the youth institution system. Far from there being more flexibility, there is less.
  With respect to the Minister, it is not true that the Labour Party or the previous Labour Government did not seek to abolish detention centres. There was a clause in the last Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to remove borstal institutions and detention centres. We were aiming for the global approach for which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was responsible in 1969, namely, the youth institution system. That has been the burden of out argument tonight. On that basis, I wish to put the matter to a vote.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 168.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Wainwright, Richard (Come Valley)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Silverman, Julius

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Parry, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Welsh, Michael

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  White, Frank R. (Bury * Radcliffe)

  Penhaligon, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Radice, Giles

  Stoddart, David

  Woodall, Alec

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Stott, Roger

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Richardson, Jo

  Strang, Gavin

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Robertson, George

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Tilley, John

  Mr. George Morton and

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Tinn James

  Mr. Joseph Dean.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Alison, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Ancram, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Hannam, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Renton, Tim

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Bendall, Vivian

  Heddle, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Henderson, Barry

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Hicks, Robert

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hordern, Peter

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

  Best, Keith

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rost, Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Blackburn, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Brinton, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Speed, Keith

  Brittan, Leon

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Speller, Tony

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sproat, lain

  Budgen, Nick

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Squire, Robin

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stainton, Keith

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Loveridge, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Luce, Richard

  Stevens, Martin

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Chapman, Sydney

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Churchill, W. S.

  MacGregor, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  McQuade, John

  Tebbit, Norman

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Cockeram, Eric

  Major, John

  Thompson, Donald

  Colvin, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Corrie, John

  Mates, Michael

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Mather, Carol

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Mawby, Ray

  Trippier, David

  Crouch, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Viggers, Peter

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Waddington, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Wakeham, John

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Moate, Roger

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Monro, Hector

  Wall, Patrick

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Ward, John

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Mudd, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Murphy, Christopher

  Watson, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Myles, David

  Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wheeler, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Needham, Richard

  Whitney, Raymond

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wickenden, Keith

  Forman, Nigel

  Neubert, Michael

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Newton, Tony

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Normanton, Tom

  Wolfson, Mark

  Goodhew, Victor

  Onslow, Cranley

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Gray, Hamish

  Osborn, John

  Greenway, Harry

  Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Grist, Ian

  Parris, Matthew

  Mr. John Cope.

  Grylls, Michael

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

  REPEAL OF SECTION 15 OF THE PREVENTION OF CRIME ACT 1871 IN RELATION TO SCOTLAND
  'Section 15 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1871 is repealed in so far as it extends to Scotland the provisions of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824.'.—[Mr. Dewar.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The clause deals with a subject that is a much vexer question to our colleagues south of the border but has not had a great deal of publicity in Scotland. I refer to the so-called "sus" law.
  It was a slight surprise to me to discover, almost by chance, in casually reading through the second report of the Home Affairs Committee, that section 15 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1871 extends to Scotland the provisions of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which is the specific "sus" provision.
  In Committee we tabled a new clause in an attempt to have this provision repealed in Scotland. I think that we were right to do so because it is clear from what we have heard that the Vagrancy Act is very seldom used in Scotland, and that when used it is used on different grounds and in a way that is very different from that in England.
  Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act refers to every suspected person or reputed thief. As I understand the position, the reputed thief provision is very seldom used in England, but it is the only concept within section 4 of the Act that is used in Scotland—and even then it is used very sparingly.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland, in answer to a written question on 17 June, told me that in 1977 there were 6,762 persons prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act 1824 or under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, which has provisions about known or reputed thieves. In 1978 that figure fell to 504.
  It is common ground among all of us who have tried to find out what is happening in this area that, while the separate figures for the two pieces of legislation are not kept, the vast majority of the 504 prosecutions are under the Burgh
  372
  Police (Scotland) Act 1892. Although I would not say that prosecutions under the 1824 Act are unknown in my experience—I have come across them in the Glasgow district court—the very fact that I remember them so clearly underlines that they are comparatively rare. Certainly they concentrate very much on the reputed thief possibilities as an alternative to the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act.
  I freely concede that the "sus" laws are nothing like as controversial in Scotland as they are in England, for the reasons that I have just given, and also because a great deal of the anxiety—an anxiety which I regard as very well founded and justified—about its operation in England arises because of the relationships between the police and the various minority communities, particularly coloured communities. Fortunately, we do not have that kind of tension in Scotland. We have in Glasgow a significant minority coloured community, but it has not encountered these difficulties. Not, perhaps, because we are essentially more liberal than our colleagues south of the border but because our communities are under less pressure, we have been fortunate in avoiding these difficulties. But, for all that, the general theoretical arguments advanced in the Home Affairs Committee about "sus" still seem to provide substantial reasons for removing the provision from the statute book in Scotland.
  The Committee referred in paragraph 25 to the
  "objectionable nature of 'sus' in principle".
  The immediately preceding paragraph stated:
  By its very nature, 'sus' is peculiarly liable at best to misinterpretation and at worst to abuse."
  The report went on to quote one of the witnesses as saying that:
  "No other offence is so besmirched by the whole concept of suspicion."
  The conclusion was
  "We are satisfied that it is not in the public interest to make behaviour interpreted as revealing criminal intent, but equally open to innocent interpretation, subject to criminal penalties."
  The general argument in principle that is set out in the report would in itself justify the removal of "sus" from the statute book in Scotland. But over and above that is the argument that it was

  373
  imported almost by accident in the days of high Victorian Unionism. I see that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is nodding assent. All sorts of pieces of English legislation were imported into Scotland almost casually and without a great deal of thought. Apart from its essential flaws, it provides no useful function in the armoury of the prosecution system in Scotland.
  I should like to quote what the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee in reply to our very brief debate, which took place at a time when we were all cooperating in order to get to the end of the Committee stage. It was very truncated but I do not intend to make up for that at any great length today. The Under-Secretary of State advanced an interesting argument. Basically, it was that:
  "The Government intend to publish this summer a draft civic government Bill for Scotland. It will be published as a White Paper and will include the Government's proposals to replace the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act and the other legislation covering this area."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 24 June 1980, c. 1573.]
  The Under-Secretary of State went on to argue that as the "sus" law, unused as it was, dealt with the same area as the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, that as the working party on civic government published an impressive report, and that as we shall have a White Paper and legislation on the subject in the next Session, we should not do anything about the "sus" law at present. I thought at the time that that was a reasonably persuasive argument, and I did not press the matter to a vote.
  Since then I have read through the report of the working party on civic government, which makes a number of references to this area of the law. A number of interesting suggestions emerge for the reform of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, which certainly needs reform. I read with interest the comments on the enticement of constables on duty and on the practising of games of hazard. But on other sections, where the 1824 Act might be relevant, the suggestions for change are based on the 1892 Act, and variations and improvements on it. I cannot see how the necessary reforms that will be put in train over the next year to achieve better legislation will in any way be hindered by passing judgment
  374
  on the "sus" laws, which are essentially irrelevant to the main question of criminal law in Scotland. It may, of course, help by clearing away a clutter on the statute book.
  8.30 pm
  I recognise that there is a formidable thicket of legislative proposals and legislative changes lying in wait for us next year, and it might be of assistance to cut away some of the thicket by removing the essentially irrelevant suggestion that the "sus" law should be kept on the statute book. It has nothing to do with modern-day criminal procedure in Scotland. It never had very much to do with our criminal procedure, and it is unsound. Having given the matter some thought, and having read again the persuasive arguments—as I thought then—of the Under-Secretary of State, I see no reason why we should not abolish the "sus" law in Scotland. Possibly by doing so we shall set an example for other areas of the United Kingdom.
  Miss Jo Richardson: I wish to make only a brief contribution because it is always difficult for an English Member to intervene in an essentially Scottish debate. I have always felt that English and Welsh Members should creep quietly away during a Scottish debate and leave matters to the Scots, but I hope that on this occasion I may be allowed to put in my two pennyworth on the subject.
  I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee whose Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration recently produced a report on race relations and the "sus" law. I am sure that hon. Members who are present will have referred to the conclusions of that report when deciding to frame the new clause.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the Scottish version of our law was not used in Scotland and that, in a sense, it was irrelevant. I think that it is important to abolish this law, and it is also important for the country to realise that the "sus" law is unevenly used in England. There are large areas in this country where the "sus" law has never been heard of, and certainly never applied. That does not apply only to areas with a totally white population, as compared with areas with an ethnic

  375
  minority population. As the Select Committee found, in the Metropolitan area there were large variations between one part of London and another, both of which had roughly the same black population and the same problems of housing and possibly social and racial disadvantage. I take the point that the law is not used in Scotland, but it is also outdated in England and should be done away with.
  I was disappointed with the reaction of the Home Secretary, and more particularly that of the Minister of State, to the Select Committee's proposal. On 14 July the Home Secretary generally accepted the Committee's findings, but did not seem convinced that nothing should be put in place of the "sus" law. That sentiment was echoed in his Birmingham speech and in a speech by the Minister of State.
  Unused though we know that section of the law is in Scotland, if the new clause is passed it will reinforce the hand of many of us who wish to see the "sus" law disappear in England. I hope that there will be strong support to get rid of the outdated law in Scotland, which will also help England to get rid of her law.
  Mr. Maxton: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) that we are delighted to see her participate in Scottish debates, particularly with such a contribution.
  Earlier today we voted to reform the Scottish law on homosexuality to make it more liberal to bring it into line with that in England. We now have the opportunity to give a lead to England and Wales over the "sus" law, mainly because that law is not widely used in Scotland. Conservative Members may feel that getting rid of the "sus" law in England could do enormous damage, but that could not be said of Scotland.
  I am afraid that the Minister may have at the back of his mind the argument that that example in Scotland may reinforce the case in England and Wales for getting rid of that law. Many Conservative Back Benchers do not wish to get rid of the "sus" law. The Minister will therefore be under strong pressure to retain that law in Scotland, even though it is obsolete, because its removal would set an example to England and Wales.
  376
  I sincerely hope that the Minister will see the measure merely as the removal of an obsolete law in Scotland. Conservative Members frequently say that they do not like to put unnecessary laws on the statute book. Here is their opportunity to get rid of an obsolete law. I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.
  Mr. Buchan: I hope that this will be my shortest speech on this Bill. I had not intended to speak, but was encouraged to do so after hearing a maiden speech on Scottish affairs by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). Unlike most maiden speakers, she did not spend most of her time discussing her constituency and saying how beautiful it was. She got to the heart of the matter.
  The "sus" laws have long been regarded by all right-thinking people as highly reprehensible. Above all, they should be repealed and got rid of as quickly as possible. It is not altogether true to say that they are in complete desuetude in Scotland. On the contrary, they have been used recently. Also, it is true to say that they are rarely used. If there is no intention to continue to use them in Scotland, they should be abolished forthwith in line with the arguments we heard from the Minister every time we tried to introduce fresh clauses and new legislation into the Bill. We were told that they were unnecessary and that legislation should not be cluttered up. Here is an example. If the Government do not intend to use the provision, they can clear it away.
  The argument for abolition has already been dealt with as a result of the documents that came out—the working party report and others—suggesting that this would not necessarily happen.
  This Bill is the most reactionary piece of criminal justice legislation that we have seen for a very long time. It brings in fresh police powers of detention and search. Above all, in clause 1 there is the question of the identification and naming of possible suspects and witnesses. This adds up to a vicious package of repression. If the Government are prepared to do that, the idea does not go away from my suspicious mind that they may also, at some time, find the necessity—if this is the course that they have embarked upon—to resuscitate the use of the "sus" laws.

  377
  Either those laws are not used, in which case they should be got rid of, or they are to be used, in which case the Minister should say so, and we may decide how to vote in relation to that. Both arguments lead to the point that the "sus" laws should be rejected in Scotland.
  Now is the time to do away with the law because of the present climate of opinion in the country as a whole—by that, I include England and Wales, rather than Scotland—that the "sus" laws should go. There is a climate of opinion on both sides of the House, as was shown by the decision of the Select Committee, that the "sus" laws should go.
  Until the bringing into the House of this Bill, the Minister was widely regarded as a liberal in Scottish legal circles [Hon. Members: "Was he?"] Yes, indeed. Hon. Members may not believe it after the months we spent in Committee. We use the term comparatively. Throughout the sittings of the Committee the Minister and his colleagues were held out as shining lights of liberalism. We are disappointed in the Government Front Bench. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to set his seal of authority on a liberal step forward, not only north of the border. It would be highly regarded and welcomed. He would be seen as returning to the fold of his former ways if he were to announce this tonight.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: The last thing that the Minister wants at this stage is to have a liberal label pinned upon him. It would be very dangerous for his advancement in the Government if his former reputation were to be revived. I am sure that he accepted this onerous job of steering the Bill through the House to obliterate those aspects of the reputation that he once enjoyed.
  I should like to rebuke the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for the way in which he approached this new clause. It seemed to me that his main object in supporting it was to make Scotland, in effect, a guinea pig for England in that the experiment should be carried out on the body of Scotland for the benefit of England. I cannot go along with that concept. I can only think that he was beguiled and seduced by the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson)
  378
  and had to take up the English cudgels in such a strong way.
  More seriously, the case for the abolition of this legislative provision was amply made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). It was incorrect of the hon. Member for Barking to indicate that this provision was not used in Scotland. It is used in Scotland. However, it is not used with the frequency with which its companion legislation is used in England.
  It is always extremely uncomfortable when one is faced with a complaint containing a charge in which the presumption of innocence had gone away and where one has to found on previous guilt by association. That is the worst condition to be found within the corpus of our criminal law. Ministers always advance that argument, no doubt because when changes are made they like to take the credit for the fact that nothing should be done. The example has already been used of forthcoming changes in the burgh police provisions which allow this matter to be tidied up and taken care of as part of a comprehensive re-examination of these provisions in Scots law.
  If it has been accepted, as indeed it has, that the "sus" provision is bad law, there is no argument for maintaining it on the statute book for another year or two. When the opportunity is provided for us to get rid of bad law, that opportunity should be taken immediately. Therefore, I urge the Minister, regardless of what the impact of this change might be upon his colleagues in England, to do his duty in relation to Scotland, to concede that these provisions are bad, and that they should be rooted out. He should urge his hon. Friends to support the new clause.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Millan: I read the report of the proceedings in Committee and I have looked up the appropriate references in the report of the working party on civic government. The working party was set up in 1972 in anticipation of local government reform. I am ashamed to say that it reported as far back as January 1976. I do not know when we shall have proper legislation. We were promised a draft Bill in the summer but there is no

  379
  sign of it yet. It will be a fascinating Bill when it arrives.
  I do not believe that because we shall have a comprehensive Bill dealing with the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act and associated legislation we should not make this minor change in Scotland by abolishing a provision which is not relevant to Scottish circumstances, which is rarely, if ever, used and whose removal from the statute book would be a legislative tidying up, to put it no higher. That tidying up is required.
  Of course, the provision has its implications for England, but I do not wish to argue the English situation here. A Select Committee has dealt with Scotland as well as England and this is a legislative opportunity to remove the provision affecting Scotland. There is not a similar opportunity to do the same for England, but if there were I would wish to see the provision removed for England as well. We must take the opportunities that are presented to us, and the opportunity has come to us in Scotland.
  The Minister's argument in Committee was like the argument used in the debate on new clause 2, which was that there is nothing much wrong with what has been put down on the Amendment Paper, and that in other circumstances the Government would be happy to see such a provision on the statute book but that they did not want to be inconvenienced by having such a provision in this Bill. The House did not find that argument particularly persuasive on the earlier provision and I think that the House will not find it persuasive on this new clause.
  This is a matter of public interest. The Select Committee looked into the matter and came to the firm view that this provision should be abolished. That view was taken by an all-party Committee and the members of the Committee maintained that view in a debate in the House.
  In relation to the report of the working party on civic government, whatever is in the draft Bill will make no difference in the Scottish context to the abolition of this provision and I hope that the House will take the opportunity to get rid of it. It is redundant and it is. of course, in certain circumstances south of the border an extremely offensive provision. As it is, in Scotland it has not raised the same kind of controversy, because our
  380
  circumstances are different. Nevertheless, as the Select Committee said, it is an offensive provision in principle and we should get rid of it as soon as possible.
  Mr. Rifkind: I think that the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) will agree that when the Select Committee considered the "sus" law it did not consider the position in Scotland, naturally, because that was not where the area of controversy had existed. The findings of the Select Committee, of great importance as they are to the situation south of the border, are not of any direct help to the position in Scotland. Even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) acknowledged in Committee and on the Floor of the House that the circumstances which led to the operation of the "sus" law south of the border do not exist in Scotland. We cannot ignore that factor. We are entitled to take it into account.
  Mr. Dewar: I think that the Under-Secretary will accept that there were two main attacks on the "sus" law in the Select Committee's report. One was on community relations, which I agree is not a matter relevant to Scotland, but the other was a fundamental attack upon this kind of law, the onus of proof and innocence and the whole concept of loitering with intent in the fashion in which it is wrtten into the Vagrancy Act. I should have thought that that held good in Scotland.
  Mr. Rifkind: I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said. We are not really at variance on the issue. We are all agreed that the problem of ethnic minorities is not a relevant consideration in Scotland on the operation of this law.
  On the prosecution of suspected persons, the hon. Member for Garscadden was right to say, as I said when we considered this matter in Committee, that the practice in Scotland has been not only to use the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act but to concentrate on reputed thieves and to bring prosecutions only when reputed thieves are involved. Therefore, there has been a tendency not to bring a prosecution because an ordinary member of the public, who is not a reputed thief. acts in a suspicious way.
  Mr. Dewar: It might help me if the Under-Secretary would explain in what

  381
  situations he thinks prosecutions should be brought in terms of known thieves loitering with intent which could not be covered by the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act which ultimately we hope to reform.
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall come to that later. I am dealing with the existing practice. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, the existing practice has been for the vast majority of prosecutions to be brought under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, and not this provision. Also, concentration has been on known thieves, not ordinary members of the public who might be acting in a suspicious way. In both respects, the situation in Scotland has been significantly different from the situation south of the border.
  I turn now to the question whether this provision should be repealed. Given that the operation of the law in Scotland has not led to any great sense of grievance, public outrage or controversy, it cannot be argued that there is any urgency for repealing this provision. If we were not to have an early opportunity to consider the whole issue not only of the Vagrancy Act but of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, this might be as good an opportunity as any for the House to come to a view on the operation of this provision in Scotland. There is nothing wrong in principle in that sense, but, as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) acknowledged, we have had the report of the working party on civic government, which covers a similar related area.
  In the next few weeks we shall publish the draft Civic Government (Scotland) Bill as a White Paper. It will not be going through its legislative processes in the next few weeks. I am referring to the publication of the draft Bill, which will include provisions in this area. The Government hope that there will be early legislation on this matter. We would not be producing a draft Bill if that was not our intention. Therefore, we shall have a very early opportunity to come to a conclusion on this whole matter.
  Mr. Millan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman shortly. These two issues are closely related and we do not have separate statistics.
  I was asked how many prosecutions there have been under this provision. The two Acts are so intertwined that we cannot say which have been prosecutions under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act and which have been prosecutions under the equivalent of the Vagrancy Act. If the two are closely intertwined, and if the House has an early opportunity to reach a decision on the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, that will be the time to come to a decision on the closely related issue. To come to a decision on one issue now and to reach a decision on the other subject in a few months' time would be a pointless exercise and would be of no benefit.
  Mr. Millan: As the draft Bill is to be published soon, the Minister must know what is in it. Does it contain a provision for the repeal of this measure in Scotland?
  Mr. Rifkind: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Bill. He would not expect me to give a different reply, nor would he have given a different reply in the same circumstances. Within the next few weeks a draft Bill will be published. The House and all outside interests will have an opportunity to discuss it.
  There is no great urgency in Scotland. Even in this debate, no hon. Member has suggested that there is any such urgency. The hon. Member for Barking simply used the argument that if we did this today we should promote her cause and the repeal of the measure in England and Wales. That may or may not be correct, but it cannot be a legitimate argument in relation to the merits of the provision as it affects Scotland.
  The House will have an early opportunity to consider the whole issue. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue his new clause to a Division.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

  Division No. 423]

  AYES

  [8.56 pm

  Adams, Allen

  Flannery, Martin

  Palmer, Arthur

  Allaun, Frank

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Parry, Robert

  Alton, David

  Foster, Derek

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Anderson, Donald

  Freud, Clement

  Penhaligon, David

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Ashton, Joe

  George, Bruce

  Radice, Giles

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

  Gilbert, Rt Hn Dr John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Robertson, George

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Haynes, Frank

  Rooker, J. W.

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Buchan, Norman

  Home Robertson, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hooley, Frank

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Campbell, Ian

  Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

  Silverman, Julius

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Canavan, Dennis

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  Clark, David (South Shields)

  John, Brynmor

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Stoddart, David

  Crowther, J. S.

  Jones. Dan (Burnley)

  Stott, Roger

  Cryer, Bob

  Kerr, Russell

  Strang, Gavin

  Cunlilffe, Lawrence

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Lambie, David

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Litherland, Robert

  Tilley, John

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

  McCartney, Hugh

  Tinn, James

  Deakins, Eric

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Dempsey, James

  McElhone, Frank

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Dewar, Donald

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Dixon, Donald

  McKelvey, William

  Welsh, Michael

  Dobson, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wheeler, John

  Dormand, Jack

  McWilliam, John

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shetlles'n)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

  Eadie, Alex

  Maxton, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Eastham, Ken

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Ewing, Harry

  Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morton, Barry

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Field, Frank

  O'Neill, Martin

  Mr. Joseph Dean.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hawksley, Warren

  Alison Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Ancram, Michael

  Cope, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Corrie, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Atkins Robert (Preston North)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)

  Crouch, David

  Hordern, Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Best, Keith

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Blackburn, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Bonsor Sir Nicholas

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Loveridge, John

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Luce, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Brinton, Tim

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Brittan Leon

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Goodhew, Victor

  McQuade, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Gow, Ian

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Budgen, Nick

  Gray, Hamish

  Major, John

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Greenway, Harry

  Mates, Michael

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mather, Carol

  Carlisle John (Luton West)

  Grist, Ian

  Mawby, Ray

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grylls, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Clark, Hon. Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hannam, John

  Moate, Roger

  Clegg, Walter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Hector

  The House Divided: Ayes 122, Noes 163.

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mudd, David

  Rost, Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Tripper, David

  Myles, David

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Viggers, Peter

  Neale, Garrard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waddington, David

  Needham, Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Wakeham, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Neubert, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Normanton, Tom

  Speller, Tony

  Wall, Patrick

  Onslow, Cranley

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Ward, John

  Osborn, John

  Sproat, lain

  Warren, Kenneth

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Squire, Robin

  Watson, John

  Parris, Matthew

  Stainton, Keith

  Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd&Stev'nage)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Whitney, Raymond

  Pollock, Alexander

  Stevens, Martin

  Wickenden, Keith

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Stewart, Allan (East Renfrewshire)

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tebbit, Norman

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Mr. John MacGregor and

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Thompson, Donald

  Mr. Tony Newton.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

  SUSPECT OR POTENTIAL WITNESS MAY BE REQUIRED BY CONSTABLE TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF
  Mr. David Steel: I beg to move amendment No. 136 in page 1, line 7, leave out 'a constable has reasonable' and insert 'there are substantial'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 137, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'he' and insert 'a constable'.
  No. 138, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'constable's'.
  No. 139 in page 2, line 9, leave out 'his' and insert 'the'.
  No. 140, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'he suspects' and insert 'it is suspected.'.
  No. 141, page 2, line 13, leave out 'his' and insert 'the'.
  No. 142, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'he suspects' and insert 'it is suspected.'.
  No. 144, in clause 2, page 2, line 42, leave out 'a constable has reasonable' and insert 'there are substantial.'.
  No. 147, in page 3, line 20, leave out 'his' and insert 'the'.
  No. 148 in page 3, line 21, leave out 'he suspects' and insert 'it is suspected.'.
  No. 157 in clause 4, page 5, line 24, leave out 'a constable has reasonable' and insert 'there are substantial.'.
  Mr. Steel: This amendment and those selected with it have basically the same purpose. I raise this matter with a certain amount of trepidation, but I believe that we should try, so far as possible, to replace the subjective grounds set out in the Bill as drafted with more objective grounds giving the power of detention. The purpose of the amendment is to make the ground for stopping a person, so far as possible, objective—replacing the wide subjective power given by the words
  "a constable has reasonable grounds".
  The subsequent amendments, mostly consequential to amendment No. 136, have been tabled with some diffidence because I am not certain that the amendment is watertight. I see that the Minister nods. That is always a bad sign. I am unhappy about the wording of the Bill as drafted. It creates far too wide a subjective power for an individual constable. The amendment is an attempt to raise the issue to see whether the Under-Secretary of State can give any assurance about how he sees the wording working in practice.
  Mr. Rifkind: I welcome this opportunity to indicate Government thinking on this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the purpose of the amendment is to replace the reasonable grounds that a constable must have under the Bill's present provisions before he can detain a suspect with "substantial grounds".
  There are two reasons why the Government cannot accept these amendments. First, they do not achieve the objective that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. He has sought to make

  387
  the provision slightly less subjective and more objective. However, ultimately, even with his proposed wording, it would be within the discretion of the constable to decide whether the grounds were sufficient to detain the suspect. Whether one calls it "reasonable" or "substantial", the matter is open to interpretation, and only the constable on the spot can so interpret.
  However, there is a more substantial reason why the amendment is inappropriate. We are dealing here with the power of detention to be used when a police officer suspects a person who has committed an offence. I assume that by "substantial" grounds the right hon. Gentleman means that the officer must have hard evidence that makes him believe not that the suspect might be involved but that he has actually committed the offence. If a constable has hard grounds, it is time to arrest the person and charge him with the offence. In those circumstances there would be a formal arrest, followed by a charge, given that the evidence was already available to justify that course of action.
  We are concerned with the situation before that stage has been reached, when the evidence available to the police officer leads him to believe that the person before him is a suspect. He may not have sufficient evidence to justify a formal arrest, because in Scotland a constable cannot arrest a person unless he is able to charge him at that time.
  That is a major difference between Scots law and English law, and that is why the Government have always argued that these powers, while they may not be necessary in England, are unfortunately necessary in Scotland. In England a person can be arrested and the police can hold him for questioning for a considerable time—sometimes several days—before deciding whether a charge should be brought against that person. However, in Scotland the courts have always ruled that an arrest cannot take place unless the police are able, at that moment or shortly after, to bring a specific charge against the accused.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that his amendment would either be superfluous, because it would not change the circumstances, or, if it did have any effect, would have the
  388
  wrong effect. It would be exerciseable only when the police, with their present powers, sought to arrest and charge a person with a crime.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 23, leave out from ' who ' to end of line 30 and insert
  'having been required—

  (i) under that subsection to give his name and address; or

  (ii) under subsection (2) above to remain with a constable, fails, without reasonable excuse, to do so '.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
  Mr. Rifkind: Subsection (5) as drafted makes it an offence for a suspect or witness not to give his name and address when required to do so, or to give a false name and address. These amendments delete the alternative offence of giving a false name and address, as it is really superfluous. They are drafting amendments to delete unnecessary words. It is unnecessary to include the offence of giving a false name and address when it is already an offence under the clause for a suspect or witness to fail to give his name and address when required to do so The one obviously presumes the other and rather than have the confusion of two separate offences, we propose to alter the situation with the amendments.
  Mr. Millan: I was rather puzzled by these amendments. I thought that the failure to give a name and address meant the failure of someone to give any name and address. However, the Minister, assures us that the one offence includes the other, so we must accept what he says. However, to the layman, the original wording made more sense.
  Mr. Rifkind: That clause in its present form states that it is an offence for a person who is required to give his name and address to fail to do so without reasonable cause. If the person does not give a name and address, or gives a false one, that person clearly fails to give his name and address and therefore it seems unnecessary to have an additional alternative offence.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 33, leave out from 'who' to 'fails' in line 35 and insert:
  'having been required under that subsection to give his name and address'.
  No. 3, in page 2, line 35, leave out:
  'or gives a false name and address'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 2

  DETENTION AND QUESTIONING AT POLICE STATION
  9.15 pm
  Mr. David Steel: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in page 3, line 7, after 'to' insert:
  'a suitable place named by that person, or if no such place is named, to'.
  The purpose of the amendment is to replace the requirement in the Bill that a person detained will be taken to a police station or other premises by giving the detained person the opportunity to name the place to which he should be taken. It is common ground, regardless of the merits of the argument, that the Bill extends the power of the police. It is reasonable that if a person is detained without charge and deprived of his liberty he should be able to nominate a suitable place for the police investigation to be conducted, particularly if the police are not to be presumed to wish to apply unreasonable pressure.
  Obviously I do not propose a universal discretion. That is why the word "suitable" is in the amendment. Clearly, the home of a suspected accomplice would not be a suitable place if that might lead to the detainee avoiding apprehension. However, the detainee's home should be regarded as a suitable and reasonable place. I am in part motivated by the dictum of Lord Justice Cooper in Her Majesty's Advocate v. Chalmers 1954 in which he said that a police station was a sinister venue for the questioning of suspects. If that were true under the old law it is even more true under the proposed powers of detention. The amendment provides a suitable alternative.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The right hon. Gentleman proposes a wonderful concept. However, we must be clear that the power of detention, which is a restrictive power, has been exercised on what is in law a voluntary basis. I
  390
  cannot conceive of a situation in which a person who is to be detained will be able to select the place of his detention. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that a detainee should not be allowed to go to the home of an accomplice but should be allowed to go to his own home. Perhaps he might also be allowed to go to his own pub or club, or any place where his friends meet.
  Who is to judge what is "suitable"? The assumption is that the choice should be that of the detainee. He is the person who, it is proposed, would be able to say that he will be detained in the Smoking Room rather than the Tea Room or the Chamber of the House of Commons. What is "suitable"? With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the concept is fatuous. We are interested in the concept of inquiry into a person who is suspected of committing a serious offence. It is a matter of inquiry.
  The safeguards that we have built into the Bill are that there should be in the police station tape recording—when it comes—the ability to fingerprint, the recording of the time when the person arrives and leaves, and the check of other officers and independent persons. I cannot see that the amendment would give any benefit to the person who was detained. It might make a mockery of the whole investigation of justice, without any benefit.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. David Steel: I beg to move amendment No. 146, in page 3, line 14 at end insert
  'and when a person has been detained under subsection (1) above for a period of six hours, he shall be informed immediately upon expiry of this period that his detention has been terminated.'.
  I am fairly certain that this amendment, unlike my two previous amendments, should be pressed strongly. Its purpose is crystal-clear. It is to ensure that a detainee is aware that he is no longer obliged to remain in the police station, his period of detention under the measure having terminated. Without such mandatory provision, as the Bill is now drafted the police would easily be able to extend the period, albeit that it would then be termed "helping the police

  391
  with their inquiries", after six hours had expired, because the detainee could still be ignorant of his right to leave.
  I have not suggested in the amendment any reduction in the six-hour period. That is a separate issue, which was debated at length in Committee. I do not approve of the six-hour period, but if we are to have it—and there is clearly a majority in the House to sustain that view—it is important that there should be a specific provision in the Bill that the detainee shall be informed that at the end of that period he is free to leave if he wishes.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have more sympathy with the concept behind this amendment than with that behind the right hon. Gentleman's two previous amendments. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is moving closer to reality.
  Under subsection (4) (f),
  "the time of the person's departure from the police station"
  must be recorded. If the police wished to use anything that happened thereafter—and, indeed, probably anything that happened before—they would have to justify any detention after the expiry of the six-hour period and prove that it was voluntary.
  As the police must release or arrest and charge at the expiry of the six-hour period, it seems to me strange that one should have to advise the person at that point, when in any event one must release him or fall foul of the law, which says that he is entitled to go.
  If the right hon. Gentleman says "We cannot trust the police", the answer is that in that case we could not trust them to carry out his amendment any more than to comply with the Bill as it is proposed. Therefore, it is unnecessary to make the amendment, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw it.
  Mr. Millan: I am not impressed by that reply. The clause contains much detail and a number of safeguards, but there is still considerable concern about many of the basic provisions.
  I am attracted to the amendment. I do not think that it would damage the Bill. It is well drafted. The Solicitor-General for Scotland did not say that there was anything wrong with the drafting, and I urge him to reconsider his
  392
  attitude. We do not want unnecessary Divisions, and the amendment is a sensible provision which fits neatly with the rest of the clause. It would be an additional safeguard for detainees who may not be aware that they are free to go.
  Mr. David Steel: The Solicitor-General for Scotland introduced an unfortunate note in his reply. I did not raise the question of trusting the police and I do not believe that it is the right concept to bring up in this debate. It is not a question of trusting or not trusting the police. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that the Bill proposes a major extension of police powers. Whether we agree with it or not, it is a major encroachment on individual liberty. It is right that the House should watch carefully the procedure that is being used.
  It is obvious that the average citizen will not be as conversant with the law as is the average policeman. If we write the amendment into the Bill, a person will have to be informed after six hours that he is free to go. That would be an important safeguard.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I remind the House that subsection (2) provides:
  "Detention under subsection (1) above shall be terminated not more than six hours after it begins".
  If it is not so terminated it will be a breach of the law. It is not sufficiently understood that persons will be in de facto detention in Scotland, not only for infinitely shorter periods than they are in England but for much shorter periods than they may presently be in Scotland under their misunderstanding of the law.
  I am sympathetic to the concept of the amendment. I concede that a detainee may not know whether he has been in detention for two hours or 10 hours. However, a policeman will know, although his watch may have stopped. On balance, this is not a matter that we should argue about. It would be reasonable that a person should be advised that the six-hour period had ended and that if he intended to remain thereafter he was remaining voluntarily and not as a detainee, which is, perhaps, a position that few who have gone to a police station in Scotland have understood hitherto. I accept the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 1, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 149, in page 4, line 6, at end insert
  and in any event, no answer given shall be admissible in evidence unless recorded by tape recorder, which recording shall be the only admissible evidence of any answer given. A copy of the tape recordings shall be made available to the detainee or his solicitor within seven days of a decision to institute criminal proceedings against the detained person.'.
  No. 150, in page 4, leave out lines 7 to 19.
  No. 151, in page 4, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert
  'provided that in the event of a decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the person or on the conclusion of such proceedings otherwise than with a conviction or an order under Section 182 or 383 (absolute discharge) or 183 (i) or 384 (i) (probation) of the 1975 Act, all records of the prints and impressions so taken shall be delivered to the person or his solicitor within seven days of such an event.'.
  No. 152, in page 4, line 21, leave out
  'or by paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (5), above'.
  No. 9, in page 4, line 27, at end add—
  '(8) Any questions put to a person and any replies given by him while in detention in a police station detained under subsection (1) above shall not be admissible as evidence in any subsequent trial unless they have been tape-recorded or video taped and the said tape recording or video recording and a transcript thereof is lodged as a production in court.'.
  Mr. Dewar: We now plunge into an extremely important group of amendments—one that I approach with a somewhat faint heart. Amendment No. 6 is a radical attack upon the principles underlying the clause. Amendment No. 9, which deals with the tape recording of extra-judicial confessions or statements made during the period of detention, is one of the fundamental safeguards laid down in the original report of the Thomson committee.
  I say "with a faint heart" not because my position has in any way abated but because I recognise that these matters were debated extensively—and I use that word in its fullest sense—in Committee. Several forests in Scandinavia must have
  394
  been cut down to provide the paper on which the proceedings were recorded. In fairness to the House I shall be fairly brief in rehearsing the argument. I am tempted to delve into the ramifications of the admissibility of evidence, the tests applied and the cases of Hartley, Chalmers and the many others that we lovingly dissected during many a morning, afternoon, evening and night in Committee. But that would not make me popular, and it would not contribute to the debate on Report.
  I think that I speak for one or two of my hon. Friends on the Opposition side of the House. Amendment No. 6 seeks to remove from the clause subsections (5) and (6). That would not destroy the right of a police constable to detain a person for a period of up to six hours under the terms of the clause. It would mean that when he took him to the police station he would not have the right to question him about the suspected offence, to search him in the way that he would be able to do following arrest, or to take fingerprints, palm prints or such other prints or impressions that, having regard to the circumstances, the constable might consider appropriate.
  I freely concede that if the amendment were to succeed it might mean that few detentions would be made under the clause. Those who think that the clause is a splendid innovation, liberalising the law and making the work of the police in Britain more effective, will doubtless look "sidiewise"—to use a Scottish colloquialism—at the amendment. I do not take that somewhat hopeful view. The clause is a thoroughly dangerous innovation. With the aid of the few hon. Friends that I can gather I intend to divide the House on that issue in the not too distant fuure.
  Put in its simplest terms, we object to the whole concept of detention as it is embodied in the clause. When I say "we", I refer to those who share my point of view, of whom there are many on the Labour side of the House. I suspect that there are a number of, at least, doubters on the Conservative side of the House. I look at no one in particular on that point. I am sure that, statistically, there must be a few men of good sense and liberal view scattered somewhere in the dark recesses of the Scottish Conservative Party.

  395
  It is a fundamental right of the citizen to be able to go about his business as he wishes and under his own control until such time as the police, because they have sufficient evidence, are in a position to effect an arrest and, subsequently, to charge him. The clause envisages that at a time when suspicion arises—which is a key part of the clause mechanism—but when there is not enough evidence to justify an arrest, the police should be able to "huckle" the suspect and take him to a police station for a period of up to six hours for the specific purpose of questioning him. We wish to remove that last part because we regard it as the most obnoxious and dangerous part of the proposal before the House.
  It is a totally inescapable conclusion that the only purpose of taking someone to the police station with a view to questioning him about the offence is in the hope that the evidence which is lacking—the evidence which was not there and without which it was impossible to arrest and charge—will be made good. In other words, the point of the procedure—I do not think that there can be much argument about it—is the hope that the suspect will put himself in further jeopardy by making some sort of self-incriminating statement. That seems to me to be a very dangerous idea indeed.
  I believe that citizens have a duty to help the police with their inquiries. If someone wishes to co-operate and go on a voluntary basis to the police station, I am thoroughly in favour of that being done—as long as all the parties are clear about the basis on which he is attending.
  I also accept—it was one of the clearer things that the Solicitor-General said in the last debate—that there are occasions when people are ignorant of their rights and, perhaps in ignorance of those rights, attend at police stations. But the fact that there is that kind of misconception and that people are ignorant of their right not to co-operate—or ignorant of their right to leave once they have gone to a police station on a voluntary basis, or choose not to exercise that right—is not necessarily a good argument for abolishing that right.
  We ought to go back to the law as we understand it. We ought not to import this dangerous idea that we should be able to take someone at a point of sus-
  396
  picion—but before there is sufficient evidence for arrest—for the purposes of interrogation. It is bad for the suspect, because it is putting him under pressure; it is also extremely bad for the police, because there will be the temptation to abuse the procedures.
  I do not believe that it is very easy to envisage circumstances in which a man is taken at a point where the police believe that he has committed an offence and he sits for six hours in a police station giving nothing more than the legal equivalent of his name and number, and refusing to answer any questions. It is not to attack the police, and not to suggest that there is some sort of wicked conspiracy in the police force, to say that that is a situation that would try the patience of a saint. Even in my most optimistic moments I do not assume that all policemen are saints. It is a situation in which abuse is a possibility and where, even more importantly, the allegation of abuse is a possibility, and that is thoroughly bad for the police force.
  Some of us were fortunate enough not only to sit through the Committee stage of the Bill but to read the speeches of the Solicitor-General in the Committee proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill in 1979—the Bill that was introduced by the Labour Government. The Solicitor-General very strongly shared that point of view at the time, when he said:
  "we want to be extremely careful, if we are giving powers to policemen to detain people and then to question them in the sanctity and seclusion of a police station".
  He was thinking, I am sure—as the right hon. Memhber for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was a few minutes ago—about the views of Lord Cooper in Her Majesty's Advocate v. Chalmers.
  I do not want to quote at length from that famous judgment, which has long been departed from as a matter of law. The test is now one of fairness, and the tripartite analysis of Lord Cooper has long been abandoned by our courts. But his social comments on that now famous "sinister venue"—the police station—and the difficulties of a position in which inevitably there will be no corroboration for the story or the version of events which may be advanced by the suspect who is being interrogated, have to be taken very seriously by the House.

  397
  It is right to say, as the Solicitor-General did, that
  "If there is this unfortunate and undesirable questioning of the credibility of the police with regard to written statements, we shall get it all the more under this procedure."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 30 January 1979; c. 145-7.]
  The Solicitor-General was right to make the point. The police will be more at risk as the result of the introduction of these proposals.
  Without going into the matter in any great depth, and giving only a short rehearsal of the arguments, the people who support the amendment are saying that in these circumstances we should remove the right of questioning and the right to take fingerprints, which seem to us always to be an invasion of individual liberty and unjustified at this stage of the proceedings, prior to an arrest being made. By doing so, we would then be underwriting essential rights for the individual within the law of Scotland, and also removing the police from a position of turmoil, pressure and difficulty into which they have been thrown by the ill-thought-out and authoritarian approach of this Administration.
  I turn now to the important issue of tape recording. The Committee was familiar with the arguments, and I shall not go over them again now. Hon. Members will remember that an essentially integrated package was presented by Lord Thomson, one part of which proposed that there should be periods of detention of the sort that are envisaged in the Bill. That was linked to certain safeguards, of which by far the most interesting and important was that any statement obtained during the period of detention should not be admissible unless it had been tape recorded at the time that it was given.
  We have a plethora of extravagant and eloquent quotations from the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he was in Opposition about the essential nature of that safeguard, and at that time he pressed amendments energetically. It is sad that we have now come full circle. The hon. and learned Member is now on the Government Benches. He is a Minister of the Crown, and he now proposes to go ahead with the detention clauses without including the essential safeguard of tape recording.
  398
  On Second Reading, the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) took the view that experience in England was depressing, and he abstained in protest. Although the Solicitor-General for Scotland and his colleagues are paying lip service to the idea of tape recording, they do not have any hard guarantees that there will be a limited gap, or no gap, between the introduction of the powers under the clause and the introduction of tape recordings in the police station.
  Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend refers continually to tape recordings. The amendment also includes video tape recordings, which may be better than tape recordings.
  Mr. Dewar: I concede that, and it may surprise some hon. Members to hear that I have been talking in shorthand, and not advancing all the arguments fully. Video tape recording is a proper alternative. But it is important that any evidence that is obtained during periods of detention will not be admissible unless a tape recording or video recording is available.
  In January 1979 the Solicitor-General for Scotland, in his then Opposition incarnation, said that he was satisfied that the common law and the safeguards for the citizen in a police station would be considerably weakened by the parallel proposal. He said:
  "I am satisfied … of the necessity for our amendments, which introduce the tape recording of such statements"—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Commitee, 30 January 1979, c. 165.]
  His arguments did not fall on deaf ears. We are satisfied that there is a need for such a proposal, and that is why we have tabled the necessary amendments today. If the Government are sincere in pushing ahead with their experiments in tape recording, and providing the necessary funds, obviously there is no hindrance to their plans in accepting the amendment. However, if the Government do not intend to push ahead, the amendment is necessary to ensure that they do so before they can put the remainder of the clause into effect.
  9.45 pm
  I hope that we shall soon be able to vote on the amendments, both of which are important. I should like to see the

  399
  Government accept them. If they insist on being reluctant, I hope that the House will force the amendments on the Government. The amendments would greatly improve the clause. Amendment No. 6 would remove the principal dangers of abuse and administration and the principal circumstances in which friction between the police and the public may arise. Writing in the admissibility dependent on tape recording would pick up the safeguards that the Solicitor-General in previous debates has rightly argued are so essential.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the clause, which is an essential part of what the Bill is trying to do. It would be wrong to support wrecking amendments. However, amendment No. 9 has merit. In Committee I suggested that we should have longer periods of detention. If video recording is to be successful, and we mean what we say about protecting the innocent and giving the police the necessary tools for their job, it is not unrealistic to link periods of 12 or 24 hours of detention with video tape recording equipment. Many complaints about police abuse of individuals who are being interrogated are not based on fact and cannot be proved. We should seriously reconsider the Thomson proposals.
  I am taking a close interest in the experiment at Tayside. The Tayside police cover my constituency. There is merit in using normal recording equipment, but even more merit in video equipment. A man being interviewed could make a noise, and shout "Stop attacking me." That would be recorded on tape, but video equipment would show whether he was being attacked. The police would welcome the use of video equipment. I have discussed the subject with police officers using the equipment on Tayside. Video recording would avoid the police being wrongfully accused, which damages the police image and their relations with the public.
  I support the use of video equipment, but I should prefer to link it to longer periods of detention.
  Mr. Maxton: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. Obviously my name springs readily to your lips, because today I have spoken more often than has my hon. Friend the
  400
  Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan).
  I have one problem with these amendments, which were put down in my name. I do not like trying to improve what is bad law, or what will be bad law when it gets on to the statute book, and that is the problem here. We are trying to take out the more objectionable aspects of the power of detention, rather than get rid of it altogether, as many Members of the Opposition would wish. It was unfortunate that Mr. Speaker did not select the amendment designed to do that.
  We are left with the problem of trying to improve what is an objectionable new police power. We do not believe that this power is necessary. The police already have wide powers of arrest in Scotland. It is not an essential improvement to the powers of the police. It is open to abuse. However, I accept that the amendments will go some way towards stopping the abuse, especially those on tape recordings.
  The video tape recordings work both ways in terms of what the police are doing. It is not only a matter of the suspect being able to say "Stop it, you are hitting me". In Committee the Solicitor-General said that when that happened the police would say that the accusation on the tape recording was false. On a tape recording, as a man says "Stop it, you are hitting me" and the policeman hits him in the face, at the same time the policeman may say "This accusation is false". That can happen with a tape recording.
  The amendments go some way towards stopping some of the abuse. However, there is no question but that even with the amendments the power of detention is open to abuse by a few policemen. I want to emphasise that. Because of our attack on these clauses the Opposition have been accused of attacking the police. We have, consistenly said this and I want to put it on record. I am not attacking the 95 per cent. of the police who do their job within the law and the proper rules. However, I am concerned about the 5 per cent.—perhaps the percentage is smaller—of the police who misuse their powers. Under the clause they will be able to use their powers to an even greater extent. What-

  401
  ever safeguards and amendments we incorporate in the clause, a few policemen will abuse their power.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten me on what number is represented by 5 per cent. of Scotland's police? It worries me terribly.
  Mr. Maxton: I could not give the numbers. I said that the percentage might be smaller. Any Government supporter who claims that no policeman abuses his powers and gets away with it is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. There are policemen who abuse their powers. It need be only a small number. If one takes a station with 30 or 40 policemen operating in it, only one or two of them misusing their powers make for bad relations between them and the community and the whole station and the community. That is the Opposition's basic premise for opposing the power of detention under the clause.
  This is not the way to solve the rising crime problem. It will make relations between the police and the community worse. The research evidence proves that. The police need the co-operation of the public, especially in the large working-class areas of the inner cities to solve a large number of crimes and bring down the crime level. The new powers given to the police in the Bill will destroy or damage the relationship between the police and the community in parts of my consituency.
  I refer to the Castlemilk scheme and Drumchapel, in Glasgow. Those are large working-class areas with large-scale unemployment and a great deal of social deprivation. In those areas there is not the sort of co-operation between the police and the public that there should be, and the introduction of this power will make matters worse, not better. Youngsters in those areas will be harassed by the police. They will be picked up and detained for six hours under this new power and they will undoubtedly feel resentment. In the first instance some of the parents may not feel that resentment, but eventually that resentment will be felt by them as well and the limited co-operation with the police that exists at present will be destroyed.
  402
  These amendments are necessary to afford some safeguards under the clause, though my preference would be for the clause to be removed from the Bill. We should look at ways in which we can improve the relationship and the cooperation between the police and the community. That will enable us genuinely to tackle the problems.
  My final point is that the Government are intent on introducing new powers for the police not only in this respect but in others. We must look at that in relation not just to the Bill, but to other aspects of Government policies. What appals us most is that at a time when the Government are introducing this kind of repressive legislation they are creating the seedbed of crime by creating increased unemployment. We have seen the evidence of that today in the appalling unemployment figures. We have seen it in increasing social deprivation and cuts in the education service. Those measures are likely to lead our youngsters into crime, yet, at the same time, the Government have introduced this repressive measure. That is what is most abhorrent to us, and that is why I shall vote for the amendments.
  Mr. Buchan: It is no secret that many Opposition Members are bitterly opposed to the principle of the clause. In these amendments we seek to remove the most objectionable aspect of it.
  The clause had the most extraordinary genesis. The argument in its favour is that since the police have been acting without legal authority the way to deal with that situation is to give legal authority to them. That is an extraordinary way of trying to improve our legal structure. If the police have been acting in this way without legal authority—that means illegally—the answer is to deal with that illegality, not to formalise it in a new law. That is my first point.
  My second point is that those who have been most closely involved with the law, as defence solicitors in the courts, have been the strongest objectors to this measure. I cite the present Solicitor-General for Scotland, who, before he attained that office a year and a half ago, inveighed strongly against the infringement of the right to silence and rights in relation to liberty. Nobody inveighed

  403
  more strongly than he did before he took up his present office. Referring to this process, he said:
  "At this stage nobody has been charged with anything."
  He was right.
  One of our strongest objections to the kind of questioning dealt with in the clause is the danger and the weakness of the proposal because it formalises illegal administrative police procedures. We are now told they should be made legal without proper judicial safeguards. The Solicitor-General went on to say:
  "They do not know whether it is mobbing and rioting, murder, pick-pocketing, spitting in the street or what it is—they have just a general, vague view about something."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 29 April 1980; c. 173.]
  It is on that basis that the Government are asking us to adopt sections of the clause which allow the police to put questions to a suspect. The Solicitor-General will remember the wise words of Lord Cooper, who said that in the eyes of the ordinary citizen the venue—that is, the police station—was a sinister one. Lord Cooper said:
  "'When he stands alone in such a place confronted by several police officers, usually some of high rank, the dice are loaded against him, especially as he knows that there is no one to corroborate him as to what exactly occurred during the interrogation, how it was conducted, and how long it lasted'."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 6 May 1980; c. 315.]
  That is why, a year ago, the hon. and learned Gentleman, before he became Solicitor-General for Scotland, said:
  "I stress that it is important that a person should be warned at this very early stage that he need not give an explanation to a police officer".— [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 23 January 1979; c. 38.]
  It is true that under pressure from another place, as well as in Committee, the Government introduced subsection (7), which gives some kind of protection. But it leaves open—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Buchan: I was saying that subsection (7) gives some protection. Nevertheless, the accused, or rather the detainee—he has not yet been accused when the process of interrogation starts—is left in the police station without the normal paraphernalia of proper legal safeguard and, incidentally, redress.
  The consequence of this provision was clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman before he bacame the Solicitor-General for Scotland and was still in business defending clients. He said:
  "But where a police officer, make allegations about explanations which a person subsequently denies, that does nothing for the cause of justice. And it does nothing for the reputation of the police or indeed, the interests of the public."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 23 January 1979; c. 38.]
  Those were wise words. The Solicitor-General knew then, as we know now, that the complaints of denials of evidence given in that way will proliferate, and that will bring the law into discredit. It is strange how a man's wisdom will bring flies out of the window when he gets into office. The hon. and learned Gentleman had so much to give when he was in that mood. To throw away this wisdom for the sake of Solicitor-Generalship is a shoddy exchange, and it is a pity I was saying nice things about the hon. and learned Gentleman this morning because of something that he did which was valuable, and he has no doubt been informed about that. However, I shall try to restrain myself in that regard.
  Besides the denting of law and order, there is the denting of the right to silence. The pressure on a man detained without a charge or accusation having been made considerably dents the rights to silence. It also begins to flaw the care with which we consider evidence in the courts. In other words, the admissibility of evidence—that which should be permitted in our accusatorial system which the Government are also trying to destroy in clause 6—is now brought into question and is severely denied by this process. The right to silence and the admissibility of evidence are dented.
  I should like to quote from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who played such a notable role in leading on many of

  405
  these arguments in Committee. Referring to this kind of interrogation—this is before any formal charge has been made—he said:
  "I believe that either abuse will creep in or the very proper care that the court at present exercises will slip back and will allow in evidence that which at present we would not properly allow."
  This is a preliminary stage leading, among other things, to clause 6, which formalises even further the whole question of inquisition before the trial proper starts.
  We said that we would like to get rid of the entire clause. We fought bitterly to get rid of it, but we did not succeed. Therefore, we are confronted with trying to improve it. Clearly the most dangerous aspect concerns the four points that I mentioned regarding the permission of interrogation before accusation. That is the most dangerous aspect, and we wish to get rid of it by getting rid of subsections (5) and (6).
  406
  I hope that we shall vote on the amendment, because we should like to introduce a safeguard. Indeed, before the Solicitor-General for Scotland took office he told us that that was necessary. I do not wish to enter into the argument about tape recorders or video tapes. Everyone agrees that they are necessary. We have sought to prevent the clause being enacted before the non-accused—but accused—in a police station has the protection of a video tape or a tape recorder. We shall certainly support the amendment.
  There is one person who should lead us into the Lobby on such issues, namely, the Solicitor-General for Scotland. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] We should have followed him so willingly; but, for a handful of wigs and gowns, he has left us. If Conservative Members value freedom, justice, liberty and consistency in the Solicitor-General for Scotland, they should join us in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Before the debate began I had not intended to intervene. However, I wish to make two brief points. I should point out to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) that, although no Liberal Member served on the Committee, the Liberal Party has had nearly all its amendments selected. I am disappointed that, although a group of its amendments is under discussion, no effort has been made to comment on amendments Nos. 149, 150, 151 and 152.
  Amendment No. 151, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for Inverness is important. It seeks to leave out lines 13 to 19, on page 4. Even at this late stage we should not feel ashamed to admit that the wording of the amendment is better than the original wording of the clause. It covers the possibility of a person being detained at a police station without any charge being made. At present, any records such as fingerprints merely have to be destroyed. The amendment would ensure that such records would be delivered either to the person who had been suspected or to that person's solicitor. It would also ensure that such material would be delivered within seven days of the termination of the interview at the police station. The Solicitor-General for Scotland should accept the amendment, because it provides a better safeguard than the present provision.
  My second point refers to tape recording. A debate has developed about the use of video equipment during interviews at police stations. Experiments are being carried out at Falkirk and at Tayside. As the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said, those experiments do not involve video equipment. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. I do not know whether the chief constable of Tayside, Mr. John Little, has retired. If not, I hope that he will enjoy a long and happy retirement with his wife and family when he does. He is a very good police officer. I wish his successor, the new chief constable from the Lothians and Border, Mr. Bob Sim, every success with the force at Tayside.
  The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire indicated that he had discussed
  408
  with the police in Tayside the experiment now going on in Tayside and Falkirk. There seemed to be an indication by the police that they would prefer the video equipment rather than the tape recording equipment which they are using at present. Before this debate develops much further, the Government ought to give an indication whether there is a possibility of video equipment being made available. Perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland can indicate whether experiments using video equipment are likely to be carried out in other police force areas and whether the experiments now taking place in Falkirk and Tayside will continue with the existing tape recording equipment.
  I rest my comments primarily on those two points. However, I place heavy emphasis on amendment No. 151. I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will consider it very seriously indeed.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I should like to reply in reverse order to the points that have been made. I am sure that the whole House would want to join in the good wishes which the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) gave to Mr. Little, chief constable of Tayside, and his family. I am sure that all of us wish him a happy retirement after a most distinguished career.
  I turn first to amendment No. 151. Presumably one would deliver, say, fingerprints to the solicitor or to some other representative only because one did not trust the police to destroy them. However, if one did not trust the police to destroy them, why should they not photocopy them before delivery? Therefore, I do not believe that that would constitute any kind of safeguard. If one does not trust the police, I regret to say that there are almost no safeguards. If one says that such things should be handed over to the solicitor as proof, how does one prove that they were not first photocopied and retained? One cannot do so.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: This is the second or third time in the last hour that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has used the phrase "If one does not trust the police". It is not a question of trusting or distrusting the police. I have absolute confidence in the police. It is a question

  409
  of giving a member of the public confidence in the system in respect of which the Government are now legislating. Everything that I have said on Second Reading, in Committee and today on Report has been designed to give the public confidence in the system which the Government will obviously put on the statute book.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If a person is not willing to accept an assurance that any record which has been taken will be destroyed on his release, I do not believe that delivery to his solicitor will represent a safeguard. It would be an added expense. If it were to be betrayed it would be infinitely more upsetting to any public concept of trust. Trust in the integrity of the police is a concept which is held, and ought to be held, throughout the House. I do not think that the provisions of amendment No. 151 would enlarge it. By suggesting distrust, I believe that they would tend to diminish it.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) that this amendment is not intended to cast any doubt on the reliability of the police. However, there is no sanction if such records are not destroyed. Secondly, there does not appear to be any way of proving that they have been destroyed. At least this amendment would have that effect. I suppose there is no answer to what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. There is no way of disproving if something is photocopied. It would nevertheless be an assurance to the public that action had specifically been taken.
  10.15 pm
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I would say, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, having reminded myself of the terms of amendment No. 151, that there is no sanction or proof under that amendment that records have not been kept. To deliver to a solicitor in seven days something that can have been photocopied gives neither proof nor sanction. The one is as invalid as the other.
  I want to deal with the question of video taping and tape recording. The experiments in Dundee and Falkirk are going well. We shall be making a report in November or December on the initial
  410
  situation. Few people have refused to be tape recorded. To introduce video recordings would delay any decision about recording as a whole. We should proceed on this basis. If it is found that video taping, although vastly expensive, is more satisfactory, we can develop in that direction. We should not, however, introduce anything at this stage to delay what was the wish of the last Government and is the wish of this Government that the recording should be proceeded with, and should be found to have a satisfactory future provided that no appalling difficulties stand it its way. None has so far been indicated.
  As the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said, I have defended a large number of people. The unemployed, the deprived, the unfortunate and youngsters are often the victims of crime. When considering these rights, it should be remembered that they are more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators. We must remember that before the Bill started there was the investigation of crime.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) put forward the remarkable concept that until the police are in a position to make an arrest no one should have to be questioned. There would rarely be arrests if that had been the law of the land. That has never been the law of the land.
  It is in the interests of all that there should be investigation into crime. It is important from the point of view of excluding people who may be suspected. There should be the right, for instance, for someone who may have been named by another person to be excluded through being asked questions or being fingerprinted. Nothing is more likely to exclude a person from an investigation and ensure his release than that the fingerprint on the weapon is proved not to be his. Equally, nothing is more likely to determine a person's release than the asking of questions that produce satisfactory answers and make it inevitable that the person can no longer be a suspect.
  It is important that hon. Members should understand that this is a two-way concept. It works not only in the interests of the person who may be detained; it works in favour of the innocent person who is detained. None of us wants an innocent person to be detained

  411
  for longer than is necessary. Therefore, I believe that these amendments are misconceived. I believe that they would wreck the ordinary power of investigation. They would work against the interests of those who should be released. I invite the House to reject them.

  Division No. 424]

  AYES

  [10.21 pm

  Adams, Allen

  Field, Frank

  Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

  Alton, David

  Flannery, Martin

  Morton, George

  Anderson, Donald

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Palmer, Arthur

  Ashton, Joe

  George, Bruce

  Parry, Robert

  Beith, A. J.

  Gilbert, Rt Hn Dr John

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Penhaligon, David

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Radice, Giles

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Haynes, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Richardson, Jo

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Home Robertson, John

  Robertson, George

  Campbell, Ian

  Hooley, Frank

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hudson Davies, Gwllym Ednyled

  Rowlands, Ted

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Clark, David (South Shields)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Silverman, Julius

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  John, Brynmor

  Skinner, Dennis

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Soley, Clive

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Kerr, Russell

  Stott, Roger

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Strang, Gavin

  Deakins, Eric

  Lambie, David

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Litherland, Robert

  Tilley, John

  Dempsey, James

  McCartney, Hugh

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Oewar, Donald

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Dixon, Donald

  McElhone, Frank

  Welsh, Michael

  Dobson, Frank

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Dormand, Jack

  McKelvey, William

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Dubs, Alfred

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McWilliam, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kilkdale)

  Marshall, David (GI'sgow, Shettles'n)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Eadie, Alex

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Eastham, Ken

  Maxton, John

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ewing, Harry

  Mikardo, Ian

  Mr. James Tinn and

  Faulds, Andrew

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Mr. Terry Davis.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Alison, Michael

  Clegg, Walter

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

  Ancram, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hannam, John

  Atkins Robert (Preston North)

  Cope, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)

  Corrie, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Costain, A. P.

  Heddle, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Henderson, Barry

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Crouch, David

  Hicks, Robert

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hordern, Peter

  Best, Keith

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Blackburn, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Jessel, Toby

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Bradford, Rev. R.

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Bright, Graham

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Brinton, Tim

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Brittan, Leon

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Loveridge, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Luce, Richard

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Gow, Ian

  McCrindle, Robert

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Gray, Hamish

  MacGregor, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, Harry

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  McQuade, John

  Churchill, W.S.

  Grist, Ian

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Grylls, Michael

  Major, John

  Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire): Disgraceful.
  Question put. That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 159.

  Marlow, Antony

  Rathbone, Tim

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mates, Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

  Mather, Carol

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tebbit, Norman

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Thompson, Donald

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Moate, Roger

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Monro, Hector

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Rost, Peter

  Wakeham, John

  Mudd, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Murphy, Christopher

  St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Ward, John

  Myles, David

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Neale, Gerrard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watson, John

  Needham, Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Wells, P. Bowen (Hert'rd&Stev'nage)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wheeler, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Whitney, Raymond

  Normanton, Tom

  Speller, Tony

  Wickenden, Keith

  Onslow, Cranley

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Sproat, lain

  Wolfson, Mark

  Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

  Squire, Robin

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Stainton, Keith

  Parris, Matthew

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Stevens, Martin

  Mr. Tony Newton and

  Pollock, Alexander

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Mr. David Waddington.

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move amendment No. 153, in page 4, line 27, at end insert—
  '(8) Failure by any constable or police officer to follow or comply with requirements of this section may render inadmissible any evidence, answer or statement obtained or made during the period of detention.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this amendment it will be convenient to take amendment No. 156, in clause 3, page 5, line 23, at end insert—
  '(5) Failure by any constable or police officer to comply with the requirements of this section shall render inadmissible any evidence, answer or statement obtained of made during the period of detention.'.
  Mr. Johnston: It seems to us that it is an omission from this part of the Bill that, while a whole variety of fairly precise requirements are laid upon the police, and specific procedures that they must follow are set out, there appear to be no sanctions in the event that they do not follow the requirements.
  The proposed new subsection is simply an attempt to provide some sanction by holding out the possibility that evidence obtained without adhering to the requirements in the Bill might render inadmissible and invalid evidence so obtained. I emphasise that it is not intended that the proposed provision should be something that accused persons might take advantage of by exploiting minor irregularities. That is why we use the discretionary word "may" rather than
  414
  the firmer word "shall" before "render inadmissible".
  Amendment No. 156 deals basically with the same point in relation to clause 3.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) on this matter. Amendment No. 153 would add nothing to the present law. The hon. Gentleman will see from clause 2 (5) (a) that the present law on the admissibility of evidence is safeguarded. Nothing in the clause alters the power of a court to rule whether evidence is admissible or inadmissible, on the basis of our present practice, which is essentially the test of fairness. The first amendment would merely repeat something that is the common law and has massive case law to support it.
  Amendment No. 156 would create an absolute situation. At present, the test of fairness would mean that even if a police officer did everything required of him it might be held that the evidence ought to be inadmissible. If one mistake rendered evidence inadmissible, one would presumably, by implication, render admissible something done by the book, regardless of the test of fairness. We cannot accept that.
  The general law of the test of fairness has been a brave and excellent principle of the law of Scotland on admissibility and the hon. Gentleman can be assured that that test will continue to apply. The test of fairness, taking all the circumstances into account, will always be the course.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 3

  RIGHT TO HAVE SOMEONE INFORMED WHEN ARRESTED OR DETAINED
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 41, after 'or', insert
  'except in the case of intimation to a solicitor'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may take the following amendments:
  No. 155, in page 5, line 7, at end insert
  '(1A) The solicitor to whom intimation has been made in terms of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be entitled to immediate access to that person and to remain with them until the period of detention is terminated and shall be entitled to offer him advice.'.
  Government amendment No. 11,
  No. 12, in page 5, line 21, at end insert,
  'and such parent or guardian or a solicitor acting on their behalf shall be given access to the said child as soon as he arrives at the police station or other premises where the said child is being detained.'.
  Government amendment No. 13.
  Mr. Ewing: It will be obvious that the amendment is an attempt to separate the person reasonably named by a detained person from the right of a detainee to have a solicitor informed of his or her detention. We are dealing with individuals detained in a police station under the clause who will have the right to have a solicitor informed of where they are detained. In addition, they will also have the right to have another person, reasonably named by them, informed.
  We accept that in some instances there will be a delay in advising a person reasonably named, or a good reason, connected with the investigation that is under way, for the police not informing him.
  We are trying to set aside the solicitor from that sort of qualification. We do not accept, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland should not accept, that there can be any case for a delay to occur before the solicitor is informed. We cannot see any grounds on which it will be necessary, in order to facilitate an investigation that is taking place, not to advise a solicitor. In all circumstances, a solicitor should be informed without delay. If possible—and we think that it is possible—a solicitor should be present
  416
  at the time of the investigation, again without delay.
  Let me sum up my brief moving of amendment No. 10. It is an attempt to separate the right of a detained person to name a solicitor and one other person. If the Solicitor-General were to accept that minor but helpful amendment, it would put a clearer definition on clause 3 as it relates to clause 2.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understand what the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) is trying to do. There is power under sections 19 and 305 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to make intimation to a solicitor. The question is whether there should be any right of delay in that intimation. The hon. Gentleman makes a distinction that suggests that the person named may be a tainted person, and named for the reason of his taint, whereas the solicitor would be taintless.
  That is a generous concept, but it may not be accurate. The solicitor may represent the other co-accused. Therefore, to tell one's solicitor that one has been arrested may, with no blame on the solicitor, be a good way of also telling the co-accused. As Thomson suggested, it is important that intimation of the matter should not be communicated to any party, whether he be tainted or taintless, if it is thought that such intimation may not be in the interests of justice or may tip off somebody in a position to be tipped off.
  It has been suggested that the solicitor should be allowed access during the period of detention without delay. I do not know what is meant by "delay". Six hours is a short time.
  Mr. Canavan: That depends on the circumstances in which one is detained.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, may regard six hours as a long time. It is a short time. It may take a large part of that six hours for a solicitor to present himself. In certain circumstances, the whole purpose could be frustrated if that exercise was undertaken.
  Government amendments Nos. 11 and 13 and amendment No. 12 arise out of matters discussed in Committee. We

  417
  have reconsidered the question of what rights and safeguards should apply to children detained or arrested. There should be a statutory right of access by a parent or guardian to a child during a period of detention. The nature and effect of that access must be determined by the police. There are many circumstances in which a child does not wish to see his parents, because of a hostile relationship. It is important that parents should be permitted access, but that it should not be to the prejudice of the child. There are circumstances in which it might be prejudicial to the child. We propose that, in all circumstances, such access should be available but that its form and extent should be determined according both to the interests of the child and to the interests of justice. There are many delicate domestic circumstances in which a child and the parents may be involved, such as there is parental disapproval of what has occurred. It is important that the relationship of the child and the parents should be safeguarded in these delicate circumstances in both directions. I feel that we have come to a conclusion which will be humane and will safeguard the interests of the child in all circumstances.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Buchan: I want to comment on Government amendment No. 13 and on our amendment No. 12. We are, of course, pleased that the Government have recognised the real human problem involved, but, once again, we express our surprise that not until Report has recognition been given to the importance not only of information being given to the parent but of the right of access by the parent.
  I am concerned with only one thing in Government amendment No. 13, which has come some way to meet us. I refer particularly to the words in the proposed subsection (4)
  "essential for the furtherance of the investigation",
  which might still make it difficult for the parents to have proper access to the child. I accept the qualifications of the word "may" in paragraph (a) and the word "may" in paragraph (b). These are perfectly legitimate qualifications, although in many ways it would have been simpler if the Minister accepted amend-
  418
  ment No. 12. Despite that, I recognise that the Government have moved in our direction and I welcome it.
  I wonder whether the words
  "any restriction essential for the furtherance of the investigation"
  may be over-stretched in their significance by the police where there is a child in detention for whom they are finding something useful but something which perhaps may not be altogether in the interests of justice, truth or of the child.
  Having said that, I give the Government amendment a qualified welcome. It is only proper that I should, since we pressed the matter very strongly on the Government. I am glad that they have responded to that extent.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I share the qualified welcome of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) to Government amendment No. 13. I also share his view that we should have been much happier if the Government had decided to accept our amendment No. 12.
  I am still a little concerned—and I put up a marker here—that the Solicitor-General has seen fit to repeat what was said in Committee, that there might well be circumstances in which a child under the age of 16 asks that his parents be not informed of his detention. I hope that no encouragement will be given to police officers not to inform parents at the request of children who are under the age of 16. In such cases, provided that the parents have not been involved in the commission of the offence—I accept that that would create a different set of circumstances—I repeat most strongly that, whether or not the child under 16 wants his parents advised, the parents should be advised, because they have a responsibility for children under 16.
  We ought not in any circumstances to create any loopholes whereby children can say to police, in the circumstances that we are talking about, "Please do not tell my mummy or daddy because I do not get on with them. We have an argument every second night about whether we should watch 'Dallas' or 'Coronation Street' on television and there is some tension between us."
  The rule should be that the parents should be informed, whether the child wants them informed or not. I hope that

  419
  the Solicitor-General will emphasise that aspect.
  I ask the Solicitor-General to make one point clear. Under clause 2, am I right in suggesting that an arrested person has the right to have a solicitor informed and to have a solicitor in attendance? A person is arrested because the police consider that they have sufficient evidence to do so, but it does not mean that the investigation is complete. Under the 1975 Act, does an arrested person have the right to have a solicitor informed? If so, why is the principle not extended to a detained person?
  As the Solicitor-General will be aware, I am no great lover of the legal profession. I should not go to the stake for that profession. However, I do not accept that the profession is in such a state that the police have to decide whether a solicitor named by a detained person is tainted, to use the hon. and learned Gentleman's own word, or may loosely be connected with the investigation. The hon. and learned Gentleman is making heavy weather of the point. May we have clarification on the rights of an arrested person and a detained person?
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Since a parent has the right of access, however controlled, information is bound to be given to all parents of a child's detention.
  An arrested person has the right to see a solicitor. Under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act a person who is arrested must be charged. A person who is charged is then, so to speak, incommunicado so far as the police are concerned. A person in detention is in a completely different situation. He is not incommunicado, and the right to see a solicitor at that stage or any other is a matter for decision.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 11, in page 5, line 20, leave out '(or guardian)'.
  No. 13, in page 5, line 22, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
  '; and the parent—

  (a) in a case where there is reasonable cause to suspect that he has been involved in the alleged offence in respect of which the person has been arrested or detained, may; and

  (b) in any other case shall,

  be permitted access to the person.
  420
  (4) The nature and extent of any access permitted under subsection (3) above shall be subject to any restriction essential for the furtherance of the investigation or the well-being of the person.
  (5) In subsection (3) above—

  (a)'child' means a person under 16 years of age; and

  (b)'parent' includes guardian.'—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Clause 4

  SEARCH FOR OFFENSIVE WEAPONS
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move amendment No. 158, in page 5, line 26, leave out ' has committed or.'.
  The basic contention is that the words "has committed or" are superfluous. The offence is carrying an offensive weapon. It would therefore appear that it would not affect the consequence or meaning of the Bill if the words were deleted.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has argued that the words are superfluous, and he has suggested that the offence is carrying an offensive weapon. That is not the offence. The offence is carrying an offensive weapon in a public place. If the person has moved from a public place to a private place he has ceased to commit an offence. If, however, a police officer is in a private place with permission, he has permission to search that person. If he finds a knife and there is evidence that that person had that knife on him before he entered the private place, that would be sufficient evidence that he had been carrying that weapon in a public place and therefore had committed an offence. To cover those circumstances it is necessary that the words "has committed or" should appear in the clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 30, at end insert
  'or at the option of the person to be searched, the constable may take the person to the police station where he may be detained and searched in accordance with section 2 (4) above.'.
  The amendment seeks to reduce some of the aggravation which might, not unnaturally, arise when the police have power to search persons for weapons.

  421
  This has been one of the more controversial clauses in the Bill. It has a history. This provision was introduced in the 1979 Bill in a different form on the casting vote of the then Chairman of the Committee—a precedent which, to my knowledge, has not been followed. The clause provides:
  "Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any person is carrying an offensive weapon and has committed or is committing an offence under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 … the constable may search that person without warrant, and detain him for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out".
  When the matter was discussed a year ago, I voted for an amendment which would allow a search to take place in those circumstances because I reckoned that it would be advantageous, but I made it clear that I had an amendment on the Order Paper which would seek to change the formula under which this arrangement for searching for weapons was to be carried out. Basically, the proposition was that power should be given to a police constable to carry out a search for a weapon if there were reasonable grounds, but that an option should be given to the person being detained for the search to be carried out not in the street or in a dance hall or place which might be a cause of aggravation, but in the police office. I shall develop that point later.
  One of the immediate advantages of the amendment is the prevention of indiscriminate searching. Obviously it would be almost impossible to search a large number of people in a dance hall where an offence had been committed and it was suspected that the weapon was in the possession of one of 20 or 30 people. Such an incident might be covered by the word "reasonable". But if the persons to be searched had the right to be searched in the police office, the duty inspector might take a fairly rigorous view of the number of people being brought in for that purpose. The amendment seeks to strengthen the word "reasonable". The police constable would have to be pretty certain that a person had a weapon in his possession if the option to be searched in the police station were to be accepted.
  422
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland will probably recall that in Committee on the 1979 Bill I made two particular points. The first was that the search for an offensive weapon should be conducted under the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act. That was not in the then formula. I am pleased that the Prevention of Crime Act has been taken as the criterion in this instance because the law in that respect has been settled for a considerable time.
  But there still remains the second proposition. I understood at the time that the hon. and learned Gentleman had some sympathy with the concept that the search could take place in the police office if the accused made that request. There are several advantages to that. It may be preferable for the search to be conducted at a police office rather than at the place where the person was detained. A search would cause aggravation, and the suspected person might wish to exercise such a right for personal reasons. I can think of no reason why that right should not be written into the statute book.
  11 pm
  When, for example, an assault takes place in a dance hall and someone has been injured, it is not unusual for the weapon to be passed on to a female accomplice. If no policewoman is available, a search may involve difficulties. Embarrassment may be caused. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask that the accused should be allowed to state that he would like the search to take place within the privacy of a police office. If an offensive weapon is suspected, the right of search will remain.
  The amendment would deal with a danger that exists in many urban areas where weapons are carried and people are wounded. In addition, the Government's position in relation to the new power would not be diminished. The amendment would help to prevent aggression being shown towards the police if the latter extended their practices beyond the frontiers of the clause. If the accused had the right to be searched in a police office, a more senior police officer would be involved and aggravation could be diverted.
  One argument against giving the police this new power of search is that it could

  423
  cause aggravation. It might result in a deterioration in police public relations. All hon. Members would regret that. The amendment would strengthen the context in which the new powers were used. It would give an additional civic right to the suspected person. It would also help the police, as it would remove any ground for aggravation. I therefore strongly commend it to the Government.
  Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that on many occasions it would be reasonable, if the suspect so wished, for a search for an offensive weapon to be carried out in a private place. I have no doubt that, on the whole, the police are only too happy to accede to such a request. The question is whether there should be a statutory obligation to do so.
  There is an inevitable and significant defect in the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He suggested that, if the suspect so chose, the option of using the powers of detention should be available. He suggested that instead of searching the suspect the police should be able to detain him and search him in accordance with the detention provisions. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the detention powers have been clarified and that under the Bill the timing of detention will start from the moment that the suspect is detained in the street. From that moment, the police will have the power to search that person, because he would be a detainee. Therefore, the powers of search would be available, even if the person had not arrived at the police station. For that technical reason, the amendment would not necessarily achieve the desired effect.
  There will always be cases—a small proportion, it is to be hoped—in which the need for the police to ascertain whether the individual is carrying an offensive weapon must be exercised right away.
  Let us imagine that the police have been called to the scene of an incident—perhaps there has been some violence and a person has been injured—and it is suspected that an individual may be carrying an offensive weapon. It might be frustrating to the police if, before they could check whether the individual that they suspected was the person carrying the weapon, they first had to take him, if he so chose, to a police station, which might
  424
  be some distance away, particularly in the rural areas. That would thereby jeopardise any further inquiries which the police might make.
  If, when they take that person to the police station, they find that their suspicion is justified and that he is the person with the weapon, no harm is done. However, if they found that they were mistaken—and it might have taken them 40 minutes to carry out that exercise—they could be frustrated in the other alternative inquiries that they would have made had they been able to confirm that evidence right away. That sort of emergency situation could arise, and surely the police would be acting reasonably if they wished to exercise the right of search at the first available opportunity.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I did not serve on the Committee, and I cannot comment with any accuracy on what happened there. However, I understood that the Minister had given an assurance that there would be no form of indiscriminate searching. If one takes the Minister's example, it would mean that the suspicion of the police had crystallised on one person and that they felt it was reasonable to exercise their powers under clause 4. However, if they discovered that that was not the person, they would be entitled to search someone else. If one follows the Minister's example, one may find—perhaps in practical terms by extension over a period of time—that the police are able to work their way through two, three, four, five or six people, at which stage the bridge between crystallising of suspicion for the purposes of search and indiscriminate search is crossed.
  Mr. Rifkind: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I do not think that he realises the situation which might arise.
  Let us assume that the police have been called to a particularly nasty incident in which someone has been injured. Let us assume that they have been given information that person X has been seen with a weapon. They would then have reasonable cause to believe that person X is carrying an offensive weapon. It may be. unknown to them, that that information is false. It may even be deliberately misleading. If, however, they have been given it, and have received it in good faith, it will obviously be in the public interest to search person X right away. If they find

  425
  the weapon, that is excellent. If not, they can carry out further inquiries. The police may not be entitled to search anyone else, and they may not have reason to believe that any other specific individual is carrying the weapon, but they can immediately start other inquiries which may lead to evidence showing who is responsible. If, however, simply by person X so choosing, the police must go to a police station which is some distance away, and if some time has elapsed, they will have been frustrated in the other inquiries which they may have been able to make but for that requirement.
  I am not suggesting that that will happen in a majority of cases, but if the amendment were accepted it would place a statutory obligation on the police which would cover even those cases. That would clearly be against the public interest, because legitimate further inquiries could be frustrated. For example, in the rural areas there may be only one police officer making the inquiry. If he is required to take the suspect to the station before he can search him, by definition he will be prevented from carrying out alternative inquiries if at the end of the day the suspect was found not to be carrying a weapon and if the police officer's information was found to be incorrect. There are other possible examples, but that is the sort of problem which might arise.
  Therefore, there are two reasons why I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not insist upon his amendment. The first is that even if the amendment were accepted it would not achieve its desired effect, because the power of detention, which is the alternative that the hon. Gentleman suggests, gives the police powers of search from the earliest moment. Secondly, for the reasons that I have indicated, there would be risk of legitimate frustration of a proper police inquiry. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish that to happen, but it could arise as a result of his proposal.
  Mr. Millan: The Minister knows that the Opposition object in principle to clause 4. I do not want to discuss that matter at this time, but I took the view on Second Reading—I was not a member of the Committee and did not hear the detailed discussion—that the new powers of detention made the clause unnecessary. In particular circumstances, where the
  426
  is reasonable cause for suspicion, the detention procedure under clause 2 should be followed rather than search under clause 4. For that reason, at first sight I was attracted to the amendment.
  There are, however, some difficulties about the amendment. I am not sure that if the amendment were accepted in the terms in which it appears on the Amendment Paper it would necessarily lead to a satisfactory outcome from the point of view of the person who exercised his option. I am not clear how one exercises an option unless one is told that one can exercise it. This raises practical difficulties. I would also be apprehensive following exercise of the option that, unless the circumstances were clearly laid down, a person, once taken to the station, might find himself there for longer than was necessary to be searched for an offensive weapon. He might find that the other provisions of the clause, allowing for six hours' detention, would bite.
  Under the strict terms of the clause, that should not happen. The clause should ensure the release of a person taken to the station, searched immediately and found not to possess an offensive weapon. I have a suspicion that, in the practical circumstances of the case, there might be resentment that the person had exercised his option. I fear that he might find himself detained for even longer than the six hours.
  I am not sure that, at the end of the day, one can eliminate the mischief of clause 4 by this kind of provision. I have to say regretfully that there are good reasons for not pressing the amendment to a Division. I do not think that the opportunity will arise at this late stage, because amendment No. 14 has not been selected for Division, to get clause 4 eliminated. In those circumstances, I could not ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment if it is taken further.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: There is clearly a technical flaw in the amendment in its reference to clause 2 (4) and the consequences that might occur. I accept that part of the Minister's answer. I have some doubts about the way the clause is framed. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) indicated that there could be resentment on the part of the police if a person were

  427
  to exercise the right given by statute. It would not surprise me if that happened in this case and in relation to many other statutory rights that are exercised.
  One of the problems of the legislation is that it has proceeded partly on the basis of informal police practice which has built up over a period affecting the rights of the citizen. The Bill seeks to make permanent and legitimate some of the practices. There are good reasons following waves of violence and assaults, why the power of search should be given. Equally, one has to accept that there could be danger to communal relations if the search were carried out on a wider basis than was perhaps envisaged by the Minister in Committee and perhaps in relation to the example that he has given.
  I did not regard as effective the Minister's answer relating to the inquiries that the police would make. It is not a particularly good example of the word "reasonable" if the police are entitled, virtually on hearsay, and perhaps even on anonymous information, to stop someone and search him on the ground that he is suspected of carrying a weapon. I should have thought that in the circumsances of an assault, a breach of the peace or mobbing and rioting, the police, having arrived on the scene, would make some other inquiries before their suspicions crystallised. In this context, it seems that if some restriction were put on the police, by way of the
  428
  example that I mentioned of the statutory right to be searched in the police office with a senior officer present, there would be advantage to all concerned.
  11.15 pm
  However, I must accept that clarification of the powers of detention would give the police additional powers, and to that extent part of my amendment is invalidated. But, in my view, the argument behind the amendment is not invalidated. I suppose that, as the Bill must go back to the House of Lords, there is the slightest chance that there may be some change made there. If that does not happen, it would not surprise me if, in future, the House of Commons had to return to the question of police powers in relation to search and detention because consequences of an informal nature will flow from the powers which are given and which, in time, will form a new police practice which may go well beyond what was envisaged by the House.
  Against the background of the Minister's remarks, some of which I must accept, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered to morrow.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
11.17 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move.
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.
The hour is late but, in spite of that, I know that the House will expect me, in the customary way, to review the security situation in Northern Ireland in more detail than I am able to at Question Time every month and, of course, to give the Government's reasons for inviting the House to renew certain powers in the Act for a further six months.
Criminal violence of a terrorist nature continues in Northern Ireland and, although the overall level has diminished slightly this year, it remains the case that the terrorists, chiefly the Provisional IRA, have both the desire and the capacity to threaten peace and democracy. Over the last six months Belfast and the areas close to the border with the Republic have borne the brunt and policemen and soldiers, Regular and part-time, have generally been the targets. There have also been some indications of a resumption of inter-sectarian assassinations, an activity which we must not ignore but which, like all acts of terrorism, I utterly and wholeheartedly condemn, whatever the twisted motives of the perpetrators may be.
In sum, 44 people died in the first six months of this year, including a number who apparently had close links with terrorist gangs. The corresponding figure for the last six months of last year was 68. The number of bomb attacks was also slightly lower. This, as I say, represents an improvement, but let there be no misunderstanding—one person killed by terrorists would be one too many. The Government fully understand the anxieties of the people of Northern Ireland and share their longing to live their lives and to go about their daily business free from fear.
The Government's policy for the elimination of terrorism remains the restoration of normal policing throughout Northern Ireland and the arrest, preferring of charges, and conviction, on proven evidence, by the courts of those who
430
commit criminal acts. This is slow and painstaking but I am sure that it is right. The terrorist's objective—and only objective—is to destroy the democratic and legal fabric of our society, built up to protect the citizen while guaranteeing him his rights and freedoms. If we step outside the rule of law ourselves we are helping him to gain his objective. I believe that what is being achieved by using the law shows that we are on the right course.
So far this year 15 people have been convicted of murder or attempted murder and 348 of other terrorist crimes. In addition, 38 people have been charged with murder and 28 with attempted murder. A total of 228 other people have been charged with terrorist-type crimes. This shows the measure of success of the policy which we are pursuing.
The demands which are daily made on the skill and fortitude of both the RUC and the Army shine through all that I have so far said. I want again to pay tribute to their courage, dedication and patience. I must add a particular word of admiration for the men and women who give up much of their spare time to serve in the RUC (Reserve) and the UDR. Their contribution to security, often at considerable personal risk, is a vital part of our total effort.
The terrorist cause is prosecuted today not only against the security forces and the community at large; it is carried on by those now serving sentences for terrorist crimes in the prisons. The so-called "protest" campaign is cynically manipulated by the terrorist leadership as part of its propaganda drive. In this context, I welcome the recent decision by the European Commission of Human Rights, which declared inadmissible the complaints of four protesting prisoners that they had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. Equally important, it has rejected the claim that there is any right to special category status. It has explicitly realised that conditions in the prison are self-inflicted and can be improved immediately if the prisoners want.
We shall continue to apply the same prison regime without discrimination to all prisoners, whatever the supposed motives for their crime. We shall continue to discharge our duty to safeguard their health and welfare.

431
I must pay tribute to the prison governors and officers in this work. They have carried out their duties with fairness and humanity, against a background of murderous terrorist attacks. Though unarmed and not part of the security forces, 19 officers have been murdered in cold blood in the last five years and more attacked only recently. The service has also borne the brunt of a propaganda campaign of despicable mendacity.
I have described the guiding strands in our efforts to combat terrorism. Cooperation from the Republic of Ireland is no less important. I have been reassured in recent meetings that Irish Ministers recognise our joint interest in co-operating to frustrate the activities of those determined to destroy the State, both north and south of the border. The co-operation of the RUC and Garda is paying increasing dividends, as, for example, in the latter's recent discoveries of arms and explosives. We have stressed to the Taoiseach and his Ministers the importance that we attach to the effective use of extra-territorial legislation. It is good news that three men have now been charged in the Republic under this legislation in connection with the murder of an ex-UDR man in the North.
I have given the background to the draft order now before the House. I receive a wealth of advice about the emergency provisions legislation, so I have every reason for considering thoroughly what I should recommend to the House every six months. The Peace People, for instance, have sincerely attempted to analyse the effects of the Act, thought I cannot go nearly all the way with them. Outstandingly, I have had the benefit of advice from the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I take this opportunity of paying public tribute to its outgoing chairman, Lord Plant. I am sure that his successor, Mr. David Bleakley, will continue the commission's good work.
The commission's ultimate objectives are the same as mine, even though we differ as to means. It has again suggested that part of section 2 of the Act should be dropped. This provides that before granting bail in a terrorist case a judge must be satisfied on certain points. They are that the accused will comply with his bail conditions, that he will not interfere
432
with witnesses, and that he will not commit any offence while on bail.
The commission takes the view that these provisions breach the principle that a man should be treated as innocent until proved guilty. I have looked closely at this again. I acknowledge that the section can be represented as reversing the normal onus of proof. It is unusual, and was framed to meet an unusual situation—unusual in two ways. First, the terrorist threat itself; secondly, the previous practice of the Northern Ireland courts. The Diplock committee, which recommended the present law, pointed out that the courts in Northern Ireland did not treat the likelihood that if at liberty the accused would continue to commit other offences as a ground for refusal of bail. Thus, bail was granted in Northern Ireland more freely than at that time in England, and this even in serious terrorist cases.
I have taken into consideration two practical points. First, not renewing the section must be assumed to lead back to something like the pre-legislation practice described by Diplock. Secondly, the practice of the courts is not what a strict reading of section 2 might lead one to suppose. The whole tradition of Northern Ireland courts leads them to be highly conscious of the rights of the individual. Bail is in fact granted in a substantial number of scheduled offence cases. In the year up to the end of March 626 out of 1,405 applications, which is 45 per cent., were granted; and in the previous year 627 out of 1,601, which is 39 per cent. I therefore conclude that the proper course is to renew section 2. But I have acknowledged, and I do again, that it is an unusual provision. If we were to embark on amending legislation in future, I should be prepared to consider whether the section could be improved by drafting. But, as I have stressed, I should be guided by the belief that the current practice of the courts is satisfactory and that change would carry the risk of affecting it adversely.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: I understand—I am not a legal man, but I have had discussions with legal people in the Six Counties—that judges do not use section 2. I am given to understand that it is often ignored. Is

433
that not a practical reason for considering constructively the repeal of the section?
Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. There is a case for rewording section 2. I have admitted that already. I do not think that there is a case for dropping it altogether, because of the possibility that we might return to the position that I have described before the emergency arose. We can consider rewording it, but we are not considering that tonight. We are considering whether to renew it or to drop it. It is my judgment that we must keep it for the time being. If amending legislation is produced, we shall consider how best we can deal with it.
Nor do I propose any change as regards section 8, which deals with the admissibility of statements made to the police. This section provides that a statement should be excluded where there is prima facie evidence that an accused was subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment in order to induce him to make the statement. The commission has recommended that the section be amended so that the use or threat of violence would have the same effect of excluding the statement. It acknowledges that the courts interpret this section widely, and that the RUC observes higher standards than a strict interpretation of the section dictates. The RUC's conditions of interview, which are today based on the strict and detailed recommendations of the Bennett report, act as the most effective safeguard of the rights of a suspect. The intentions of the commission could be satisfied only by amending the Act. While I understand its concern, I should be more impressed with the need for amendment if I were not clear that the courts are in practice already interpreting the section—whatever its precise language—in very much the sense that the commission wishes.
I have looked again at the other temporary provisions in the Act, and especially at those granting special powers of arrest, which the commission considered to be insufficiently objective. I appreciate its concern; this issue plays an important part in the community's attitude to the emergency. I shall say two things about it. First, I am certain that the manner in which the
434
security forces go about the seeking out of terrorists is responsible, objective and in no way just according to mere whim. Secondly, the nature of terrorism is such that the security forces may often not be in a position to demonstrate publicly that their suspicion of terrorism is soundly based; but one should not conclude from this that it is not reasonable. We must not forget, of course, that these powers of arrest are strictly limited in time; in the case of the police the limit is 72 hours, and for the Army four hours.
I turn now to section 12 which, together with schedule 1, gives the Secretary of State power to detain indefinitely and without trial persons suspected of being terrorists. The House will see that I am not asking for these powers to be renewed on this occasion and will want an explanation why we are taking this step.
I said earlier that the Government are committed to their policy of overcoming terrorism by using, so far as possible, the normal processes of the law. Detention without trial is very definitely not a
"normal process of the law"
in democratic countries and indeed its operation offends a fundamental human freedom, far more. I believe, than do any of the other provisions of this Act. This House has always been, and, pray God, always will be, most reluctant to give to any Minister of the Crown such a wide power and would do so only if it were convinced that it was essential for the survival of the State and of the people who make up the State that he should have it and, furthermore, that the State and its people would be better protected if he did have it. The Minister would have to argue that case and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at this moment I am not prepared to argue it.
Mr. Tony Marlow: If, tonight, we drop the ability to detain without trial and if, at some time in the future, the Minister wanted to reintroduce it, how lengthy would that process be?
Mr. Atkins: May I ask my hon. Friend to possess himself in patience? A little later in my speech I come to precisely that point.
I have sought to show that over the last few months there have been modest

435
changes for the better in the security situation in Northern Ireland. The House knows that over the last five or six years there has been a substantial improvement. Many hon. Members will remember that the levels of violence which had to be reported from this Dispatch Box in those days were many times greater than they are now—and that, incidentally, was at a time when people were being detained without trial under the Act. Since those days much has happened.
The policy of successive Governments has been showing results, due in great measure to the growth in strength, experience and efficiency of the RUC and to the ever-increasing skill of the Army. The community has responded to this policy, because it approves of it and sees that it works, with the result that the terrorists are becoming more and more isolated.
I sincerely believe that the reintroduction of detention without trial at this moment would make matters worse, not better. I said "at this moment" deliberately. I have reported to the House my view that matters are slowly improving. But we must not blind ourselves to the possibility that something might happen that would make them take a turn very much for the worse and that I might want to use the power of detention. This could still be done, but with one important proviso, which does not exist today.
Section 12 will remain on the statute book—indeed, it would need amending primary legislation to take it off—and section 33 provides that section 12 can be reactivated by order. Furthermore, section 32 provides that under the "urgent" procedure that order can become operative immediately, with parliamentary approval for its continuance being required within 40 sitting days. So the difference—the proviso that I mentioned—is that, whereas today I can detain people without having to come near Parliament, in future, if today's motion is passed, I shall have to seek Parliament's approval to detain people without trial. That seems to me a proper position for the Secretary of State to be in, and I hope that the House will agree that it is.
Other parts of the Act bear on the liberty of the citizen, and it is not, let me assure the House, without some reluctance that I ask for the renewal of the remainder. These powers are not normal
436
in a democracy but they remain necessary to bring to justice terrorists who pay no heed to democracy. The past six months have shown that while we continue to make inroads into the terrorists' resources, to hamper their activities and to obstruct theoir goals we still have a good way to go before the normal level of law and order is restored throughout Northern Ireland. Let there be no mistake. We will persevere in the course that we have set ourselves, and it is my firm belief that we shall gain our objective, which is the suppression of terrorism, but we need the powers contained in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act to enable us to succeed. Therefore, I ask the House to approve the motion.
11.38 pm
Mr. Brynmor John: As the Secretary of State said, this is a short debate and so, although I am opening for the Opposition, we do not intend to wind up the debate.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, this debate has traditionally concentrated on security aspects of the Province, and I immediately express sympathy for all the victims of violence during the past year, be they civilian, Army, police or prison warders.
I do not intend to make security the theme of the debate. I intend to stick to the subject of the debate, which is whether we renew the legal framework which we had designed to deal with the emergency, for what we are doing tonight is something that we should not do either lightly or casually, namely, re-enacting an exceptional law. It should be done only with the closest parliamentary scrutiny and with reluctance because of its exceptional nature. We must ask ourselves whether exceptional law is needed to deal with the situation, and I reluctantly conclude that it is, which is why I believe that the House should renew these powers tonight.
There are, I suppose, three groups in the House who are looking at these problems. First, there are those who will re-enact the law without many qualms, seeing the result of defeating terrorism as justifying the means—almost any means.
Secondly, there are those to whom the Act is so repugnant that, whatever advice

437
is given as to the necessity for it, they will wish to mark their disapproval of it. A number of my hon Friends have done so in the past, and I have no doubt that they will do so on this occasion.
Thirdly, there are many people who will not want to oppose the renewal of the provisions but who will be very concerned to see that those provisions in the Act are always the minimum necessary for tackling the emergency and are in being for the shortest possible period. Among them I number myself. I have made it quite clear in the past that what we should be aiming for always in these renewal debates is to see how near to normality we can restore the criminal law in Northern Ireland. To enable those who are anxious about the Act to judge how we can do that, we should have at our disposal as much information as possible about the workings of the Act, in order for there to be a sensible debate on it. It would be a sad day for the House if we were to regard such debates as a mere ritual.
That being so, I express my extreme disappointment that once again the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has not been made available to hon. Members. I tried to forestall this difficulty by asking at Question Time on 8 May this year that the results of the commission's look into the Act should be made available to us in the most suitable form. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr Alison), said then:
"Yes, I shall consider most sympathetically the hon. Gentleman's request, and I shall seek to meet it."—[Official Report, 8 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 516.]
Unfortunately, despite those blandishments, nothing has been forthcoming. Perhaps more surprisingly, nor has any explanation been given to me or the House of why it was not done. This is most disappointing. The continuing absence of authoritative public analysis leads me to a conclusion that I shall develop later.
Before turning to that, let me say how glad I am to see that the Government have responded to the point that I made on behalf of the Opposition in the two previous debates, which was to adopt the commission's suggestion that the Secretary of State's power to detain without
438
trial, which is contained in section 12 and schedule 1 of the Act, be allowed to lapse. I believe that this is the right course, and I welcome the Government's response.
For what else the commission may have tendered by way of advice we must rely on newspapers. I always find it somewhat ironic that newspapers seem to be able to get hold of documents which are always denied to Members of Parliament. From the newspaper reports of the commission's report to the Secretary of State we can identify certain main areas of concern. The first is the lack of jury trial and the nature of the Diplock courts. I think that what the commission is saying is this: granted that that may have been the way in which the matter was tackled at first, when the Act was fashioned, is it any longer as relevant to the Northern Ireland of 1980, and to the legal situation, as it was then?
The second area of concern is section 2 (2) on bail. I have pointed out that this reverses the normal burden of proof regarding bail and puts upon the accused the duty of satisfying the court that he should be granted bail.
The Secretary of State has made great play of the suggestion that if we were to change that provision we should confuse the courts. But all that we should need to do for Northern Ireland is to put in the Act a provision such as is already contained in the Bail Act—a presumption that an accused person is entitled to bail unless the court is satisfied that he will abscond, interfere with witnesses, or commit other offences whilst on bail. I think that it is merely a reversal of the burden of proof. It is not beyond the draftsman's wit to contrive it, because it has been done in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is something that the commission has thought necessary for Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, and probably the greatest area of concern is the reliance placed on witnesses' statements in securing convictions. That is coupled with the interrogation procedures that we have to consider from time to time. There is an obvious connection, and it causes anxiety.
Fourthly, sections 11 and 14 and the powers of arrest and detention are recommended by the commission for amendment. In addition, there is the minor but important matter of whether all the

439
offences scheduled under section 4 need to be kept as terrorist offences or whether some should be terrorist offences only when the DPP certifies that they should be. I am thinking particularly of the inclusion of actual bodily harm, which is one of the most minor of the assault charges but which is a scheduled offence under section 4.
The Secretary of State objected that this is not the time when such changes can be made, though that is exactly what the Government were saying six months ago about section 12 and schedule 1. They may also say that with the material available we cannot judge whether the case is made out. That is in part because they have failed to provide the material to enable us to make the judgment.
However, there is a fair degree of unanimity in articles on the Act by outside commentators. I concede that the Government have a serious point in regard to the material on which we make a judgment and it is a matter that all who wish to see normality in the criminal law begin to be restored must treat seriously.
The standing commission was set up by the Secretary of State to advise him privately. It was not set up to advise the public on the workings of the Act or on its proposals for amendment. It is not geared to informing the public. There should be a great deal more information available to the public on the workings of the Act and a great deal more scrutiny of how it works in practice. A knowledgeable scrutiny of the Act is essential before any changes, even the more radical ones that my hon. Friends want, are contemplated.
The only judicial review of the Act was carried out in 1974-75 by the Gardiner committee. Among other things, it led to the phasing out of detention. Its terms of reference are as apposite to a study of the Act today as they were when the committee was set up:
"We were appointed:
'to consider what provisions and powers, consistent to the maximum extent practicable in the circumstances with the preservation of civil liberties and human rights, are required to deal with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland, including provisions for the administration of justice, and to examine the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973; and to make recommendations.'"
440
With the exception that the Act is now a 1978 measure, those remarks are, in all particulars, still apposite. Conclusion 5 was:
"The continued existence of emergency powers should be limited both in scope and duration."
It follows from that conclusion that there should be regular inspections of the Act by such a judicial body.
In my judgment and that of the official Opposition, the time is right for another such judicial review of the Act, with broadly the same terms of reference as the Gardiner committee's. There might even be an advantage in appointing as many of the Gardiner committee as are able and willing to serve on the new review. They have the expertise, because they have considered the matter before. I urge the Government to set up such a review—five or six years after the completion of the previous one—as a means of examining the Act in the light of present-day needs and requirements.
The Secretary of State dwelt long on the change that has occurred in the terrorist scene since the Act was first put before the House. I agree, mercifully, that it has changed. There is a need for scrutiny of whether all the emergency powers are necessary in the form in which they now appear in the Act, five years after the last judicial review. By so doing a great deal of anxiety about the Act and its working would be alleviated or focused on those areas that the committee identified. Succeeding debates would be greatly helped by the information provided.
I hope that the Government will respond quickly to that suggestion. Their duty both to the House and to the country demands no less. It would commend wide acceptance in all parts of the House. Only then can the House feel that it is playing a constructive role in the consideration of the emergency provisions Acts rather than acting as a rubber stamp. The House is at its worst when it acts in that way.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: We should vote against it.
Mr. John: With respect, my hon. Friend would throw the baby out with the bath water. Some exceptional power is still necessary to meet an exceptional circumstance in Northern Ireland.

441
I should like the advantage of a judicial review of, for example, the restoration of the jury system before I made up my mind on that matter. I am not prepared to remove completely in advance all powers in the hope that the jury system will work satisfactorily after its restoration.
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend used the phrase "acting as a rubber stamp". If the House does not wish to act as a rubber stamp it can vote against the legislation. It is not right for my hon. Friend to suggest that the House automatically acts as a rubber stamp. People may vote for the legislation because they believe in it.
Mr. John: The analogy of the rubber stamp may be a false one. It may be my hon. Friend's interpretation that the House acts as a rubber stamp when it passes legislation, but my interpretation is that it passes legislation without adequate scrutiny and without fulfilling the duty of informing itself about the vital matter of the parameters of the debate in order to conduct the debate sensibly and properly. It may not wish to oppose, but at least it will have scrutinised the matter properly and fairly and allowed it to pass. My suggestion of the judicial review could have that effect. I hope that the Government will see their way clear to doing that to alleviate the natural concern of many people about the workings of the Act.
11.53 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I intend to make only the briefest of comments—not because there are not a great many points that I could make but because on a number of occasions I have tried to get across one point to the Secretary of State, which has been dodged. I wish to make that point again tonight in the hope that it will concentrate his mind and I shall receive a reply.
I refer to the deterrent to terrorism. The Secretary of State made it clear that the Government's way forward was conviction on proven evidence in the courts. One of my theories is that when the security forces get people to the courts, the courts do not give severe enough sentences. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State on 23 April. I asked him
"if he will give the number of persons convicted … over the past four years for terrorist-
442
type offences: and what percentage of this number received non-custodial sentences."—[Official Report, 23 April 1980; Vol. 983, c. 199.]
In reply he said that in 1976 962 people were convicted but that 23 per cent. had received non-custodial sentences. In 1978 the figure had increased to 36 per cent., and in 1979 it was a fairly constant 35 per cent. For terrorist-type offences, therefore, over one-third of the people who are found guilty of committing crimes are able to thumb their noses at the police and walk out of the door of the courtroom.
The position is particularly bad in terms of membership of an illegal organisation. I asked the Secretary of State whether he could inform me how many of those who had received sentences for membership of the IRA had received non-custodial sentences. The answer that I received was that in 1976-77 about 50 per cent. of those who had been found guilty of membership of the IRA or other illegal organisations had received non-custodial sentences, and that that figure had increased in 1978-79 to about 76 per cent.
Just think of it. Over three-quarters of the people who are found guilty of being a member of an illegal organisation are able to walk free from our courts. Is that a position that the Secretary of State can defend? Are we at war with terrorism in Northern Ireland or are we not? Surely, if we are we cannot allow those who are found guilty of being involved in the organisations that cause death and destruction in our country to walk free from our courts.
Will the Secretary of State undertake a review of sentencing policy in Northern Ireland and ensure that when a person who is found guilty is convicted in the courts he receives a punishment that fits the crime that he has committed?
I ask the Secretary of State to consider the effect, first, on the law enforcement agencies. What kind of morale is left in the police force when, after perhaps weeks or months of tracking down a criminal, they put together a case, they bring him to court, they are successful in getting the man convicted, but then have to watch as he sticks his tongue out at them and walks through the door? That is happening all too often in our courts in Northern Ireland. I ask the

443
Secretary of State to concentrate his mind on that.
Will the Secretary of State also consider the effect on the terrorist and would-be terrorist? What kind of deterrent is it for those who would wish to engage or would think about engaging in terrorism when they know that their chances of not getting caught are greater than their chances of getting caught? Even if they are unfortunate enough, in their eyes, to be caught, they know that they have a good chance of insufficient evidence being brought against them to secure a conviction. Again, even if they are convicted, they know that they have a very good chance of getting off scot-free.
Will the Secretary of State please consider a review of the sentencing policy in Northern Ireland to ensure that we do not have a position in which the terrorist is laughing up his sleeve at the Government and, indeed, at successive Governments in Northern Ireland? Will he please ensure that the sentence fits the crime?
11.45 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: All of us who have at heart the safety of Northern Ireland citizens have a duty to indicate how that safety and the protection of the law can be improved. Through the exercise of the powers of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978—which in the main we are asked to renew tonight—the security battle has to a great extent shifted to the frontier. It is very important to note that fact. It is no longer accurate for people on this island of Great Britain to refer to the troubles in Northern Ireland. They ought to be facing the fact that in general the battle is being fought out on the frontier—not the border of Northern Ireland but the frontier of the United Kingdom. It is natural that our chief concern is for the United Kingdom citizens along that front line and for the security forces who man it.
Those of us who have taken more than a passing interest in the frontier areas have to tell the Secretary of State that much remains to be done. In County Fermanagh there are 88 frontier crossings capable of being used by vehicles with varying degrees of efficiency. Forty-two remain open. Up to last night at only
444
four were checks being carried out on vehicles.
I understand that one crossing at Lacky Bridge has been progressively cratered, and I ask that the same attention be given to a little bypass lane named Clerkins Lane, which is capable of being used as an escape route for terrorists. Another crossing at Castle Saunderson road could also be blocked without great hardship to the local population. Indeed, hardship should not enter into the consideration when we are seeking to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens of the United Kingdom. We should like assurance that the blocking and guarding of roads will not be only a temporary expedient, but will be continued as long as necessary to secure the safety of Her Majesty's subjects, whether they be in the security forces or not.
We should also like to see uniformity in the pattern of border control throughout the: frontier. At present there is far too much variation.
With regard to the Secretary of State's proposal to allow the powers of detention to lapse, I have always felt that the power to detain is an essential safeguard when the State is under terrorist attack. I appreciate that the power will remain on the statute book in the form of section 12 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. However, I find it difficult to see any advantage in allowing it to lapse by excluding section 12 from the continuance order. What is the effective difference between that and not using the power, as has been the case for the past five years? In both cases the power remains but is not being exercised.
There is, however, one important and significant difference. After 25 July, if a situation arose that required the introduction of detention under section 33 of the 1978 Act, the Secretary of State could, if necessary, as he said, employ the "urgent" procedure under section 32. It could not be subsection (3) (a), which requires that a draft order or regulations be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. Terrorists would be unlikely to wait until they had read Hansard before contacting their travel agents or the Irish Tourist Board. The "urgent" procedure would have to be used, which is provided for, as the Secretary of State said, in section 32 (3) (b).

445
Is it realistic to suppose that a Secretary of State would put his hand to such an order? It would be kicked around like a parliamentary prayer for 40 days and 40 nights before the Secretary of State's action was approved in retrospect by both Houses of Parliament. There would be hours of protest and complaint that the Secretary of State was acting like a gauleiter by not first seeking parliamentary approval.
However, there would be one great disadvantage. The order would presumably take some time to prepare. How secure would the information therefore be? What range of persons would have to be consulted in the course of its preparation? Would there not be a danger of the moles getting at the secret when the Foreign Office was asked for advice on the desirability of informing Dublin of the impending development, if only to provide time for the organisation of reception committees?
The Government will not receive many votes of thanks for this gesture from terrorist fellow-travellers who, like the terrorists, will regard it as further evidence of the lack of will to defeat them. That seems to be a fact of life.
The Secretary of State, in his original announcement in the letter which he sent out at the time that the decision was made—and we are grateful for the advance notice—used the phrase
"having considered all that has happened since the powers were last used".
We vividly remember, to quote those words, "all that has happened". Because of that, we ask the Government to balance this action, which we are not contesting, by recognising and getting others to recognise, as Paul Johnson put it recently,
"that terrorism distinguishes between lawful and totalitarian States in favour of the latter."
I do not quarrel with the Secretary of State's view that we have to act within the law. I have always supported that position. I ask only that the Secretary of State and his Ministers do all in their power to ensure that the law is applied more vigorously. In that hope, we propose to support the order.
12.6 am
Mr. Martin Flannery: First, I protest that again
446
such a debate as this is taking place very late at night when there are hardly any journalists present. In my opinion, this is not without planning. This serious debate is not being treated seriously, and I make my protest on that basis. For years a few of us have struggled against this Act. I have opposed it throughout, and I shall continue to do so in what I am about to say. But there is a change.
I am opposing the order in a new climate that is developing. It is not the climate that has emerged from the two Front Bench speeches. It is a climate that is developing throughout the Labour movement in which the bipartisan policy has been severely questioned. The time when the Labour Government, for instance, under pressure from many Members, allowed only a half-hour debate in which only orthodox views were called has gone. Throughout the Labour movement there is a severe questioning of the policy of the Labour Party on Northern Ireland. A bigger debate is developing, and it will be mirrored to some extent at the next Labour Party conference, where many things which the leaders of the party have carried out for many years will be questioned.
Northern Ireland, so called—and this place is part of Northern Ireland—was built in a wrong manner. That has caused all this trouble. Let us make no mistake about it—and Conservative Members must listen to this—Northern Ireland has never been governed without special powers since 1922. Indeed, the whole of Ireland before that was governed by special powers.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Flannery: We have only a short time. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have a chance to speak.
Since Northern Ireland became an Orange State and an appendage of Britain, it has had to have draconian powers all the time. When a State has to have powers of this nature there is something sick, ill and massively wrong with it. A State which has had to be governed continuously by such draconian legislation, ultimately producing continuing slaughter, has something wrong with it. What is wrong is a lack of democracy, no matter how much the

447
Ulster Unionists may say that there is democracy. They equate democracy with a built-in majority. That majority was arranged by them, by force of arms and against the will of the Irish people. That has caused all the trouble. These acts have always been aimed at the minority Catholic community, in a very sectarian and bigoted manner. That community is composed of the original Irish. The whole of Ireland is really their country.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Why are their names Welsh?
Mr. Flannery: Their names are Welsh as a result of imperialism. Although I seem to provoke hon. Members when I tell the truth, I shall have to do so.
In May 1974, the Protestant community—with whom I have the deepest sympathy, given that they are ruled by their governors on the Benches behind me—provided one third of the convicted terrorists.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Not only is his history bad, but his geography is terrible.
Mr. Flannery: Despite that, only one-tenth of those interned without trial were Protestants. That shows that the Acts have been implemented in a disgraceful way.
The British people are sick and tired of this running sore. If a referendum were undertaken in Britain, the British people would go further than I would go. They would want the troops to withdraw. I do not want that to happen, because the minority and majority communities do not desire it to happen. Some time ago, the Daily Mirror pointed out that the British people wanted the troops to withdraw. Conservative Members may not believe the Daily Mirror. They believe The Daily Telegraph That is their choice, and I can do nothing about it. As long as the minority community is not properly policed by the RUC, whom they have always distrusted, it will be the main victim of the special powers that are given to the Army and to the police. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) knows that, but he never says anything about it.
Let us see what this draconian Act—the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978—says. Section 7 states:
448
"A trial on indictment of a scheduled offence shall be conducted by the court without a jury."
Subsection (2) states:
"The court trying a scheduled offence on indictment under this section shall have all the powers, authorities and jurisdiction which the court would have had if it had been sitting with a jury."
That is just one of the disgraceful draconian powers. The House should be ashamed of passing such an Act.
Section 9 states:
"Where a person is charged with possessing a proscribed article in such circumstances as to constitute an offence to which this section applies and it is proved that at the time of the alleged offence—

(a) he and that article were both present in any premises; "

God be praised; what a law! It continues:

"(b) the article was in premises of which he was the occupier or which he habitually used otherwise than as a member of the public".

I have given only two examples of draconian powers. I do not have time to read section 19, but it is even worse. I wish that the British people would read that nefarious Act. They do not understand what is being done in their names. We have had enough of such monstrous and draconian powers.
Mr Biggs-Davison Mr Biggs-Davison rose—
Mr. Flannery: Such powers are irrelevant, and they inflame the situation. Conviction can result from confession alone. We all know that Stalin used such methods. When dictatorial powers are used, confessions are used. They become a substitute for the real evidence. It makes one wonder how many innocent people are in gaol in Northern Ireland. It also makes one wonder what a legacy of bitterness and revenge is being nurtured and developed. The Secretary of State conveyed the impression that because terrorism has now lessened it is on its way out. He is dreaming. The reality is that it is not on its way out. That legacy will continue, because this is a political problem.
What are the results of this horrifying Act? First, it denies a fair trial by jury and substitutes confessions obtained by whatever means for real evidence. Secondly, the military and the police use suspicion as substitutes for evidence. We talk about getting rid of the "sus" laws

449
in this country, but the "sus" laws exist on a grand scale in Northern Ireland and are substituted for evidence. Thirdly, it has sown suspicion around the H-blocks in Armagh, a suspicion which should not have been sown except by the surrounding lack of any real political approach to the problem of Northern Ireland. Fourthly, it has made other nations suspicious of the, whole Northern Ireland State, and quite rightly.
Mr. Biggs-Davison Mr. Biggs-Davison rose—
Mr. Flannery: The real causes of the continuing emergency are political. There is not the slightest likelihood of these Acts, no matter how they are renewed and no matter how many are passed, ever stopping terrorism. If they did manage to stop it, it would break out again at a later date just as sure as we are in this Chamber, because the reasons for the emergency are political and only a political solution can be effective.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Flannery: The enforced partition of Ireland is the real cause of all the trouble that is occuring in the North. The hon. Member for Epping Forest wanted me to give way. I am feeling a little charitable, so I shall.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is very courteous towards those who disagree with him. Why is it that what he calls draconian powers are in force and are used in the Republic of Ireland? Can he explain why that is the case? Is he opposed to that?
Mr. Flannery: I think that draconian powers are used in the Republic of Ireland because the Republic also does not understand the problem and because there has never been a Socialist Government in the Republic. Perhaps if the Republic moves a little nearer to that, it will understand the problem. The sad fact is that the lack of any political solution on the part of the Republic of Ireland, which is going through a scries of changes, and on the part of the North and the Government over here, will result in continued terrorism, because the answers are political. I was just about to give them.
Mr. McNamara: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the need for draconian powers in the South is because of Partition itself, and that if one got rid of Partition there would be no draconian powers on either side?
Mr. Flannery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has put the argument better than I could. As he has just said, enforced Partition is the real and fundamental cause of the entire problem. It will not be solved until we have in view the prospect of a united Ireland. That is a state which the Labour movement in this country is steadily moving towards. Hence, such Acts as the one that we are now debating will never end terrorism. Only the reversal of the disastrous veto on Irish reunification which was given to the Unionists can remove the political and social base of terrorism.
The evidence which comes to us across the Chamber and from the Benches behind me proves almost conclusively that the Unionists, who precipitated all this, have learnt nothing. They wish to return to the old Stormont system. They want to rule in the way that created all this trouble and chaos. They have learnt nothing about the underlying political causes of this terrible problem. Once again, they want to have their form of so-called democracy, where the minority community is held in subjection and where they carry on in whatever way they wish. It will never work. Only a change of heart and mind, and only the abolition of the sectarian bigotry that pervades the Unionists ranks and the extension of real democracy to both communities in Northern Ireland tending towards the ultimate unification of Ireland, will solve the problem. If hon. Members will not turn their minds towards that solution, a growing section of the British people is doing so.
12.20 am
Mr. John McQuade: Once more the House is being asked to continue the effect of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978—an occasion that is now beginning to acquire the characteristics of a ritual. The danger is that, as in all rituals, the real meaning and significance is forgotten and the form becomes an end in itself. It is as well, therefore, that I remind the

451
House of the real meaning of the event taking place today.
First, it is an acknowledgement that despite all your fine words and brave phrases on both sides, you have still not subdued terrorism after 12 long years in my small country, which means simply that you are unable to put down a bunch of corner boys and thugs. Secondly, it gives an opportunity for a lot of clever asses to explain why these hoodlums cannot be beaten. You cannot have what is laughingly called a military victory until you have a political settlement. This is nothing more than meaningless claptrap and a pathetic attempt to explain away the obvious inability of a gaggle of namby-pamby cissies to remove us from the thrall of a vicious murder gang.
Thirdly, in complete contradiction, it gives others an opportunity to trumpet that the war against the terrorist is being won. You have been winning it, in case you do not know, for 12 years. The widows of south Armagh will be heartened to hear it. Fourthly, to us in Northern Ireland, it is a reminder, as if we needed it, of your pathetic inability to provide the fundamentals of life in what you choose to call your realm. What a mockery! It is a reminder that since you decided, with your high-sounding morality and your know-all condescension, to take over the role of guardian of the public peace, you have made a criminal mess of it and are showing no sign that you have learnt anything from your experience. Why did you not leave it to us to do what we had done effectively for a couple of generations in protecting the lives of our fellow citizens? You swallowed the very propaganda that is now being used against you. You come with your senseless platitudes and airy inanity, take down our defences, and put nothing in their place, and death and distress have been our legacy ever since.
Is it any wonder that you earn the bitter contempt of so many of my fellow countrymen who, until then, would have laid down their lives for the name of Britain! This is a reminder of your abysmal failure in the streets. The order is also a telling reminder that you have not even the common sense to deal in the courts with whatever ruffians your security forces are lucky enough to catch.
452
Your continued failure to see the absurdity of a suspected terrorist remaining silent when questioned about his alleged activities and being allowed to shelter behind that silence makes me think that you regard this battle of human misery as some kind of game. Why should his refusal to answer not be regarded as evidence against him? To any man of common sense it should be. Or are you so taken with the English myth of "fair play" that you are trying to regulate the relationship between the public and its butchers by the rules of cricket? You know, you are silly enough to think that there is something praiseworthy in such an idiotic attitude.
Then again, you perpetuate the travesty that allows a terrorist to make—as he does invariably—wild allegations of ill treatment which compel the prosecution to disprove them beyond reasonable doubt, which is often a virtual impossibility. Is it not time that we reversed the burden of proof in such cases so that in one sense at least a proper balance is maintained between the public and the terrorist?
To have to say things such as this after 12 long years really shows the futility of it all. You do not have the gumption to do what has to be done, either in the streets or in the courts. And you do not have the will to allow us to do it ourselves. The only ingenuity that you show is in explaining away your own ghastly inadequacies. The only resolution that you exhibit is a determination not to do the right thing. You reveal all the weakness of a fourth-rate and steadily declining Power—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that when he uses the word "you" he is referring to the occupant of the Chair. I am sure that I have not done any of the things that he is alleging. He must refer to "the Government" or "the hon. Members", not to me.
Mr. McQnade: I take it back Mr. Deputy Speaker—I was referring to the Government. Our widows and orphans are the sufferers from their actions. And to cap it all, the Government are so pleased with their performance that in their depressingly unimaginative paper recently they declared their intention to

453
continue responsibility for what they call security. Is it any wonder that we despair? [Interrruption.]—I challenge hon. Members to say anything that they have to say outside the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to call the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), but before I do I must tell him that the Minister hopes to wind up at 12.35 am. I hope that he will bear that point in mind.
12.29 am
Mr. Gerard Fitt: Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade), I am inclined to support this kind of legislation.
I oppose this legislation tonight, as I have done since it was first introduced in 1973, because I believe that it is antidemocratic, it takes away the democratic rights of people in Northern Ireland, it is counter-productive and it alienates a whole section of the Catholic minority community in Northern Ireland because of the way in which that Act is implemented.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), in an interjection, said that there was draconian legislation in the Republic. In the last eight years, no matter how draconian the legislation might have been, it was nothing compared with what is happening in Northern Ireland. The facts of life are that in Northern Ireland in the last eight years 299, 380 homes have been searched—most of them in the early hours of the morning. About 25,000 people have been detained by the RUC or the security forces for between four hours and seven days.
It is easy to imagine the resentment and bitter animosity that such action can bring about. People have been driven from their beds in the early hours and detained. The young people in the community have been alienated. Most of the people who were interned for scheduled offences before the introduction of this legislation were 9, 10 or 11 years of age.
I oppose the legislation because it is counter-productive. It does not have the effect that was intended. It alienates a whole community. One must have serious doubts and reservations about the way in which confessions are brought before the courts. I recognise that once
454
someone is charged under the legislation there is always a presumption of guilt—even by Members of the House—because the person is charged under the emergency provisions legislation. Once a person is so charged there is a reluctance by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary to query convictions for even a second. I put it on record that I know people who are imprisoned under the emergency legislation who should not be imprisoned. I ask the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Home Secretary, to examine again the case of Bernard Conlan, who was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and died in Wormwood Scrubs.
The Home Secretary found last week that, after a number of years, and after the cases had been thrown out of the Appeal Court, he was able, in conscience, to examine the facts and free two people. The hon. Member for Epping Forest has been involved with me in inquiring into the case of Bernard Conlan and the other people who were sentenced with him. I am convinced that Bernard Conlan was not guilty. He was tried and convicted under the emergency legislation. I hope that we do not have to wait for another book to be published by Ludovic Kennedy before the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State examines the authenticity of such cases.
Recommendations have been made throughout the years to modify the legislation. A succession of Secretaries of State say that they will not keep the legislation on the statute book one minute longer than necessary. Only a few months ago a fellow called Johnny Logan won the Eurovision song contest with a song called "What's another year?" That is how the Government regard this legislation. It has been too long on the statute book.
I ask the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary to look again at the conviction and the death of Bernard Conlan. They should take seriously on board the recommendations made by my hon. Friends. Another review body should be set up to inquire into all the ramifications of the Act to ensure that it is taken off the statute book as quickly as possible.
12.35 am
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I

455
shall try in the few minutes left before the guillotine falls on the debate, as it were, to deal briefly with the matters raised by all those who have taken part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) was helpful enough to indicate that he thought that the Act should be renewed. He agreed that exceptional laws are needed for exceptional circumstances. We warmly welcome his support in that broad approach. The hon. Gentleman complained that the analysis of the operations under the Act carried out by the standing advisory commission was not available. He has probably seen the annual report, which was published on 6 March 1980 as a House of Commons paper. There is a good deal of material in that document. More recently, a full press release was issued by the commission.
The hon. Gentleman expressed again his misgiving about the bail provisions. I can only refer him to the argument of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He dealt at some length with his decision to leave the section 8 provisions as they are. The hon. Gentleman will recall that 45 per cent. of those involved in scheduled offence cases get bail, even under the existing arrangements. If we reversed the procedure to what it was before the emergency provisions legislation was introduced, the likelihood is that practically every case would result in the granting of bail. That would be going too far in one direction. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting suggestion—namely, the possible reactivation of the Gardiner committee. That is a relevant thought in the context of the ongoing cycle of renewal, which we shall consider without commitment.
The hon. Gentleman referred to schedule 4 and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. That is not a scheduled offence in any case in which the Attorney-General certifies that it is not to be treated as such an offence. The same applies to murder, manslaughter and a number of other offences associated with terrorism. There is a certain amount of flexibility in the operation of the schedule.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) expressed misgiving about the general uniformity and ration-
456
ality of border crossings policy and the closures of such crossings. The hon. Gentleman will remember that my right hon. Friend recently authorised the closure of several more roads along the border between County Fermanagh and County Monaghan. Earlier in the year a number of other border crossings were closed. The decision to close the crossings is taken on the basis of advice received from the security force commanders, on whose professional judgment we need to depend.
The hon. Gentleman will note that we have 281 crossings along the whole of the border, 137 of which have been made impassable to normal traffic, which is a fairly high proportion.
Mr. Win. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it has not been found possible to carry out the advice of a number of hon. Members in this respect, including myself, until now, and that that advice was given to previous Governments? What sort of professional advice has been taken that seems to have been 10 years behind that given by politicians?
Mr. Alison: It is by no means an agreed operational advantage to close border crossings. The closure of crossings ties troops down in some circumstances. It is a fine balance, and we take the advice of professional advisers.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South referred to the Lacky crossing. On the night of 19-20 July—last Saturday and Sunday—old cars were placed on a cattle crossing a little way from the bridge. A bypass of earlier obstacles was built. The security forces discovered the crossing early on Saturday morning. As they approached they became suspicious that the makeshift bridge might be intended as a "come on". The hon. Gentleman will know the significance of that. They cordoned off the area, thus preventing any effective use of the crossing, and started a clearance operation for bombs. During Monday the Army set off four small explosions and one large one, which destroyed the makeshift bridge. Today an excavator is being used to deepen and widen the gulley at that point. The security forces expect to have completed the operation by now. The layout of the area, with the track on either side of the stream which marks the border, means

457
that further attempts to construct makeshift crossings must remain possible but we intend to keep this road impassable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the way in which we decided to drop the detention power orders and wondered whether we might not find ourselves caught out by what he called the "moles" getting in and advising possible terrorists that they would be made liable to detention. As he will appreciate, section 32 (3), and particularly (3) (b), of the Act enables the emergency procedure to be used. It might be that a particular suspect who might become the subject of a detention order, were we to reactivate them, would be in police custody at the time, making it possible for him to be detained. There would merely be an extrapolation from the fact that he was in detention, into a more extended form of detention by the activation of these powers. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would have to worry that the person might get wind of what we were going to do.
The parliamentary debate would be ex post facto. This is the difference between what" we are doing now and the procedure of leaving things as they are. There would have to be the parliamentary debate. This is the difference and it is something that we feel the new circumstances justify.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) had a complaint about the percentage of those charged and convicted of terrorist offences who did not receive custodial sentences. It is true that the percentage of those convicted who do not receive such sentences is high. Sentencing is, in the first place, clearly a matter for the courts and not my right hon. Friend. It should also be noted that the figures relate to those convicted of membership of an illegal organisation and of no other offences. The figures do not include those convicted of a more serious offence, such as murder, possession of explosives or of firearms. They tend, therefore, to relate to those against whom the police have the least substantial evidence and to those on the periphery of terrorism. This is essentially a matter for the courts to decide. Membership of an illegal organisation is the charge in these cases and is the explanation for the num-
458
ber of non-custodial sentences in this category being relatively high.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) alleged that democracy was sick. I am bound to say that he managed to convey exactly the reverse of the truth. This Act, which we are asking the House to renew, openly spells out some derogations from the normal practice and standards of the rule of law in a free society in which democracy prevails. We come to the House. The whole thing can be openly debated. The facts are known, the derogations are discussed, the press is available to report our proceedings. We make no pretence—
Mr. Fitt: The press is not present.
Mr. Alison: Well, Hansard is there for the next day—at least, we hope it is.
The facts of the derogations are openly and specifically spelt out. I ask the hon. Member for Hillsborough to reflect on the contrast with Socialist countries. He will know that in the Socialist countries their policy is to have a spurious and high-sounding constitution spelt out, elaborating and proclaiming certain alleged civil rights. However, in those Socialist countries in which this spurious catalogue of civil rights is spelt out the secret police—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington). Which Socialist countries?
Mr. Alison: The Soviet Union is a case in point. The secret police of the totalitarian society prevent the citizens enjoying those spurious rights. This is exactly the reverse of what we are doing.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade) wanted a much more ruthless pursuit of the campaign against the terrorists. The hon. Gentleman is a man of dauntless personal courage, as we all know. He has not been reluctant to arrest armed terrorists and he deserves the utmost respect in this House. The way in which the number of terrorist offences has declined sharply in recent years, not least this year as compared with the last half of last year, is a clear indication of the fact that the policy that we are pursuing, which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) thinks much too draconian, old is nevertheless producing that type of movement towards a much

459
lower incidence of terrorism than would be the case if the policy of the hon. Member for Belfast, North, of a much more ruthless, relentless pursuit of the terrorist was activated. The hon. Member for Belfast, West thinks that we are doing much too much, while his neighbour in Belfast, North thinks that we are doing much too little. Both hon. Members have suffered from the effects of terrorism. I think that the House has just about got it right in the kind of measures that we are taking.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West alleged that there were people in prison who should not be there. We shall look carefully at what he said and at the name that he quoted and the case that he made. This is a matter for the courts, but we shall reflect on what he said. In a democracy that is based on the rule of law and that brings to the House and

Division No. 425]

AYES

[12.46 am

Alexander, Richard

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Alison, Michael

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Proctor, K. Harvey

Arnold, Tom

Haselhurst, Alan

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Hawksley, Warren

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Bendall, Vivian

Henderson, Barry

Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Best, Keith

John, Brynmor

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Biggs-Davison, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Blackburn, John

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Shersby, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Knight, Mrs Jill

Skeet, T. H. H.

Bradford, Rev. R.

Lawrence, Ivan

Speed, Keith

Bright, Graham

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Speller, Tony

Brinton, Timothy

Loveridge, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Brittan, Leon

Lyell, Nicholas

Squire, Robin

Brooke, Hon Peter

MacGregor. John

Stainton, Keith

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

McQuade, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Cadbury, Jocelyn

McQuarrie, Albert

Stevens, Martin

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Major, John

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Marlow, Tony

Stradling Thomas, J.

Chapman, Sydney

Mates, Michael

Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Tebbit, Norman

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Moate, Roger

Temple-Morris, Peter

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Molyneaux, James

Thompson, Donald

Colvin, Michael

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Cope, John

Murphy, Christopher

Wakeham, John

Costain, Sir Albert

Myles, David

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Neale, Gerrard

Ward, John

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Nelson, Anthony

Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Neubert, Michael

Wheeler, John

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Newton, Tony

Whitney, Raymond

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Normanton, Tom

Wickenden, Keith

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Onslow, Cranley

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Goodhart, Philip

Parris, Matthew

Mr. Carol Mather and

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Mr. David Waddington.

Grist, Ian

NOES

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Home Robertson, John

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

McKelvey, William

Skinner, Dennis

Canavan, Dennis

Maxton, John

Stallard, A. W.

Cryer, Bob

Maynard, Miss Joan

Tilley, John

Daiyell, Tarn

Mikardo, Ian

Dobson, Frank

O'Halloran, Michael

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Fitt, Gerard

Parry, Robert

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Flannery, Martin

Richardson, Miss Jo

Mr. Clive Soley.

Question accordingly agreed to.
discusses openly in the House the provisions for conducting the normal processes of the rule of law, there is nothing that we want to do more than to prevent abuse and to secure the fairest and most just treatment for the citizen. If the hon. Gentleman puts forward a case in which he alleges that there has been a miscarriage of justice, we shall consider it.
I think that in the short time that was left to me I have covered most of the points that were raised. I very much hope that the House will let us renew this Act for a further six months, which I hope and believe will enable us to make even further progress in the containment and ultimate defeat of terrorism.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 20.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.

INLAND REVENUE (OFFICIAL ERROR RULE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
12.57 am
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury for staying up to this late hour to listen to my case and to answer the debate. This is a time of the year when Treasury Ministers carry an intolerable load, with proceedings on the Finance Bill, and I am therefore all the more grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's presence.
The issue that I wish to raise is the operation of Treasury policy in so far as it limits what is referred to as the official error rule and, in particular, as it affects my constituent, Mr. Wilson, of 440 Woodgrange Drive, Southend.
In the first report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner concern was expressed that the Inland Revenue had no power to waive arrears of tax. The Committee took the view that that was wrong in cases when taxpayers were presented with a substantial bill that arose purely because the Inland Revenue had made a mistake.
In response to that report, the Government issued a White Paper in July 1971 and accepted the need for something to be done, but proposed that the injustices that had been referred to by the Select Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner should be resolved only where there was hardship. A scale was drawn up providing that if the taxpayer's income was £ 1,500 or less and a mistake by the Inland Revenue resulted in the individual being presented with a substantial tax bill, all the liability should be carried by the Revenue. It was further proposed that if the income was between £ 1,500 and £ 3,000 one-half of the bill should be borne by the Inland Revenue, but that if the income of the person concerned was more than £ 3,000, no remission should be allowed.
462

It is interesting—and it gives an idea of the extent of the problem—that between 1970 and 1977 a total of £ 7.4 million of taxation was remitted, involving 55,000 taxpayers. The average remission was more than £ 100 per affected taxpayer.
The scale has, of course, been revised several times. The latest revision provides that if the income of the taxpayer is below £ 4,000 a year, full remission is made in cases of official error. If the income is below £ 6,000, the remission is 75 per cent., at between £ 6,000 and £ 8,000, remission totals 50 per cent. and on an income of £ 8,000- £ 10,000, remission is 25 per cent., but if an individual's total income is more than £ 10,000, no remission is allowed, irrespective of the nature of the official error.
The latest report of the Select Committee, issued as recently as 21 February 1980, thoroughly reviewed the whole procedure. In evidence before the Committee the Parliamentary Commissioner expressed the view that the rigid cut-off points were unjust and created rough justice. In page 10 the Commissioner stated that:
"In my view anyone who has blamelessly conducted his affairs on the assumption that his tax account is in order must inevitably suffer on being informed that it is not; and it is no answer, in my view, to tell him that he is so wealthy that no injustice has been done to him or that he has anyway had the benefit of the unpaid tax. For, almost certainly, he would not have taken the benefit if he had realised that the money was not his to keep and, if he had spent it, he would not have done so—sometimes irrevocably—had he known it was repayable."
That was a strong view, basically saying that the rigid cut-off points were unfair.
It is unfair to have arbitrary limits of that sort. The total income of a person is no true guide to his wealth or his available resources. It does not take account of a taxpayer's obligations, his debts, his family obligations, his children or of the elderly relatives that he might support. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister is a fair man. I think that he will agree that the total income is not a true and fair guide to a person's available resources or wealth.
In considering the matter the Committee made two specific recommendations. First, it felt that the lower limit was unfair and should be raised; secondly, it recommended that in cases

463
above £ 10,000 a year at least a token remission of 10 per cent. should be made. That was a limited proposal, but it was fair and reasonable. There is no doubt that if a taxpayer is suddenly presented with a bill, through no fault of his, it involves at least inconvenience, and possibly hardship.
How does that affect my constituent? Mr. Wilson is a responsible and meticulous person. I have no wish, and it would be wrong, to parade his private affairs—or the private affairs of any constituent—in public. Suffice it to say that through an unfortunate error in the issuing of coding notices he was presented with a bill for £ 977 in respect of the year 1978-79, and was advised that it was likely that a bill for a similar amount would fall to be paid in respect of 1979-80. At no time was there any suggestion that the liability arose from a mistake on his part. I have a letter from Mr. Williams, the Inspector of Taxes, London Provincial 5 district, dated 16 April, in which he states:
"I am afraid that I can find no proper explanation as to the issue of the incorrect code … this would appear to be a bona fide coding error…. Naturally, I appreciate that it was a very costly mistake from your constitutent's point of view and I would ask you to extend my sincere apologies to Mr. Wilson for the error on the part of the Revenue."
There is no doubt about the facts. The Revenue made an unfortunate error, and admitted it courteously. In fairness to Mr. Williams, I should point out that it was not his office that made the mistake. His office gave me a courteous and speedy reply to my inquiry.
In dealing with the complex affairs of taxpayers in Britain, with so many people involved, inevitably mistakes will arise. In those circumstances it is only reasonable that some provision should be made to compensate those presented with substantial bills, through no fault of their own. In my constituent's case the amount involved is about £ 2,000. If his income had been £ 4,000 or under, this total liability would have been carried by the Revenue. If his income had been £ 7,500, he would have had to find only half the money. But because his total income was above £ 10,000, he is entitled to nothing except a sincere apology. I believe that this is not fair and that my constituent is entitled to some remission for the inconvenience which has been caused
464
to him as a direct result of an unfortunate error by the Inland Revenue.
In cases such as this I do not think that it is fair to say that a person can afford it. At the end of every tax year every taxpayer, irrespective of his income, faces the same questions, the same opportunities and the same problems. A taxpayer may decide, because there has been a surplus in the year, to buy a larger house, or perhaps a British Leyland car, following the advice of some of my right hon. Friends, or perhaps a flat for an elderly relative.
If, having made the purchase, for example, of a British Leyland car, he suddenly finds himself faced with an unexpected demand from the Inland Revenue for £ 1,000 or £ 2,000, he cannot suddenly sell the car at no loss to himself; he cannot suddenly undo the good that he might have done with the cash; he cannot suddenly take the money out of a business in which he may have invested it.
In these circumstances, I suggest that there is an obligation on the Treasury and on the Inland Revenue to make some gesture towards a taxpayer who is suddenly and unexpectedly presented with a very substantial tax demand of this sort. I hope that the Minister will do something to remedy the injustice done to my constituent and will at least give some indication that the Government are prepared to make some small move towards a fairer solution to problems of this sort.
1.8 am
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has deployed a formidable case with his customary eloquence, courtesy and lucidity. He has drawn a general moral from the case of his constituent, Mr. Wilson. Although I judged from his speech that he does not wish me to go in great detail into Mr. Wilson's case, it is right that I should perhaps deal very briefly with the facts.
Mr. Wilson, as I am informed, for the year 1978-79 had a salary from employment which was over £ 10,000 a year and a pension from his previous employer which was somewhat less. Due to a mistake—my hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that it was a mistake on the part of the Inland Revenue and not on

465
the part of Mr. Wilson—all his allowances were given against his pension but a single person's allowance was also given against his salary.
The error was discovered towards the end of the next finacial year. There is a certain significance that should be attached to that, and we must draw a general moral from that at a later stage. The Inland Revenue felt it necessary to raise an additional assessment on Mr. Wilson to recover the sum of somewhat over £ 900. Since the error was perpetuated, it is, I regret to say, true that a further sum may have to be collected for the current tax year.
I should like to associate myself with the apologies that the inspector rendered to Mr. Wilson. As I said, no blame whatever attaches to Mr. Wilson. There is no hint of suspicion that he improperly concealed the facts or anything of that kind. But, of course, my hon. Friend presses me and he suggests—I understand the vigour with which he defends his constituent's case—that apologies in this kind of case are not adequate.
My hon. Friend has taken the House back over the history of these matters. The Revenue has always recognised that it has a power to waive or remit tax where there is absolute hardship. This is a power that it has under its general responsibility for the management and control of the tax system. But, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, in 1971, as a consequence of the first report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, a White Paper was laid in which the then Administration—the Chancellor of the Exchequer was my noble Friend Lord Barber—proposed a series of remissions related to an income scale which my hon. Friend has set out.
That scale has been improved or increased over the years. As recently as November last year this Adminstration considered it proper, bearing in mind the changed circumstances over the previous eight years, to alter the scale. However, as my hon. Friend has correctly pointed out, there is a cut-off point at £ 10,000. Sadly, Mr. Wilson lies uncomfortably on the wrong side of that point. Under the existing practice Mr. Wilson would not be considered for a remission.
466
The error in Mr. Wilson's case was discovered within one year of the year to which it related. My hon. Friend has studied these matters and, if I may reciprocate the compliment, is a fair-minded person. He will appreciate that the Inland Revenue machine is dealing with over 20 million taxpayers. The situation is particularly difficult in the case of PAYE, which is, as it were, a provisional collection of tax under schedule E during the course of the year. It is inevitable that some reconsideration of the facts may be necessary at the conclusion of the tax year. The Revenue has always adhered to the principle that if the error on its part has been discovered in the year subsequent to the year to which it relates, regrettably, no remission is due. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise the administrative difficulties of quantifying the liability with absolute precision in or very shortly after the end of the year of asssesment. On that ground, too, I regret that Mr. Wilson would not, under existing practice, be entitled to remission.
My hon. Friend makes the valid point that in any event those scales are a little unyielding. That very point was made in the recent report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Adminstration. The Committee made one or two recommendations to which we shall pay the closest possible attention. I am not in a position tonight to say what conclusions we have reached. The Committee again operates by reference to a scale. It suggests that, although there should be a token remission of 10 per cent. for taxpayers whose income is in excess of £ 10,000 it should apply only up to a limit of £ 15,000. I do not want to go into the details of Mr. Wilson's case, which may be indelicate, but I suggest that had we adopted in whole that recommendation, it would still, regrettably, not have afforded Mr. Wilson relief.
At the end of the day the Select Committee recognised the limitations of the existing system of relief. In paragraph 25 it concluded:
"We accept Sir William Pile's views"—
Sir William Pile was then the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, who gave evidence—
"that any system of this kind involves an element of rough justice, and that smooth justice would be more complicated and therefore more expensive to administer. We have

467
accordingly limited our recommendations to changes which we believe could be implemented without undue difficulty, which will make more satisfactory remedies available to the taxpayer and which will reduce unavoidable unfairness to a minimum."
Although the Committee recognised the limitations of the existing system of relief and proposed certain relaxations, to which consideration is being given, it did not suggest fundamental alteration, which is what my hon. Friend, with his usual pertinacity, is advocating. He is suggesting that we should consider the matter from a different principle. He suggests that if there is an error, without qualification, there should be a remission. I accept that there can be relative hardship for people with considerable income. My hon. Friend has instanced practical cases. I do not dissent from that at all. Equally, my hon. Friend, who has had considerable experience in administration, will recognise that in the interests of practical administration, because we are dealing with many cases, we must try to reduce the system of remission to fairly easily applicable rules. The Inland Revenue has proceeded on that basis up to this time.
I cannot tell my hon. Friend that I have the perfect solution, which has so far eluded not only the Inland Revenue and previous Treasury Ministers but the Select Committee which considered these matters. However, we shall certainly see how far we can respond to the specific recommendations of the Select Committee. I should like to see—without any commitment—whether we can approach the matter on a broader basis altogether, but that would open up a very wide area.
I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that, though regrettably under the existing rules we are unable to do anything
468
for Mr. Wilson—however we respond, it will be practically impossible to make it retrospectively effective, because it would probably mean reopening an enormous range of cases—he has generated a debate of some importance in which a real problem has received sympathetic consideration. There is a possibility—I put it no higher—that we shall be able to respond in the same spirit as that in which he has developed the debate.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend has explained why he cannot help my constituent. To ensure that some good comes out of my constituent's unfortunate experience, in the review which he is to hold will my hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of some percentage remission, however small, being made to all levels of income, bearing in mind that everyone suffers inconvenience and hardship from such situations, no matter what their income may be? I appreciate that he cannot give any commitment on specific matters, but I hope that he will look at this matter of principle which is involved.
Mr. Rees: Certainly. I appreciate the understanding and moderate way in which my hon. Friend has pressed his case. I shall certainly take account of that point. I hope that at the end of the day my hon. Friend will feel that he has generated a small but important debate on a problem which deserves close consideration. Regrettably, we have felt unable to do anything for Mr. Wilson in this instance, but I hope that he will have the satisfaction of feeling that he has stimulated the reconsideration of an important matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past One o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  St. Helena and Ascension Island
  St. Helena and Ascension Island
  Tuvalu
  Tuvalu
ENERGY
  Nuclear Industry
  Nuclear Industry
  Electricity and Gas (Savings Stamps)
  Electricity and Gas (Savings Stamps)
  Central Heating (Coal Burning Appliances)
  Central Heating (Coal Burning Appliances)
TRADE
  Domestic Gas Appliances
  Domestic Gas Appliances
  BRITISH GAS CORPORATION
  BRITISH GAS CORPORATION
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Taps (Imports)
  Taps (Imports)
  Compensation (Injuries and Damage)
  Compensation (Injuries and Damage)
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Tenerife Air Crash
  Tenerife Air Crash
  Motorway Petrol Prices
  Motorway Petrol Prices
  Furniture Imports
  Furniture Imports
  Canada
  Canada
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement (United States)
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement (United States)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Ten Acre Estate, Newtownards
  Ten Acre Estate, Newtownards
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Overseas Students (Fees)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Self-Service Stores (Shoplifting)
  Self-Service Stores (Shoplifting)
  Penal Establishments
  Penal Establishments
  Parliamentary Constitutencies (Humberside)
  Parliamentary Constitutencies (Humberside)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Electoral Lists
  Electoral Lists
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  CBI
  CBI
  BARDSEY ISLAND
  BARDSEY ISLAND
  MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS
  MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS
  BRINNINGTON
  BRINNINGTON
  WAGE RATES
  WAGE RATES
  ACT OF SETTLEMENT
  ACT OF SETTLEMENT
  BIOTECHNOLOGY
  BIOTECHNOLOGY
  GREECE
  GREECE
  SPRINGBOIG
  SPRINGBOIG
  TUC
  TUC
  RACE RELATIONS ACT
  RACE RELATIONS ACT
  GWYNEDD (EMPLOYMENT)
  GWYNEDD (EMPLOYMENT)
  NEW HEBRIDES
  NEW HEBRIDES
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Large General Hospitals
  Large General Hospitals
  Perinatal Mortality
  Perinatal Mortality
  Broadmoor (Appointment of Physician Superintendent)
  Broadmoor (Appointment of Physician Superintendent)
  Hospital Patients (Service)
  Hospital Patients (Service)
  Allocation of Resources
  Allocation of Resources
  National Health Service (Public Purchasing)
  National Health Service (Public Purchasing)
  St. Benedict's Hospital, Tooting
  St. Benedict's Hospital, Tooting
  National Health Service (Rotherham)
  National Health Service (Rotherham)
  Retirement Pension (Supplementary Benefit)
  Retirement Pension (Supplementary Benefit)
  Cancer (Review)
  Cancer (Review)
  Adoption
  Adoption
  Health Centre (Brinnington)
  Health Centre (Brinnington)
  Heart Operations (Macclesfield)
  Heart Operations (Macclesfield)
  National Health Service Patients (Private Hospital Use)
  National Health Service Patients (Private Hospital Use)
  Liverpool Area Health Authority (Bulk Buying)
  Liverpool Area Health Authority (Bulk Buying)
  Additional Age Allowance
  Additional Age Allowance
  Local Authority Social Services
  Local Authority Social Services
  Orthopaedic Surgery
  Orthopaedic Surgery
  Benefit (Claims)
  Benefit (Claims)
  Operations and Consultations (Waiting Time)
  Operations and Consultations (Waiting Time)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Health Planning Consortium (Kent)
  Health Planning Consortium (Kent)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Regional Health Authority (Abolition)
  Regional Health Authority (Abolition)
  Benefits (Claims)
  Benefits (Claims)
  Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980
  Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980
  Care of the Elderly (Joint Funding)
  Care of the Elderly (Joint Funding)
  Mental Patients (Information)
  Mental Patients (Information)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Social Security (School Leavers)
  Social Security (School Leavers)
  Voluntary Service
  Voluntary Service
WALES
  Local Authority Capital Works
  Local Authority Capital Works
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Job Vacancies
  Job Vacancies
  Special Temporary Employment Programme
  Special Temporary Employment Programme
  Adult Students
  Adult Students
  Disabled Persons (Unemployment)
  Disabled Persons (Unemployment)
  Job Transfer Scheme
  Job Transfer Scheme
ENVIRONMENT
  Cleveland County Council
  Cleveland County Council
  Housing Stock
  Housing Stock
  Government Car Service
  Government Car Service
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Domestic Rates
  Domestic Rates
  Civic Functions
  Civic Functions
  Stray Dogs
  Stray Dogs
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Urban Programme (West Midlands)
  Urban Programme (West Midlands)
  Sea Erosion
  Sea Erosion
  Royal Parks (Surplus Plants)
  Royal Parks (Surplus Plants)
  Wiltshire County Council (Refuse Tip)
  Wiltshire County Council (Refuse Tip)
  Building Regulation Approval
  Building Regulation Approval
  Circulars
  Circulars
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
EMPLOYMENT
  Training and Employment Programmes
  Training and Employment Programmes
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing
  Housing
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Option Mortgage Scheme
TRANSPORT
  Lorries (Jack-knifing)
  Lorries (Jack-knifing)
SCOTLAND
  Oil and Gas Production
  Oil and Gas Production
  Unemployed Persons (Rutherglen and Cambuslang)
  Unemployed Persons (Rutherglen and Cambuslang)
  Fishery Protection Vessels
  Fishery Protection Vessels
  Road Equivalent Tariff
  Road Equivalent Tariff
  Island Ferry Routes (Vessels)
  Island Ferry Routes (Vessels)
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Geriatric and Mental Hospitals
  Geriatric and Mental Hospitals
  Hotels and Boarding Houses (Insulation)
  Hotels and Boarding Houses (Insulation)
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Deceased Persons (Bodies)
  Deceased Persons (Bodies)
  South of Scotland Electricity Board (Disconnections)
  South of Scotland Electricity Board (Disconnections)
  Grants
  Grants
  Teachers
  Teachers
  School Admissions (Parents' Charter)
  School Admissions (Parents' Charter)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Devon)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Devon)
  Births (Northamptonshire)
  Births (Northamptonshire)
  National Health Service (Foreign Tourists)
  National Health Service (Foreign Tourists)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Analgesic Sprays (Inhalation)
  Analgesic Sprays (Inhalation)
  Elderly and Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Elderly and Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Cervical Smears
  Cervical Smears
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Report)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Report)
  Disabled Persons (Local Authority Accommodation)
  Disabled Persons (Local Authority Accommodation)
  Vaccine Damage (Payments)
  Vaccine Damage (Payments)
  Local Authority Accommodation (Charges)
  Local Authority Accommodation (Charges)
  Benefits (Capital Disregards)
  Benefits (Capital Disregards)
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
  Leeds General Infirmary
  Leeds General Infirmary
  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Abortion
  Abortion
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Regulations 1980
  Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Regulations 1980
  Farm Capital Grants
  Farm Capital Grants
  Tomatoes
  Tomatoes
  Shell Eggs
  Shell Eggs
  Glasshouse Growers
  Glasshouse Growers
  Poultrymeat
  Poultrymeat
  Turkeymeat
  Turkeymeat
  Beef
  Beef
  Mackerel
  Mackerel
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Warnock Report
  Warnock Report
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Inner London
  Inner London
  Dorset and Hampshire
  Dorset and Hampshire
  Student Grants (Residence Qualification)
  Student Grants (Residence Qualification)
  Secondary School Staffing
  Secondary School Staffing
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Latin America (Ministerial Visits)
  Latin America (Ministerial Visits)
  Bolivia
  Bolivia
  Jewish Chronicle
  Jewish Chronicle
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  United Kingdom Budget Contribution
  United Kingdom Budget Contribution
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Deafness
  Industrial Deafness
  Job Vacancies (Greater London)
  Job Vacancies (Greater London)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Islington
  Islington
  Manufacturing Industry (Redundancy)
  Manufacturing Industry (Redundancy)
  Redundancies (Public Sector)
  Redundancies (Public Sector)
  Redundancy Fund
  Redundancy Fund
  Disabled Persons (Southampton)
  Disabled Persons (Southampton)
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  Job Transfer Scheme
  Job Transfer Scheme
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Scaffolders (Training)
  Scaffolders (Training)
  Sheltered Workshops (West Midlands)
  Sheltered Workshops (West Midlands)
  School Leavers (Bolton)
  School Leavers (Bolton)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Manchester
  Manchester
DEFENCE
  14 MU RAF (Carlisle)
  14 MU RAF (Carlisle)
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  PARLIAMENTARY AND EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY EXPENSES
  PARLIAMENTARY AND EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY EXPENSES
  NEW HEBRIDES
  NEW HEBRIDES
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  North Sea Oil (Economic Effect)
  North Sea Oil (Economic Effect)
  Gold Coins
  Gold Coins
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
  Retirement Benefit (Taxation)
  Retirement Benefit (Taxation)
  Prices and Money Supply
  Prices and Money Supply
  State Enterprises
  State Enterprises
  Gross Capital Formation
  Gross Capital Formation
INDUSTRY
  Cleveland County Council
  Cleveland County Council
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Industry Act 1972 (Gwynedd)
  Industry Act 1972 (Gwynedd)
  Arfon and Dwyfor
  Arfon and Dwyfor
  Paper Industry (Merseyside)
  Paper Industry (Merseyside)
  Furniture Industry (North-West)
  Furniture Industry (North-West)
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
    Vietnam
    Vietnam
TRADE
  Companies (Work Force)
  Companies (Work Force)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  "Rainbow Warrior"
  "Rainbow Warrior"
  Chile
  Chile
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council Meeting (Business)
  Council Meeting (Business)
  ECONOMIC FORUM
  ECONOMIC FORUM
  TURKEY
  TURKEY
  TRIDENT MISSILES
  TRIDENT MISSILES
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  NORTHERN REGION
  NORTHERN REGION
  AUCHMACOY
  AUCHMACOY
  BRITISH INDUSTRY (PRODUCTIVITY)
  BRITISH INDUSTRY (PRODUCTIVITY)
  CHILD BENEFIT
  CHILD BENEFIT
  PUBLIC SECTOR PAY
  PUBLIC SECTOR PAY
  PAYE
  PAYE
  FAST BREEDER REACTORS
  FAST BREEDER REACTORS
  JAZZ BAND CONTEST, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE (MASS ILLNESS)
  JAZZ BAND CONTEST, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE (MASS ILLNESS)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Litter Offences
  Litter Offences
  London (Civil Disturbances)
  London (Civil Disturbances)
  Parliamentary Boundary Commissions
  Parliamentary Boundary Commissions
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Nottinghamshire (Electorate)
  Nottinghamshire (Electorate)
  Fall-out Shelters
  Fall-out Shelters
  Criminal Injury Compensation
  Criminal Injury Compensation
  Soviet Union (Funding of Bodies)
  Soviet Union (Funding of Bodies)
  Industrial Disputes (Volunteer Workers)
  Industrial Disputes (Volunteer Workers)
  Volunteer Centre
  Volunteer Centre
WALES
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Joint Funding Schemes
  Joint Funding Schemes
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  ART GALLERIES (EXPENDITURE)
  ART GALLERIES (EXPENDITURE)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Hours of Sitting
  Hours of Sitting
INDUSTRY
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Information Services
  Information Services
  Small Firms (Interest Rates)
  Small Firms (Interest Rates)
  Ministers (Overseas Travel)
  Ministers (Overseas Travel)
ENERGY
  Coal Production
  Coal Production
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  Coal Investment
  Coal Investment
  Underground Gasification
  Underground Gasification
  Magnox Power Stations
  Magnox Power Stations
  Coal Gasification
  Coal Gasification
  Fast-breeder Nuclear Reactors
  Fast-breeder Nuclear Reactors
  Oil Exploration
  Oil Exploration
  Gas Gathering Pipeline
  Gas Gathering Pipeline
  Oil Exports
  Oil Exports
  Oil Production
  Oil Production
  Support Vessels
  Support Vessels
  Gas Fires
  Gas Fires
  Oil Companies (Extension of Operations)
  Oil Companies (Extension of Operations)
  Gas and Oil Prices
  Gas and Oil Prices
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Works of Art
  Works of Art
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
  International Monetary Fund (Labour Costs)
  International Monetary Fund (Labour Costs)
  Works of Art (Tax Exemption)
  Works of Art (Tax Exemption)
  Marginal Fields (Taxation)
  Marginal Fields (Taxation)
  Industrial Competitiveness
  Industrial Competitiveness
  Overseas Aid and Investment
  Overseas Aid and Investment
  Inflation (Wages)
  Inflation (Wages)
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Retail Price Index (Derv)
  Retail Price Index (Derv)
  Parliament (Costs)
  Parliament (Costs)
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Hosiery and Knitwear Industries
  Hosiery and Knitwear Industries
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Income Growth
  Income Growth
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Employment Bill
  Employment Bill
  South Yorkshire
  South Yorkshire
  Engineering Industry
  Engineering Industry
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
  West Cumbria
  West Cumbria
  Training Centres
  Training Centres
  North-West Area
  North-West Area
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  Apprentice Training
  Apprentice Training
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Gas Cylinders (Safety)
  Gas Cylinders (Safety)
  Female Persons
  Female Persons
  Training
  Training
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  Preston
  Preston
  University Graduates
  University Graduates
  Pendle
  Pendle
  Young Persons (Rural Areas)
  Young Persons (Rural Areas)
  Birmingham and West Midlands
  Birmingham and West Midlands
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Employment Protection Act
  Employment Protection Act
  Coalite
  Coalite
  North-East Area
  North-East Area
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979
  Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Manchester
  Manchester
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Information Services
  Information Services
DEFENCE
  Jetstream Aircraft
  Jetstream Aircraft
  Ex-Royal Air Force Houses (Middleton St. George)
  Ex-Royal Air Force Houses (Middleton St. George)
  Information Services
  Information Services
ENVIRONMENT
  County Councils (Expenditure)
  County Councils (Expenditure)
  Publicly-owned Property (Sales)
  Publicly-owned Property (Sales)
  Local Government Commission
  Local Government Commission
  Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
  Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
  Honorary Aldermen
  Honorary Aldermen
  Tied Housing
  Tied Housing
  Liverpool (Housing Investment Programme)
  Liverpool (Housing Investment Programme)
  Draft Seveso Directive
  Draft Seveso Directive
  Hostel Deficit Grant Application
  Hostel Deficit Grant Application
  Urban Development Corporations
  Urban Development Corporations
  Green Belt
  Green Belt
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Information Services
  Information Services
SCOTLAND
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Teachers and Lecturers (Pay)
  Teachers and Lecturers (Pay)
  Shettleston Housing Association
  Shettleston Housing Association
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education Establishments (Nurseries)
  Higher Education Establishments (Nurseries)
  Information Services
  Information Services
  ASTMS Workshops (Grants)
  ASTMS Workshops (Grants)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Pensioners (Fuel Costs)
  Pensioners (Fuel Costs)
  Western Health and Social Services Board
  Western Health and Social Services Board
  Magee College, Londonderry
  Magee College, Londonderry
  Area Records and Information Officers
  Area Records and Information Officers
  Road Scheme, Londonderry
  Road Scheme, Londonderry
  Service Personnel (Imprisonment)
  Service Personnel (Imprisonment)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Statistical Services
  Government Statistical Services
  Rayner Review
  Rayner Review
  Information Services
  Information Services
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Captain Nigel Windsor Waite
  Captain Nigel Windsor Waite
  Voluntary Bodies (Funds)
  Voluntary Bodies (Funds)
  Hospitals (Maintenance)
  Hospitals (Maintenance)
  Appeal Tribunals
  Appeal Tribunals
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
  Emergency Ambulance Calls
  Emergency Ambulance Calls
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Health Service Commissioner (Report)
  Health Service Commissioner (Report)
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Health Care (Report)
  Health Care (Report)
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Hostels (Grants)
  Hostels (Grants)
  Alcoholism Hostels
  Alcoholism Hostels
  Maternity Grants
  Maternity Grants
  Sickness Income (Green Paper)
  Sickness Income (Green Paper)
  Local Authority Spending
  Local Authority Spending
  General Practitioners (Retirement)
  General Practitioners (Retirement)
  General Practitioners (Placement)
  General Practitioners (Placement)
  Male Pensionable Age
  Male Pensionable Age
  Pertussis Vaccine
  Pertussis Vaccine
  Record Linkage
  Record Linkage
  Pregnancy (Drug-taking)
  Pregnancy (Drug-taking)
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Clinical Pharmacology
  Clinical Pharmacology
  Debendox
  Debendox
  Drugs (Adverse Reactions)
  Drugs (Adverse Reactions)
  Drug Safety
  Drug Safety
  Pregnancy (Self-medication)
  Pregnancy (Self-medication)
  Pensioners (Increase)
  Pensioners (Increase)
  Committee on the Review of Medicines (Recommendations)
  Committee on the Review of Medicines (Recommendations)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Psychiatric Beds (Rotherham)
  Psychiatric Beds (Rotherham)
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Pregnant Patients (Anti-emetic Drug Therapy)
  Pregnant Patients (Anti-emetic Drug Therapy)
  Small Firms (National Insurance)
  Small Firms (National Insurance)
  Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification)
  Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification)
  National Health Service (Foreign Tourists)
  National Health Service (Foreign Tourists)
  Jay Report
  Jay Report
  Information Services
  Information Services
TRANSPORT
  M2 (Heavy Vehicles)
  M2 (Heavy Vehicles)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  British Railways (Free Travel)
  British Railways (Free Travel)
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre

Preamble
(Sitting in the Royal Gallery.)
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

SITTINGS IN THE ROYAL GALLERY
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, late yesterday evening, while the House was sitting, a wooden ornamental boss in the ceiling of the Chamber fell to the floor. No one was hurt, but had the boss hit anyone, death or serious injury could have been caused. On investigation, the boss was found to have been held in position by little more than a tight fit reinforced by glue. There are about 40 such bosses in the Chamber ceiling, dating from the mid-nineteenth century, all of which must clearly now be inspected in the interests of your Lordships and made good in the interests of safety. This work could take three or four days.
In the meantime, and with the gracious permission of Her Majesty The Queen, arrangements have been made for the House to sit in the Royal Gallery, where the seating has been laid out to be as close as possible to that of the Parliament Chamber, including seats below Bar for guests, and also some seats for the press and the general public. The Property Service Agency of the Department of the Environment hope to have the Parliament Chamber back in use for next Monday's sitting. Until next Monday, the line of route within the House of Lords is temporarily suspended.
It is proposed that the House should continue to use the Division Lobbies as usual when the House wishes to divide. The only procedural changes are that the Lord on the Woolsack will say, in the case of a Division:
"The Contents will go to the right through the Prince's Chamber, the Not-Contents to the left through the Prince's Chamber".
190
It will no longer be possible to lock the doors after six minutes, and Peers who have passed through the Division Lobbies will have to return to the House via either the West Front corridor or the Library corridor.
Since there is no convenient exit from the Throne end of the Royal Gallery, Members of the House who are sitting at that end may make their way to the Prince's Chamber, it is suggested, by the Back Benches on either side of the House where a gap has been specially left for this purpose. Temporary microphones have been installed, and it is hoped that they will prove satisfactory. Peers who are speaking are asked to position themselves immediately by one of the microphones. Accommodation has been provided below Bar for the Press, distinguished Strangers and the public, to the best extent possible. Those who are entitled to sit on the steps of the Throne may stand at the Bar of the House.
I could not conclude this Statement without expressing (and I am sure all your Lordships would like to join with me in so doing) the warm thanks of the House for the work done by Black Rod, the Yeoman Usher, the staff of the House and many members of the Property Service Agency staff of the Department of the Environment in fitting up this temporary Chamber at such short notice. It might interest your Lordships to know that they started work at 6 o'clock this morning and it was completed by lunchtime. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in expressing our sincere thanks to them for having done such a remarkable job for the House in so short a time.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his Statement, and I am sure the whole House would wish to echo the noble Lord's gratitude for Her Majesty's gracious permission for us to use the Royal Gallery. May I, too, pay tribute to Black Rod and his staff, the servants of the House and the workmen who have made this possible. It could easily have been something much more serious. Fortunately, as the noble Lord said, we are very lucky that nobody was injured. However, there it is. We pay tribute to the staff and the workmen. It is an unusual experience being in another Chamber, and I hope we enjoy it.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches I, too, should like to express our very sincere thanks to Black Rod and his staff and the Property Service Agency, and all those who have managed this remarkable transformation in such a short time. We in this House are very well
served by those who look after our comforts, and those who enable us to despatch business as usual in the face of an emergency or even a semi-crisis. I hope there is no connection between the judgment from above which took place last night and the fact that the Government were defeated four times on the Floor of the House yesterday, because I must warn the noble Lord that it is going to happen again, and I hope this Chamber is more secure!
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I really do not know why the noble Lord should go so far as to say that he does not think there was any connection. I should think there most probably was.

ANGLO-SCOTTISH LEGISLATION: RENTON REPORT
2.43 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent recommendations 32 to 38 of the Renton Committee (AngloScottish Legislation) are being implemented.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, recommendations 32 to 36 of the Renton Committee's Report are implemented wherever it is appropriate to do so. Recommendation 37 has not been implemented. As regards recommendation 38, the Government see advantage in the re-enactment, in suitable cases, of the Scottish provisions in Anglo-Scottish Bills but, at the present, believe that the best way of going about it is by way of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. We are, however, keeping recommendation 37 and the alternative procedure referred to in recommendation 38 under review.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I did not hear the noble and learned Lord very well. May I ask two supplementary questions? Is early consultation already taking place between draftsmen and others on Bills affecting both parts of the United Kingdom? Secondly, can the noble and learned Lord say whether he is obtaining, both in quantity and in quality, the type of men capable of doing the exacting task of draftsmen?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: My Lords, so far as consultation is concerned, early consultation between Scottish and English draftsmen takes place at the present time. I am satisfied with the arrangements for that. I think that it would be impossible for the Lord Advocate to be satisfied with the number of Scottish draftsmen that are available, but, considering the difficulties the department have had in recent years, particularly with the sudden death of the legal secretary, the department is very well staffed.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the great advantage of having separate and parallel Bills for Scotland is that, when there are United Kingdom and Great Britain Bills dealing with the law of both countries, the Scottish draftsmen may concentrate their efforts upon basing their Bills on Scottish law? Is he also aware that the demand for this Committee's report throughout the Commonwealth, including Scotland, has been so great that it is now out of print? Can the noble and learned Lord say when printing will be resumed?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: My Lords, there are advantages in parallel Bills and disadvantages also, particularly in the shape of the requirements made on parliamentary time. We have tried to balance these various considerations in making decisions in particular cases. I am glad to know that the demand for the Renton Committee Report has been so great. Several reprints have been called for since the original publication. I had gathered that the demand had now slightly fallen off and that recently a further reprint was not considered justified. Copies can be obtained by arrangement with Her Majesty's Stationery Office, but the situation is kept under constant review.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, this is a very important report. Is there really not some responsibility on the Government to make copies available to Members of Parliament?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: My Lords, as I have said, the Government have had the report reprinted several times. The demand for it appeared to be reasonably satisfied, although it happens to be out of print at the moment. If there should be a resurgence of demand the Government will meet it. Individual copies are available by arrangement with Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as in describing certain things and situations the Scottish use different words from the English—for example, they say "outwith" instead of "outside"—will the noble and learned Lord arrange for this document to be printed in both languages?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: My Lords, I think it is fair to say that at the moment legislation is printed in the two different languages as far as that may be necessary—as I am sure the noble Lord will know as a result of referring to the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill, which the House is presently considering.

YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAMME: AGRICULTURE
2.47 p.m.
The Earl of SWINTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the current state of unemployed school-leavers they would consider extending the work experience on employers' premises scheme of the Youth Opportunities Programme from six months to one year in agriculture and other allied industries.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I am advised by the Manpower Services Commission, which is responsible for operating the Youth
194
Opportunities Programme that there are no plans to extend the length of work experience on employers' premises schemes in agriculture and other allied industries from six months to one year.
The Earl of SWINTON: My Lords, I was going to say that I was grateful to my noble friend for that helpful reply, but I do not think that I can. May I ask whether he might not persuade his colleagues at the Manpower Services Commission to look at this point? Does he not think that agriculture is unlike other industries, where one can learn a trade in six months? It takes a year to learn all the variations of seasons and the other work involved. I am not thinking here just of rural children but of children from town areas who perhaps seek some form of new life in the country—and might this not be of benefit in the present conditions?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I must say that while I am sorry to have disappointed my noble friend, it is precisely because the Manpower Services Commission have had the interests of agriculture in mind that the provision has been made. We are anxious about any danger of interference with the normal channels of training and recruitment in an industry which has a declining labour force. On the point about whether six months is sufficient for a young person to decide whether or not he wishes to go into agriculture, while I agree with my noble friend that it does not cover all four seasons, I should have thought that two seasons would have been sufficient experience.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that even more demoralising than to be unemployed immediately after leaving school may be to gain a place on a work experience scheme but be unable thereafter to obtain a permanent job? Does he further accept that in the light of the unemployment figures announced today there is now an even stronger case to make more resources available to the Manpower Services Commission in order to expand various elements comprising the youth opportunities scheme to the benefit of not only agriculture but of industry generally?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, as I have told the House in other connections, the provision for the Manpower Services Commission's Youth Opportunity Programme has been increased from between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. I certainly agree with the noble Lord that it is demoralising to be out of work. I am happy to say that the take-up rate into real employment from the Youth Opportunities Programme is between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. which I hope the noble Lord will agree is a good record. If there is any sign of this record flagging, we will take steps to correct it.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will be quite sure that the educational and training element will be strong enough in these courses—particularly if they are extended? It may be difficult in things such as agriculture where one or two people may be working on one farm. Could I ask for a reassurance that the educational training element will be strong enough?
The Earl of GOWRIE: We are aware of the need for that, my Lords. The noble Baroness will probably agree with us that one can learn a very great deal by working for six months on a farm, let us say. One should know enough in that way to know whether it would be the right kind of career for the young person involved.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that under the present circumstances, in view of the figures announced today, the point concentrated on in the Youth Opportunities Programme is to improve on the take-up of the places available, and particularly to do so with the school-leavers who have just left school qualified for those places? Could he tell us—or write to me in more detail if he cannot tell us now—what the current take-up of the places on the Youth Opportunities Programme is at the moment?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, it may not be sufficiently recognised that the Government offer a place on the Youth Opportunities Programme to every young man and woman in this country who may find himself or herself unemployed after six weeks. That is a considerable undertaking on behalf of the Government. I
196
agree with my noble friend Lord Sandford that sometimes there are slownesses in take-up provisions. We are constantly looking at any areas where take-up may be slower than we wish. I cannot give him a precise figure but I understand that it is well over 70 per cent.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the general figure is far lower than that? Would it not be valuable to have the answer to my question?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, if my noble friend will ask me that question formally—which is rather different from the Question in the name of my noble friend Lord SN\ inton—I will of course give him the information.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene for a second to suggest that in the interests of the Official Report and those who will be struggling to ensure that we get an accurate Official Report, noble Lords would be tolerant of the fact that we are in a different place and that the acoustics are not what they were in our proper House. Perhaps noble Lords will do two things: first, to try and get as near as possible to the microphones: secondly, to speak somewhat more slowly than perhaps is their custom.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: And louder!
Lord SOAMES: And therefore perhaps shorter as well!

WEST GERMAN/USSR ECONOMIC AGREEMENT
2.55 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the new West German longterm economic agreement with the Soviet Union involving large-scale industrial co-operation in several advanced technological fields signals a Community decision to ignore President Carter's appeal to restrict exports to the Soviet Union beyond

197
the presently agreed COCOM lists; and whether it was one of the initiatives "designed to promote a solution to the Afghan crisis" through "the withdrawal of Soviet troops" agreed at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Venice last month.
Lord TREFGARNE: No, my Lords, on both counts.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Foreign Secretary's call yesterday for "increased co-ordination of effort in the West", and for "a better follow-through to consultation that at present takes place in too many forums", is very welcome? While it may be argued that the West is not in disarray, have we not recently given a rather good imitation of it? Does that not mean that many people will now ask: Where do we go from here, and who is going to take the long overdue initiative to improve political co-operation among the democracies?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, my noble friend has raised an important point. I wonder whether I may deal with it rather more carefully than perhaps would normally be the case at Question Time. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary was saying that political co-operation among the Nine has increased in recent months but that we need nevertheless to look very carefully at the co-ordination of the West's efforts in the world, especially in the light of what has happened in Afghanistan, and of how consultations should proceed in the Alliance. These are matters which we shall be pursuing with our friends. Consultation already happens very frequently; the need is to make it more effective. That requires patience and private discussion. Our purpose will be to consider how the resources of the West and its friends and of others who value independence and oppose Soviet imperialism can be mobilised to promote economic development and political stability and thus reduce the likelihood of further crises like the one in Afghanistan.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, has the Minister not failed—
Several noble Lords: We cannot hear!
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, has the Minister not failed to recognise the importance and significance of Lord Chelwood's Question? Does he not appreciate that what has taken place recently is unilateral action on the part of several members of the Nine countries? If this continues, as in the case of France—now in the case of Germany and possibly the case of the United States and in the case of the United Kingdom—is not the term "unity" a travesty of the situation? There is no unity whatever. What has happened in the case of Germany is not only unilateral action in the political sense but a rebuke to the United States of America.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord is right in that assertion. The difference of emphasis which some of our colleagues put on these matters is very natural, having regard to the difference in our circumstances; and the correct position is as my noble friend described it yesterday.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whether or not he thinks the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is right, on the evidence of the past few months many people think that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is right? The unilateral action is there for all to see, and the dangers of that are obvious particularly if it leads to a point where, while Europe may be in step with one another, they are out of step with the United States of America.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to the recent visit by Chancellor Schmidt to Moscow—and he tells me that he is—there is something to be said for keeping open the lines of communication in a crisis, and the Soviet leaders on this occasion were at least confronted with some of the "home truths" about the position in Afghanistan.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of hypocrisy about this Question? After you have flayed the Olympic players going to Moscow, you are still trading with Russia; you have not withdrawn your ambassador. It seems to everyone that you are playing two games: one against the Olympic players, and another by still

199
maintaining trade. You cannot do both. That is why it is hypocrisy.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is right in what he says. As I have said earlier, while in this matter there is some difference of emphasis between ourselves and our colleagues in the Nine, we are in general united.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: My Lords, in view of the political initiatives that have been taken by the French and German Governments, would the noble Lord give an assurance to this House and also to British industry, which is engaged in trading with the USSR, that they are in no way disadvantaged in the present circumstances in credit terms or by political constraints following the initiatives of our allies?—whereas we seem to observe all the regulations and agreements which have been reached within the allied group.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government continue to support trade which is of real benefit to us, but there should be no unreciprocated benefits for the Soviet Union and that is why we have not renewed the Anglo-Soviet credit agreement of 1975, which offered exceptionally preferential interest rates to the Soviet Union and why we are participating with our partners in discussions in COCOM, referred to in the Question.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: My Lords, may I ask, since we in fact began negotiations on revised credit terms, whether credit terms that will be agreed by Great Britain will be observed by all others who offer credit terms within the alliance?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I cannot, of course, speak for other Governments, but we certainly hope there will be a consensus in these matters.

PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS: REPORTS
3.2 p.m.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are confident that the reports of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have been received by early 1982, and that the implementation of their recommendations will not be delayed if by then the commission has not completed its consideration of the European constituencies.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I understand that the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are likely to have completed their tasks of reviewing parliamentary constituencies by early 1982. The commisson for Wales has not yet begun its general review but is expected to do so shortly.
Under the provisions of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, the commissions for England, Scotland and Wales may not report on their reviews of Westminster constituencies until they have completed their reviews of European Parliament constituencies. The Government are, however, considering the case for amending the Act to permit these commissions to submit their proposals for correcting the present serious disparities between the electorates of 'Westminster constituencies as soon as they have finished preparing them.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, While thanking the noble Lord for that rather satisfactory Answer, may I ask that if consideration of the European boundary constituencies has not been completed simultaneously with the Westminster constituencies, will legislation be introduced so that the commission may submit its recommendations on the Westminster constituencies without delay? Does the noble Lord not agree that there could be disastrous consequences for our electoral system if by the next general election the existing boundaries are not changed, because there are scandalous discrepancies between the size of electorates in different constituencies at present as has been highlighted by the four by-elections which have taken place during this Parliament—one in a constituency of some 30,000 electors and another of

201
only 20,000 electors, when there are many other constituencies of electors of more than 100,000?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, if I may answer my noble friend's two supplementaries together, of course the Boundary Commissions must complete their reports by the spring of 1984 at the latest—that is the extreme of the 10 to 15 years since their last general review, although I said in my reply earlier that we hope it will be in 1982. Clearly, after this lapse of time there are serious disparities—I agree with my noble friend on that—between constituencies, and to have to await the reviews of the European constituencies could delay matters by many months more. It is in this context that the Government are considering the matter.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, may I ask whether it is not the case that Parliamentary reviews are based to a great extent on the areas of district authority wards? It is not also the case that the parliamentary reviews will be followed by the local government review, and therefore is there not a case for endeavouring to synchronise both local government and parliamentary reviews? —otherwise we shall find that parliamentary constituencies based on district boards will be soon out of date.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, there is some inter-relation between the work of the local government and the parliamentary Boundary Commissions, but I am not aware of any serious delay on this account in the reviews of parliamentary constituencies now in progress.

DINNER
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinners will be available at the usual time. The Report stage of the Housing Bill will be adjourned at about 7 o'clock for approximately an hour, and two Order Confirmation Bills be taken during this adjournment.

LORDS' EXPENSES
3.8 p.m.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, there are two Motions standing in my name on
202
the Order Paper. The first gives effect to an increase in the Peers' expenses allowance and the allowance for secretarial assistance for office holders in the Lords. The Peers' expenses allowance is divided into three separate elements, each with its own limit. The new limits which have been recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body in its Report No. 15, and which I propose should apply from the beginning of this month, are as follows. For Peers who necessarily have to use overnight accommodation away from their usual residence, a daily—perhaps I should say nightly—limit of £23.00 will apply. For day subsistence—that is, to cover meals and incidental travel—the limit will be £11.00. Secretarial costs, postage, and certain additional expenses as defined in the Review Body's 9th Report, may be met within a limit of £10.00 a day treated cumulatively—in other words, claims may be arranged to recover expenditure over a period.
These daily limits together total £44. However, I must make clear that we are talking about a maximum figure within which Members of this House may reclaim those sums which they have actually spent in attending to their parliamentary duties. I emphasise this point because it is not always clearly understood by people outside this House. Thus, only those Peers who actually have to incur overnight accommodation expenses in London may claim within the £23 limit. Other Peers will be restricted to the £21 total provided under the second two categories.
Office holders in this House can claim up to a limit of £1,000 per annum towards the cost of the secretarial assistance needed to deal with non-departmental correspondence arising by virtue of their position. The Review Body have recommended that this allowance should be increased to £1,175, and the Government propose that this increase be accepted. Again this figure is the maximum against which reimbursement of expenses that have actually been incurred in employing secretarial assistance to deal with non-departmental correspondence can be claimed.
The second Motion gives the approval of this House to the draft of the Ministerial and other Salaries and Pensions Order

203
1979. This order is designed to increase the pay of Ministers and office holders this year in line with proposals contained in my Statement to your Lordships on 7th July 1980. The order provides for the payment of the second stage of the increases recommended by the Review Body on Top Salaries last year, increased as for Members of Parliament by 9.6 per cent., save in the case of Cabinet Ministers and the Attorney-General. For them the increase has been reduced to 5 per cent. The order also provides for the same percentage increases to he applied to the third stage payments with effect from 13th June 1981. These latter rates will count for pension purposes from this year. While the pensions of the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor will be calculated on this full rate, the order reflects their wish that the salaries they actually receive will be no more than other Cabinet Ministers. The order is made under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, and the operative date of the increase will be the date on which the order is made, which is expected to be Monday, 28th July.
Your Lordships will be aware that junior Ministers in the House of Lords, unlike their counterparts in another place, do not receive any salary in respect of their parliamentary duties. This is a very real problem, as I said in my Statement on 7th July, and as, I believe, is generally recognised. The Government are considering how the arrangements for their remuneration should be revised, to take account of the considerable amount of work that they do in this House. We will bring forward proposals as quickly as possible.
As I see my noble friend Lord Boyle in his place today, I would not wish to end this Statement without paying our sincere tribute and expressing our thanks to Lord Boyle for all the work that he has put in, not only for this report, but also for other reports in the past. We are deeply grateful to him for all his assiduity in the work that he has done. My Lords, I beg to move the first order.
Moved, That this House approves the following proposals with respect to expenses incurred by Lords after 30th June 1980—
(1) members of this House, except any Lord who receives a salary under
204
the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, shall be enabled to recover, in addition to the costs of travel for which other provision is made, but within the limits specified in (2) below, expenses certified by them as—

(a) expenses incurred (otherwise than as mentioned in (c) below) for the purpose of attendance at sittings of this House or of Committees of this House other than judicial sittings; or

(b) expenses incurred (otherwise than as mentioned in (c) below) for the purpose of attendance at judicial sittings of this House or Committees of this House or under section 9 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 if incurred by Lords of Appeal who are neither Lords of Appeal in Ordinary nor holders of high judicial office within the meaning of that Act; or

(c) expenses incurred in staying overnight away from their main or only residence, where this is necessary for the purpose stated in (a) above and also, if incurred by such Lords of Appeal as are mentioned in (b) above, where this is necessary for the purpose stated in (b) above; or

(d) expenses incurred for the performance of their Parliamentary duties as general office expenses or on secretarial or research assistance.

(2) The limits are—

(a) for (1)(a) and (1)(b) above, £11 for each day of attendance;

(b) for (1)(c) above, £23 for each day of attendance;

(c) for (1)(d) above, £10 multiplied by the number of days of attendance falling within paragraph (1)(a) or (1)(b) above.

(3) A Lord who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees shall be enabled to recover expenses certified by him as incurred on secretarial assistance for the purpose of his Parliamentary duties, but not exceeding £1,100 in any year.—(Lord Soames.)
3.12 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I warmly support what the noble Lord has said. I am glad that he has made clear the real amounts that Peers may claim, and I hope that they will be understood; at least by the general public. On Ministerial salaries, I know from personal experience how hard Ministers in the Lords work. I believe that their work has not been really appreciated, and they get insufficient remuneration. So I hope that the efforts of the Lord President will be successful. I know that he is looking at this matter again and will have discussions. May I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, who has always been courteous when I have often appeared before his committee. He and his colleagues have worked very hard and I wish to join in the tribute that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, has paid to him.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I should also like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, have said about the great work that the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, has done for so many people in public life. I should like to thank not only him, but all who work with him on the Top Salaries Review Body. On the question of junior Ministers in the House of Lords, this nettle must be grasped. They have not really been treated properly for a considerable number of years. I hope that this problem will now be taken on board, and that proper arrangements will be made for them.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, may I say a word or two in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said about the treatment of junior Ministers in this House. As he said, they have been very badly treated indeed for some years and their position is really quite urgent. All of us, whatever our political views and wherever in the House we sit, acknowledge that the junior Ministers, and particularly the Lords-in-Waiting, do a remarkable and strenuous job. When my noble friend replies, I hope that he will give some indication that the Government really do attach some urgency to dealing with this matter quickly, and will give some indication as to when the proposals are likely to be brought forward.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, may I ask the Lord President
206
whether, at the same time as he is considering the junior Ministers, he will also consider—perhaps this is a different matter and I may be ruled out of order—Members on the Opposition Front bench who are putting in a terrific amount of time.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I am grateful for all that various noble Lords have said on this matter. It is quite obvious that it is widely accepted in the House that junior Ministers need some improvement in their remuneration. In reply to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who asked me specific questions, the fact that I said in my Statement that the Government are looking at this matter shows that we, too, are treating it seriously. We are looking at it with a view to doing something. The question is: what is best to be done? There are difficulties about every course. If I may, I will leave it at that for the time being. We have looked at a number of courses and we are trying to discover which is the best, the easiest and the most satisfactory to pursue, and I hope it will not be very long before a decision is reached.
On the question of other office holders—because I think that is all that was ever at issue—I am happy to say that the position of other office holders has been considerably improved during the course of this Parliament, compared with the last. This is not to say that they, too, do not have an important role to play and have very demanding jobs, and it is being considered whether or not the same reasons apply to other office holders as to Ministers, in the thought that is being given to this problem at the present time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES AND PENSIONS ORDER 1980
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th July be approved.—(Lord Soames.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING BILL
3.18 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Clause 64 [Conversion of controlled tenancies into regulated tenancies]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 46, line 34, after ("tenancy") insert ("subject to the property being certified as fit for human habitation (within the definition of section 4 of the Housing Act 1957) by the local authority.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation, as the ceiling will fall down. This amendment was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in Committee, but was not moved then. Here we are talking about the residue of controlled tenancies, which are estimated at around 200,000. These tenants live in some of the worst conditions in the private rented sector. They are among the poorest tenants and include elderly people who have lived in their homes for several decades; indeed, 85 per cent. of them are over pensionable age. The purpose of the amendment is to give protection to those living in these wretched properties. In fact, Mr. John Stanley said in the Commons Committee, that it was conceivable that 150,000 of the 200,000 remaining controlled tenancies were quite unfit for human habitation.
If a property is defined as unfit, it is surely unreasonable for the tenant to have to pay the considerably increased rent which will result from decontrol. Although I suspect that the Minister will say that if the properties are unfit the rents will not go up to any great degree, we have to accept that average rents are now very much higher and these rents have lagged behind over the years. Therefore, they will increase irrespective of their condition, because of this enormous gap. The fact that the rents have not increased over the years is a quite different matter. Today we are dealing with the facts as they are. At the same time, by making decontrol conditional on the property being certified as fit for human habitation, we are providing an incentive to the landlord to bring the property up to a reasonable standard. I do not believe that it is justifiable to expect tenants to pay an increase in advance of the work
208
needed to make the property fit. In no other field would it be reasonable to expect people to pay for a service before it is provided.
Secondly, the landlord stands to gain from the enhanced capital value of the property if it is improved. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect the tenant to pay towards the cost of the work which will bring about this result. The landlord will also be able to claim an improvement grant. For these reasons, I believe that this is an amendment which
should receive general support and I hope that the Government will find that it is possible to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, at the Committee stage an amendment was put down in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and myself. We did not move it on that occasion, because of the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who wanted to exclude altogether the proposals for converting these tenancies into regulated tenancies, which we had hoped might meet with the approbation of your Lordships. Unfortunately, that was not the case. As the noble Baroness said, in all justice an assurance should be given that the tenants—who are now, generally speaking, elderly—will not have to suffer extremely bad household conditions. These were understandable when the landlord was receiving only a very small rent. It is right that an assurance should be given that now that these tenants will have to expect a fairly extensive boost in their rent, they will not have to suffer considerably inadequate conditions.
Noble Lords in all parts of the country, and particularly in inner urban areas, will have seen houses of this nature in which tenants have lived for very many years, admittedly at a low rent, with no commercial advantage to the landlord. I am not making a general attack on landlords because their position in this type of statutory tenancy has been very difficult. Neverthless, I am sure that noble Lords will agree from their own experience that if rents are to be increased and if tenancies are to become regulated tenancies, these are the least of the reforms which your Lordships should agree to for what amounts to a substantial change

209
in the status of these kinds of tenants. I have very much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, in this amendment we are invited to deal with two distinct but interrelated issues. The first is the Government's intention to bring to an end controlled tenancies and to make them all into regulated tenancies. I should like to put it to the House that it is high time that this should be done. It is overdue. The position of the landlords—we had a profile of the landlords who are concerned presented to us in Committee—in the case of controlled tenancies has been grossly unfair and unjust for many years, and since the rate of inflation went into two figures the position has become quite intolerable. If the properties in question are not so good as they should be and suffer from serious shortcomings, the main blame lies in the perpetuation of the controlled tenancy system. So the first thing to do is to bring that to an end. The proposal that it should be made subject to certificates of fitness which would have to be provided by housing authorities in respect of some
200,000 properties is to involve them in an appalling waste of their time and resources. They have many other better things to do.
The second issue to face up to is the position of the tenants. That is safeguarded by two factors. First, the regulated rent is going to be assessed by a rent officer and related to the fair rent. Secondly, tenants who are not in a position to pay the full fair rent are fully protected by the provision of rent allowances in the private sector. There is no equivalent provision for the protection of the landlord, and there has not been for many years.
The third fact that we have to take into account is how to deal with those properties which are found to be unfit and unsuitable for human habitation in the process of assessing the fair rent for the regulated tenancies. This can be done in a number of ways. It can be done by the application of Section 4 of the 1957 Act. We had a debate in Committee on Amendment No. 271 which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, who invited the Government to consider a few additional
210
criteria for unfitness. There is the process under Section 8 of the 1957 Act under which the measures for compulsory improvement can be set in motion in general improvement and housing action areas. It is to be hoped that that provision, which is suitable in many cases, could be invoked. But there is in every case the provision under Section 9 of the 1957 Act for the closing and demolition of properties which are unfit and beyond reclaim.
My question to my noble friend is this. Which of these processes for dealing with unfitness does he and his noble friend intend to invoke? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, he indicated during the Committee stage that his right honourable friend was not prepared to make any special provision in this Bill, and we can all understand that it is now too late for that. But it would be useful to know by what manner the Government propose to deal with this —whether they will use unfitness under Section 9, compulsory improvement under Section 8, or changes in criteria under Section 4, or a combination of the lot. None of that, in my view, alters the fact that we ought no longer to delay in moving from controlled to regulated tenancies, and I believe that we can do so with equanimity if we bear in mind the two forms of protection which are available to tenants.
3.30 p.m.
The PARLIAMANTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, before I start what doubtless will be several hours of discussion, may I say that I hope the bloody scenes portrayed on both sides of the House will in no way be symbolic as to the discussions we will be having later on? After yesterday, I felt that such an observation might not be too far removed from reality.
This amendment would prevent any of the remaining 200,000 controlled tenancies from passing into the fair rent system unless and until—those are the operative words—the local authority has certified that the dwelling is fit according to the definition of the 1957 Housing Act. It is quite true that in our decontrol provisions in the 1972 Housing Finance

211
Act we excluded from decontrol any dwelling which had already been certified as unfit. In framing our present proposals for decontrol under this Bill we caretully considered whether we should do the same. We concluded we should not. The reason is simple. The damage and unfairness caused by the retention of the controlled system has been so great that very powerful considerations would be needed to retain any part of it. The unfairness of control, with rents pegged at 1956 levels, is even greater now than it was in 1972.
Furthermore, I should stress that even the 1972 Act prevented the decontrol only of tenancies already declared as unfit. The noble Baroness's amendment would go much further by requiring the local authority to visit and inspect each of the remaining controlled 200,000 tenancies and positively certify that they are fit. Unless and until that happened, the tenancies would remain controlled and a fair rent could not be registered. In my opinion, this is quite misconceived. No other category of tenancy entering the fair rent system must pass this test of fitness. Why single out the long-suffering controlled landlord? It was estimated in 1976 that a third of a million privately rented dwellings are unfit, and a great many of these will be regulated tenancies. Where a fair rent is fixed, the rent officer will of course take account of the state of repair of the dwelling. Section 70 of the Rent Act, of which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was a principal author, specifically requires that he must do so.
Prolonging decontrol as proposed by the amendment will do nothing to improve the fitness of the dwellings concerned. Nor do I believe that in equity it would be right to require possibly quite expensive works to properties that are unfit before a fair rent can be charged. I described in Committee how controlled rents have remained pegged at 1956 levels and how controlled landlords will often be worse off than their tenants. Concerned as I am with brevity, I think f owe it to the House to give at least one or two examples from the vast number of letters we get from landlords. On their behalf, I think I should give one or two examples. A lady who owns a house in Cromer writes to say she receives an annual rent of £120, from which she has to pay £87.95 rates and £10 insurance; that is a net rent of
212
less than £23 a year, or less than 50p per week.
Another lady, in Enfield, is faced with a repair bill of £300 which she just cannot afford. The rent she receives is only £1.08p after rates have been paid, so she would need six years rental income just to meet this one bill. And another letter tells of an old age pensioner in Stoke who lets a house to a family which includes three wage-earners. The rent she receives is £3 a week, from which she must pay rates and water rates. She also is faced with a repair bill of £300 and she does not know what to do. This is hardly the traditional image of the landlord with a Rolls and a pin-stripe suit. Many of these landlords clearly want to carry out the necessary repairs, but the rental income they receive just does not allow it. I know of no way of explaining to such people how it can possibly be fair to keep the rent fixed at 1956 levels while all other charges and costs keep increasing.
The Government can at least offer these people the chance of applying to the rent officer for a fair rent. The noble Baroness's amendment offers only a continuation of the wretched position of which they truly despair. I have stressed the landlord's side of the story because it is not often put, but the Government of course equally recognise that controlled tenants are generally on low incomes. Most are old age pensioners. But, as my noble friend Lord Sandford said, there are at least the supplementary benefit and rent allowance schemes to meet most or all of their rent. And as under our proposals their rent can be increased only by application to the rent officer, this will provide a valuable opportunity to ensure that tenants are aware of their eligibility under these schemes. Additionally, the Government will be providing leaflets free of charge explaining to landlords and tenants what is involved on decontrol.
I will not go into much of the rest of that which I have before me, which refers to what Richard Crossman said—not the quotations I gave in Committee but more quotations. He said in 1965 that something had to be done, that these houses had to be brought out of control. That was in 1965. Here we are in 1980 and we are still talking of the same thing, and yet noble Lords opposite have reservations.

213
We can hardly be said to be rushing into anything. At this stage I will not go further other than to say that quite clearly if the noble Baroness presses her amendment there would also be a major workload for local authorities, who would have to inspect each one of the 200,000 dwellings to see whether they were fit: and that would be additional to, and not instead of, inspection by the rent officer. I do urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment because it would so greatly increase the administrative requirements of decontrol, and for those dwellings not passed as fit it would prolong indefinitely what is manifestly an unjust relationship between landlord and tenant.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us some dramatic examples of the heavy burden which the local rates impose upon both landlords and tenants. I should like to ask him, therefore, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any action to fulfil the promise which they made at the last general election; namely, that local rates should be abolished.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not really think that is apposite to the point we are discussing. I would think that the complaint we are getting in this House from noble Lords opposite is that we are in fact carrying out that which we said in our manifesto we would do. I would only say to the noble Lord on that particular point that he need have no cause to doubt that we are looking into that matter, as we are doing with everything else that we said in our manifesto. I trust he is one of those who will not criticise us at any time when we point out that what we are doing is what we said in the manifesto that we would do.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it seems to me that on the whole the Minister was talking about not decontrolling but leaving the whole control system as it is, which was in fact the amendment we debated in Committee. This really is quite different. On this amendment I am not arguing that there should not be decontrol. What I am saying is that where properties do not come up to what is really a very low standard of fitness for human habitation they should not at that point be decontrolled. This does not mean those properties which fit the criteria; they can be
214
decontrolled immediately. So it is not an argument against decontrol. It is an argument in favour of making sure that those properties which are decontrolled come up to a minimum standard.
I really cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that issuing certificates of fitness would involve local authorities in an appalling waste of time and resources. This is something absolutely basic. We are discussing properties in which human beings are living—human beings who have been paying a rent, admittedly a very low rent, for a long period of time. Suddenly they are faced with an increase in rent, but without any improvement or difference to the property in which they live. I just do not think it is either fair, human or even healthy to do it in this particular way. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred to rent allowances.
I think we are all aware that the take-up of eligible unfurnished tenants is only 50 per cent. I know the Minister has said before that a big publicity campaign will try to increase this, but I must tell him that we have all tried these publicity campaigns and they have very little effect because it is still a complicated procedure. There is still, particularly among older people, very great prejudice against it. They feel there is something shameful about it. This is wrong, but it is the way they feel. I do not think this will make any difference. The fact that that was said by Richard Crossman in 1965 is I think, with great respect, totally irrelevant because this is 1980 and we are dealing with the situation as it is now. I feel that in this amendment we are asking for such a minimal change and it would be quite wrong, anti-social and irresponsible to allow people to have their rents increased. This is not at all an anti-landlord amendment. I stress again that the landlord would be entitled to improvement grants; he only has to do a minimum and then of course he will get an increase in rent. It is for these reasons that I intend to press the amendment. In my view this safeguard is essential.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House perhaps I may say just this. I do not know whether the noble Baroness appreciates that the effect of her amendment is that it will not allow any immediate decontrol. There are so many

215
matters in this Bill and we have had so many amendments—and no doubt we shall have more—and I feel very passionately about some aspects of it. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, said "in all justice": how can it be in all justice that we come here and even contemplate a measure—and your Lordships can take it from me that I know what I am talking about—the effect of which will be to put back again for years and years any hope of overcoming this iniquity which exists at the present time? With every ounce of feeling that I can muster for those who are concerned I urge your Lordships to throw out this amendment because it is misconceived and will do great and continuing injustice, which has gone on for too long now. It is time this injustice was finished.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would point out that it is still subject to the property being
certified as fit for human habitation. It has to have a certificate and I accept the result—which incidentally was a very close one—in Committee. If the Government insist upon decontrolling these tenancies instead of taking the advice which was offered to them from many parts of the Committee, this is the least they can do. I submit that they have put themselves into this position by not allowing the controlled tenancies to become decontrolled by natural wastage and so disappear. So what the noble Lord has said does not make any difference to the substance of this amendment, and therefore I intend to press it.
3.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 68) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 132.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Gaitskell, B.

Amulree, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Annan, L.

Gifford, L.

Rochester, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bacon, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Segal, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Shinwell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hale, L.

Soper, L.

Beswick, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Blease, L.

Henderson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Blyton, L.

Hooson, L.

Stone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hughes, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Brimelow, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Strauss, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Janner, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Underhill, L.

Caradon, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wade, L.

Chitnis, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Clancarty, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Walston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Collison, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Maelor, L.

Whaddon, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Milford, L.

White, B.

David, B.

Northfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ogmore, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Denington, B.

Oram, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Diamond, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peart, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Avon, E.

Berkeley, B.

Allerton, L.

Balerno, L.

Bessborough, E.

Amory, V.

Barnby, L.

Birdwood, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bellwin, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Atholl, D.

Belstead, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Gowrie, E.

Morris, L.

Bradford, E.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Moyne, L.

Carver, L.

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

Netherthorpe, L.

Cawley, L.

Northchurch, B.

Chelwood, L.

Halsbury, E.

Onslow, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Perth, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Hatherton, L.

Porrit, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hawke, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cockfield, L.

Henley, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hill of Luton, L.

Renton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Robbins, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Roberthall, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hylton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Romney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ilchester, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Daventry, V.

Inchyra, L.

Sandford, L.

De Freyne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Denham, L [Teller.]

Kimberley, E.

Savile, L.

Derwent, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Selkirk, E.

Digby, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Eccles, V.

London, Bp.

Spens, L.

Effingham, E.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lovat, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Elles, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Luke, L.

Swinton, E.

Elton, L.

Lyell, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Energlyn, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

McFadzean, L.

Trenchard, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vaizey, L.

Ferrier, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Gage, V.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Garner, L.

Milne, L.

Westbury, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Milverton, L.

Widgery, L.

Gisborough, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Worcester, Bp.

Glendevon, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Young, B.

Godber of Wellington, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
3.52 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 70:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
("Lettings by servicemen
The following Case shall be added to the Cases in Part II of Schedule 15 to the 1977 Act (mandatory orders for possession) after the Case inserted in Part II by section 55 of this Act—
"Case 20
Where the dwelling-house was let by a person (in this Case referred to as "the owner") at any time after the commencement of section (Lettings by servicemen) of the Housing Act 1980 and—

(a) at the time when the owner acquired the dwelling-house he was a member of the regular armed forces of the Crown serving outside the United Kingdom;

218

(b) at the relevant date the owner was a member of the regular armed forces of the Crown;

(c) not later than the relevant date the owner gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case;

(d) the dwelling-house has not, since the commencement of section (Lettings by servicemen) of the Act of 1980 been let by the owner on a protected tenancy with respect to which the condition mentioned in paragraph (c) above was not satisfied; and

(e) the court is of the opinion that—

(i) the dwelling-house is required as a residence for the owner; or

(ii) of the conditions set out in Pz£art V of this Schedule one of those in paragraphs (c) to (f) is satisfied.

If the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (c) or (d) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of these paragraphs, as the case may require.
For the purposes of this Case "regular armed forces of the Crown" has the same

219
meaning as in section 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975."")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 70, I wonder whether, for the convenience of the House, I can also speak to Amendment No. 70A. During the discussion of the amendment moved in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, I promised to give careful considerstion to the idea of a special Rent Act repossession case which would enable serving servicemen to buy a house and let it with a mandatory right to repossession. As I said during the discussion of that amendment, the Government fully accept that service in the armed forces of the Crown imposes very special obligations on people. That is why we have come forward with this new clause, Amendment No. 70.
Our new clause is restricted in scope to those servicemen who are serving overseas. It would enable them to acquire a house while serving abroad and to let it with a mandatory right to repossession. Amendment No. 70A to our new clause, tabled by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, goes further and would extend this provision so that it would be available to any serving serviceman and not just to those posted abroad.
I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships' House that on further consideration the Government accept that this provision should be available to all serving servicemen. While the primary need for this new provision arises from circumstances of servicemen posted overseas, we accept that it is not only while serving abroad that a serviceman may be unable to live in a house of his own before he lets it. There are also postings in this country where servicemen are encouraged to live in quarters provided by the forces. There are also postings remote from where most servicemen are likely to wish to buy their own homes. We accept that having accepted the case for those overseas it would be wrong for these people to be denied the possibility of acquiring their own homes with a view to living there when they leave the forces or are posted to where the house is situated.
I am therefore happy to recommend noble Lords to accept the amendments to the Government's new clause tabled by
220
the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood. Might I say how grateful I am to them not only for raising this matter, but for the way in which they have done it, and for the strength of the arguments they have made. I feel that this is an amendment which will be welcome on all sides of your Lordships' House, and I ask noble Lords to accept.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 70A:
In paragraph (a) of "Case 20", line 3, leave out ("serving outside the United Kingdom")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, very much for finally getting the door wide open. I know it has taken him about a fortnight of hard work to do it, and I am very grateful indeed to him for doing so.
I understand that I am now speaking to Amendment No. 70A, which I beg to move. May I ask one question which has been asked of me: "I take it that this will cover furnished lettings?"? I said that I was quite sure it would, but I would be grateful to have Lord Bellwin's confirmation that it would, in fact, cover furnished lettings. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am able, and gladly do so, to confirm that position to the noble Earl.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
3.59 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 72:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
("Further amendment of 1977 Act
After section 22 of the 1977 Act there is inserted the following section—
Licences to occupy a dwelling-house.
22A. —(1) Where a person occupies a dwelling-house under a contract which reserves to the landlord the right to nominate another person to share the dwelling-house or any part of it with him, or himself to enter into occupation of the dwelling-house or any part of it, and by reason only of such reservations

221
that person is a licensee and not a tenant of the dwelling-house, he shall be deemed to be a tenant of the dwelling-house.
(2) Where two or more persons occupy a dwelling-house under a contract, or under more than one contract, by which there is reserved to the landlord the right to replace any one or more of such persons, or to nominate other persons to share the dwelling-house or any part of it with them, or himself to enter into occupation of the dwelling-house or any part of it, and by reason only of such reservations those persons are licensees and not tenants of the dwelling-house, they shall together be deemed to be the joint tenants of the dwelling-house.
(3) In this section, "landlord", in relation to any dwelling-house occupied under a right granted by a contract, means the person who granted that right, or any successor in title of his, as the case may require.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 72 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Birk. This looked to be a very complicated amendment on paper, but in fact it covers a very important subject. The Rent Act, even as amended by this Bill, provides for a system of fair rents in the private rented market, but there are those who want to evade that system of fair rents by charging a black market rent, and this amendment is designed to cure one of the worst of those evasions. I think we would all wish to condemn blatant Rent Act evasions. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, himself criticised such evasions in the debate in Committee.
My Lords, so far as this amendment is concerned, this is how the evasion works. Ingenious lawyers have found a way of drafting an agreement whereby two or more people can take what, to all intents and purposes, is the letting of a dwelling house, but it is called a licence and it falls outside the Rent Act; the rent control system does not apply to it, nor does the system of security of tenure. Instead of having one agreement, you have two agreements. Instead of being called a tenancy, it is called a licence. Instead of each party being responsible for the whole rent, each party is responsible for half the rent, and if one goes the landlord says: "I can nominate a successor. You neither of you have an exclusive right to occupy the premises."
That, speaking very simply, is how it works. The result is that against all kinds of logic and fairness people are signing agreements for the occupation of flats and houses at exorbitant rents with no kind of protection. The agreement is called a licence. In reality they are licences for profiteering.
The system is spreading around the country. In a recent survey undertaken by the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux it was found that in the six months covered by the survey, 155 of these agreements had been brought to the attention of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and one can imagine, therefore, that that is only the tip of a very large iceberg.
The Government's new system of short-holds will not do anything to stop this because of what is now a very tight system of fair rent control imposed upon the shorthold procedures. Therefore, those who wish to exploit their property to the limit will still be able quite lawfully to have their tenants or their licensees sign these agreements. The rent officers refuse to register rents for such tenancies because they say they do not have jurisdiction. It is true that they can be challenged in the courts, in which case you then have a battle between ingenious lawyers for the tenants and ingenious lawers for the landlords which can drag on for months to nobody's profit. Sometimes the courts will declare these agreements to be bogus and sometimes not; it is something of a lottery.
This matter was raised in Committee, along with holiday lets and other kinds of Rent Act evasions. There was a kind of global discussion, and I fear that this particular amendment did not get the attenton it deserves. It certainly had very little separate consideration. In the course of the discussion, I offered to sit down with the Minister and those who advise him to try constructively to find a way round this form of Rent Act evasion. That oar has not been been taken up. I have not been told that there is anything technically wrong with this amendment. I appeal to the House that we should resolve—whether through this form of words or some other—this abuse of the Rent Act procedure, so that it is stopped by this House before the Bill passes from us. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWEN: My Lords, this new clause seeks to close what is perhaps the best known of the so-called Rent Act loopholes—the non-exclusive sharing agreement. During the discussions in Committee, I undertook to speak to the experts in this matter to consider whether there was a possibility of closing these Rent Act loopholes. This I have done, but I regret to have to inform your Lordships' House that we do not see any way of closing these loopholes in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has written to me on this matter, and others have also done likewise.
I hope noble Lords will find it helpful if I explain why we do not feel this new clause could be accepted. The non-exclusive sharing loophole depends on the fact that one of the conditions for full Rent Act protection is that there must be a tenancy. The distinction between a licence and a tenancy derives from common law, and is a fundamental feature of the law of landlord and tenant. I do not think it is necessry to go into this complex area in detail: the important point is that for there to be a tenancy, the tenant must have what is called "exclusive possession". That means the right to occupy on his own and to exclude anyone he does not want. If the agreement allows the landlord himself to share with the tenant, or to nominate that someone else can share with the tenant, this is prima facie evidence that the agreement is a licence rather than a tenancy because there is no exclusive possession.
However, I must stress that it does not follow that someone does not have Rent Act protection because the landlord makes him sign a purported licence agreement. This is something that can only be settled definitively in the courts and the courts will consider the intention of the parties at the time the agreement was made. There have been four cases in the Court of Appeal on the question of whether a licence agreement was genuine or sham. Two were decided in favour of the landlord, and two in favour of the tenants. It is, therefore, always open to someone to go to court if he does not accept his landlord's claim that he is a licensee rather than a tenant.
This new clause seeks to close the nonexclusive occupation loophole by deeming that there will be a tenancy rather than a
224
licence where the agreement would be a tenancy but for a provision about sharing. The first subsection of the new clause is concerned with the situation where the landlord reserves the right to nominate another person to share the dwelling-house or part of it. This subsection would have the effect that someone who was a licensee rather than a tenant only by virtue of this part of the agreement would be deemed to be a tenant. The second subsection is concerned with the situation where two or more people share the dwelling. If the only reason that they are licensees and not tenants is that the landlord reserves the right to replace one or more of them by other people, this subsection would deem them to be joint tenants.
I certainly understand and sympathise with the intention behind this clause, as I have already made quite clear. It was just because of conditions about sharing of this kind in the agreements that the occupier in the Somma v. Hazellutrst and Aldrington Garages v. Fielder cases were found to be licensees rather than tenants. However, I do not think it would be possible—as this clause would require—for the courts to consider a part of the agreement in isolation. As I have said, when considering cases of this kind, the courts will look not only at the written contract to see whether it represents the true agreement between the parties, but also at any evidence which may show that this was a sham. Study of the decisions I have mentioned, as well as earlier cases, does not suggest that the courts are likely to isolate one particular aspect of an agreement in order to determine whether there is a tenancy or a licence. It is the whole agreement that matters. This is demonstrated by the two Court of Appeal cases, Demuren v. Seal Estates and O'Malley v. Seymour, where it was found that there was a tenancy. As the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls said in the case of Marchant v. Charters:
"All the circumstances have to be worked out. Eventually the answer depends on the nature and quality of the occupancy".
A further consideration is that it might not always be in someone's interest to be deemed to be a tenant rather than a licensee. There are obligations as well as rights that attach to having a tenancy. For
example, the rent. If two people are sharing with a non-exclusive licence agreement and one moves out, the

225
one who remains will not be liable for the rent of the person who has gone. But this would not normally be the case if they were deemed to be joint tenants. The one of two joint tenants who remained behind would be liable for the rent for the whole dwelling. This, I think, illustrates the kind of difficulty that can arise when agreements are deemed to be of a different nature from what the people entering into them thought they were.
For these reasons, I am not convinced that this clause would work in practice; nor do the Government see any easy way of closing this loophole. However, in my view, there are two ways of tackling the use of licences to evade the Rent Acts. First, it is important to remember that because an agreement says it is a licence, and so outside the Rent Acts, it does not follow that the courts will accept this. The two most recent cases in the Court of Appeal on this question have found that there was a tenancy. Secondly, it seems to me that the initiatives we are taking in this Bill to encourage landlords to go on letting and to make more accommodation available should mean that landlords will be encouraged to let within the Rent Acts rather than trying to resort to uncertain devices of this kind.
My Lords, I have gone to quite some trouble to be specific and to give detailed reasons why we feel the clause proposed by the noble Lord would not get us to where both he and we want to be. I certainly am happy to ensure that we do sit down and talk not only to him but to anyone who feels they have a solution to this problem, not necessarily within this Bill. We are always being told we have too much in the Bill, and there will be many other things coming later on. In saying that, I do not for one moment seek to prevaricate or attempt in any way to belittle the importance of trying to put right any loopholes of this kind in the Rent Acts. So, my Lords, I ask you not to accept the amendment, if the noble Lord feels he has to press it. I hope he may feel it is not necessary to do so because he certainly knows there is no difference between us in wanting to get there. The debate is about whether this is the right way I submit, with respect, this present way unhappily is not the effective way and that is why we are not
226
accepting the amendment to the clause.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we are of course on fairly technical legal ground here and what the noble Lord says clearly has to be studied to be fully appreciated. One of the areas where we differ is in thinking that short-holds will do very much to cure this type of abuse. Time alone can tell which of us is right.
What I want to ask, and hear from the noble Lord, is this. If it is found that this type of abuse is continuing, despite the shortholds and despite the court rulings, that people who should be protected tenants or shorthold tenants are in fact licensees paying well over the odds, then will it be the Government's intention to put their minds, and their expert's minds to seeing that this abuse is closed.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House, I have no hesitation in saying, Yes, of course, we shall certainly try to do that, no hesitation at all.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
(" Amendment of 1977 Act
. For section 9 of the 1977 Act (Holiday lettings) there is substituted the following section:
"9. A tenancy is not a protected tenancy if the purpose of the tenancy is to confer on the tenant the right to occupy the dwelling-house for a holiday and—

(a) the dwelling-house is approved by and registered with the local authority for use as holiday accommodation, such approval and registration to be renewed annually;

(b) that the rent charged is equal to or less than a rent approved by the local authority as reasonable (following guidelines to be set by the Secretary of State) for letting the dwelling-house for holiday occupancy; and

(c) that the approved rent is posted in the dwelling-house, together with a certificate of current registration and a notice stating the provisions of the Rent Act applying to lettings for holiday occupancy.').

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is really another sprig off the same tree or bush which my noble friend Lord Gifford moved. It is really concerned with another aspect of loopholes. He dealt with licences, this deals with holiday lets, and we did have quite a long discussion on it in Committee. The point, briefly, is that Section 9 of the Rent Act 1977 puts a tenancy outside protection if the purpose of the tenancy is to confer on the tenant the right to occupy the dwelling-house for a holiday. This has had the effect of driving a coach and horses through the intentions of the Act, because the use of so-called holiday lets is widespread, particularly in London, and many people are forced, for lack of any alternative, to take tenancies where they have no Rent Act protection and are open to gross exploitation. There is clearly a need to protect the position of owners of genuine short-stay accommodation. But anything worded in the general terms in which it was worded in the Act—I hasten to say, in parenthesis, which has been for so long under review, otherwise the noble Lord the Minister will remind me of that—is bound to be exploited by unscrupulous landlords with the connivance of tenants who really have no alternative because they are homeless.
I gave a number of examples in Committee with which I will not weary the House again, but the point is that—I wonder if I might have the Ministers' attention—the difference between the last amendment and this one is that on the last amendment the Minister raised the question, quite rightly, about a bona fide holiday which was in the amendment there. Points were raised as to how the landlord would be able, if the onus was put on the landlord, in fact to discharge this. The amendment is an attempt to deal with these problems and make it more specific, tightening up the opportunities for stopping up this loophole. We believe that the answer to this problem lies in giving the local authority the power to control such lettings through a system of registration. The cost could be met by charging a registration fee and the advantage of this would be, first, an end to uncertainties and the complex and expensive court cases for tenants and landlords. The legal position of such lettings would become clear and unambiguous. Secondly,
228
local authorities could plan for the number of short-term and holiday lettings appropriate to housing needs in their own areas.
I believe there are authorities—I think I am right in saying that Westminster is one—who already operate a register and do so quite satisfactorily. This would seem to me to be the answer. It would not prevent the genuine holiday letting; it would be a means of stopping the evasion of the new shorthold procedures because, whereas shorthold involves, of course, a registered rent, a holiday letting does not. So what have been used as a number of rather bogus holiday lettings under the new Act should fall into the shorthold category. I would have thought that a precaution of this kind, stopping the loophole by this new amendment which is really in working terms quite different from the old amendment moved in Committee, might meet with the Government's approval. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as I said in discussing the last amendment, I have considered the whole question of Rent Act loopholes very carefully since our discussions in Committee. However, I am afraid that again I am not convinced that this new clause would deal satisfactorily with the so called "bogus holiday let" loophole. What this clause would require is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, a special register of holiday accommodation to be maintained by local authorities. It would also require local authorities to approve the rent that it would be appropriate for landlords of holiday accommodation to charge. I would be extremely reluctant to see an additional burden of this kind imposed on local authorities merely as a way of enforcing the Rent Acts. Nor do I think local authorities, quite frankly, are in any position to determine what would be an appropriate rent for holiday accommodation in their areas. The noble Baroness said that some already operate such a register. They may indeed do so, and it is certainly up to them, but I would be very interested for myself to know how they decide what is an appropriate arrangement. Allowing, if you like, authorities to do this, is vastly different from imposing upon them a duty so to do. I think that there is a whole world of difference in that.

229
If someone who is evidently not on holiday is obliged to sign an agreement saying that they are, it must be for them to challenge this in the courts. I do not think the expense and complexity of maintaining a register of holiday accommodation, frankly, could be justified on the basis of preventing the use of this Rent Act loophole.
As I have already made clear, it seems to me that the attempt to use loopholes of this kind has arisen because landlords are deterred from letting within the Rent Acts by the legislation of those Acts, not least the one in 1974. Indeed it may well be as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, intimated, a hope; it certainly is that. A guarantee it certainly is not. But I hope very much—and I am confident myself about this—that the shorthold will encourage more landlords to let within the Rent Acts. That has to be a better way of solving the problem than going into the very difficult problems, and I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that it would lead to many more difficult problems than she appreciates.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I concede what the noble Minister said, that it may be a clumsy way of dealing with the matter, but I think the noble Lord ought to concede from experience and his own evidence in his department—certainly this is so from my own personal experience as a lawyer—that this is a device which is used from time to time by people who want to avoid the Rent Acts. I suspect it will go on being used in spite of the proposals for shorthold, perhaps because many people may not think the shorthold will last very long in view of what has been said in another place.
In my submission, the Government should be looking for means of stopping up this loophole. I agree that it is a matter about which people can go to court and say that the thing was signed under a misapprehension and so on. But that involves lengthy and expensive legal proceedings for the tenants, who are at a disadvantage as compared to the position of the landlord. That is what happens so often in these type of cases.
It seems to me that it would have been helpful had the Government been able to say that they would look for means,
230
perhaps by requiring anyone who lets property as a holiday letting to apply for a change of use under the planning Acts, to perhaps have the property rated as business premises. That might have been a way, but there are many ways of doing it.
The amendment is an honest and genuine attempt to see a way out of the situation, and I should have thought that, if the way that is being sought here is beaurocratic, clumsy and difficult, the Government should recognise that there is a genuine case here of hardship and of advantage taken of people who are perhaps not able to defend themselves and they might have looked for one of the other means—one of the means that I have suggested, or other means that have been canvassed as no doubt the Minister knows—of dealing with what is a matter of some concern in certain areas of the country at certain times.
4.22 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I should like to put to him one other point which arises out of what he said. As regards the question of holiday lets and indeed as regards the last amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said, quite rightly, that these matters can be tested in the courts. He has greater confidence than I have in the capacity of the courts always to do what is just in those circumstances. The difficulty is that courts tend to hold the parties to the very letter of the agreement which they have signed. That is one of the principles of the law. Be that as it may, it is true that it frequently happens that one can show that the agreement is, in fact, a sham.
The difficulty is that the process of taking these cases to court can take months. We are dealing, by definition, with landlords who are overcharging, sometimes grossly overcharging. What is the person who is the victim of this to do? He goes to the rent officer and asks for the registration of a rent. The rent officer says that is a holiday let, or it is a licence, and that he cannot register the rent. The other party goes to the court and nine months elapse before there is a court decision in his favour. Because of the other provisions of the Bill, whereby the registration of the rent is the operative day for the coming into operation of the

231
reduced rent, a year will possibly have passed before the tenant, as he is now shown to be, will have any benefit. That cannot be right. Even allowing for the other understanding that we have to wait to see how these new provisions operate, will the Minister consider very seriously before Third Reading what to do about that situation?
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that her amendment is cumbersome and would be very costly to put into practice. If there is a large-scale abuse of holiday letting—and I have yet to be convinced of that, although there are perhaps some signs of it in London—I should have thought that a much better method of tackling the situation would be to bring in an amendment saying that a holiday letting can only go on for perhaps six months, and if the same person remains in those premises for longer than six months, then it shall be taken to be a shorthold letting.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a few comments. I would only add to what I said previously that, as regards the loopholes in the Rent Acts—and noble Lords opposite know more about them than I do—we accept that there are, of course, problems. What I have said in answer to the amendment is that I just do not believe that this is the way to deal with the problems, for the reasons that I have given. That does not mean to say that I do not think that there should be attempts to find solutions to them. However, I certainly do not think that this is practical for a whole host of reasons.
A number of points were raised by the noble Lord,
Lord Evans of Claughton. He suggested the use of the planning Acts to control holiday lets. I am advised that that would not solve the problem of bogus holiday lets, because a building with planning approval for holiday lets could be the subject of a proper Rent Act tenancy. That, and indeed the point made by my noble friend Lord Hylton, only illustrates that there are so many attempts to get this right that within the remaining time before the Bill is enacted there will not be the opportunity to find solutions which surely others ought to have been
232
looking at, and indeed for that matter probably have been looking at, for many years now. I would only say—and I am not sure what other amendments there may be as regards filling the loopholes in the Rent Acts—that this is an area on which at present, within the Bill, we cannot go any further. Time does not allow it. But no one is turning away from the problems. It will be for another time—not necessarily a long time in the future—when we have got through what we are doing at present when we shall probably want to sit down and talk about the matter.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not intend to take noble Lords on that long, long walk as regards this amendment. However, I should like to feel—and I am sure that with the leave of the House the Minister could nod to me—that the Minister will take this matter away and look at it in the same way as he promised as regards the previous amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gifford. I think that he recognises that there is a problem.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that this is a cumbersome amendment. The last one that we moved in Committee was not right and so it is a question of getting the right amendment. I think that if this continues it will probably involve some sort of register and that in fact is what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned. If the Minister would undertake to find out—and I am sure that he would not find it very difficult to do so through the department—which authorities are using a register and how they are using it in an efficient and economic way, then I shall be quite satisfied. I should not like the matter to be completely forgotten and dropped and for this situation to continue.
The Bill was obviously prepared in a rushed way and I know that the Government are anxious to get it on to the statute book. However, although these different points will unfortunately not be ready in time for the legislation to go on the statute book, I still think that it is important that they should not be forgotten or overlooked; that action should be taken on them and that it should be as effective as possible. All that I want from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is an undertaking that he will do that. Moreover, my noble friend Lord Gifford raised a

233
question that the noble Lord has not answered and perhaps he would, by leave, do that at the same time.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say that, to the best of my knowledge, Westminster is not operating a register. It has expressed some interest in so doing and would like to know the implications. Certainly I see no reason why we should not approach the local authority associations and ask them to advise us, if they will, which of their members are so doing, and that I gladly undertake to do and to pass the information on to the noble Baroness. We shall check them all out and pass the information on.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think that it is Kensington and Chelsea.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not know the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, which I have not answered, but I hope that what I have said in general terms covers the fact that we are interested in the whole subject in any case, and therefore if there is a particular point presumably we shall pick it up. Once we have all this material away and have time to do it in a proper and hopefully, dare I say, more leisurely way, then I would expect that we can cover everything.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Lord Derwent): My Lords, does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw the amendment?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Amendment of Schedule 15 to 1977 Act]:
4.30 p.m.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, two manuscript amendments have been tabled to Schedule 7, Amendments Nos. 73A and 73B.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved manuscript Amendment No. 73A:
Page 119, line 39, leave out ("and 12") and insert (", 12 and 20").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have only a very brief comment to make
234
on this. These are two minor, consequential amendments to Amendment No. 7D, which provides a new Rent Act possession case for servicemen, Case 20. All they do is to make reference to Case 20 in Schedule 7 of the Bill. I ask noble Lords to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 73B:
Page 120, line 5, after ("12") insert ("and in paragraph (e)(ii) of Case 20").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is also a technical amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 67 [Rent agreements with tenants having security of tenure]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 49, line 46, after ("III") insert ("or IV").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill provides a special safeguard for tenancies being decontrolled by Clause 64. This is that the landlord cannot raise the rent by agreement with the tenant; only by applying to the rent officer for the registration of a rent. This ensures that the tenant pays no more than a fair rent, and that his rights—including his eligibility for rent allowances—are explained to him. The Bill also provides this safeguard in respect of decontrol under Part III of the Housing Finance Act 1972—for example, decontrol by qualification certificate.
This amendment additionally provides the safeguard in respect of Part IV of the Housing Finance Act 1972, which provided for the general programme of decontrol by rateable value. Special rules were applied to these tenancies in the 1972 Act, but for reasons which are not clear they seem to have been removed in 1975 when general decontrol was ended. As a result of the amendment, the same clear rules and safeguards will apply to all formerly controlled tenancies where the old controlled rent has not yet been increased. There will be later related amendments to Schedules 24 and 25; that is, Nos. 148, 151, 154 and 163.

235
I hope that your Lordships will agree that they are a useful modification. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 72 [Dwellings forming part of Crown Estate or belonging to Duchies]:
4.35 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 75A:
Page 54, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) In the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863 the words in section 21 "not exceeding Thirty-one Years in possession, but not in reversion, so that upon every such Demise, where the Subject matter thereof shall consist of Land or Property other than Mines or Minerals, there shall he reserved the full and fair annual Rent of the Property to be comprised therein, to be incident to the immediate Reversion of or in the Premises to be thereby demised without taking any Fine or Consideration in the Nature of a Fine for the granting thereof;" are omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 75A. When the House was in Committee dealing with this Bill on 3rd July, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, dealt with Clause 72, which covers tenants of the Crown and the Duchies. He was, of course, referring to the 1,000 or so Crown tenants, but also to the, I think he said, 200 tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall. I declare an interest immediately; I am one of those 200 tenants of the Duchy, although I am not here to complain about my landlord!
Secondly, I am sorry that notice of this amendment had to be given so late. As I shall explain in expounding the detail of the amendment, it was not possible until yesterday to track down the information which could result in this amendment. Clause 72 deals with the issue of applying the provisions of the Bill to some of the Crown and Duchy tenancies. As drafted, the clause deals successfully with applying the purposes of the Bill in so far as the properties shall be governed by the Rent Acts.
However, one other issue was raised in the other place which concerns these tenants; it is the right-to-buy provisions of the Bill. This afternoon I shall not enter
236
into the arguments about the extent to which the right-to-buy provisions should apply either to the Crown or to the Duchies. All I want to examine is what exactly the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said on 3rd July and why my amendment is appropriate to add to what he said on that date. On 3rd July, at column 571, he said that there had been:
"…representations to the effect that the Crown Estates Commissioners should be regarded as a public body, and therefore brought within the scope of the tenants' charter provisions…including the right to buy at a discount".
et cetera. He then went on to say:
"I see little merit in entering into"
the argument. But he did offer a compromise in column 572 where he said:
"The Government have also been discussing with the Commissioners their policy on the sale of long leases once the Rent Acts have formally been applied. The Commissioners have said that they will be prepared in principle to sell assignable but non-enfranchisable long leases to sitting tenants".
In other words, he is saying that they cannot agree or move that the Crown Estates should begin to sell, but that there is this compromise that they will now begin to sell assignable but non-enfranchiseable long leases.
As a tenant of the Duchy, I then wrote to the Duchy and said that that was very interesting, and asked how far the Duchy was prepared to apply these principles that are mentioned in column 572; because at that time we had mainly been discussing the Crown and the Duchies together, and I had hoped that they would be lumped together in this question of selling long leases as a compromise. The answer I obtained—and I obtained it only yesterday, because the chief officer of the Duchy is, I think, on holiday and I finally ended up with their solicitor, who was very helpful—was that whatever the Duchy may wish to do in this respect is limited by the fact that the 1863 Act of Management of the Duchy prevents them issuing leases longer than 31 years. So they could not fall into line even if they wished, and at this stage I do not know whether the Duchy so wishes—that is a matter of policy on which the solicitor could not, of course, advise me. He said that even if they wished to do so—and, who knows, they may so wish—they are bound by this very old Act not to issue leases of longer than 31 years.
Therefore, I speedily turned to the 1863 Act and found in Section 21 that that limitation is indeed the case. The section reads:
"It shall be lawful for the Duke of Cornwall, by Deed under the Seal of the Duchy of Cornwall, to demise or grant any Manors, Messuages, Parks, Lands, Tenements, or Hereditaments for the Time being, Parcel of the Possessions of the Duchy of Cornwall…"
et cetera—
"…for any Term or Number of Years not exceeding Thirty-one Years in possession,…"
So the simple amendment which I thought it was expedient to move was to delete the words, as I have done in the amendments on the Marshalled List, which would leave the Duchy with a right to offer leases of any term. If they then wished to follow on the lead given by the Crown Estate Commissioners under the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on 3rd July, nothing further will bind their hands in the act of management. I hope that explains the rather complicated situation, and I beg to move.
4.40 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I must confess that I find myself in some difficulty in responding to an amendment tabled at such a late stage and dealing with such an arcane statute as the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863. I believe however that the matter is of some importance to the noble Lord. As he fairly said himself, he lives in a property owned by the Duchy of Cornwall.
As I understand it, and the noble Lord will appreciate that there has been very little time, to say the least, for consultation in that the amendment was only tabled yesterday afternoon, the Duchy, like the Crown Estate Commissoners, are prepared in principle to grant long assignable but non-enfranchisable leases to their tenants. However, the 1863 Act prevents such long leases lasting for more than 31 years, and the noble Lord wishes to remove that barrier. I fear that the Government cannot contemplate amending the 1863 Act in this Housing Bill, not least at a few hours' notice. The Act is a general one governing the manner in which the Duchy operates and is not specifically concerned with housing. I cannot say what wider issues would be involved if the noble Lord's amendment was accepted.
238
May I say, in an attempt to be helpful to the noble Lord, that his remarks are noted and will certainly be passed on to the appropriate authorities. I would certainly be exceeding my authority if I advised the House to accept the amendment. Therefore, I think I cannot usefully make any further comment, though I entirely take the points made, which will be considered later. For the moment, I wonder whether, in view of my perhaps not too helpful but I hope understandable remarks, the noble Lord would feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord has not been very helpful. I rather gathered from what he said that the aim of the amendment was agreeable to him; namely, that the Duchy should have the power to grant long leases. If I heard him aright, he also said that they would like to be able to grant long leases.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not think I said quite that. It is perhaps important that I should carefully repeat what I said on that point. I said that the noble Lord will appreciate that the Crown Estate Commissioners are prepared in principle to grant long assignable but non-enfranchisable leases to their tenants. However, the 1863 Act prevents such leases lasting for more than 31 years, and it was the noble Lord who wished to remove this barrier. Then I went on to say that I cannot contemplate our amending that Act in this Housing Bill. I said, in an attempt to be helpful, that we would take careful note of what has been said, and that we would pass it on to the Duchy of Cornwall management, the people concerned, and that we would have a look later on to see whether there was anything that could be done to help. That is all I was able to say.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, looking at Clause 72 I can hardly accept what the noble Lord said in one part of his remarks. He said that a general Bill on housing is not the place to amend the 1863 Act. With respect to him, the whole of Clause 72 is designed to, and indeed does in a page and a half of amendments, amend various Acts as they apply to the Crown Estates and to Duchy properties. It is a further step, but I would say only a slight further step, to single out the 1863 Act, which is particular to the Duchy,

239
in order to amend it in the way I am suggesting. It is only a slight step further that I am suggesting.
To go one step further, he is going to leave the situation in a very anomalous position. We shall have the problem that the whole of the remainder of the Bill in broad terms will be applied to parts of the Crown Estates but not now, because of this loophole, to the few tenants—I readily confess a minority of 200 people—of the Crown properties. I really do not think that I can leave the matter entirely as it is. If the noble Lord would be agreeable to meet and discuss this matter and to see how we can proceed, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment at this stage and then to look at the possibility of returning to the matter on Third Reading when he has had a chance to study it a little further, and perhaps to take further advice from the Duchy about their wishes and intentions. If he would give me that sort of undertaking I would be very ready to withdraw the amendment at this stage. Perhaps, with the leave of the House, he would respond to my suggestion.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by the leave of the House, I am afraid that I cannot take up the noble Lord's proposal. The amendments which the Government have themselves made in your Lordships' House to extend the Rent Acts to the Duchy of Cornwall do not in any way amend the 1863 Act or the other legislation governing the Duchy. They stay within the four walls of the existing Duchy legislation. Certainly our Crown Estates amendments do not concern long leases at all. I cannot be any more helpful on this and I cannot take the point any further. This came up as an amendment yesterday afternoon referring to the 1863 Act. My goodness me! I do not think I am being at all unreasonable in saying that I cannot go any further with it now.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am not asking the noble Lord to go any further now. I am asking whether he would be prepared to look at it before Third Reading. I would then withdraw it today with the possibility, after consultation with him, of not coming back to it at Third Reading.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with respect, we are getting very
240
out of order in not asking for the leave of the House. This is Report stage.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, very reluctantly—
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I really must protest. It is Report stage.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord is protesting about. I am rising to withdraw the amendment. Very reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 [Crown Estate and Duchies—Consequential Provisions]:
4.46 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 121, line 10, after ("to") insert ("the assignment, before the end of the year 1990, of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 together. Section 72 and Schedule 8 to the Bill, which were introduced in Committee of your Lordships' House, extend Rent Act protection to short lease tenants of the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. As at present drafted, paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 would allow existing Crown Estate and Duchy tenants to charge full market premiums on the assignment of the remaining terms of fixed term leases existing at the time of commencement. They are specifically excluded from the ban on premiums in Part IX of the Rent Act. This met the request made by representatives of the Crown Estate tenants at a meeting with the Secretary of State on 11th June. The commissioners were also content.
Since the Committee proceedings it has been brought to our attention that there are some Crown Estate tenancies which will not be fully covered by the new premium provisions. Although the leases of these tenancies will not be extended until after the Bill has become law the tenants were, as I am advised, given an

241
undertaking in 1976 that they would be assignable up to 1990. Once these leases have been renewed they will find themselves alone among Crown Estate tenants in not being able to assign at a market premium because the Government's provision on premiums applies only up to the end of existing leases.
To deal with this problem the amendments extend the provisions of paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 so as to enable market premiums to be charged not only in respect of existing leases, but also in respect of renewals or extensions of leases granted to sitting tenants provided that the original lease was in existence at the time of commencement. The charging of premiums would be allowed on assignments only until the end of 1990. This means that the Crown Estate Commissioners' undertakings on premiums can be fully honoured and that no Crown Estate tenants are worse off following the application of the Rent Acts. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 121, line 11. leave out from ("tenancy") to end of line 18 and insert ("falls within this sub-paragraph if it was granted for a term certain and its terms do not inhibit both the assignment and the underletting of the whole of the premises comprised in the tenancy, and either—

(a) it was granted before the commencement of section 72 of this Act and became a regulated tenancy by virtue of that section; or

(b) it is a regulated tenancy by virtue of that section and was granted to a person who, at the time of the grant, was the tenant of the premises comprised in it under a regulated tenancy which also fell within this sub-paragraph").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with the previous amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 10 [Amendment of Part VI of Rent Act 1977]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 123, line 39, leave out paragraph 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor and consequential amendment
242
to the Government amendments to Clause 61 and Schedule 25 dealing with the effective date of rent registrations, Nos. 57, 59 and 160. I beg to move.
Clause 77 [Allowable premiums in relation to certain long tenancies]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 58, line 5, leave out ("subsection (2)(c)") and insert ("subsections (2)(c) and (3B)(d)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke at the same time to Amendment No. 80. In Committee I explained why the Government could not accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, to try to deal with the problems that can arise when people who paid a full market price for a lease find that they risk being unable to sell it at a full market price because increases in the ground rent mean that the lease is likely to be affected by the premium provisions in Part IX of the Rent Act 1977. I said in Committee, in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that I hoped to come forward with a solution to this difficult and technical problem on Report. I am happy to say that we have been able to table these amendments, and I hope noble Lords will agree that they should provide a workable solution to this difficult problem, both for existing and future leases. I should also like to acknowledge again the helpful discussions that my officials have had about this with the Law Society and I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for having so ably raised the matter in Committee.
The circumstances in which a full premium can already be charged for leases are set out in Section 127 of the Rent Act 1977. The conditions that have to be met are that the lease is a long one—that is, it is not terminable within 20 years—and that the rent cannot be reviewed within the first 20 years or more than once every 21 years and that assignment or subletting of the whole is allowed. I will not explain the other criteria which are set out in the amendment, but the Government aim is to ensure that the Rent Act restrictions on the charging of premiums for leases

243
should not affect bona fide sales to home owners. I am confident that the amendments will achieve this objective.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble he and those advising him have taken to deal with what is a very complex matter indeed. The Law Society say that although he has approached it in a different way from them, he has come to the same answer, possibly a better answer, in the end, and I know that the Law Society is very pleased. I believe this will be helpful in a broad sense, and I am delighted the Government have taken this step.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 58, line 14, at end insert—
("(4) After subsection (3) of section 127 there are inserted the following subsections—
"(3A) If the conditions in subsection (3B) below are satisfied in respect of a tenancy, this Part of this Act shall not apply to that tenancy and, together with Part VII of the Rent Act 1968 and the enactments replaced by Part VII, shall be deemed never to have applied to it.
(3B) The conditions are that—

(a) the tenancy was granted before 16th July 1980;

(b) a premium was lawfully required and paid on the grant of the tenancy;

(c) the tenancy was, at the time when it was granted, a tenancy at a low rent; and

(d) the terms of the tenancy do not inhibit both the assignment and the under-letting of the whole of the premises comprised in the tenancy.

(3C) If the conditions in subsection (3D) below are satisfied in respect of a tenancy, this section shall have effect, in relation to that tenancy, as if for the words "20 years" and "21years", in subsections (2)(b) and (3) above there were substituted, respectively, the words "6 years" and "7 years".
(3D) The conditions are that—

(a) the tenancy is granted after 15th July 1980;

(b) at the time when it is granted it is a tenancy at a low rent; and

(c) the terms of the tenancy ensure that any variation of the sums payable by the tenant otherwise than in respect of rates, services, repairs or maintenance, cannot lead to those sums exceeding an annual rate of two-thirds of the rateable value of the dwelling-house at the date when the variation is made.

For the purposes of this subsection the rateable value of a dwelling-house shall be
244
ascertained in accordance with section 25 of this Act (disregarding subsection (4)) by reference to the value shown in the valuation list at the date when the variation is made.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with the last amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 78 [Meaning of "premium" in Part IX of Rent Act 1977.]:
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Clause 79 [Repairing obligations in short leases.]:
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Clause 80 [Tenant's improvements.]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved manuscript Amendment No. 82Z:
Page 59, line 19, after ("18") insert ("and 20").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, again, is minor and consequential on Amendment No. 70. It simply makes reference to the new Rent Act possession case—Case 70 in Clause 80—so that the tenant of a house where the landlord has a mandatory right to possession under Clause 20 will not have the right to carry out improvements, as the Bill already provides for the other mandatory possession cases in Part III of Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977. I beg to move.
4.56 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 82A:
Page 59, line 38, after ("if") insert ("(i)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendment No. 82B, 82A being the paving amendment. The Government are giving council tenants the right to make wide-ranging improvements to their houses and to redecorate them externally to any colour they choose, according to the promises set out in the Conservative Party's election manifesto, and very few people would take exception to that. However, very much at the last minute, it would seem, and certainly without adequate consultation with those likely to be adversely affected, they inexplicably decided to extend this right to private

245
tenants, and that was categorically not in their manifesto. Nor would anybody in the Central Office or elsewhere dare to have included it because, of course, it cuts right into the concept of private property rights which the Conservatives—and incidentally the Liberals, or so I believe—have traditionally upheld.
I suspect that the Government may have had mainly in mind large impersonal landlords, many of them resident abroad, whose general behaviour is often criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and others, frequently with extremely good reason. The Government appear to have overlooked the fact that most landlords are small, are far from impersonal and are people who care very much about their own property and its future. Take the case of a farmer who converts a cottage or possibly an old barn or stable for letting, one which is contiguous or at any rate extremely near to his house; take the case of a widow living in a house which is too large for her and who converts part of the house into a self-contained flat or maisonette with its own separate entrance; or take the case of somebody owning a pair of semi-detached houses who lives in one and lets the other, or two adjoining terraced houses in some modest street.
If they let these properties on seven-year full repairing and full insuring leases—and most landlords who do not want to lose money try to let on leases of that kind, given that the cost of insurance and repairs goes up so much faster than rents—they will be obliged, if the clause is left unamended, to allow their tenants to paint the exterior of their houses any colour they wish, be it fluorescent lime green, bright orange or whatever, whether or not that harmonises with their own house. My proposal is designed to spare owners the necessity of seeing, day in and day out, their own property decorated in colours which they personally may find quite hideous. The 50 yards radius point is necessarily arbitrary, but any figure one uses will be arbitrary and I think this is a reasonable one. I hope the Minister will give the amendment very favourable consideration.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, many of your Lordships, myself included, will sympathise with the feeling behind the noble Lord's amendment. The appearance of dwellings in
246
a street is important to the character of our towns and to the quality of the environment. But it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in his enthusiasm for civic design, is unnecessarily restricting the tenant's right to improve. This amendment makes no allowance for the condition of the tenant's property, which may be in great need of attention, and it makes no allowance for the age or character of the property. So the amendment could mean that a landlord living in a Georgian property could refuse external decoration by tenant's of modern flats built, for example, on land which he owned at the rear of his dwelling. That seems perhaps to be unreasonable; and the essence of the tenant's right to improve is that it is firmly based on what is reasonable to allow.
I suggest that the essential part of what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is seeking to achieve, is covered
already by the drafting of Clause 80. Where there are reasonable grounds for a landlord to refuse consent to external decoration by a tenant, he may do so. Where the landlord wishes to impose reasonable conditions to an improvement by the tenant, he may do so. We have provided for the courts to determine what is reasonable in these situations, and I think that is fairer and more flexible than the kind of blanket exclusion which this amendment would introduce. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but what he fails to stress, I fear, is that this is a totally novel concept. So far as I know, never before in history have private tenants been given the right to do more or less as they wish with someone else's property, on the basis that the consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. Of course, I take the point that it all hinges on the concept of what is unreasonable. I think that possibly my amendments to Clause 81 might cover the point rather better, and we shall come to those in a moment. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 82B not moved.]
Clause 81 [Provisions as to consents required by section 80]:
5.3 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 82C:
Page 60, line 1, leave out ("in particular") and insert ("among other considerations").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, now we come to the trio of amendments which might more readily fulfil the purpose that I had in mind. Noble Lords will see from the wording of Clause 81 that
"the court shall, in particular, have regard to the extent to which the improvement would be likely"
to do a number of things; three in all, in fact. The words "in particular" are likely to suggest to the court, which after all may have a tricky borderline decision to make, that the three considerations set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) should, when it is making its judgment, count, to the tune of about 90 per cent., with all other considerations that the landlord may be anxious to put forward counting for only 10 per cent.
By means of the substitution of the words "among other considerations", the court would therefore be able to give a better balance. It would be able to give more weight to the other considerations, such as the external appearance of the house, and so forth. It is a matter of fine judgment, I know. But the courts have to interpret Acts of Parliament, and to them the words "in particulars" may imply that apart from the three considerations mentioned, all the others carry very small weight. I hope that the Government will see the merits of what I suggest. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has expressed concern about the implications which the tenant's right to improve could have. He has also sought to alter the factors to which the court shall have regard in determining whether a landlord was reasonable in refusing consent to an improvement. But my belief is that he has over-stressed the risks here, whereas I would emphasise the positive benefits of tenant's improvements.
On Amendment No. 82C, I would suggest that it is already implied in the drafting of Clause 81 that the court can take other factors into account besides those specifically mentioned in subsection (1). What the court has to decide is
248
whether refusal of consent, or the giving of consent subject to conditions, is reasonable in the circumstances of any particular case. It is not obliged to confine its consideration solely to the factors listed in that subsection: and it could lead to some very strange judgments if that were so. These factors are included in the provision to help guide the court on points which may be relevant where there is a dispute between landlord and tenant over an improvement. They are not meant, however, to exclude other factors which may be material to the case. I hope that what I have said explains why we do not see fit to approve of the noble Lord's Amendment No. 82C.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, the acoustics in this Chamber are not as good as might be imagined, and I am not quite sure that I have taken in all that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said. Of course, it is perfectly true that the courts are given a power to take other matters into account as well. The trouble is that courts are not allowed to read Hansard and take these points into consideration. They have to take the Act of Parliament, the wording, as it stands. It still seems to me that the words "in particular" give an undue, over-heavy stress on the three considerations set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), to the exclusion of other considerations. Perhaps we can deal with this matter in my next pair of amendments. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 82D:
Page 60, line 7, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 82D and, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 82E, which is consequential. Now we come to the heart of the question. Theoretically, the tenant will have powers under the Bill, as I understand it, to make quite extensive changes to the interior of the house and to its external appearance. It is not merely a question of erecting television aerials, installing extra power points, or anything of that nature, to which few landlords, if any, would object. In theory, the tenant can knock down a partition wall, provided that it is not a load-bearing wall, or he can

249
erect a wall and so make one room into two rooms.
With regard to the external appearance, it is not merely a question of painting. He may erect a sun lounge, so far as one is able to interpret the clause. He can fit dormer windows in the roof. He can render the exterior of the house with stucco; it might be a brick house. He can do any number of things of that nature. None of those things may detract from the value of the house—from either its capital value or its lettable value—but such things may make the house totally different from what it was at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord may not himself wish to live in the house—though if he does, this is covered by the exclusion in the clause as it stands—but he may wish for a son, daughter or other relative to live in it. The alterations made by the tenant as permitted by the clause may be extensive and may be totally unsuitable for the member of the landlord's family who is to live there. This involves taking an extraordinary liberty with the fundamental property rights of the citizen. I regard this as a very important issue.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I must still emphasise the importance with which we regard the tenant's right to improve the house. We regard this as an important matter. With regard to these two amendments, in our view there is no need to draw the court's attention particularly to internal layout or external appearance. I would remind the noble Lord, however, that we see it as a very important principle for tenants, especially council tenants, to have a right to decorate and to do internal alterations. There are too many council estates painted in the same uniform colours, and we want people to have a real chance of changing all that. Where questions of internal layout or external appearance are relevant to the case before the court, it will be able to take such points into account, and in our view no amendment is needed to emphasise this.
I should perhaps also remind your Lordships that nothing in this clause is intended to override the usual planning and building consents which may be required before works are carried out to a
250
property; and, of course, as I have just explained on the previous amendment, the landlord can impose any reasonable conditions as to internal alterations or external decoration. I would therefore again urge the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and your Lordships, in the first case to withdraw the amendment, and in the second case, if the noble Lord were to press it, to reject it.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has given us a picture of council estates ablaze with multi-coloured front doors, but I was not talking about council estates. The Government would have got themselves off this particular hook if they had confined to council tenants the rights extended under this clause. Then, nobody would have objected; it seems perfectly reasonable. But we are talking about the rights of private individuals, not of councils, and so on, who do not have any personal interest one way or another in what colour houses are painted.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord step a little closer to the microphone? Both my noble friends Lord Bellwin and Lord Mowbray have found it rather hard to follow the gist of the noble Lord's argument, as indeed I did. I wonder whether he could step as close to the microphone as he can get.
Lord MONSON: Certainly, my Lords. I was saying that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, had given us a most inspiring picture of council estates ablaze with colour, and so on. Of course, this is a magnificent idea, but I was not talking about council estates. I was talking about private individuals, and this is a totally different matter. If the Government had excluded private tenancies from this clause, there would have been no worry at all; but for the first time in history, so far as I know, they are giving private tenants the right to make these very wide-ranging improvements, to which the landlord is virtually forced to agree unless he has extremely good and rather narrow grounds upon which to object. My Lords, this is a matter of principle, and I am afraid I cannot withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 82E not moved.]
Clause 86 [Extended discretion of court in certain proceedings for possession]:
[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]
Clause 87 [Discretion of court in certain proceedings for possession]:
5.13 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 63, line 4, leave out ("by") and insert ("in three or more").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small, technical amendment to define more tightly, for the purposes of Clause 87, the nature of a rental purchase agreement as distinct from a normal house purchase transaction. The amendment will avoid the possibility that the clause might apply to the ordinary house purchaser who may, in some circumstances, be allowed into occupation of the house he is buying before contracts are exchanged. Without this amendment the present clause might inhibit conveyances in ordinary house purchase transactions. They might be more cautious about allowing purchasers into occupation of property before completion of the sale. I therefore invite your Lordships to approve this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, if I may say so very briefly, I think that once again this is an amendment about which the noble Lord's department has been in consultation with the Law Society, and I have a postscript to a letter concerning the previous amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, dealt with, saying:
"I have just heard that the Government propose an amendment to Clause 87 similar to the one suggested in my last letter".
I can only assume that this is it, and on the assumption that it is then I think it should be welcomed.
Clause 90 [Power of local authorities to dispose of land held for purposes of Part V of Housing Act 1957]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 88:
252
Page 64, line 15, leave out ("property") and insert ("land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, No. 88, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 89, 93, 94, 103 and 104. These are all drafting amendments to the provisions in the Bill requiring ministerial consent for the disposal of land. These amendments do two things. First, Amendments Nos. 88, 89, 103 and 104 substitute the word "land" for "property" in the consent requirements for "Part V" local authorities (in Clauses 90 and 91) and registered housing associations (in Clause 121). This will give a consistent use of the word "land". Secondly, Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 deal with the relationship between the words "land" and "house" in Clause 94—the provision requiring ministerial consent for the appropriation of certain "Part V" land by local authorities. These amendments are designed to avoid any possible confusion, and make the distinction between the words clear. My Lords, I beg to move.
Clause 91 [Consent to disposals and recovery of discount]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 65, line 37, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 38 and insert ("any particular land or description of land")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 67, line 3, at end insert ("by a body specified in subsection (5A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 67, line 6, at end insert ("or further advanced to him by that body.

253
(5A) The bodies referred to in subsection (5)(b) above are any building society and any of the bodies specified in paragraph 6, 7 or 8 of the Schedule to the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, also with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 67, line 15, after ("section") insert (" "building society" means a building society within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1962 or the Building Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 and")
The noble Lord said: Again, my Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
Clause 94 [Appropriation of land]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendments Nos. 93 and 94:
Page 69, line 31, leave out from ("appropriate") to end of line 32 and insert ("any part of that land which consists of a house or part of a house for any other purpose")
Page 69,line 36, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 37 and insert ("any particular land or description of land.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 93, and it might be convenient to your Lordships if I move it with Amendment No. 94. I beg to move.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL Baroness FAITHFULL moved Amendment No. 94A:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 shall be amended as follows:

(a) by inserting after subsection (3) of section 3 the words "or with an area outside Great Britain"; and

(b) by inserting after subsection (5) of section 4 the following subsection:

" (5A) A housing authority shall not he the subject to a duty under subsection (5) above if they are of the opinion:—
254

(i) that neither the person who applied to them for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has a local connection with their area, and

(ii) that the person who so applied or a person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has a local connection with an area outside Great Britain." ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise with the indulgence of the House, because this amendment was to have been moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. It is an amendment which we feel should be brought to your Lordships' notice in view of a very difficult situation that is arising due to the fact that on 10th July the Prime Minister, in answer to a Question in another place concerning homeless families from overseas and families moving from one area to another, said in connection with a judgment of the Court of Appeal, that she felt that it was a matter of great concern and hoped that it could be looked into. For that reason, my noble friend has tabled this amendment. Under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 persons becoming homeless in an area are the responsibility of that particular area, whether or not they live in it. That means that people moving about, if they are homeless, have the right under the Act to go to the local housing authority of the authority in which they find themselves and, so long as they subscribe to certain conditions, they have a right to be helped.
The first part of the amendment concerns those people who come from overseas to local authorities particularly where there is an airport. In the borough of Hillingdon, for instance, between 1975 and 1980, 256 families from 41 different countries, were found to be homeless and, under this Bill, should be housed by the area in which they find themselves. From 1977 to 1980, 67 families from 67 countries came from overseas, landed at London Airport, were homeless and, therefore, by law had to be housed by the Hillingdon borough council. Equally those people from this country who move from one area to another, provided that they subscribe to certain conditions, must be housed by the local authority in which they find themselves. If people want to move from an undesirable area to a desirable area, they can move and claim to be homeless and,

255
provided that the conditions are subscribed to, must, by law, be housed. This is creating a great deal of financial difficulty for those areas which are desirable, but, much more important, for those areas where there is an airport and where people coming from overseas are found to be homeless.
This is an invidious position not only for the authorities which have to deal with the families but for the families themselves, because, not unnaturally, they are not wholly welcomed and inquiries must be made about them. The inquiries, not unnaturally, take time, and during that time the families must be put up in hotels, boarding houses or substandard accommodation. Your Lordships will remember that at the time of the Ugandan Asians coming to this country, we gave every possible help by having them at centres where specialised people were able to help them with their specialist problems. By this amendment—which, I am sure, my noble friend Lord Mottistone will be able to explain much better than I—it is felt that people should be accorded courtesy during the time that investigation is taking place and it should not be the responsibility on one particular authority but perhaps that of a centre where those coming from overseas might receive specialised help. From the point of view of people from this country moving from one area to another, it is felt that, unless they have local connections, they should not be declared as homeless people and become the responsibility of the authority to which they have moved. I beg to move.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I must thank my noble friend Lady Faithfull for moving my amendment today and for putting the case so ably. I am sure that I could not have done better, but there are two points that I should like to emphasise. One is that there is evidence, both in the case of overseas people and in the case of people coming from (may I say?) undesirable parts of the country to more desirable parts, that this is done deliberately to exploit the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. It seems to me that we must somehow have that Act modified. I am heartened by the fact that my right honourable friend the
256
Prime Minister answered my honourable friend Mr. Shersby by saying that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act requires to be looked at. That is a good thing; but it seems to me that, with Government legislation as it is, any amendments to that Act will perhaps not take effect for some time. In the meantime, these people continue to flood in. The first point is that there is exploitation and, while one does not want to deprive the genuine homeless people from such facilities as the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act gives them, one does want to try to exclude the ones who are not genuine. It may be very difficult to do so, but I think that the Government should give great attention to it.
The other point which needs emphasising is that basically this is very unfair to people on the housing lists of the local authority, who in effect have to give place to these other people. It must have been appreciated by Parliament when the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act was first passed that this situation would arise to a certain extent. I would say that if it is a fair situation, people have to accept it. But where it is unfair and where there is exploitation, we must somehow get round it. In conclusion, I would suggest that the Government might like to look at the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. In the meantime, to prevent the flood continuing, they might give thought to accepting my amendment so ably presented by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. If they do not like its precise wording, perhaps they might care at Third Reading to put forward something of their own to deal with this knotty problem.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: This amendment, my Lords, is a case of very great overkill. The case which Hillingdon Council have been making and on which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, base their amendment is simply not justified by the facts. The numbers of people arriving homeless from overseas who are entitled to be in this country who have no accommodation elsewhere and who have not become homeless intentionally is very small. A picture went through my mind of people sitting round the bush in Africa saying: "How can we abuse the Housing (Homeless

257
Persons) Act in Britain?" and coming across to do so. That was a little exaggerated.
The official DoE statistics on homelessness show that only 2 per cent. of homeless households accepted by local authorities have newly-arrived from overseas. Hillingdon's own figures show that in the 31 months since 1977—and with great respect, this is rather more relevant than the figures that the noble Baroness used as we are talking about the Act—they have had to accommodate only 83 such cases, an average of 32 a year.
What Hillingdon has not mentioned in all its considerations about the Act is that the Greater London Council offered to take a quota of housing for just such eventualities. If Hillingdon had taken it up, it would have ensured that Hillingdon could have discharged its responsibilities under the 1977 Act with virtually no effect at all on the housing prospects of local residents. Noble Lords may well remember the case of the Kenyan Asian family who arrived here as British passport-holders in November 1978, and were literally dumped by Hillingdon Council in a great blaze of publicity on the steps of the Foreign Office. That action resulted in an investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality into the possibility of racial discrimination—an investigation which is still in train at present. The test case heard in the Court of Appeal a few weeks ago involved Mrs. Sophia Streeting an Ethiopian born refugee who was homeless in Hillingdon.
The first point to make about this case is that it was set up purposely by Hillingdon Council. I do not object to that at all because it is quite right that councils or other bodies should make a test case to find out what exactly their position is. They advised Mrs. Streeting to contact a solicitor with a view to taking legal action. The chairman of the housing committee was quoted at the time (17th November 1979) in the Daily Telegraph as welcoming the challenge to the council's ruling that it would not house Mrs. Streeting. He went on to say:
"We want this to be settled once and for all. We have no intention of breaking the law, but it is ridiculous that someone can fly across the world to Heathrow and demand to be housed ahead of local people. The only way to test whether we are right is in the Divisional Courts".
258
The case was heard in the High Court in February 1980. The court found in favour of Mrs. Streeting. I do not want to go into all the details of that. According to The Times law report, Mr. Justice Griffiths commented, in reaching the decision that Hillingdon Council had an obligation to house Mrs. Streeting under the 1977 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act:
"I reach that conclusion with satisfaction, for if anyone needed the succour of this Act it is this young woman and her child—homeless refugees in a strange country".
Mr. Justice Griffiths also stressed that local authorities would be protected from an influx of homeless persons from abroad by immigration controls, and by the further protection that a person abroad could not give up accommodation and expect to be housed by a local authority under the Act, because by intentionally making himself homeless abroad the person would have disentitled himself to relief under the Act.
Hillingdon Council appealed against this judgment, and the appeal was heard before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, earlier this month. In dismissing the appeal the noble and learned Lord described Mrs. Streeting's case as "meritorious" and emphasised that it must be comparatively rarely that a foreigner was allowed to enter the United Kingdom when he was homeless overseas and would be homeless here with no means to support himself. The trouble then with Hillingdon's reaction, having taken it as a test case and said "We will follow what the courts say", was that they did not like the court's ruling so they have attempted, so far as they can, to circumvent that. What they are now seeking would be done through this amendment. This would have far-reaching and very dangerous consequences—consequences of which perhaps those tabling it are not aware. In the first place, it would overturn the fundamental principle of people of refugee status like Mrs. Streeting, who are legally entitled to be in Britain, should receive exactly the same treatment under the law as all other United Kingdom citizens. This principle is fundamental to good race relations in this country, and was strongly endorsed by the Conservative Party in The Right Approach which emphasised the need for:
"fair and equal treatment before the law for everyone who lives here".

259
Secondly, this amendment would, if agreed, have the curious effect of debarring from entitlement to help under the 1977 Act those British people who have been abroad for some years and who find themselves homeless on return to the United Kingdom. This means that if they had been abroad on work and come back then they would find themselves in that position. To establish a local connection, people have to have lived in the area for three out of the last five years or, failing that, have been there at least six months prior to their application. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, specifically referred in his judgment to soldiers or sailors in our armed forces who had no local connection with any particular area. On returning to civilian life, if they were homeless, they should certainly qualify for the benefits of the statute. It would be quite absurd if such persons or others in civilian jobs who had been working abroad should be debarred from help under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. This is what the amendment would do.
Thirdly, the amendment is so drafted that it would be impossible for a local authority with whom an applicant recently arrived from overseas had no connection to refer that applicant on to another authority in the United Kingdom with whom the applicant had a connection. That is the case at the moment under the Act. I do not think that the movers of this amendment intended this; but this will be the result of their amendment.
To sum up—and I am sorry to have taken time over this—I think that this is an extremely important amendment and those objecting to it really have to object to it thoroughly. The amendment is not necessary. The numbers of homeless applicants from overseas to whom local authorities have an obligation are really very small. Furthermore, it would introduce some extremely unwelcome and injudicious changes to the current procedures which are well recognised by the overwhelming majority of local authorities as working well. Sir Duncan Loch, ex-chairman of ADC, said last year that the Act was working well; that the fears for it at the beginning were not realised; that the additional costs were a small price to pay for solving some of the homelessness in Britain.
260
Only last week the AMA considered this at their housing committee meeting. They came to the conclusion that, although there are difficulties in certain London boroughs, they are of the opinion that there is no reason for any change. The code of guidance and the cost of implementing the Act should be taken into account when working out the new housing subsidy system. In other words, this may need some bolstering through the subsidy system. Nevertheless, at the end of the day one is left with a problem of having to deal with homeless people. It will be a great pity if we are in the position of having turned into a country that turned its eyes, its hands and its help away from people who are really in need of help. They also have a legal right to be here with refugee status. Also, in a case like this, where the local authority concerned firmly refused to take up the quota of housing offer it had in order to make their point.
I imagine that the Minister, when replying, will also remind us that the survey being carried out on the Act by the DoE has not yet been finished. This is a large amendment that is being proposed to this Bill at this time and I do not think can be satisfactory whatever the merits of it may be.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I listened to my two noble friends with great interest on the arguments with which they introduced this amendment and, I do agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, rather introduced at the last moment on a totally new topic. I agree with so much of what the noble Baroness said, that this matter deals with issues of very great sensitivity and with an area of very considerable complexity. For these reasons, we have to exercise the very greatest care to ensure that we are not mislead into thinking that with a few hasty and apparently simple strokes we can neatly dispose of the issue. I do not believe there is any simple solution here at all. The interaction between this proposal, the European Community legislation dealing with freedom of movement, the right to take up employment and the entitlement to rights and benefits of all citizens of member states, and the Race Relations Act 1976 must be explored with very great care. We must also consider the

261
wider implications of this isolated proposal for the operation not only of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 but of all the parallel legislation in the social services field, particularly the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, which also includes duties towards dependent families with children who may find themselves without a home.
Your Lordships will be aware that a detailed and exhaustive review of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act has, as the noble Baroness said, been under way for some considerable time. Representations have been received from a wide range of interests and are being carefully studied within our department. Your Lordships will also have noted the assurance given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place when answering a Question on the Hillingdon case. It has been suggested that the London Borough of Hillingdon needs a reception centre to deal with the problem of homeless immigrants. There have certainly been occasions when such measures have been necessary; for example, those thankfully rare occasions when world events have led to such misfortunes for large numbers of people that this country has had to make special arrangements to receive them as homeless, displaced refugees as, for instance, with the influx of Ugandan Asians. We have had the Ugandan Asians and also the Vietnamese boat people. On occasions like these the Government will be ready to consider what is the most appropriate assistance to offer.
However, the available evidence suggests that such a crisis does not, thankfully, exist in Hillingdon. Certainly the department's published figures do not support such a view. No special measures are therefore necessary. We are reviewing the operation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and will take into account the implications of recent court decisions. Your Lordships will probably be aware that a High Court ruling in December, involving Crawley Borough Council and two Italian families, established that immigrants who come here without making adequate long-term arrangements for their accommodation run the risk of being declared internationally homeless, in which case the responsibilities of the local authorities towards them are
262
limited. Having said all that, I would urge my two noble friends to withdraw their amendment in the knowledge that the points they have made will be fully taken into account during the review, on which the Government have not yet reached a conclusion.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for his statement. If I might say so, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, greatly exaggerated the deleterious effects of this amendment. In the first place, there is no suggestion that there should he no housing at all for people who come from overseas. We are only talking about council housing and there is no reason why there should not be other sorts of housing for people from overseas. It is certainly not the intention of this amendment to—
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord this. Can he indicate what sort of housing homeless people who arrive here, or people of refugee status, could have? What are they going to do? Are they going into hotels?
Lord MOTTISTONE: I am coming on to refugees in a minute, my Lords. I am talking about people who are not refugees and who come here of their own volition. As to refugees, I noted what my noble friend on the Front Bench had to say. I personally think there is probably a good case for some special refugee facilities organised by the Government on a national scale, but no doubt the Government will take that into account when they study the problem, as they say they will.
The other point where I think the noble Baroness was slightly in error, and indeed the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls also, was in suggesting that this in any way affects service families. They never get council houses and at one stage that was a great grumble. They either go into service quarters or they have to find accommodation for themselves. This is sometimes very difficult for them, but it is not relevant for them at this moment. So there are one or two loopholes, if I may say so, in the Opposition's case. However, I take heart from what my noble friend Lord Mowbray has said and, with your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, I think the amendment was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. If it is to be withdrawn, I think it must be withdrawn by the mover.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.47 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 95:
Insert the following new clause:
"Houses classed as fit properties
(. Houses previously classed as fit properties when included in Compulsory Purchase Orders under Part III of the Housing Act 1957 shall for the purposes of Rehabilitation Orders under section 114 of the Housing Act 1974 be treated in the same manner as houses previously classed as unfit under Part III of the 1957 Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the words set out in this amendment, and the thrust of it, may not be immediately apparent and it does seem, even by the standard of the amendments and the clauses of this Bill, to be obscure and complex in its wording. Therefore, I will apologise to your Lordships because it might take a couple of minutes to explain the problem. I hope to warm the rather cold heart of the noble Lord the Minister regarding this particular case. It is a matter which has been brought to my attention from the City of Leeds. The problem is that under Part III of the Housing Act 1977 local authorities are empowered to acquire land by compulsory purchase for clearance areas. The scheme under the 1957 Act is that, first, the local authority has to be satisfied that an area of houses is unfit for human habitation and may determine to purchase that area for clearance. Once they have obtained the consent of the Department of the Environment to the compulsory purchase order and have purchased the land, Section 47 of the 1957 Act then imposes a duty on the local authority to abolish all the buildings on the land. Under Section 43(2) of that Act, the local authority was, however, permitted to purchase, by compulsory purchase order again—and I quote:
"any adjoining land, the acquisition of which is reasonably necessary for the satisfactory development or use of the cleared area".
264
This is known in common parlance as "added lands" in local government circles, and may consist of houses which are fit for human habitation. Once the compulsory purchase order is made in respect of added lands, the local authority is then under the same duty to demolish the buildings on that land. Under the Housing Act 1974, Section 114 as amended and replaced by the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975, Schedule 5, further provision is made to allow the local authority to seek a rehabilitation order in respect of the houses in a clearance area. The order is made by the department and releases the local authority from the duty to demolish on terms that they bring the property up to the full standard set out in Section 66 of the 1974 Act. This procedure may be extended to the added lands I mentioned by virtue of Section 114.
There has arisen in Leeds a case—and I understand that there have been similar cases in other parts of the country—where the unfit houses have been demolished. This is quite an important case and, as I say, exists in more than one particular circumstance. Unfit houses have been demolished but also certain fit houses which are purchased with added land remain and are usable.
The Department of the Environment seem to take the attitude that they cannot accede to a rehabilitation order to save fit houses, as rehabilitation orders can be made only in respect of unfit houses. In my view, this assessment is incorrect, unless the subsection is read as being capable of operating only where houses on added land can be saved along with some unfit houses. The Department of the Environment's logic seems to be based on the assumption that a compulsory purchase order is confirmed only because the added land was reasonably necessary for the redevelopment. If the houses on the added land were to be saved, this would show that they were not reasonably necessary for the redevelopment, should not have been included in the compulsory purchase order, and therefore the original order of the Secretary of State was wrong.
This amendment is an attempt to place both added lands and unfit houses on the same footing, so that a local authority can seek a rehabilitation order in respect of all the lands in the compulsory pur-

265
chase order, and thus release itself from the duty to demolish each and every house which is the subject of a compulsory purchase order. I am sure that that very simple explanation of a very complex problem will convince your Lordships, without any further discussion, that what I have said is correct. My Lords, beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, this new clause, like the last one we were discussing a few moments ago, has also come at rather a late stage and is drafted in rather general terms. It might help your Lordships' understanding of a somewhat technical subject if I also explain a little of the background of the rehabilitation order provisions to which the amendment refers, as we in the Government see them.
In the early 1970s, the gradual shift of emphasis away from demolition and clearance of areas of older housing and towards programmes and policies of rehabilitation and improvement culminated in the Conservative Housing and Planning Bill in 1973, and subsequently in what became the Labour Government's Housing Act of 1974. The purpose of the rehabilitation order provisions in the 1974 Act was to give local authorities the opportunity to think again, in the light of the new emphasis on rehabilitation and improvement, about some of their existing clearance proposals for areas of older housing.
Essentially what the rehabilitation order provisions do is to provide a local authority with a power to look at a former clearance proposal, and formally to decide that it no longer intends to demolish the houses within that area, but will embark on a programme of rehabilitation and improvement of either the whole or part of that area. I must emphasise that this opportunity to reconsider applies only to decisions which had been taken before the Act came into force; that is, for houses which had either been acquired before 2nd December 1974, or included in compulsory purchase orders confirmed not later than 2nd March 1975. So far as new acquisitions, whether voluntary or compulsory, were concerned, it was anticipated that local authorities would have full regard to the possibilities of renovation before acquiring dwellings for clearance purposes.
266
There is, therefore, no provision on the statute book
which enables a local authority to change its mind in relation to dwellings acquired for clearance after the dates to which I have already referred. This may seem a somewhat rigid position for us to take, but it is important to bear in mind that, so far as fit houses are concerned, the local authority is entitled to acquire them for clearance purposes only if it can be shown that their demolition is essential in order to provide a suitable site for redevelopment. The Secretary of State's confirmation of any compulsory purchase order in relation to fit properties rests on that same assumption, and if local authorities were simply allowed to change their minds and retain fit properties acquired under these powers it would undermine the whole basis on which the Secretary of State had approved their acquisition in the first place.
Despite this, one cannot help but feel some sympathy with the view that it should not be essential to demolish a house which is not unfit and which, because of changes in local policies or programmes, no longer forms an essential part of the redevelopment proposal. That is a problem which needs further examination, though I do not hold out any prospect of finding an easy solution, given the whole basis on which the initial acquisition by the local authority rests. We would need to consider very carefully the position of the original vendor, for example, and to look at the underlying compensation and other issues which inevitably arise.
These are inevitably fairly deep waters and not, I suggest, appropriate for us to set sail on, without an opportunity to think very carefully about our course and about the hazards which might lie in our path. The new clause does not achieve what we take to be its main objective and is, indeed, somewhat capricious in its effect. I hope therefore that, in the light of my acknowledgement that there is an issue worthy of further examination, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the clause.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I apologise for the amendment having been put down rather late. It should have been put down in Committee. The fact is that in another place they thought that the amendment was appropriate

267
to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, but then they found out at a very late stage that it should appear in this Bill. If they had asked me, I could have told them that much earlier.
But I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. I appreciate that this is a difficult problem and that it would be wrong for local authorities to be able capriciously to acquire added land and then rehabilitate it, under the guise of being the compulsory purchase of unfit property. On the face of it, it seems absurd that unfit houses can be refurbished under a rehabilitation order, but not fit houses. This appears to be a paradox whose examination by the Government might he helpful. From what the noble Lord the Minister has said, I suspect that this will be looked at. But I thank him for his consideration and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 12 [Amendments of Housing Act 1974 Part VII (local authority grants)]:
5.58 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 130, line 35, leave out ("section 16 of that Act") and insert ("Schedule (Houses in multiple occupation: means of escape from fire) to the Housing Act 1980").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, with Amendment No. 96 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 138, 139, 143, 155, 156 and also 147. But, before I do so, I am asked by Hansard to mention that noble Lords might like to speak a little more slowly or nearer to a microphone because of difficulty with the acoustics.
Your Lordships will recall that when we considered the Bill in Committee my noble friend Lady Vickers moved an amendment on the subject of means of escape from fire in houses of multiple occupation. At that time I promised that the Government would themselves table an amendment on the same subject, and it is that amendment which we are now considering, together with some minor amendments which are consequential upon it, as well as my noble friend's Amendment No. 147, which she has tabled again.
The Government's amendments bring together existing statutory powers dealing with means of escape, with the major addition that the Secretary of State will be given a power to specify by order particular types of houses in multiple occupation for which local authorities will have a duty. The provisions in the new schedule will give local authorities a choice between different courses of action, although they must consult a fire authority before exercising this choice. They may require the execution of works to provide means of escape, and your Lordships will be aware that elsewhere in the Bill there is provision for the mandatory payment of grant in the case of such a requirement; or they may secure by agreement or by the serving of a notice that some or all of the house should be closed, or they may combine the two procedures as they consider most suitable.
I understand from what my noble friend Lord Sandford said in Committee, and from other sources, that local authorities sometimes have difficulty in enforcing the law on means of escape. I should be glad to hear of any troublesome cases. I believe that the new clause will help local authorities and will be welcomed by them, but if any problems with the existing legislation persist the Government will be prepared to consider changes.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that because of the provision to lay a duty on local authorities, this is an amendment which will have far-reaching implications. For that reason it will be necessary for the Government to hold lengthy and careful consultations with a range of interested bodies and organisations to establish whether, and if so how, the scope of the duty to be laid on local authorities by order should be restricted.
Within the time-scale of the Bill it has not been possible to carry out the necessary consultations. The approach which we have adopted, involving an order-making power, leaves the question open in order that we can give the closest possible consideration to the views that are put to us without the constraint either of an excessively tight time limit or of a legislative framework which reduces the options open to us.
I should like to turn now to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady

269
Vickers; namely, Amendment No. 147. This amendment has been tabled before, both here and in another place. On the first occasion my honourable friend the Minister explained that he was not happy with the fact that under the procedures set out in the amendment local authorities could find themselves forced to take action which could be costly and time-consuming, solely—and I stress solely—as a result of a complaint by an HMO resident. As I said when we debated my noble friend's earlier amendment, I do not rule out the possibility of an orchestrated campaign, and this could well lead to the initiative being wrested from the responsible public bodies. The Government really could not allow that possibility.
I am also unhappy with the cumbersome apparatus surrounding the business of serving notices and counter notices, as proposed here. I am not convinced that there is evidence of the need for any more than the existing arrangements set out in Sections 14, 15, 17 and 18 of the 1961 Housing Act. In the absence of such evidence, I should be most unwilling to add to the bureaucratic burdens of local authorities and of HMO managers or landlords. Also, my noble friend's amendment does not provide for partial closure where it would be unreasonable to require works.
Finally, my Lords, I must mention three minor amendments which are consequential on the main one under consideration. In Schedule 23, the paragraph updating the penalty for contravention of Section 60 of the 1969 Act is no longer needed. In Schedule 25, the repeals of Section 19 of the 1961 Act and Section 60 of the 1969 Act are added. Lastly, Schedule 12 is altered to provide that when a notice under this schedule is served requiring that means of escape be provided, the payment of grant would be mandatory. May I conclude by commending these Government amendments to your Lordships' House. I wonder whether, if she agrees with this, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
6.3 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, as one who spoke in Committee on this cluster of points, may I say how welcome this group of amendments is and how
270
much the Association of District Councils welcome them. They are sorry that it has not been possible to deal in the Bill with all the matters that they raised, but I think that the order-making powers which the Government are seeking should enable them to do what is necessary.
There are three things to be welcomed. The first is that the Government have resisted the call which came from a number of quarters but which I think was misguided. It came from, among other places, Church leaders in a statement which they put out on 8th May inviting a duty to be laid upon the local housing authorities to oblige hostels in multiple occupation to come up to certain standards in respect of fire escapes, fire precautions, and so on. This, I think, would have been running into the danger of making the best the enemy of the good. I am grateful—and I believe that the House should be—to the Government for having resisted that pressure. Housing authorities will do their best, exercise their discretion and see that, so far as possible, fire precautions and fire escapes are as good as they can be. The amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Vickers which follows this amendment will, if it is accepted, help in that direction.
One of the things which must be done when the orders
are available is to bring into the embrace of this legislation the power of local authorities to deal with fire precautions, fire extinguishers and fire doors as well as fire escapes. It is better to prevent a fire, or to quench it at an early stage, rather than to concentrate on providing for escape when escape is the only thing which is left. For all those reasons, I welcome this amendment and the other ones which flow from it.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I was rather taken aback when my noble friend mentioned Amendment No. 147 because I had no idea that he was going to discuss it now. I am very sorry that I had no notice from my noble friend that he was going to deal with Amendment No. 147, for there were a lot of points which I had hoped to put before him. In view of the circumstances, I think he will forgive me if I say that I should like to consider the matter and to come back to it again at Third Reading. There are a lot of points which I think are rather important.
6.8 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, first I apologise to my noble friend the Minister for the fact that I was not here to hear the beginning of the remarks which he made in moving his amendment. Despite that, may I put to him one question and two comments arising from his Amendment No. 143. The question is this: what precise types of premises will be affected by the new duty? In relation to this, I suggest that it will be vital that the legislation in this Bill is not restricted solely to the large institutions. I would point out that the fire last March in the Kilburn hostel, in which 10 women were killed, was in a three-storey terraced house. It was quite a small house, not an enormous hostel.
My two comments are these. The duty proposed in the Government's amendment does not require local authorities to carry out works in default, as was proposed by my noble friend Lady Vickers in her Amendment No. 147. A power to carry out works in default is of extreme importance and is very much better than a closing order, for this reason: we need every single place in every single hostel to be in operation all the time. It is no good having a lot of hostels with a lot of closed beds in them. So I hope something can be done about that.
Secondly, it is still not clear, I suggest, from the Government's Amendment No. 143 how exactly local authorities are to become aware of unsafe hostel conditions. The amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Vickers made special provision for inspection upon a complaint by a hostel tenant. Obviously this could occur under the Government's amendment, but I suggest very strongly that if it is not to be written into the Bill, then at least it should be encouraged by notices to voluntary bodies, by circular or by any other way in which it can be encouraged. I would ask the Government to take this one question and these two points into very serious consideration.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has said and to ask the same questions about the kind of premises to which the clause would refer. I should also like to know how they are going to be alerted to the need for action. Have
272
the Government given any attention to the AMA's worry about a possibility of a closing order being achieved, possibly because of precautions being needed, but this being taken advantage of by the landlord in order to get vacant possession? I understand that some landlords in London have been using closing orders to get vacant possession, and there is an anxiety that with paragraphs 3 and 9 of the Government's new schedule this could be done. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about that. Again, I am very interested in the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the latter point which the noble Baroness, Lady David, raised in many ways highlights the great difficulty that there is in coming forward with something which on the one hand both recognises and sets out to do something about what is a very real problem and, on the other hand, considers the enormous open-endedness and all that flows from that and what it could mean. It is a very difficult one to get just right. I suppose one will not get it just right, but one will get it as right as one can. That is why I said—my noble friend said he was not here when I said it; that is fair enough—at the beginning that what we really must do here is have discussions. We have already had first talks with the local authority associations. As I recall it, the housing consultative council met within the last 14 days or so, when this matter was talked about, and all the local authority associations were involved. Clearly, this is one instance where there will have to be the most careful consultation and discussions with the AMA and the others to pick up the point that the noble Baroness makes and the many others which flow from the very considerable requirement that is being put forward.
I should like to put right an omission I made on Amendment No. 143, which in itself is a minor amendment. There has been a new paragraph 12, which says that the first italicised passage has been deleted and it should now read simply, "Section 15". It has no sinister implications, but I have to put the record right. My noble friend Lord Hylton asked which properties will he made the subject of the new duty. This is exactly the point that I was making a moment ago.

273
Clearly there will have to be discussions with local authorities. The Kilburn tragedy, of course, is precisely the kind of case that must be used as an example to see exactly what flows from it. This in itself has not touched it all off, but every time—sadly it has to be said that this is not the first time—that these tragedies take place it only highlights the enormity of the dilemma, on the one hand, of wanting to make sure that there is proper provision, which is so necessary, and, on the other hand, not getting into a scene whereby one could risk closure of so much accommodation because of what that would mean. No one in your Lordships' House would claim that there is a simple solution. Therefore, we had best arrive at a solution by sitting down, as we intend, and having discussions. I hope that answers the point. In this amendment the Government are making an attempt to take this on board while this legislation is going through. I feel sure that there is great interest—that is the minimal word I can use—in this. People are concerned, and I have confidence that with this amendment and what will flow from the Bill we shall get some action very quickly.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, before this amendment is finally accepted, may I voice the disquiet that I feel about the amendment and the debate upon it? I think the House needs to appreciate that the law is not being changed one iota by this amendment unless and until the Secretary of State takes upon himself to use the new powers that are given in paragraph 1. What I fear is that these powers will be talked about to some extent and then put on a shelf, as I understand similar powers under the Fire Precautions Act have been, and used only in a very small number of circumstances, perhaps when there are very big institutions involved, and that they will not meet the dangers that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, talked about, which were exemplified by the Kilburn fire. We ought to have from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, a commitment by the Government that these powers will be vigorously used. Even if he cannot give us the detail of what kind of buildings will be specified by them, he should give us an undertaking that there will be vigorous use of these powers, perhaps more vigorous than the local authorities themselves would like to see, so that means of escape from fire can be provided
274
and people are not trapped in ill-provided hostels.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say that I do not know that I can or need to add to what I said when I made my opening remarks, which I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, were very carefully thought through. This was not just a case of having speaking notes and reading things out. I try not to do that. It is a case of looking very carefully into what is said, talking about it, thinking about it and adjusting it where necessary. That is why the words chosen, which will be in Hansard, were chosen very carefully. I hope they gave the impression of concern and urgency as well.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 131, line 41, leave out ("£5,000") and insert ("£6,750").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate. This amendment is self-explanatory. I set out in detail on the Committee stage, at column 665, the reasons for it. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, very kindly asked whether I would withdraw it so that, if necessary, it could be discussed further. I hope that he has had a chance to discuss it further. There was one other point in regard to Scotland which he was kind enough to write to me about. In his letter, he said he understood that, in the light of the provision being made in the Housing Bill, further consideration was being given to the situation in Scotland. I should be very grateful if he would let me know whether he has had a chance to do that. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Vickers is quite right. At the Committee stage we said that we would take this away. We had much persuasion and eloquence from all sides of your Lordships' House on this. We have given it further consideration, and I am very pleased to be able to inform my noble friend and your Lordships that, having taken it away, we are content to accept this amendment.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to thank my noble friend for his kindness in accepting this amendment. I believe it will give a great deal of help to many homeless people.
6.20 p.m.
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS moved Amendment No. 98:
After Clause 113, insert the following new clause:
("Housing subsidies
.—(1) The provisions of section 24(1)(B) of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 shall have effect where a person borrows, or two or more persons borrow jointly, from a qualifying lender on the security of a freehold or leasehold estate of the borrower, or of one or more of the borrowers (including an estate held jointly or in common by the borrower, or one or more of the borrowers and one or more other persons) in land in Great Britain, and the following conditions are satisfied:—

(a) that the loan is or was made as part of a scheme under which not less than nine tenths of the proceeds of the loan are or were applied to the purchase by the person or persons to whom it was made of an Annuity ending with his life or with the life of the survivor of two or more persons (in this section referred to as "the Annuitants") who include the person or persons to whom the loan is made;

(b) that at the time the loan is made the person to whom it is made or each of the Annuitants had attained the age of 65 years; and

(c) that the person or persons to whom the loan is made or each of the Annuitants uses the land on which it is secured as his only residence.

(2) The borrower or borrowers may by notice in writing to the lender in such form as the Ministry may direct (in this section referred to as an "Option Mortgage") elect that the loan shall be subsidised in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 and the Option Notice shall be treated for all purposes as if it were an Option Notice made under the provisions of section 24 of the said Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 98 standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and myself. I must begin by declaring an interest because, as I have explained to your Lordships before, I am an insurance broker being a director of a subsidiary company of a firm of Lloyd's brokers.
I moved an amendment in exactly similar terms to this amendment at the Committee and Report stages of the Social Security (No. 1) Bill. The amendment had—and still has—the strong support of Help the Aged and Age Concern, two leading organisations dealing with the problems of the elderly. The amendment attracted widespread support from all parts of the House, not least from the Government Benches, from which the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, the noble Baroness. Lady Elliot of Harwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, spoke sympathetically. However, at that time the Government said that the amendment was not relevant to that Bill, and on a Division the amendment was defeated by 12 votes. I tabled it again in Committee on this Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, confirmed that this is the right Bill to which to move such an amendment, but I withdrew the amendment at that stage in order to consider the comments which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, had made.
I imagine that by this time the House will be familiar with the purpose of the amendment so I will restate it only briefly. Elderly people owning their own homes but with inadequate income can supplement their income by raising a mortgage in order to purchase an annuity. Out of the annuity they pay the interest on the mortgage and the balance of the annuity provides the extra income. Those paying tax enjoy tax relief on the mortgage interest, which makes the arrangement much more attractive to them than to non-taxpayers. Indeed, as the situation is at present, the arrangement may not prove suitable for the non-taxpayer. The amendment seeks to extend to the non-taxpayer the option mortgage arrangements available to non-taxpayers raising a mortgage to buy their house. Under this they pay a lower Government subsidised rate of interest on the mortgage. Since elderly taxpayers have been helped in the same way as taxpayers buying their houses, it seems only just that elderly non-taxpayers should be helped in the same way as non-taxpayers buying their houses.
I should like now to consider briefly the arguments which have been advanced at various times by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, against the amendment. First,

277
it has been argued that there is no general principle that tax relief for taxpayers must be matched by subsidies for non-taxpayers. I agree that that is so but it has been done for house purchase. Recognition of the need to help non-taxpayers has led to the replacement of child income tax allowances by child benefit. In both those cases it was felt that non-taxpayers should be helped as well as taxpayers. It seems to me that there is an overwhelming case for helping the elderly non-taxpayers whom we are now considering.
Secondly, it has been argued that tax relief on loans to purchase life annuities has never been regarded as an instrument of public policy. It was further argued that when in 1974 tax relief on loans was being withdrawn for all but a limited number of purposes, home income plans were exempted only because the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, who moved the amendment in another place, wanted to protect those who had already taken out such plans. However, the fact is that the exemption covered future as well as existing home income plans and it did become an instrument of public policy. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, cannot be here today, but he has written to me in these terms:
"I am delighted that you are going to make another attempt to secure the benefit of the option mortgage for non-taxpaying home owners. This has my full-hearted support."
Thirdly, it has been argued that the option mortgage scheme is really designed to encourage home ownership, and that to use it for the purpose proposed by the amendment would be a completely new departure. I see no reason why that should not be so. From time to time we are bound to have completely new departures, and if we find a new purpose for something which was originally designed for another purpose it would be foolish not to use it.
Fourthly, it has been argued that the tax relief on the mortgage interest compensates for the tax on the interest element in the annuity. It is argued that they balance out and therefore no advantage is given under the present arrangements to the taxpayer. The interest element on the annuity in home income cases is never more than one-third of the interest on the mortgage, so tax relief is a very decided
278
advantage to the taxpayer. Fifthly, it is argued that if the amendment is passed home income schemes would become more attractive to non-taxpayers than to taxpayers since, it is argued, the subsidy on the interest rate equals the tax relief and the non-taxpayer does not pay tax on the interest element in the annuity. This advantage to the non-taxpayer would be very marginal indeed, for this reason: The rate of interest on the mortgage and the annuity rate are both kept very low in these schemes. Because the annuity rate is low the taxable element in the annuity is very small and is regarded as very largely capital; the tax on it would be even smaller.
Sixthly, it is asked whether we should use taxpayers' money to provide extra income for a particular group of old people. In my view there is no difference in principle between tax relief and a subsidy. Both are methods of helping particular groups of people and the Government have already selected elderly taxpayers when making these arrangements. It is wrong to leave out those who need help most; namely, the elderly non-taxpayers.
Then it is argued that the average outright home owner spends only 4½ per cent. of his gross household income on housing and therefore that class of people do not require help. But the group we are thinking of are not average; their income is well below average. Most of them live in old houses where the upkeep can be extremely heavy, and in any case as I have already pointed out, the tax-paying home owners are helped.
Finally, there is the question of cost. On 6th May the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that the Government estimate was that it would cost £10 million a year. My view is that it would cost something like £2·5 million, taking into account the number of these plans taken out so far. Then we have to bear in mind the cost of maintaining people in care if they are unable to continue to live in their own homes because their income is insufficient. On 4th July the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said in Committee that the cost was not the kernel of the argument. He said:
"I do not at all make my case on that point".
The noble Lord's case depended on the other arguments. However, the House

279
may feel, in view of what I have said about them, that the other arguments do not really stand up.
I should like to conclude by quoting from a letter which I received the other day from a lady living in the Midlands. She said:
"I should like to thank you very much for your support in this and to say that I hope very much that you will continue to fight to remove the obstacle that prevents folks such as myself from taking out a home ownership annuity. What a difference it would make to our lives".
My Lords, I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Banks, as I did on the previous amendment. I think it will be recognised by all parties that when the benefit of this plan was discussed in 1974 the interest on mortgage was specifically allowed for tax relief, which considerably increases the benefit of this plan as not only would this help elderly people who find times hard but, by enabling them to keep their independence and stay in their homes, it would help take the weight of some of them off the public or private sector, and this would provide extra housing. However, although the plan was designed to help those in need, it was really only used for those with large incomes, large enough to pay tax and make use of the available tax relief. As to the large numbers of elderly people on much lower incomes, in the so-called poverty trap, who cannot claim tax relief and thus take advantage of this useful plan, if something similar to the existing option mortgage could be extended to them they could obtain subsidy instead of tax relief, which would put them on a par with their wealthy contemporaries.
The only alternative for many of these elderly people is to sell their homes, but as most of them already live in small, comparatively inexpensive houses they cannot usually buy something else and they have to queue up for heavily-subsidised council accommodation or other accommodation for the elderly. My Lords, this crusade, if I may put it that way, has been going on for three years now, and only recently have the Government—and I am grateful to them—decided which department should be
280
responsible. As I said in a previous debate, when the elderly people made their plans for retirement they had no idea what inflation would do, and that it would wreck their plans and perhaps their lives. I beg to support this amendment.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I speak as an ex-director of social services who was responsible for administering the Health Services and Public Health Act, which is the Act of Parliament which lays down that a local authority must give assistance and help to the elderly unable always to help themselves. I would like to support this amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on three counts. First of all, cost. Our difficulty in this country is that we always look at lists of columns separately and not together. This would save the country paying out supplementary benefit to a number of people who otherwise would have to receive supplementary benefit. Secondly, it would save cost in the provision of alternative accommodation for the elderly when they have to leave their homes; and, although figures have been mentioned, I think it has not always been costed, taking into account the cost of an old people's home or wardened accommodation. The cost of keeping someone in an old persons' home now is between £90 and £120 a week. In view of the number of people this Bill would cover, local authorities could save a great deal of money.
On the question of facilities, it is well known in your Lordships' House, so I apologise for saying it again, that facilities for the elderly in this country are woefully inadequate. We have not enough hostels, old peoples' homes or wardened accommodation. Indeed, if we had it, that is not the kind of accommodation that the elderly want. If we have to provide that accommodation, we are providing accommodation which might be necessary, but is not always the kind of accommodation that the elderly like. Thirdly, it is a question of what it is that people want and need. I maintain that they want independence; they want to be in their own homes. They do not want to move away from the communities in which they live; they want to stay in the place they have known. Therefore, I beg to support this amendment.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should also like to support this amendment. I feel that the arguments have been so well deployed both by the mover and the subsequent speakers that I will not waste valuable time replying. I would merely say that this proposal must be in line with the Government's thinking, because this is an attempt to assist people, as the noble Baroness who has just spoken so rightly said, to remain in their own homes and not to be a charge on the State. This is a group who would particularly resent that, but who would be quite happy if they could indeed draw an annuity and remain in their own homes for as long as possible.
I am very heartened to see that the amendment states clearly who is concerned—those over 65—so we know precisely who we are talking about. I would also say to the Minister—I know this is something he will accept—that it does not cover a very large number of people. These must be the kind of people we have been thinking about right throughout our consideration of the Bill, and I am sure that the persistence and humanity of the mover of the amendment and those who have supported it will be rewarded. We look to the Minister, as he has already accepted one amendment this evening, to do the same again, for a large number of your Lordships who support it and a small number of people who will benefit.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, while in a sense perhaps biased as president of Help the Aged, I would like to support this amendment. I will not detain your Lordships since the arguments have already been fully advanced. It has always seemed to me that, although sufficient account has been taken of the money that would be saved if this amendment were accepted, in the various fields described by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in the end all it means is that a fairly small number of people who are too poor to obtain tax relief will be enabled to die in their own homes. One has to take into account in reverse the various aspects which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has described. I hope very much that the Government may be able to accept this amendment.
It seems to me that we have become an uncaring people. I have no complaint because I am much better off this year
282
than I have been for years owing to Mrs. Thatcher's kind tax reliefs. Exactly what I have done to deserve this I do not know, and how it benefits the country I am not sure, but I am sorry if it is at the expense of the poor, of those who want to bury their dead in decency, who want maternity benefits, and so forth. Here, at least, the Government taking human charity into account, ought, I submit, to accept this amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I hope the noble Lords will pay the same detailed attention to what I have to say as they have done to other noble Lords who have spoken because, despite the very emotive tones that have been used in this debate, I believe there are other arguments which in fact show that to do what this amendment suggests would not benefit more elderly people. It would in fact provide benefit to some at the expense of many more elderly people. May I go through the points carefully. I have tried to look, as did the noble Lord, Lord Banks, at what has been said before. I have taken the arguments and tried to think them through logically. This is the fourth occasion on which this amendment has been discussed in this Chamber in the last few months. I listened carefully to the arguments advanced earlier, and I have listened to them again during this debate. While one may indeed have sympathy with the intention that lies behind the amendment, I have to say at the outset that the Government's attitude to the amendment has not changed.
There are two questions to answer. First, should particular members of the group of non-taxpaying elderly outright owner-occupiers receive a direct subsidy from the Government to augment their incomes? Secondly, do they deserve a higher priority than the many other groups in society who make a case for additional help? I suggest that the supporters of this amendment have to build their case around the answers to these questions. With respect, such a case, in my view, has not been established.
I think there are two strands to the argument advanced by the supporters of the amendment: first, the point of principle or of equity. It is said that because taxpaying elderly outright owner-occupiers get tax relief, their non-taxpaying counterparts should receive option

283
mortgage subsidy. The availability of option mortgage subsidy as an alternative to tax relief is exceptional. There is no general principle that tax reliefs should be matched by corresponding subsidies. The option mortgage scheme was devised specifically to encourage house purchase and improvement. The amendment, by contrast, would augment the incomes of elderly home-owners; it would serve no housing purpose at all.
Supporters of the amendment have argued that tax relief serves no housing purpose either, but in this context tax reliefs are intended to prevent someone paying tax on part of his income which is to be paid to someone else as interest on a loan. Since non-taxpayers by definition do not pay tax, there is in this context no case for a corresponding subsidy. The option mortgagors are few in proportion to those who receive tax relief on their mortgages. If this amendment is passed, it is likely that the number of non-taxpayers taking advantage of it would far exceed the number of taxpayers who have life income plans. Those receiving option mortgage subsidy to augment their annuities would greatly outnumber those getting tax relief. That, I submit, just cannot be right. It would be a classic instance of the tail wagging the dog.
The second strand of the argument put by the supporters of the amendment is that of cost. I said at the Committee stage that I would not hazard a guess at the cost of the amendment, and as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, very fairly pointed out, I do not believe that that is the kernel of the argument. On an earlier occasion my noble friend Lady Young mentioned a figure. But if we are talking about cost—and I am not mentioning a figure—the difficulty is that nobody can say how many people might take advantage of the amendment. It would simply represent an open-ended commitment. No one can specify a number. Can a responsible Government really contemplate accepting such an open-ended commitment at any time, least of all at present when public expenditure is severely restrained?
I want to say again that that is not the kernel of the argument. It is a point I feel I must make in fairness to those who made the point before, and because it has
284
relevance, not least in terms of open-endedness. Surely, it cannot really be argued that the particular group of outright owner-occupiers whose incomes would be increased by this amendment are the first priority for additional help or that they are the most deserving of all groups of those in need. If this amendment were passed, I think it would be deeply resented by, among others, people in the rented sector, whose housing costs are far higher. A true comparison with tenants who receive rent rebates would require rebates of some 100 per cent. The average outright owner-occupier spends only 4½ per cent. of his gross household income on housing, while the housing costs of people in rented accommodation are about 10 per cent. after taking account of rebates. The noble Lord, Lords Banks, asked: what about helping the category of people to whom the amendment is directed? But what about helping the non-home-owner, who are also elderly people in many cases?
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said that although the option mortgage scheme was introduced as an aid to house purchase, it would be foolish not to use it for another useful purpose if one could be found. That is rather like saying that any method of tax relief or subsidy should be infinitely extendable. That is a principle that no Government could accept. The existence of the instrument must be subsidiary to the merits of the proposal.
Lord Banks also referred to child benefit as an example of assistance available to taxpayers and non-taxpayers alike. But an analogy cannot be drawn satisfactorily between child benefit and option mortgage subsidy for annuitants. The only qualification for child benefit is to have children, and a recipient's financial or housing circumstances are irrelevant. By contrast, an annuitant would need to be the outright owner of a marketable house to have made particular financial arrangements with a particular insurance company before he could benefit from this amendment.
I suggest that the essential point is whether it is justifiable to provide such additional help for people who as a group have very low housing costs and who may not as individuals be in the greatest need compared with other groups.

285
It would not be responsible for Government to fulfil their obligations to all elderly people by selecting for extra help particular members of this particular group. Moreover, I suggest that the Government cannot commit themselves to a new open-ended demand-determined commitment, least of all in these times.
I should like briefly to comment on one or two of the other points that were made. I do not accept the argument of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, when she talked about the facilities for the elderly being inadequate. Of course the facilities for elderly people are inadequate, but the facilities for all elderly people are inadequate, not just for this group. The argument does not help, in my view. The noble Baroness knows the tremendous respect and admiration I have for her knowledge and involvement in matters to do with the social services and the like. But I just do not see how, by singling out this one sector of the elderly, you are being fair in equity to all the others. I also do not take the point made by one or two speakers, that if you do not let them sell their homes in this way, then they will have to go to the local authorities for accommodation with the consequences of them doing that. It does not work that way.
I have several other points in front of me, because I write them all down as they are made and try to answer them. But at the end of the day I do not think there is much point. I accept entirely the great sincerity with which everyone spoke on this matter. I hope that in turn they will accept that I am sincere when I say that we are no less concerned with this than with any other group of the elderly. It is said that in this House if you merely mention the elderly in moving an amendment, a button goes and everyone goes with it. I do not think that that is so. I am convinced that your Lordships on all sides of the House will listen to all the arguments. There is a strong argument for helping all elderly people, but if we have to help them in one way or another let it be done on a basis that affects everyone and goes right across the board. Do not let us do what this amendment tries to do: wish to help a certain category of elderly people at the expense of other people, and thereby give them an advantage which I do not believe is justifiable. If your Lordships
286
will think carefully about this, I hope you will at least concede that there is an argument to be considered. I think the Government are putting the case fairly, having thought about it not for the first time but, indeed, as the noble Lord said, for the fourth time.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I think it is time that somebody from these benches rose to support this amendment. The noble
Lord, Lord Bellwin, mentioned priority and cost. I wonder whether your Lordships realise how minuscule the cost of accepting this amendment would be compared to the cost of subsidies to householders by means of tax relief on mortgage interest and subsidies to council house tenants. The combined cost of the latter two; that is to say, subsidies to council house tenants and tax relief on mortgage interest, amounts to no less than 1,330 times the cost of this scheme, if we take the figure suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, of £2·6 million. But even if we take the figure of £10 million suggested a few months ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, it is still 346 times the assumed cost of the scheme. Furthermore, if we accept the extremely well reasoned contention of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the net cost of the scheme would be far lower because of the saving in the payment of supplementary benefit and rehousing costs; so your Lordships will see that the disparity is even greater. I hope, therefore, that you will support this amendment.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this amendment. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, did not state the case properly when he mentioned the equity argument in connection with the option mortgages. The option mortgage scheme was introduced simply because the mortgage relief was not only anomalous but was regressive in its incidence. The richer you are, the greater the benefit you receive. If the noble Lord consulted his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who was the author of the tax credit plan, which was very much in the spirit of this amendment, he would put him right on the true nature of the equity aspects involved.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to those noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I think

287
all those who have spoken, other than the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, have supported it. Of course, I accept the sincerity of the noble Lord, about which he spoke, but I must confess that I thought the arguments which he put forward were precisely the arguments which I had dealt with in my opening remarks. I thought I had shown that they would not in fact stand up. I will not go over them all again, but I think the basic argument on which opposition to this particular amendment has been presented is the argument: Should this particular group have a subsidy? That is the particular group of elderly non-taxpayers. Since a precisely similar group, in exactly similar circumstances, of elderly taxpayers has been selected and people who are better off have been selected and given an advantage and help in order to do this, it seems only right and fair that people at the bottom of the scale who need it most should be given the opportunity. There is no reason to suppose that the numbers involved would be so very large compared with those who receive tax relief. The number of schemes since the idea was introduced seven years ago has been only 3,000, and the figure which I gave was worked out on the basis that there would be 10,000 in a
year. So I believe I was being very generous in arriving at that figure.
It is said that it would be exceptional to do this; that there is no general principle. Yet it has been done in other cases, and if that is so, why should it not be done in this case, if the merits of the case demand it? There is no question of having an open-ended commitment for option mortgage so that it would be extended to all kinds of other things. It would be extended only if, on some other occasion, the merits of the case seemed to suggest it, as the merits of this case seem to me to suggest it.
We return to the fundamental point that if help is given to elderly taxpayers, then elderly non-taxpayers in exactly similar positions should be given the same kind of help as is given in the case of house purchase, and I hope that your Lordships will support this amendment in the Division Lobby.
6.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 98) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 85.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think that at this stage it might be for the convenience of the House if the House resumed its discussion of the Bill on Report at eight o'clock, and if in the meanwhile we took the business which is to be dealt with during the dinner hour. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until eight o'clock.

HOUSING BILL
Consideration on Report resumed.
Schedule 15 [Rent rebates and allowances.]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 140, line 10, at end insert ("or, where the housing co-operative is a housing association, but for sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 1977").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to correct a technical flaw in the drafting of Schedule 15 as it affects tenants of local authority housing co-operatives constituted under

297
Schedule 20 to the Bill. It is, of course, the intention that tenants of housing co-operatives should be entitled to rent allowances, and subsection (5)(f) of the new Section 19 of the Housing Finance Act 1972, inserted by Schedule 15, is intended to provide for this. Subsection (5)(f), however, defines a housing co-operative tenancy by reference to a tenancy which would be a protected tenancy but for Section 16 of the Rent Act 1977, which excludes housing cooperatives. This deals satisfactorily with some co-operatives which are constituted as, for example, bodies of trustees; others, however, are constituted as fully mutual and industrial provident societies and although not of course registered housing associations, they would fall within the broad definition of "housing association" used in this schedule. Tenants of such co-operatives would therefore be protected tenants but for Section 15 of the Rent Act, which excludes housing associations, as well as Section 16. Subsection (5)(f) as currently drafted does not cater for this, but the insertion proposed puts the position right.
8.2 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 141, line 18, after ("3") insert ("to this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this corrects a minor drafting error by adding to the repeal of Schedule 15(5)(2) the words "to this Act", which should have been included in the repeal but were omitted in error. If they are not added to the repeal they will continue to stand in the 1972 Act and will have no meaning.
Clause 120 [Disposal of land by registered housing associations]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 88, line 3, after ("apply") insert ("(with the modification specified in subsection (4A) below)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 88, line 9, at end insert—
("(4A) The modification referred to in subsection (4) above is that the Housing Corporation is added to the bodies specified in subsection (5A) of section 104B.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke also to this with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
Clause 121 [Consent of Housing Corporation to disposals of land by housing associations and housing trusts]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 en bloc:
Page 88, line 26, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 27 and insert ("any particular land or description of land")
Page 88,line 43, leave out ("property") and insert ("land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 88. I beg to move.
Clause 122 [Accounts and audit]:
8.5 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 89, line 32, leave out ("and balance sheet").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the subsequent amendments through to No. 110 I move as a result of representations made to me and, I gather, also to the Ministry, by the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies which, as noble Lords possibly know, comprises a body for co-ordinating the activities in specific respects of the three institutes of chartered accountants in England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland: the Association of Certified Accountants, the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and accountancy. That committee, on behalf of its component bodies, which comprise the leading professional accountancy organisations in the United Kingdom, keeps a very watchful eye on all legislation which has any auditing or accountancy

299
implications and from time to time endeavours to advise successive Governments as to the legislation which comes before them which carries such implications.
As it applies to all the amendments on this issue appearing under my name, I should perhaps declare a very remote and contingent financial interest, since my firm, Halpern and Woolf, might conceivably in the future act for housing associations or charities. It is therefore proper that I should disclose that remote interest. At the same time, I wish to make it clear that I speak in an independent capacity only. It will not therefore he possible for me to bring these amendments to issue on a Division, because that would imply a party political interest on the part of those sitting behind me and those who sit on other Benches. These amendments are of an entirely technical and non-political nature.
In moving Amendment No. 105, I would ask for the indulgence of the House so that I may speak at the same time to the following amendments: Nos. 107, 108, 109A, 109B, 109C, 109D, 109E, 109F, 109G and 109H, which all embody essentially the same point. In the clause as drafted—and Clauses 122 and 123 and Schedule 16 incorporate substantially the same words as I seek to amend—there are references to accounts and balance sheets, yet it is well known in the accountancy and legal professions that the word "accounts" includes also the balance sheet, which is essentially part of the ordinary system of accounts. Therefore the term "balance sheet" is entirely redundant.
Substantially the same point arises on Amendment No. 107, where in view of the existence of the word "accounts" we eliminate the words "and balance sheet". Similar considerations apply in Amendments Nos. 108, 109, 109B, 109C, 109D, 109E, 109F, 109G and 190H in the relevant form according to the context in which the words appear. The consultative committee has already spoken to the Department of the Environment on this matter, and I sincerely hope that the Government may see fit to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's
300
argument that the word "accounts", encompasses balance sheets and that separate reference is unnecessary. I am therefore happy to accept the noble Lord's amendments.
With regard to Amendment No. 109F I appreciate the noble Lord's reasons, for moving it, and I accept that it makes paragraph 4 of the schedule consistent on the face of the Bill with paragraph 2. Therefore I am happy to accept that particular amendment, too. I thank the noble Lord for having gone to the trouble of explaining this matter to the House, and to myself in particular.
8.12 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 89, line 34, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 37 and insert—

("(a) the state of affairs of the association;

(b) the source and application of funds;

(c) so far as the housing activities are concerned its surplus or deficit during the financial year").

The noble Lord said: This amendment, which refers to Clause 122(1), deals with a slightly more complex matter than that with which the noble Lord has been good enough to concur on the previous amendment. If your Lordships look at Clause 122(1), you will find that towards the end of the subsection there is a reference to,
"the state of affairs of the association, so far as its housing activities are concerned, and of the disposition of funds and assets which arc, or at any time have been, in its hands in connection with those activities".
The purpose of this amendment is to leave out those words, and to substitute:

("(a) the state of affairs of the association;

(b) the source and application of funds;

(c) so far as the housing activities are concerned its surplus or deficit during the financial year").

The clause as drafted presents certain difficulties. In the first place, there is no requirement for the revenue accounts to show a true and correct view, which in all the circumstances is generally felt to be desirable. Secondly, the requirement that the balance sheet, or the state of affairs and the source and application of funds statement should show a true and fair view is restricted to the association's housing activities. Here we are up against a difficulty. If as part of the

301
accounts one is to present a balance sheet which comprises a statement of the assets and liabilities, together with particulars of funding and reserves, in the case of a charity or an association having activities which partially relate to housing activities, it is not possible to separate assets and liabilities relating to those specific activities, which is what the existing clause as drafted requires us to do. This is also true of the source and application of funds statement which shows, broadly speaking, the movements in assets and liabilities between balance sheets at different dates. The third difficulty is that the reference to the disposition of funds and assets would be far more in accordance with current usage if it were to be replaced by a requirement for a source and application of funds statement.
So it will be observed that that part of the clause that the amendment seeks to delete and to replace with the words proposed is not really possible of achievement. It is not possible to segregate a balance sheet, or an account of which a balance sheet is a part, showing the separate housing activities. Of course it is always possible to show a revenue account, and it is possible to say whether there can be a true and fair view established as regards that revenue account. But when it comes to dealing with the specific allocations of assets and liabilities of the organisation as a whole to this particular branch of its activities, that is quite impossible. I suggest that the words in the amendment are much more appropriate.
I realise that in saying that I am entirely in the hands of the Government. For reasons that I previously explained, I should not wish to force this matter to a Division; that would not be appropriate for what is an entirely non-party issue. It would place all Members of the House, particularly those at present absent from the Chamber, in an entirely impossible position. That may give the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, some cause for modest serenity over the whole question. So I venture most courteously to draw his attention to the fact that even though it may not be possible to bring the matter to a Division, his statement in reply to mine is likely to be faithfully reproduced in the professional accountancy and legal press, and that in the event of the Government being unable
302
to accede to what is a purely technical matter in order to clear up a legal complexity that would otherwise arise, the accountancy and legal professions would then be in a position to form an independent judgment of their own. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, first, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that I have very little modest serenity when speaking to experts on their own subject. I know my limitations only too well, and chartered accountancy has always been a subject on which, I hate to say, I am not an expert; I wish I were.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having explained the intention behind this amendment. As he said, its most important effect would be to widen the scope of Clause 122 so that the Secretary of State would be able to lay down accounting requirements on matters not connected with housing. At present, the only part of the requirements in Clause 122 and Schedule 16 that could involve non-housing activities is that relating to associations' balance sheets, which cannot be split up between various activities of an association.
One of the significant results of widening the clause in this way would be that the Housing Corporation could become involved in the examination of documents, other than balance sheets, not related to an association's housing activities. The Government believe that these would be unnecessary and undesirable effects, and certainly not ones that should be legislated for in a housing bill. I am glad to be able to reassure the noble Lord that our legal advice is that the requirement in Clause 122 for a true and fair view to be given of an association's affairs does indeed cover the production of revenue accounts.
The noble Lord also referred to the phrase "disposition of funds and assets". It is always possible, I am told, to argue that this or that bit of a statute might, with advantage, be differently drafted. We can only say that the present wording seems to us to be perfectly clear, and leaves no room for doubt. I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord has warned me that the words will be taken down and looked at very carefully, so I shall say no more than my brief allows me to say.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am very sorry indeed, of course, that the noble Lord has not seen fit to accept the amendments that have been laid before the House. In the course of his remarks he referred to parliamentary draftsmen. The profession of parliamentary draftsmen is one for which every Member of this House must have the most profound respect. Nevertheless, if the judgments of the Divisional Courts, of the appeal courts and of the House of Lords sitting judicially are to he taken into account on a whole series of matters, it is quite clear that over a considerable field and in quite a significant number of important instances parliamentary counsel have not always been beyond reproach in their drafting. I need refer the noble Lord only to certain aspects of the income tax Acts and the subsequent Finance Acts which have been commented on unfavourably from time to time, particularly in regard to their draftsmanship, by noble and learned Lords who sit in this House in their judicial capacity. I will merely hazard the view, therefore, that it may well be that in due course criticisms may be made of the parliamentary draftsman in this case. Nevertheless, I am indebted to the noble Lord for his courtesy, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Airedale): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I could put a single Question as to Amendments Nos. 107 to 109H.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with great respect, can we leave Amendment No. 109 out, please?
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendments Nos. 107 and 108:
Page 89, line 38, leave out ("and balance sheet").
Page 90, line 2, leave out ("balance sheet").
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 90, line 15, leave out from ("shall") to ("be") in line 16.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 109, which refers to page 90 of the Bill, Clause 122, and seeks to leave out the following words:
304
"in respect of its housing activities (and separately from its other activities, if any)…".
The reason why this amendment is moved is that there would seem to be conflict with paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule 16 to the Bill. If your Lordships will kindly look at paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule 16, which is at page 142 of the Bill, you will find that the charity is required for each period of account to prepare,
"a balance sheet giving a true and fair view (as at the end of the period) of the state of the charity's affairs";
whereas subsection (5) of Clause 122 seeks to narrow this to:
"in respect of its housing activities (and separately from its other activities…".
The two would appear to be in conflict with one another, and I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 109, to delete the appropriate words from subsection (5) of Clause 122.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the meaning and intention of this amendment. I am pleased to be able to reassure him, having checked the position very carefully with our advisers, that we are satisfied that the present wording of Clause 122 meets the point which he has raised. On Clause 122, I hate to say it to the noble Lord (he is being so kind and nice) but we think it would be unhelpful and (again, I hate to say it) undesirable. I should explain that the words we are concerned with do not rigorously constrain the scope of Schedule 16, to which we shall be coming in a moment: rather they provide an indication of what the reader will find when he turns to the schedule.
The schedule's requirements, as implied by Clause 122(5), are concerned first and foremost with housing activities. Indeed, the only reason why the schedule needs to embrace any other activities at all is that some associations will have balance sheets which are not confined to housing and which have to be read as a whole. In view of this, we see no need to delete these words. Indeed, we think that to do so would be unhelpful to those less familiar with these provisions than the noble Lord.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, does the noble Lord desire to withdraw the amendment?
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I note that the noble Lord does not consider that the amendments would be helpful. I am not quite sure which body is going to be helped by the retention of these words, but I am quite confident that if any litigation should ever arise on this clause possibly learned judges may feel constrained to observe that it might have been well to have clarified it on the lines that I have ventured to suggest to your Lordships. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 123 [Enforcement of s. 122:]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: With the leave of the House I could put into a single Question Amendments Nos. 109A to 109H.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendments Nos. 109A to 109H:
Page 90, line 34, leave out ("and balance sheets")
Page 90,line 38, leave out ("and balance sheet")
Page 90,line 44, leave out (",balance sheet")
Page 142, line 42, leave out ("and balance sheet")
Page 143, line 29, leave out ("and balance sheet")
Page 143,line 32, leave out ("accounts give") and insert ("revenue account gives")
Page 143,line 46, leave out ("and balance sheet")
Page 144, line 2, leave out ("or the balance sheet").
8.29 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 144, line 7, leave out from ("and") to ("and") in line 9 and insert ("accounts and all other documents of the charity;").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment that seeks to put the clause into some kind of form in which it will not be contradicted elsewhere in the Bill. It will be observed from the amendment that it is desired to eliminate the words,
"and to all other documents relating to those activities"
from paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 16, and to substitute the words,
306
"accounts and all other documents of the charity".
My Lords, this clause gives the auditor the right of access to the various books and documents which he is entitled to see. But if one looks at paragraph 4(2)(b) of the same schedule one finds that the auditor's report shall give an opinion as to whether in the auditor's opinion the balance sheet gives a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the charity as at the end of the period of account. Yet, paragraph 5 only gives him the right of access at all times to the books, deeds and accounts of the charity so far as relate to its housing activities.
The duty imposed on the auditor by paragraph 4(2)(b) gives him a responsibility over the charity as a whole. Paragraph 5(3)(a), as at present drafted, only gives him the right of access to the charity's activities as far as its housing activities are concerned. The two are in conflict. If the auditor has a duty to give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the charity, clearly he must be entitled to access to all the books, accounts and documents relating to that charity rather than being restricted merely to those which relate to the housing activity. I should have thought that the logic of that, even though it may have been enunciated in professional terms, is clear enough to your Lordships. I therefore hope that the Government will seek to remove this blatant contradiction and accept the amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, once again I have to stand up and risk the censure of the noble Lord opposite warning me of what will happen in legal cases to come when the Government's advice on this Bill has been proved wrong. I can only say that his legal and financial advisers, who, I am sure are the most eminent of men, are in conflict with the legal and financial advisers who are advising us. Therefore, I have to put to the noble Lord and the House what our advisers, despite having had the advice of the noble Lord, still persevere in advising.
I am told that I can assure the noble Lord that his amendment to paragraph 5(3)(a) to Schedule 16 is unnecessary. The reason here is quite simply that paragraph 5(3)(b) will allow the auditor to obtain any information which he needs

307
to carry out his duties. It follows that if any of those duties touches on an association's non-housing activities, he can apply to the trustees or officers of the association to provide the relevant information. That is the advice I have to give.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am quite sure that many members of my profession will be grateful for his explanation and assurances. The assurances have been so specific that I am still a little at a loss as to why they could not be incorporated in the Bill itself. Nevertheless, I can hardly carry the matter further, for the reasons I have already described. I would thank the noble Lord for his courtesy and his department for the courtesy that they have shown to representatives of the accountancy profession with whom these matters have been long discussed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, before the Question is put, may I say that the charitable housing associations in particular are extremely grateful to the noble Lord for the care, consideration and thought which he has put into drafting these amendments and in moving and speaking to them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 146, line 5, at end insert—
("(6A) Nothing in this section prevents the grant or renewal of a tenancy by an association whose rules restrict membership to persons who are tenants or prospective tenants of the association and preclude the granting or assignment of tenancies to persons other than members.")
The noble Lord said: Schedule 16 to the Bill which bans fee earning or duality of interest for housing association committee members, prevents associations granting tenancies to committee members or their close relatives; although it does not prevent existing tenants from becoming committee members. This satisfactorily prevents a possible abuse as far as the great majority of housing associations is concerned. It raises a problem, however, for fully mutual co-operatives where all members must be tenants or prospective
308
tenants, and in the co-operative's development stages, at least, the founder members must envisage granting themselves tenancies. This amendment removes that anomaly by ensuring that fully mutual associations can grant tenancies to members. I invite your Lordships to accept the amendment.
8.36 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 112:
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of certain housing associations from register
.—(1) In section 15 of the 1974 Act—

(a) after subsection (2) there is inserted the subsection set out below; and

(b) in subsection (6) for the words this section "there are substituted the words" subsection (2) above.

(2) The subsection inserted after subsection (2) is:—
"(2A) Where a body which is registered—

(a) has not at any time received a grant under section 29 or section 32 below or any such payment or loan as is specified in paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to this Act; and

(b) requests the Corporation to remove it from the register;

the Corporation may, if they think fit, remove it from the register."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may know that the Housing Corporation has only very narrow powers of de-registering housing associations under the Housing Act 1974. These, in effect, apply only when an association is no longer operating as such. The sort of circumstances in which these new powers of voluntary re-registration would be of benefit mainly involve housing associations whose registration has always been unnecessary or inappropriate. When the 1974 Act first came into effect, the corporation registered a number of associations which continue to exist but whose activities are untypical of those of a registered housing association. Such associations will not have received public money in the form of housing association grant and probably have never had any intention of applying for grant. The registration often stems simply from a lack of understanding of the purpose of registration in the early days of the Act. They remain on the register simply for want of a

309
power to remove them. This clause enables associations which have not received public money to be de-registered with the corporation's consent. That consent is necessary to ensure, for instance, that an association does not de-register in order to avoid an inquiry into its affairs. I invite the House to accept the new clause.
8.38 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 92, line 29, leave out ("for any period") and insert—
("until such time as an amount equivalent to the original grant has been redeemed".)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I understand that this Bill is required to register the housing associations to service the grant redemption fund in their statutory accounts. This fund will, I suggest, show many surpluses derived from schemes which have been subject to the housing association grant. Such services will arise when the rental income is greater than the combined costs of the management and maintenance and loan repayments. The Secretary of State, I understand, is given the power to specify the uses to which monies may be shown in this fund which may be appropriate, with interest to any sums standing in this account. With the conception of the grant redemption fund—and this I gather was introduced by the previous Labour Government in their Housing Bill—it was considered by the Federation of Housing Associations, and they debated the principle at that time of the Government particularly having to claw back surpluses deriving from the housing association grants; in other words, what is known as the HAG subsidy.
It is recognised that there are some schemes where the management and maintenance costs are particularly low and fair rents are particularly high. This will make remarkable surpluses in years to come and the organisations concerned may have no other unprofitable schemes. I should like to suggest that any plans related to this activity could absorb these monies. I appreciate therefore that the Government may need to exercise control over surpluses from the HAG schemes in certain circumstances. I also recognise that some local autorities may turn
310
envious eyes on this grant system claiming that it is more generous than their own and that the Government Ministers may wish to demonstrate that there are other opportunities available to them to prevent the associations accumulating private fortunes.
I also accept the point put forward by the Department of the Environment that if associations have access to revenue deficit grants in their bad times, the Government could justify seeking some replayments of surpluses in good times. These various arguments do not lead to the conclusion that surpluses accumulated on the HAG schemes should in normal circumstances be returnable—this is the point I want to make quite clear—to the Government. I do not see that it is objectionable that such surpluses should be accounted for by means of grant redemption funds nor that the Government should keep a watchful eye over spending of such surpluses; but I must ask the Minister to make it clear that only in exceptional circumstances will these surpluses be clawed back. Grants were given, I suggest, and received in good faith; in order to secure them, associations have had to comply with a long list of requirements. Associations have carried out their responsibilities in these contractual relationships and Government have no right, retrospectively, to convert a grant into a repayable loan.
The NFHA policy, therefore, is that, in the fact of constant calls for "accountability" by the Public Accounts Committee and others, a grant redeption fund is not objectionable in principle. However, only in those cases where associations are unable to demonstrate that the funds shown in this account cannot be used constructively for forwarding the objects of the association, should Government require them to be paid back. It would be of the greatest help if the Minister is able to give us some reassurance that the intention is not sequestration of the monies in the GRF but that this is a mechanism for ensuring such surpluses are wisely spent.
I am worried about the open-ended nature of the "fund": it appears that the present wording of Section 113(1) indicates not just the "redemption" of the original grant received but a continuing

311
requirement for surpluses to be controlled by this GRF. In other words, as I understand this Bill, the Secretary of State has no discretion ever to stop the transfer to the GRF of income—even though the word "redemption" clearly implies that, when the grant has been redeemed, no further transfers would be necessary. It would seem very unfair for an association to go on transferring income from HAG schemes into the GRF for years after the full amount of grant had been redeemed.
So that in place of saying that surpluses shall be shown separately in the association's accounts "for any period", substitute the words:
"until such time as the Secretary of State determines that the grant has been redeemed".
If the Government cannot accept this amendment, it would at least keep the door open for further debate on the issue if the substituted words read,
"until such time as the Secretary of State shall determine".
The Federation has had to accept the concept of the grant redemption fund which takes the unprecedented step of considering that a grant can be regarded as a loan, but it is unfair in any circumstances, that the further implication that Government could be in the position of requiring payments not just of the original grant (with interest if necessary) but of further sums: this turns the original grant not even into a loan but into an investment by the Government. I believe it was not the intention of any Government to consider payment of HAG as a profit-making exercise and, even at a time of economic difficulty, for Government to seek such powers contravenes all the rules governing behaviour between two parties to an agreement. I beg to move.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, in rising to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Vickers I hope that, under this unaccustomed—but I hope reasonably stable ceiling—I am reasonably audible. I will at least be reasonably brief because many of the arguments which I used at the Committee stage in
moving what is now Amendment No. 115 apply very much to the amendment of the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in foreshadowing the assurances he intends
312
to give to charitable housing trusts has very fairly said that:
"surpluses arising from individual projects will only be recovered or directed in so far as they reflect the input of housing association grant".
The amendment of the noble Baroness would give statutory recognition to this principle, not only for charitable trusts but also very properly and equitably to the whole housing association movement.
If it be argued that the grants were more valuable in terms of present money values when given in 1974 or subsequently, I would say that the grants are still there in the bricks and mortar they were intended to bring together, thus fulfilling their purpose. But if the Minister should feel that inflation needs to be taken into account, it would, after all, be open to him, if he accepts this amendment, or has it pressed successfully upon him, to introduce an amendment to this amendment on Third Reading, authorising repayment up to the original value but computed to take account of inflation. Myself, I think that would be wrong because the bricks and mortar are still there fulfilling their purpose; but, either way, I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment so clearly moved by my noble friend Lady Vickers. The essence of this amendment is the question of time. What we are anxious to do is to prevent a perpetuity arising in favour of the Government and the Exchequer by inadvertence or by accident. Beyond that, I would say that I hope that on many occasions where such surpluses arise the Government will see fit to leave them in the hands of the association where the surplus is, given, of course that the Government are satisfied that that association can make a really good use of that money in the public interest.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Vickers will appreciate that on the vast majority of recent schemes housing associations have provided no money of their own whatsoever. The costs of the schemes have been covered by housing association grant supplemented by loans to be serviced out of rental income. It was never the intention of housing association grant that it should put an association into surplus, and I am sure at the time when grants have been

313
given initially the housing association movement never expected that it would be so.
This is likely to happen in future as a result of rent increases, particularly as the Bill is removing the out-dated 75p a week limit on housing association rents. While this is happening, loan repayment will remain constant in money terms and a gap will develop between income and expenditure the effect of which may be that housing associations will accrue large and fast-increasing surpluses generated entirely as a result of public funds. Associations may not have a sufficiently forward programme to put the surpluses to good use. May I say here, in case there is any misunderstanding about this, that the Secretary of State is not, and will not be, obliged in all circumstances to recover surpluses. He can, and undoubtedly sometimes will, simply direct their use. I cannot accept, nor could the Public Accounts Committee, that retention of these benefits would represent proper handling of public funds. Of course, where surpluses arise as a result of an injection of private funds to whatever degree in a project which has received housing association grant, I have already said, and no doubt will say again later on, that the surpluses will be recovered or directed by the Secretary of State, only in so far as they reflect the input of grant.
We shall ensure administratively that surpluses reflecting charitable endowments can be retained by the association with no strings attached—and I repeat, "with no strings attached". I do not accept that it can be said that the Government have no right to take back this money. We are talking about surpluses which accrue from public money and which accrue for the reasons I have given. I hope that we have made it categorically clear that the question of private funds is in no way affected. I frankly do not consider it to be unfair. I do not think—here I choose my words carefully—that it would be in the interests of the housing association movement, in which so many of us have believed so much for such a long time and, as I have said before so many of us feel will play a greater part in the future in housing than it may ever have done in the past. Certainly it has the potential. But I think if we reached the point where surpluses which
314
accrued in this way as a result of the injection of public money could not reasonably be recovered, if it was felt appropriate that they should be so recovered, or even put to use as the Secretary of State such as he might direct, I think it would do the housing association no good at all, and that is not what any of us want.
I cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that my noble friends, whose views on this I respect—and of course I do not come fresh to this tonight because we have had some correspondence and much discussion together since I have been anxious to try to assure them of the equity of what we are proposing,—might have felt that that would be so. In view of what I have said—and no doubt in one way or another we shall be talking about this further in respect of other amendments-I hope they may feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, There is one point that I should like to raise with the noble Lord. My amendment envisages paying back the amount necessary. Would he be kind enough to let us know in due course how that is to be dealt with?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House, I am not absolutely clear as to the precise point the noble Baroness is making but I will undertake, as I always do, to take it away and look at it. I cannot go further than that at the moment.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, on that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness FAITHFULL Baroness FAITHFULL had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 114:
Page 92, line 31, after ("projects") insert ("other than hostels").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment at Committee stage, and since then I have had a most helpful letter from the Minister. In view of that helpful letter, and with his assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, I shall not move the amendment.
8.54 p.m.
Viscount BOYD of MERTON Viscount BOYD of MERTON moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 92, line 32, at end insert—
("Provided that in the case of a Housing Trust which is a Charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960 any such surplus shall be divided in such proportion that the Capital Value of the Trusts Assets on the 18th of September 1974 bears to the total Housing Association grant payable to it by the date of the passing of this Act and only that part which is proportionate to the Housing Association grant payable shall be shown in its Grant Redemption Fund; the balance, being proportionate to the Trusts own assets shall be retained in the Trusts accounts as a General Revenue Reserve available for any of the Trust's objects.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and in the names of my noble friends and of the noble Baroness, Lady Denington. I am sorry that the wording of the amendment is complicated and rather daunting, but the problem is really a simple one. A broadly similar amendment was moved at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, and then withdrawn in view of certain assurances given by the Minister. I myself raised the matter during Second Reading and said that my anxieties were shared by the older charitable trusts—the Guinness Trust, a housing trust of which I am a trustee, the Peabody, the Sutton and Samuel Lewis Trusts. The House will know that the 1974 Housing Act set up housing association grants, now referred to in a rather unfelicitous but, I hope, not an ungrateful way as HAGS. But long before this Act was passed, a number of the older charitable trusts had very considerable holdings of land and buildings—some thousands of properties in the case of a number of them—and these particular holdings have been very little if at all affected by housing association grants. These assets will earn future higher rental surpluses, independently of surpluses generated by HAGS. It seems to us surprising that the whole of these future surpluses should be placed in the new grant redemption fund of each trust. Once in this trust, all monies will be subject to the complete control of the Secretary of State. There is another important point. The object of some of the older trusts, including the Guinness Housing Trust, include purposes in addition to housing and surpluses that arise in that way should surely not be regarded as
316
general housing association grants and then be automatically placed in a grant redemption fund.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister, whose housing record is supremely good and who is much trusted by charitable institutions and everyone else. He made certain helpful observations at Committee stage, and since then has been good enough to write to me and to have a talk with me. His statement on Committee stage recognised the arguments of the older charitable trusts, and he told your Lordships that he would be looking for a formula which would account fairly for the funding involved and would allow for the surpluses I have mentioned to be retained by the association and trusts. Those of us with anxieties do not suggest that surpluses arising on any projects which have received housing
association grants should be excluded from the grant redemption fund; nor were we intending to suggest that surpluses should not be divided. Our intention was that for relevant projects the surpluses which would have to be calculated in any case should be divided before they were transferred into the Grant Redemption Fund and only that part that was generated by HAGS should go into the Grant Redemption Fund.
That seems to us to be a much more acceptable and simpler way than putting all the surpluses on every HAG scheme into the fund and having to rely on a subsequent direction by the Minister, allowing the trust to share back from the fund into the trust's general revenue reserve. The Minister has assured me that the formula he is seeking will ensure administratively that surpluses arising on individual projects will be recovered or directed only in so far as they reflect the input of housing association grants. He has added that so far as private funds are concerned, it is intended that the Secretary of State will use his directive power to ensure that surpluses arising reflect that input can be retained by the association or trust and, as he said tonight, "With no strings attached".
We are very grateful for these assurances, but I confess that I should be very much happier if they could be embodied into the Bill. I remember, with some thirty years' experience of another place and nearly twenty years in this House, how

317
much more difficult it has proved in the past for a future Minister to escape from an undertaking given by a predecessor, if the undertaking has been written into a Bill, rather than left as a ministerial undertaking. But knowing in what respect the Minister is held in housing circles, and happily conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, has put her name to my amendment, I hope that I shall be satisfied when I listen with keen interest to what the Minister has to say. My Lords, I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness DENINGTON: My Lords, I am very happy to support this amendment fully. I am most grateful for the statement that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, made a few minutes ago about the protection of charitable funds, because a principle that everybody in this House would want to stand by is that those funds should be protected. But I support very strongly the point that it is a great safeguard for the future if we can have this amendment embodied in the Bill. Following the Minister's statement here, we can trust the present Government, but who knows what Government will follow? One cannot be too careful on this matter. Since the Government accept what we are putting forward, is it necessary for us all to go trooping into the same Lobby, which would be lovely, or will the Government just accept the amendment and embody it in the Bill, and then we can all rejoice?
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, in rising to support this amendment, I should declare an interest in that I am chairman of a small housing association which has already received a very limited amount of HAG. I should first like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for the very helpful remarks that he made earlier on Amendment No. 113, which bear on this amendment of my noble friend Lord Boyd. The essence of this amendment is the idea of apportionment, and I wonder whether I could give some instances of the kind of case where apportionment is so much needed.
The first is where the land on which housing has been built has been donated. The second is where part of the building costs have been donated by, for instance, charitable sources. The consequence of
318
this, as I know from my own experience, can be that higher standards will have been built into a scheme than would otherwise have been possible under the old cost-yardstick system. The result of the higher standards will be a higher fair rent. In the case of some older charitable trusts, they have properties which have been modernised with HAG repair grants. But those properties were already in ownership of the organisation before the receipt of the HAG, so that the existing property contributed by far the greater part of the total asset.
Finally, I have one small administrative point which I should like to put to my noble friend the Minister, on which I hope that he can give me an assurance. It concerns the calculation of the grant redemption fund. Can he assure us that it will not be necessary to go into all the complications of calculating the GRF, when an association is in overall deficit, which can clearly be shown when, for instance, that association is receiving revenue deficit grant. If my noble friend can give that assurance, it would be extremely helpful and would save a great deal of abortive and unnecessary administration in the future.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, to take up the last point made, I do not feel that I am able to give the assurance that my noble friend requests. After all, I suppose it is not impossible to envisage a situation where an association was in deficit for all kinds of reasons, and yet was in surplus so far as the funds which had come from grants were concerned. However, it must surely be a comfort to know that, if that were the eventuality, any Secretary of State would surely have to take that into account. But I could not give an assurance at this stage.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, said. I wonder whether I have more confidence in what a future administration that she supports would do, than she has. But I do not think that we should cross that bridge till we come to it. Some of us hope that it will be a long time before we come to it and, if that be so, then there will be no problem. I am sure that she has confidence in her ability to influence events at that time.
As I said on the previous amendment, I cannot accept that surpluses arising on

319
any projects which have received Housing association grant should be excluded from the grant redemption funds. I believe it to be a matter of accounting discipline that these surpluses should be identified. Nor can I accept the notion that surpluses should be divided on the basis of the proportional relationship between a charity's total assets and the total amount of grant paid. The effect of this would be that, even on projects which were provided entirely with housing association grant, only a proportion of the surpluses arising would come with the grant redemption funds.
However, I very much appreciate the importance of charitable endowments in the activities of many associations, particularly as my noble friend Lord Boyd said, the older housing trusts, and I can again assure noble Lords that, as I said during the discussions in Committee, we shall be seeking a formula to ensure administratively that surpluses arising on individual projects shall be recovered or directed only in so far as they reflect the input of housing association grant. So far as private funds are concerned, the Secretary of State will use his direction power to ensure that surpluses which reflect the input of those funds can be retained by the association or trust—and I say it again—with no strings whatsoever attached.
When considering the manner in which surpluses are to be calculated and the treatment of those surpluses, we shall be consulting representatives of the charitable trusts, because of the specific points that have been raised on the treatment of charitable endowments. I recognise clearly the keen concern that exists among the charitable trusts—and it is right that they should be so concerned—to ensure that whatever formulae are reached in calculating, in apportioning, in directing or whatever, this is something into which they should have an input. I am very happy to confirm again that we would want them to be putting in that input. I think this is the right approach. In view of that, I wonder whether my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment?
Viscount BOYD of MERTON: My Lords, it was never my intention to take this motion on the amendment to a vote,
320
but I would make one plea to the Minister: that so often when money is paid back to people to whom it belongs there are long delays before the payments are made. I very much hope that this will not be the case in this particular problem.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 131 [Working balance in Housing Revenue Account]:
9.9 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 94, line 24, leave out from ("of") to fourth ("the") in line 25 and insert ("the Housing Repairs Account").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an important amendment which was not moved at the Committee stage because of the pressure of time late at night. We think that public housing should not seek to be profit-making. It has been a long-standing principle that rents within an area are pooled. This means that existing tenants pay rent increases to help meet the cost of providing new houses. We do not want tenants to subsidise the general rates. Some may say that because on other occasions rate fund contributions have gone to housing revenue accounts there should now be no objection to that process being reversed.
Quite apart from the principal objection to that argument, in 1979–80, 180 authorities did not make any voluntary rate fund contribution to housing revenue accounts. At the beginning of this financial year, working balances in those accounts totalled some £70 million. It is precisely those authorities which had previously declined to make any rate fund contributions which are now most likely to be able to turn their working balances into profits for the general rate fund. I wonder whether the Minister is listening to what I say?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am very much listening to what the noble Baroness is saying.
Baroness DAVID: Good! Just one example taken from a set of statistics for 1979–80 shows that in that year South Shropshire, which is an independent council, expected to retain a working

321
balance of some £240,000, which is over £100 per dwelling. In other words, they could have charged rents of £2 a week lower without incurring any loss. Neither in that year nor in each of the two previous years did they make any voluntary rate fund contribution. It may be said that the profits from rents, by reducing the need to raise the rates, will help to keep down the cost of public expenditure. We object to this in principle but we look at this, too, in the context of the public expenditure plans for housing. Profits from rents going to the rate fund do nothing at all to reduce public expenditure on housing, so the Government are proposing that these profits should be taken away from housing on top of the reduction of £2 billion in public expenditure on housing.
This amendment seeks to prevent such profit-making, but to allow any balances from housing revenue accounts to be transferred to housing repair accounts. Let us look forward a few years. It is those authorities with little housing need and a fairly old housing stock which are in the easiest financial position. However, this in turn means that before long they will face higher costs for repair, modernisation or even replacement. It would be sensible housekeeping to set money aside for this in the housing repairs account over a period of years until it is needed. Until then, it could be "borrowed"—I put that in inverted commas—by authorities and thus still help to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement without being lost from the reduced funds to be available for public expenditure on housing. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, if I may say so with the greatest courtesy to the noble Baroness, I think that we have just heard a piece of tremendous humbug and hypocrisy. The operative word in this clause is "may". Here we have the Government giving to local authorities power and discretion to exercise their own judgment about the way in which they will combine the resources in their general revenue account and their housing revenue account. Noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite have argued time and time again that the Government are being inflexible and are interfering in the affairs of local government. Here in this clause the Government are being less rigid,
322
removing rigidities, being more flexible, giving local government more power, more discretion, and noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite complain.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I, too, really am astonished at this amendment. The noble Baroness began by saying that public housing should not be profit-making. I presume, therefore, that it is quite satisfactory to her that public housing should be loss-making; and there is plenty of evidence of that. I am not concerned with my brief on this. This was a subject which the local authorities, the local authority associations, talked about for years. The one thing they always said was that the right to decide what local rent should be, the right to decide what should be done with any surpluses from those rents, should be for local decision; and that is precisely what we are doing in this Bill.
There are authorities in the country who have annual rate fund contributions to their housing revenue accounts—in some cases well over £30 million a year—while other authorities with more public houses not only have no deficits, no rate fund contribution, but have actual surpluses. Yet here we have situations where like authorities have, on one side, massive losses which are made up for every year by their ratepayers, and, on the other side, authorities with great numbers of houses who have no such losses at all. All we are saying is that those authorities who have a surplus can, if they wish, apportion those surpluses as they want. What is the position at the present time? The position is that if one so manages one's affairs—and without charging expensive or exorbitant rents—one has a surplus, one may apply that surplus to housing purposes—that is perfectly in order—but one may not do anything else with that money.
There is no way that that can be right by any standards. What we are seeking to do in this Bill is to say to authorities, "Yours are the decisions. If you get it wrong, if you get it so that your rents are too high, you will answer to the local electorate for it. If you get it so that your rates are too high you will answer to the local electorate. But yours are the decisions and yours will be the decision to decide how you use that money". How

323
can it be wrong in this day and age for us to come along and say, "From now on you have the decisions to make. We will give you the freedom to make those decisions and you will answer for them to the people who elect you"? That cannot be wrong in any way that one looks at it.
I was really rather pleased at Committee when, of all the things that were raised, this was not raised. I felt that at last there was a realisation of the fact that this is what local government and local authorities want; it has to be right, and all sides of the House recognise it. Now it rears its ugly head again. I hope that the noble Baroness will be persuaded by the arguments and will not press the amendment.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I am not persuaded by the arguments. I think it depends on the importance one puts on the need for public housing. Homes are extremely important, and I think this is the point. We consider that homes in good repair are important, and that is the reason we have moved this amendment. But I will not press it at this time of night.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.18 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
("Avoidance of certain unauthorised disposals
.—(1) If—

(a) at any time after 18th July 1980 a local authority or a housing association has disposed of a house; and

(b) the disposal was one which, under section 104 of the 1957 Act or section 2 of the 1974 Act, required the consent of the Secretary of State or of the Housing Corporation (or would have required it had the relevant provisions been in force but was made without that consent;

then, unless the disposal was to an individual (or to two or more individuals) and did not extend to any other house, it shall be void (and, if made before the passing of this Act, be deemed always to have been void) and section 128(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 or, as the case may be, subsection (5A) (inserted by section 121(6) of this Act) of section 2 of the 1974 Act (protection of purchasers) shall not apply.
(2) In this section "house" includes a flat and "the relevant provisions" means Part I and sections 90 and 121 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the passage of this Bill, Parliament has expressed its clear will that secure tenants of local authorities and of certain housing associations should have the right to buy. The Bill sets out a procedure for tenants to exercise that right, a procedure which is designed to ensure that this right can be confidently exercised. But we must be just as sure that the expressed will of Parliament cannot be frustrated through any loopholes in the legislation. This was bound to be a preoccupation of the Government. The attitude and statements of the Opposition were bound to ensure that. In another place, the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Kaufman, for instance, has said that though in his opinion any opposition to the Act should be conducted within the law there is no obligation on any citizen in the country to obey the spirit of the law. No doubt his view reflects that of a number of people in local authorities. Hence the effect of the law must be entirely clear, with no scope for any landlord to wriggle out of complying with the expressed will of Parliament. Hence, this new clause.
The basic purpose of the new clause is to ensure that no landlord should be able to succeed in frustrating the right to buy by disposing of some or all of its housing to some other body to whom the right to buy does not apply. The Bill in some cases by amendment of prior legislation provides for a comprehensive requirement consent both to the disposal of "Part V" houses and land and also to the disposal of land and houses by registered housing associations. This consent requirement is needed in order to simplify the present law. We have also seen it as the means to ensure that tenants whom Parliament intends to have the right to buy shall not be deprived of that right as a result of disposals to other bodies.
However, as it stands, Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1972 has the effect that if a disposal takes place without necessary consent the person to whom it is made still gets valid title. The Bill makes similar provision in respect of housing association disposals in Clause 121. We have come to the conclusion therefore that, as the Bill stands, the rights of tenants are not yet adequately protected.
The new clause deals with the problem by providing that a disposal which takes

325
place without consent will be void; in other words, it will be as if the disposal had not taken place and tenants will still have their right to buy. The important exception is made, to deal with the case where an individual makes a single purchase of a house or flat. It is possible that an authority might sell or lease a house or flat and do so without consent unwittingly perhaps because it had not conformed with the terms of an available consent. Such a disposal would clearly not subvert the right to buy, and it is clearly right to protect the position of the individual purchaser in such cases.
The new clause also deals with a loophole in the present requirements for ministerial consent for the disposal of "Part V" council houses, that is the requirements which apply until the relevant part of the Bill comes into force. Under the present law, the consent requirements may not cover all possible disposals. We are not prepared to see the right to buy snatched from tenants by any landlord who might seek to get rid of his housing through the gaps and sought to make a perverse disposal in the short time that the Government hope remains before enactment. The new clause provides, therefore, that such a disposal also would be void.
My Lords, we must ensure that individual tenants have the rights which Parliament intends them to have and that these rights are not taken away. These provisions have that purpose. They apply only to transactions after the new clause was tabled. The Department and the Welsh Office have already written to all local authorities warning them of the new clause. The Housing Corporations are writing similarly to housing associations. I beg to move.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, the Minister asked us earlier to speak rather slowly so that we might hear. In fact I found that he went extremely fast, so if I ask foolish questions I must ask him to forgive me. May I ask whether the effect of this amendment is to introduce retroactive legislation which will make any disposals by local authorities or housing associations which have occurred after 18th July null and void unless they received the consent of the Secretary of State? Also, will the Minister confirm that if this amendment is accepted, transactions which are legal today would
326
become illegal once this Bill becomes an Act? Surely that is a departure from any previous legislation.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, may I first apologise for speaking perhaps more quickly than I should have done. One is caught up in the wish to get on with the proceedings but at the same time to consider the problems of the Hansard writers. I accept that sometimes it makes it difficult to follow some of the points and I shall try to slow down a little in future. I am not absolutely certain as to the answer to the noble Baroness. Again, as I have said before, I can give—
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me, there really must be an answer.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, of course there is an answer and I was about to say that I can give my interpretation of it if the noble Baroness wishes, but I think it is always preferable for me to confirm and to write to the noble Baroness and that I gladly undertake to do. If the noble Baroness is not happy with that, then I will check this point out and will return to it even as we continue with the proceedings.
Schedule 19 [Provisions replacing sections 90 to 91A of Housing Finance Act 1972]:
9.25 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 151, line 41, at beginning insert ("normal")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 119 and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 120, 121 and 122. With this schedule we move now into the private sector, dealing mainly with the service charges in the larger blocks of flats in our cities, and in particular in Inner London, which have been causing much concern. This is not at all a party matter. We are grateful to the Government for meeting us in many respects and for improving the schedule enormously, both in another place and since it came to this House, and we are also grateful for the actons of the Inner

327
London Members of Parliament, most of whom are also members of the governing party.
The purpose of the amendments is to restrict the amount of money that can be levied on tenants under the heading of "service charges" to normal maintenance and to the actual costs incurred. I readily concede that running repairs need to be done, but in some mansion blocks tenants are being asked to pay large sums in advance, sometimes two or three years in advance, for major repairs and reconstruction. Some landlords, either directly or through their managing agents, in certain blocks of flats are attempting to establish what is called a reserve fund, amounting sometimes to a very large sum, against any eventualities and even as a hedge against inflation, or so they describe it.
The effect of this is that tenants are giving the landlords an interest-free loan over and above the normal service charge for what, in many cases, should surely be capital expenditure, and the landlord has the benefit of a cash flow far in advance of what is required. If a tenant refuses to pay, he is threatened with the forfeiture of the long lease which he has bought, sometimes for a large sum; and I have seen some such letters. They may he bluff, but, on the other hand, if they are not bluff they are very worrying for the recipients. There is no control over the sums involved, amounting, sometimes, to tens of thousands of pounds—which a later amendment of mine seeks to rectify—and in some cases the landlord uses his interest-free loan to refurbish empty flats in the block which are then sold off at great profit.
The Government say that charges should be restricted to what is reasonable. But what is reasonable? If the landlord says that the roof may need repairing one day in the future and this will cost so many thousands of pounds, it may be reasonable, but what proof is there that the work needs to be done? If he wants to put Chinese silk in the communal hall in order to get a higher price for the empty flats that he is hoping to sell off, it might be at a reasonable cost for Chinese silk, although the tenants (who, of course, are doing the paying) may not want this expensive form of wall covering.
328
Tenants under the Bill as at present drafted are at the whim of the landlord, who will be able to demand large advance payments for expenditure that could be proved to be reasonable in the context.
I consider that service charges should be used for normal running repairs and normal maintenance, which they always used to be until recently, and for which they are still used by many good landlords. In Dolphin Square, after it was taken over by Westminster Council when it was under threat of being taken over by some of these offshore property companies, there have been no problems of this kind. So it can be done. Any other major structural repairs, general refurbishing of empty fiats and so-called reserve funds should be, I submit, a capital liability for the property company concerned. What I have described is by no mans universal practice. There are, of course, many good landlords, but there are, I regret to say, some bad ones; and it is to give tenants the extra protection over and above what the Government have already rightly given them that I have ventured to put down these amendments. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising once more this question of advance payments. I think our objectives are very much the same, and, as the noble Lord was kind enough to say, we have had some discussion on this matter since the Committees proceedings; we have talked about the difficulties of adopting any approach which is different from that now laid down in the schedule.
As I have said before, there is no question of party politics here. We want to try to get the law right so that it operates fairly for both landlord and tenant and promotes good management of blocks of flats. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I explain the background and the view we have reached. First of all, it has been common practice for leases of flats to provide for some part of a service charge to be paid on an interim basis. This is meant to contribute to such items as porters' wages, cleaning the common parts and fuel costs. If a landlord could only claim for such items once a year after he had paid for them out of his own pocket, his financing costs would

329
clearly be very substantial. Without doubt they would be passed on to the leaseholder as a legitimate cost of providing services.
A second practice, which is not as general as interim payments but is certainly not uncommon, is for a lease to require contributions to a sinking fund for major repairs which occur only infrequently, such as the replacement of roofs, boilers and lifts. The object is to save leaseholders from being faced out of the blue with very large bills and instead to spread the cost over the years. Here again we have a very reasonable concept which, if fairly operated, will be in the interests of leaseholders. Neither this Government nor, as I understand it, any previous Government of either party have taken the view that interim payments or contributions to sinking funds should be entirely banned and that the provisions of leases giving effect to these should be made void. Nevertheless, the High Court in the very recent case of Frobisher v. Kiloran took the view that the provisions made about service charges by the Housing Act 1974 were so worded as to make a requirement for advance payments in that case not lawfully enforceable. The court was not, of course, concerned with the merits of the issue but with the interpretation of the statute and the facts of that particular case.
It was not the intention in 1974 to ban advance payments. Indeed, it has never been the purpose of these statutory provisions to try to rewrite leases. Their purpose has been, and still is, to provide rights of consultation and information as a prelude to a possible challenge to what is being charged. For this reason, the present Schedule seeks to reverse the effect of the Kiloran judgment in so far as it interfered with provisions of leases on the subject of interim advance payments. In no way does this give landlords carte blanche to levy whatever advance payments they wish. They can operate only under the provisions of the lease. If a lease provides for interim payments of £100 per year, that is all that can be demanded. I utterly repudiate the idea which has been put about that in restoring the legal position to pre-Kiloran we are innovating in favour of landlords.
Now as I understand the noble Lord's position, he accepts that some interim
330
payments, such as those contributing to staff wages, are reasonable and should not be banned, while others, relating for example to major building works, should be recoverable only after the work has been done. If we accepted this, it would certainly outlaw sinking funds, which could mean very heavy bills facing leaseholders with little prior warning. However, leaving that aside, I think we have to recognise that in these days of inflation and high interest rates stage payments are not an uncommon or necessarily unreasonable feature of major building contracts. Quite apart from the drafting difficulty of distinguishing between major and minor works of repair, I can see objection to banning interim payments by tenants until the whole of a job has been completed.
My Lords, notwithstanding these difficulties, we have included in the schedule an amendment made in Committee which gives leaseholders in addition to their protection under the terms of the lease the opportunity to challenge any demand for advance payment which is unreasonable, notwithstanding the express provisions in the lease. This, I accept, is a broad brush approach, but given the variety of purposes for which advance payments can be made I think it is the only practical way of giving leaseholders an extra line of defence.
As always, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, and he made a fair point—what is reasonable? I agree that it is considered unsatisfactory that the courts should have to decide what is reasonable, and if one does resort to the point where it is the courts who have to decide, it is in my view usually a sad situation. Nevertheless, it is, if you like, a term in which the courts now have very considerable experience and there is any amount of precedent, albeit not in every particular instance.
I hope that my explanation will, at least to some extent, have reassured the noble Lord. Certainly I think he knows of the Government's concern and of our desire to do what is practical to help. I have not, perhaps, gone into as much detail as the noble Lord might have liked on his amendment, but I am bound to say I could not advise an acceptance, however kindly disposed I felt, because I think it would cause considerable uncertainty, and this is a great difficulty.

331
This is not an area of great principle as such; it is a problem. It is a problem for the people, the landlords, the tenants, the management—it really is a problem all round. If the noble Lord, as he has been seeking to do recently, can come up with—what was it Matthew Arnold said? —"a spark from heaven", then we would be glad to know of the spark that would perhaps lead us on to better ways of doing these things. I think the noble Lord knows my position here, I am anxious to help; I do not think we have the answer here.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, this is a problem. Of course, one of the troubles is that many of these leases were signed some years ago with standard wording which was used in more spacious—should I perhaps say, more gentlemanly—days when these blocks of flats were owned by old family trusts and so on. There was never any problem. But now the wording is being interpreted in a most ruthless way to extort all sorts of sums, large sums from tenants, and I have seen some of these letters. They are threatened with the forfeiture of their lease if they do not pay.
The noble Lord says they should go to court, but that is a time consuming matter. This is a big subject, and I know the noble Lord is sympathetic. I hope the department will study it, and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 120 to 122 not moved.]
9.38 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY The Earl of HALSBURY moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 152, line 4, at end insert—
("(3) This Schedule shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any lease or tenancy agreement which makes provision for payment of a service charge.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I would also like your Lordships' permission to make a brief reference to my other amendment, No. 129A. Both these amendments
332
are in the same form as that in which I withdrew them in Committee, following an undertaking by the noble Lord the Minister to examine my points very carefully and write to me. As a result of that, I am happy to assure him that if he successfully pilots through his own amendment to paragraph 12—I think it is No. 129—I shall not move my Amendment No. 129A. Therefore, it only remains for me to speak to Amendment No. 123.
My Lords, people outside this House who have been following attentively the progress of the Bill in Committee have written to me about this amendment and asked me to pursue it. In addition, it has attracted the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on the Opposition Front Bench. Therefore, although this subject is not by any means mine, I do not feel I am in any way indulging in frivolous behaviour in pursuing the matter a little further on Report in your Lordships' House tonight.
A typical correspondence includes a firm of solicitors whose practice is mainly concerned with the administration of large estates and the chairman of a tenants' association in a large block of London fiats. They both urge me to pursue the matter and seek the assurance that the noble Lord has endeavoured to give me in correspondence, but which I should like to persuade him to pursue with me a little further. What he has told me is that the Act would not permit somebody to introduce into a lease a provision which was outwith the terms of this schedule. But that does not cover leases in being—in the words which he used in giving me that assurance—and one must remember that there are three groups of leases here.
There are those entered into before the Housing Act 1974; those that have been entered into in the interim between 1974 and the date when this Act vests, and the question arises as to whether provisions in leases ante-dating this Act or the 1974 Act would or would not be overridden by this schedule in relation to the matters legislated for. It is that particular point on which I seek somewhat further assurance from the noble Lord in the form not merely of a statement, if I may put it ex cathedra, that the Act does override earlier leases, but rather to tell us what the authority for that statement would be

333
either in terms of something recited in the Act itself or in terms of some general legal authority on the construction of statutes.
I have myself, not being a lawyer, tried to do a little homework on this point. But, although I have consulted Maxwells Interpretation of Statutes I have not really got much further.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, may I politely ask the noble Earl to talk into the microphone a little louder, because the Box is totally unable to hear what he is saying.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I am so sorry. I have been doing my best to speak into the microphone. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister was able to hear what I was saying. I was saying that I had tried to find some general legal authority for this, but that, although consulting a textbook, I really felt that I was not up to the task. I should be greatly obliged to the noble Lord the Minister if he would he so kind as to give me the authority for whatever assurance he is able to give.
We all know that what we say here in Committee, or what we say here tonight, or whatever may be said on Third Reading, does not apply when it comes to construction of the Act in the courts. The courts will construe this Bill as an Act, when it vests, in terms of what it says. What we say in debate does not really count for very much. It is for that reason that I ask the noble Lord whether he can quote the authority for saying that the Bill overrides any provision there may be to the contrary in earlier leases. I do not wish to pursue the matter any further. I could give illustrations but the hour is late and I prefer not to do so. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I explained in Committee that there was no need for the amendment. However, I am obliged to the noble Earl for moving it again today, because it provides me with the opportunity to clarify a fundamental point about Schedule 19 on which, I believe, he seeks an assurance and which may be helpful generally.
The provisions in Schedule 19 apply to existing leases and to future leases. Let there he no doubt at all on that point.
334
Furthermore, it will not be possible for a landlord to put a term in a new lease so as to evade the schedule. Whatever the terms of an existing lease or a new lease may say, a landlord will be able to recover costs only to the extent that they have been reasonably incurred, and provided that he has consulted tenants in the manner required. Where a lease provides for an advance payment, whether that is based on estimates or is a contribution to a sinking fund, or is provided for in any other way, such a payment will be recoverable only by the landlord to the extent that it is reasonable. I am happy to assure your Lordships once again that there is no need for Amendment No. 123.
The noble Lord says, "Yes, that is fine; I am sure that that is right". But he asked whether I would care to quote him legal cases or whatever to endorse what I say". As to that, there is no actual legal authority as such; it is just part of the constitutional position. I would not dare to be so bold as to state it in such clear and unequivocal terms unless I was very sure of what I was saying. With that, I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, subject to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, or the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, may wish to add, for my own part I must be content with the very positive assurance given to me by the noble Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.47 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 152, line 48, at end insert—
("( ) Where a service charge relates to a later period the monies collected for this charge shall be accounted for separately by the landlord or the association or company responsible for the collection of the service charge and shall be controlled and administered by a representative of the landlord and one representative of each category of tenant nominated by the respective categories subscribing to the service charge.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 125. I submit that it is important that when there are large advance payments demanded by the landlord for a reserve or sinking fund, the monies collected should be controlled

335
and administered jointly by landlord and tenants. This is particularly important in the case of certain offshore companies or, indeed, anonymous foreign landlords where the funds collected could be transferred overseas or used for quite another purpose to help the cash flow.
What happens if the company goes out of business or, indeed, sells the property to another landlord?—and there have been cases where the tenants have had to go to court. I submit that this is the tenants' money and it should be accounted for separately and not treated as an interest-free long-term loan over which there is no control.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that the Government were not unsympathetic to the purpose of my amendment, and the noble Lord kindly said that if I would withdraw it, the Government would look at it again. I therefore hoped that the Government would put down their own amendment. As they have not done so, for some reason or another, I thought that I had better put mine down again. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the question of sinking funds has been raised certainly here in this House, indeed in Committee, and in another place. The Government have said that this is a matter which must be looked into in the longer term and I am happy to repeat that undertaking. In recent years my department has been engaged on a study of the problems of tenants of flats in the private sector, particularly in mansion blocks. The first fruits of that study are the provisions in Schedule 19. We have, in fact, already started to look into the question of sinking funds, but we came to the conclusion that this is such a complex matter that there was no possibility of bringing forward effective proposals within the time-scale of this Bill. I think it is fair to say—and I say it certainly in no spirit of criticism—that none of the amendments relating to sinking funds which has been tabled at various stages of the Bill, either here or in another place, including the present one, would be satisfactory, despite the fact that we know the intentions behind thern;and indeed approve of them.
336
I should also like to point out that while we are aware of the general concern of some leaseholders about the administration and security of sinking funds we have not so far been shown detailed case histories of abuses where existing remedies have been tried and have failed, If the noble Lord is able to give us such cases I should be very pleased indeed to have them, which is not to imply that because we do not have them we are satisfied; far from it. I would hardly have said what I did about our intentions had that been the case.
I want to assure the noble Lord that, after the present Bill has been enacted—and I am sorry that I am not able to bring forth for him that which he and certainly I too would wish, but it is not there to be, and therefore I cannot do it—we shall resume our study of this question. We do not intend to let it go away because the legislation will be there. We shall be reviewing it with a view to drawing up proposals if a workable scheme can be devised. If the noble Lord can (as they say in another colloquialism), put his tenpence in, we shall be very glad indeed to have it.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He said and implied that I did not bring forward any cases. I did refer to one case, and indeed this was referred to in another place, where, in a block of flats in central London, the tenants were asked to pay a substantial capital expenditure for future repairs. The block was sold and the funds so collected were mysteriously whisked away, the tenants being asked by the new landlord to pay that money again; and they had to go to court. All the amendment seeks to do is to see that tenants' money is accounted for separately. It is not seeking to stop sinking funds or to do any of the other things over service charges that we have discussed at length in Committee. All it is doing is earmarking the tenants' money in a separate account, which they themselves will control jointly with the landlord. This is an important amendment, and we must press it.
9.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 125) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 94.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Diamond, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Amherst, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Amulree, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bacon, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Longford, E.

Balogh, L.

Faithfull, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Banks, L.

Foot, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Barrington, V.

Fulton, L.

Maelor, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Milne, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gardiner, L.

Monson, L.

Beswick, L.

Gifford, L.

Moyne, L.

Birk, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Blease, L.

Glenamara, L.

Northfield, L.

Blyton, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ogmore, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Greenway, L.

Oram, L.

Brockway, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gregson, L.

Phillips, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grey, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Byers, L.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Caradon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Raglan, L.

Chitnis, L.

Hampton, L. [Teller.]

Rathcreedan, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hooson, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Collison, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hughes, L.

Segal, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jacques, L.

Simon, V.

Craigavon, V.

James of Rusholme, L.

Spens, L.

David, B.

Janner, L.

Stedman, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jeger, B.

Stone, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kaldor, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Denington, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Strathspey, L.

Vaizey, L.

Whaddon, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wigg, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Vickers, B.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Wade, L.

Winstanley, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Underhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Yarborough, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Allerton, L.

Eccles, V.

Margadale, L.

Alport, L.

Elles, B.

Marley, L.

Amory, V.

Elton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Atholl, D.

Falkland, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

Avon, E.

Ferrier, L.

Mountevans, L.

Balerno, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gowrie, E.

Norfolk, D.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Orkney, E.

Bessborough, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Perth, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

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

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Rochdale, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Salisbury, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Hatherton, L.

Sandford, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Henley, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Savile, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton, L.

Selkirk, E,

Chelwood, L.

Killearn, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Clitheroe, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sharples, B.

Cockfield, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Crawshaw, L.

Long, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Croft, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinton, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Digby, L.

McFadzean, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Young, B.

Dulverton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CONTENTS

Barrington, V.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Mountevans, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grey, E.

Northfield, L.

Birk, B.

Halsbury, E.

Peart, L.

Blease, L.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hooson, L.

Seear, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Segal, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon, V.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

Stone, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Denington, B.

Walston, L.

Eldon, E.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Gifford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Eccles, V.

Mottistone, L.

Abinger, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elles, B.

Ampthill, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Moyne, L.

Avon, E.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Balerno, L.

Faithfull, B.

Norfolk, D.

Bellwin, L.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Belstead, L.

Ferrier, L.

Pender, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Gainford, L.

Renton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bradford, E.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Gridley, L.

Salisbury, M.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Caithness, E.

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

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Savile, L.

Chelwood, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hatherton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cockfield, L.

Keyes, L.

Sharples, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kimberley, E.

Soames, L. (L. President)

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinton, E.

Croft, L.

Lyell, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Trefgarne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trenchard,V.

Denham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Digby, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Dulverton, L.

Margadale, L.

Yarborough, E.

Dundee, E.

Marley, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.1 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 153, line 20, leave out ("another building") and insert ("other buildings")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. This is another amendment about service charges. The purpose of the amendment is to make certain that the procedure regarding accounting for service charges is considerably simpler than it is made out to be in the Bill. Now that my noble friend has arrived I shall allow him to continue with the theme.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I apologise that I was not in my place when the amendment was called, but under the temporary arrangements it takes some time to get back to this Chamber after a Division. It seems to me and to my noble friends, and indeed to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, that local authorities will have a considerable additional administrative expense in converting the existing procedures relating to service charges to those laid down in the Bill. It seems to those advising me that service charges should be arranged so that they can apply to more than one block; and that is why the amendment has been moved.
There are two elements in a service charge: the basic charge and the charge for major repairs. As things stand in the Bill as drawn, block by block accounts will have to be kept for any blocks in which flats have been sold. This would apply even if only one flat has been sold in a block of local authority flats. Heaven knows! what this provision will mean for a large authority, but for a medium-size authority, such as Knowsley, near Liverpool, which has 900 blocks, it will mean that the authority will have to keep 900 separate accounts. At present in that kind of set-up minor repairs and maintenance charges are not charged separately, as I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will be aware from his experience of local government. They are kept on an estate basis, or indeed almost on a local authority basis. If the legislation as set out is carried, the
340
change will take in local authorities such as Knowsley which, as I have said, is a medium-size authority. It will take two man-years to introduce the new procedures; and that does not include computer testing or systems implementation time. I am sorry to use those kind of somewhat "way out" terms.
My amendment seeks to clarify the fact that local authorities may base a proportion of the service charges—in other words, not the major items of repair—on an across-the-board basis. This would not in any way take away the rights of the tenant, enshrined in the Bill, to challenge charges: it is merely seeking information about whether in fact local authorities, if this measure is introduced in the way it is drafted, will have to carry out a block by block charge—as I say, it might amount to 900 different charges—or whether they can in fact charge for maintenance and for minor repair items across-the-board or on an estate basis. I think that from a point of view which the Government are very concerned about, it would be preferable if an across-the-board basis could be established so that in fact a very considerable saving in administrative charges could be made.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, paragraph 7 of Schedule 21 gives a tenant of a flat the right to a summary of costs relating to his service charge. If there are more than four flats in the building, or if the costs relate also to another building, the summary must be certified by an independent accountant. The amendment substitutes "other buildings", in the plural, for "another building".
The provision as drafted already covers the situation where the costs relate to one other building or several other buildings, because if the cost relates to several others it must relate to "another". On the other hand, the amendment would remove the requirement for certification when there is only one other building, which I submit is a valuable protection for the tenants. If the noble Lord is arguing that costs should not relate to more than one other building, I do not think this is practical. Surely the vital thing is for the tenant to be able to see how his charges are derived.

341
My Lords, I am slightly puzzled here, because we have discussed this position of block by block accounts with the local authority associations, and we understood that in fact they were satisfied. The schedule does not specifically require accounts for each block. The summary of costs must take account of how the expenditure is apportioned, each tenant to his block, with another block. With that, I admit very brief but, I hope, to the point explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel that his point is covered.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord the Minister appreciates that I am not trying to create difficulties; I am trying to simplify matters for the future. I am advised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in this matter, which suggests to me that the lines between the noble Lord the Minister and the AMA are possibly not as clear as the noble Lord thought they might be. Because they say in the last paragraph of their briefing note to me:
"The above amendment is sought in order to clarify that local authorities may base a proportion of their service charge—that is, for non-major items—in relation to several blocks on an acrossthe-board basis. The costs involved could, of course,"
as I said earlier,
"be challenged by tenants in the normal way, but the ability to relate the charge to several blocks"—
and this is the important point which perhaps the noble Lord the Minister might take up—
"could considerably ease what would otherwise become an extremely costly administrative exercise".
I know that it is the often-repeated sentiment of the present Government that they are anxious to reduce administrative charges, and that is why, in a desire—a totally disinterested desire, my Lords—to assist the present Government to reduce their administrative charges, I move this amendment; and I hope the noble Lord will take the spirit in which I move the amendment from the way in which it is moved.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I will certainly do that without any hesitation. I continue to be slightly puzzled—although
342
I take the point about the lines of communication. We last met the local authorities associations on this on 29th May and, in fact, have heard no more since. I can only repeat that the accounts do not have to be kept on a block-by-block basis and there is nothing in the schedule which says that they must. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. Certainly, it is important that the lines of communication be clear and kept clear now and at all times. Of course, we will want to be talking and urging them by saying, "Come on, what are you concerned about?" That we shall certainly do.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, with the consent of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that the Government are keeping in constant touch with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.11 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 154, line 31, after ("whether") insert ("any amount payable before")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 128 and 129. Noble Lords will be aware that in Committee the Government introduced an amendment to paragraph 2 of Schedule 19 providing that the limitation on what a landlord can recover in a service charge to what is reasonable will apply to advance payments as well as costs which have been incurred. These three amendments—Nos. 127, 128, and 129—are necessary consequences on that amendment which we overlooked at that time. I do not think I need elaborate further unless I am required to do so. I hope this amendment will be accepted and that it will satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 154, line 32, after ("management") insert ("are incurred is reasonable, whether such costs").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 154, line 35, after ("declaration") insert ("that any such amount is or is not reasonable").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 129A not moved.]
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 156, line 35, after ("account") insert ("in determining the authority's or corporation's reckonable expenditure or reckonable income under Part VI of this Act or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small technical amendment to paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 20 which deals with the treatment of subsidy for housing cooperatives. As Schedule 20 is drafted at present, it provides that the existence of a co-operative on a local authority or new town estate shall not be a ground for recovering, withholding or reducing subsidy paid under Clause 101 of the Bill. It does not, however, ensure that the existence of a co-operative shall not be a reason for changing the basis on which subsidy is calculated under the new provisions in Part IV of the Bill. The amendment ensures that subsidy will be calculated for co-operatives on the same basis as if the dwellings were ordinary local authority or new town dwellings. I invite noble Lords to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendments Nos. 131, 132 and 133:
Page 156, line 39, leave out ("sub-lease") and insert ("lease")
Page 156,line 41, leave out ("sub-lease") and insert ("lease")
Page 156,line 42, leave out ("sub-lease") and insert ("lease")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these again are small technical amendments to the treatment of subsidy for housing co-operatives on local authority or new town estates. As drafted at present, Schedule 20 provides only one exception to the general rule that subsidy for cooperatives should be calculated on the same basis as if no co-operative agreement has been made. This exception deals with what seems likely to be the quite rare circumstance in which a co-operative
344
itself grants a shared-ownership lease to an individual. This amendment broadens the circumstances in which a subsidy adjustment may be made to include those in which shared-ownership lease is granted; for instance by a local authority to a co-operative on a shared-ownership basis.
It is obviously necessary to adjust subsidy where shared ownership is involved for co-operatives—as for all local authority property. I invite noble Lords to accept the amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 21 [Amendments of Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and Housing Act 1974, Schedule 8]:
10.17 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 157, line 41, at beginning insert—
("1.—(1) For the first paragraph of section 1 of the 1967 Act (tenants entitled to enfranchisement or extension), substitute—
"This part of this Act shall have effect to confer on a tenant of a leasehold house or self contained flat, occupying that house or flat as his residence, a right to acquire on fair terms, in the case of a house, the freehold or an extended lease of the house and premises and in the case of a self contained flat an extended lease of the flat and premises where—"
(2) In subsection (1)(a) after the words "of house and premises" insert "or flat and premises as the case may be."
(3) In subsection (1)(b) after the words "of the house" insert "or flat."
2. In section 2(1) of the 1967 Act after the words "any building" insert "not being a self contained flat" and omit the words "or is divided horizontally into flats or maisonettes and—" and subsections (a) and (b) of that subsection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, are the acoustics all right in this place? Can I be heard? This is a charming little amendment and, on a night like this, after the Government have been defeated so many times, I hope that in the kindness of their hearts they will see the logic and the fairness of this amendment which I am about to move. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord who has been working for days, morning, noon and night, meticulously and fairly on this Bill. I hope that he will be tolerant with me for about three minutes—I will not

345
take much longer—in moving this amendment to Schedule 21. I shall not read the words because the Lord Chairman, who sits stately on the Woolsack, will simply say: "The words inserted on the Marshalled List", and as every noble Lord can read, there is no need for me to read them again.
I beg to move Amendment No. 134 as being more fitting for the world in which we now live than Section 1 of the 1967 Act; and, to show that I know what I am talking about, I have read Section 1 of the 1967 Act. We substitute through this amendment the right of a tenant of a leasehold house or self-contained flat in that house on fair terms—which I underline—to obtain a freehold or an extended lease of a house and premises and also in this case I say a self-contained flat. A lease—and this is a little bit of history—as generally understood today is a document creating an interest in land for a fixed period or a certain duration, but it has not always been so. Leases are governed now by numerous statutory positions. Despite all the legislation of all Governments (to be fair) in the past two or three decades or more, there is a need for simplification and clarification in this sphere of legislation. Particularly is this true—as a Welshman myself from rural areas—of old farmhouses, rural workshops and dwellings as well as for the dwellings in cities and modern towns.
The issue of leasehold rights grows more acute and more complicated particularly as large dwelling-houses in our modern cities and environment tend to be changed into multiple living quarters—what I am saying is absolutely clear—and are built up as self-contained flats. My own mother-in-law's house which was sold for £1,000 in Lewisham is now worth about £260,000 because there are about five flats in it.
How does a leasehold and freehold hold in that building, for instance? So far as rents are concerned, which links with it a little, an effort was made in the Rent Act 1977 to embody a complicated mass of legislation in one Act, and a distinction was made then between the controlled and regulated tenancies on which it would be irrelevant for me, in moving this amendment, to dwell.
A basic human need is shelter and,
346
coupled with the freehold, it ranks as the target house buyers like to acquire—the fullest status that any people can enjoy is that of freehold owner-occupation. Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, a person who is a long leaseholder of a house, though not of a flat, can compel the landlord to sell him the freehold of the premises, or else compel the landlord to extend the lease for another 50 years beyond the date of its original termination for a price. These rights do not apply to those houses which are not horizontally divided from other premises: that is, they do not to any extent overlap or underlap another property. The house could be in a row of terraced houses: it need not be free standing. This amendment aims at rectifying this and making the entire business more fair for the owner-occupier of small means.
It is still necessary under this Bill and the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 for a leaseholder to exercise his rights to purchase the freehold, and that is known as the enfranchisement or extension, before the lease expires. The leaseholder who has been occupying a house as his main residence for a period of at least five years would be entitled to this. The price can be fixed freely between the parties by land tribunals, and here legal aid can come in and the public should know this, and simple information should be available. In some cases it is much inure important, in the question of freehold, for a tenant to employ a good surveyor than a barrister or a lawyer, for in this sphere not so many lawyers are as well informed as some of the surveyors in local authorities.
One other point: the price of this enfranchisement bears no relationship to currency today and the public should be made aware that when they are buying freehold—something which will last for generations—they are now dealing in capital sums of £200,000 or more. I hope that, in his magnanimity, the overworked Minister, who has been working like a lion all the week, will say, "Yes, the Government can see the common sense of this and will accept it." I beg to move.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord,

347
Lord Davies of Leek. I think the amendment he moved should probably be taken conjointly with Amendment No. 136. The position at the moment is that the leasholders of flats are not afforded the same opportunities for enfranchisement as the leaseholders of houses, and because of the curiosities and almost medieval history of our land law, it is very difficult to provide for the ownership of flats in the way that can be done in Scotland—I hate to admit that Scottish law may be superior to English law in this respect. However, it seems to me that we have two choices. We can provide as this amendment suggests that, instead of getting the freehold of a block of flats for themselves, which will be very difficult under English law, leaseholders can seek a 50-year extension of their existing lease.
Amendment No. 136, which I think is the better amendment, would mean that leaseholders would be entitled to join together to purchase the freehold of a block of flats and organise it as a cooperative. The two amendments seek the same end and I should have thought, if under the 1967 Act we are offering lessees of houses an opportunity of enfranchisement, that we ought to give something similar to the lessees of flats. I very warmly support the concept that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has tried to introduce. If it is an individual lessee he gets a 50-year extension, or, if they can co-operate together, the lessees of a whole block of flats are given the right to buy the freehold and then organise the block as they wish. I very much support the amendment moved by the noble Lord.
10.27 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not think it is fair to bring the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in to bat at this time of night. He certainly introduces a breath of fresh air but I cannot agree with most of what he said. But he says it with such panache that he adds a great deal to the proceedings. Amendment No. 134 would give leaseholders of flats the right to an extension lease, but not the right to buy the freehold. The reason why the 1967 Act does not apply to the flats is that under the existing law enfranchisement of individual flats would lead to difficulties regarding the future maintenance of the block. The positive covenants which would be required
348
for the owner of each flat to ensure proper maintenance of the rest of the building cannot, at present, be made binding on subsequent purchasers of the freeholds.
Long leases of flats have, on the whole, been granted fairly recently and have substantial periods left to run. We are not aware of long leases of flats which are about to expire, but if they exist leaseholders of such flats will normally have the right to stay on as protected tenants under the Rent Act 1977. We are aware, however, of problems which can arise in selling flats as the unexpired term of the lease gets shorter, because of the difficulty the purchaser may have in getting a mortgage.
We have already indicated that we intend to look at the question of extension leases in the longer term, as part of our continuing work on mansion blocks. Any proposal of this kind would give rise to a number of difficult questions which would have to be considered. For example, whether under any such right all leases in the same block should fall in together; how to deal with the situation where different flats in the same block have leases on different terms; or whether such a right might be better exercised on an individual or collective basis.
The present proposal would not be workable, because a great deal more would need to be done to adapt the provisions of the 1967 Act to deal with such cases. For example, the existing provision for the fixing of the new ground rent for an extension lease relates to the value of the site. In any case, it would be little more than a stop-gap arrangement and landlords would in future be able to sell shorter leases in the knowledge that they could be extended.
I wonder whether with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I have made the point about general concern, and the intention to go further into the whole area of mansion blocks and all that goes with them. I wonder whether the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws the amendment may I say this: Amendments Nos. 134 and 136 really go together, but they have

349
somehow become separated by another amendment coming in between. It seems a pity to take the other amendment next, which is on a different subject, and not to deal with these two amendments together. They are on the same point and have both been explained by my noble friend Lord Davies and by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. Therefore, may I ask the Minister whether we can take them both together, and I can then move No. 136 formally.
10.30 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, in view of the Minister's statement, there is still not much oil in the lantern but there is a glimmer of light across the moors. Consequently, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Simon): My Lords, the next amendment is manuscript amendment No. 134AZ, the Earl of Kinnoull. In accordance with standing orders, I have to read this amendment. The manuscript amendment reads:
Page 157, line 43, at end insert:
("Section 9(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967 shall be amended so as to add the following:—
"9.(2)A. Where a tenant has given notice, pursuant to Section 8 of this Act, of his desire to have the freehold, a landlord may serve upon such tenant notice in writing stating the price which the landlord proposes that the tenant shall pay for the house and premises and if within one year of the service of this notice upon him a tenant has neither given to the landlord notice in writing of his agreement to pay such price nor applied to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal pursuant to Section 21 of this Act to determine the matter of the price payable, then upon the expiration of the said one year the tenant shall be deemed to have given to the landlord notice under subsection (3) hereof that he is unable or unwilling to acquire the house and premises and thereupon the provisions of the said subsection (3) shall have effect accordingly"").
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I must apologise to the House both for the length of the amendment and for the fact that it is a manuscript. I would apologise to my noble friend, except for the fact that I see he has already had three manuscript amendments, so I feel that I am in good company. I do not intend to speak for any length of time—the purpose of the amendment is very
350
simple—but I should like to spend one minute this evening upon placing on record the purpose of the amendment, for my noble friend to consider it, and perhaps for myself to be able to come back on it at the final stage of the Bill.
As I have said, the purpose of the amendment is very simple. The machinery of the leasehold enfranchisement which triggers off the right of a tenant to purchase his freehold comes, as the House is aware, under Section 8 of the 1967 Act. The tenant applies in the usual form. The landlord is then obliged, under Section 9, to reply and to state his value. There is then normally a period of negotiation and, failing that, either party may apply, under Section 21 of the Act, to the Lands Tribunal.
There is one flaw in the machinery which concerns the landlord: that there is no timescale between the moment that the tenant applies, under Section 8, to the moment when the deal must be closed. One has to remember that the date of valuation dates from the time of the first application. What one has seen, since 1974 in particular, is that tenants who applied in 1974 have still not purchased, although the valuation will date back to 1974. I think that this is a flaw. The amendment seeks to achieve the fact that if no action is taken by the tenant within one year, which is a reasonable period of time, then his right will fall and he will not be able to apply again for another three years, as under the Act.
There is an alternative which I should like my noble friend to consider. If the tenant does not react within one year, then the valuation should be at the modern valuation at the time of the contract. I hope that my noble friend will consider this point. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the fact that my noble friend has tabled a substantive and rather complicated amendment which came to our notice at 9.30 p.m., means that in the time available we have been unable to examine its effects. It may be that the simple answer is that the landlord can apply to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, which will fix a price. Then, under the rules, the tenant must complete within a specified timescale. However, I propose to write to my noble friend in more detail, and

351
I hope he will feel satisfied with that. Certainly we will go into the detail carefully.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, of course I am satisfied with that reply, for which I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.36 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 134A:
Page 158, line 7, leave out paragraph 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I am taking the rather unusual step of moving an identical amendment to one I moved in Committee, as it has since become evident that, because of genuine misunderstandings on both sides, perhaps only to be expected in such a complex Bill as this one, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, misinterpreted my question and I, in turn, misinterpreted his answer. In other words, the misgivings which I thought had been allayed are very much not allayed.
The purpose of paragraph 3 of this schedule, it now appears, is to close up a loophole in the 1967 Act. The existence of this loophole has been well known to lawyers for over 12 years. It provides a most useful facility for anyone wanting to enter into a contract for the purchase of a leasehold house which has been demonstrably excluded from the enfranchisement provisions of the 1967 Act in the full knowledge of the pros and cons of doing so. Anybody wanting to know what I mean by "useful facility" need only refer back to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on the Second Reading of the Leasehold Reform Bill 13 years ago this summer to see exactly what I mean. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed out that the leasehold system had enabled him and his family to live in a much better house in a much better district than would have been the case if only freehold houses had been available.
The point which seems to have escaped the Government—I cannot stress this too highly—is that precisely the same facility is still available to those who are choosing a leasehold house over a certain rateable
352
value or choosing a flat of any rateable value. With a given sum of money, one can opt either for a flat in Belgravia with, say, a 27-year lease, or, alternatively, a flat in Earl's Court, perhaps with a 75-year lease. The flat in Belgravia may very well be a nicer one in a more desirable district, but it will be a fairly rapidly wasting asset. Against this, the flat in Earl's Court will be a rather more slowly wasting asset. Surely in a free country where people are treated as adults and encouraged by the Government of the day to stand on their own feet, as the oft-repeated saying goes, those looking for houses should be given the same options as those looking for flats.
Given the Government's general overall philosophy, given that the Conservatives, along with the then Liberal Party and the Independents, bitterly opposed the 1967 Act—they were assisted by the misgivings of at least a few Socialists, including the late Mr. Richard Crossman—and given that at least one eminent authority believes that the 1967 Act infringes Article 1 to the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, what a Conservative Government are doing extending this Act rather than, if not actually repealing it, then trying to make its provisions a little fairer.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, perhaps I might remind the House of the intention of paragraph 3 of Schedule 21 to the Bill, which is to close a loophole in the Leasehold Reform Act which some large commercial landlords have been exploiting in order to get round the Act. The 1967 Act contains a provision which exempts from it all tenancies terminable by notice after a death or marriage. That was intended to allow for the creation of what I referred to in Committee as bona fide leases. Such a lease might be granted to a former employee to let him live in a house for the rest of his life, or under the terms of a will, or where a person sells his house to raise capital but leases it back for the rest of his life. In such circumstances it would not be right if the tenant could buy the freehold of the house on the favourable terms of the Act. The provision was not intended to enable commercial landlords to evade the Act. There is evidence that

353
some have been doing this by granting leases terminable at any time after the death of a descendant of King George V.
The noble Lord will remember that we spoke about this when we were in Committee. The Government therefore decided to close the loophole, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 21 does this by imposing more stringent limitations on the kind of life lease which will be exempt from the Act. This should allow for the continuing creation of bona fide leases but prevent exploitation. The change in the law will not, however, operate retrospectively, since it will not affect leases granted before 18th April 1980, the date on which the proposal was announced.
In moving this amendment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is not suggesting that the loophole should be kept open. I am confident that that is not his wish, and therefore I wonder whether he is prepared to withdraw his amendment. I take the point which he made originally about our criss-crossing over. I am sorry about it, but I suppose it was largely inevitable. Perhaps the only surprising thing is that we have not had more of that with all that one has been trying to do in giving information on the great complexities of this Bill.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I entirely accept the last part of the noble Lord's statement. It was inevitable in a Bill of this complexity that there should be some accidental criss-crossing and it was kind of him to make that apology. However, I am saying to him that the loophole should not be closed because the point is that this is a loophole which is freely available to people who want to go into it with their eyes open and to take advantage of the same facilities as are available to them when they wish to buy flats on short leases, knowing full well that they are buying a wasting asset. It seems extraordinary that a party which so bitterly opposed the 1967 Act—and I have a mass of quotations to prove this—should apparently have changed their mind in a surreptitious way. I rather feel that they should have been more open about it. If they were wrong in 1967, should they not say so openly now? Obviously I have no prospect of changing the Government's mind on this, so I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.44 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 158, leave out from end of line 7 to first ("the") in line 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment which deals with very much the same point, but certainly from a different angle. I want to pursue it for a little while if only because I was unable to hear the Minister's reply to the last point. I hope I am not wasting your Lordships' time, but I think it is a very important point.
The 1967 Act gave rights to various tenants to buy freeholds but it exempted, for the best of all possible reasons, various arrangements which had been entered into, which were due to come to an end on the death of a particular tenant and were designed to provide a home for a member of the family or something analogous to that. Because of the rather poor wording of the Act, an enormous loophole was created whereby owners of blocks of flats were able to produce formulae by which they could evade the whole purpose of the Act.
At the last stage of the Bill I sought to put before your Lordships an amendment which would bring those people back into the Act. In the Minister's reply, he no longer sought (as had happened in another place) to rely on what I hoped I had shown to be the rather bad point of resistance; that is, that the whole thing was retrospective. But he pointed out, quite rightly, that I was throwing out the baby with the bath water, and that in trying to bring in the various firms who had found the loophole in this Act I was also bringing in the few cases of the genuine arrangements which the 1967 Act had been designed to protect. I accepted that and I took the amendment away again.
I now bring forward this amendment which, by doing away with the whole of that proviso, will bring into this Bill all the previous arrangements, which will therefore mean that the genuine arrangements will be covered, because under the Bill the genuine arrangements which are entered into now are also covered. It seems to me that this is a protection for

355
the few cases, where these exist, and I think they are fairly few because, in quite a lot of inquiries and in talking to people I have found no one who, in fact, in their legal practice, has come across one. But I am sure that they do exist, and I am sure that they should be preserved.
My Lords, this is another try which is designed to block a really beastly loophole which is being taken advantage of for all the wrong reasons, and when the Minister, if he does, points out to me the errors in this particular amendment I hope that he will say that between now and the Third Reading he will, in fact, ask his department to look at it again and see whether they cannot find something better, always assuming that mine is defective, as I rather fear it is. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord will be pleased or sad at the comments I have to make. One is not that the amendment is defective. To that extent, I hope he may feel it is a plus. Would that I could say other things to make him feel likewise, but I fear I cannot.
The amendment now proposed would make paragraph 3 operate retrospectively, and that is not the Government's intention, as I pointed out in Committee. Furthermore, it would not be consistent with our position on the Leasehold Reform Act of 1979 to make the provision retrospective. I appreciate that this amendment would not operate retrospectively on all leases, unlike an amendment which the noble Lord tabled in Committee, but I think there is little doubt that it would nevertheless affect some existing bona fide leases. This is because although the qualifying conditions we have imposed in paragraph 3(b) should allow adequately for the creation of bona fide leases in the future which will be exempt from the Act, it does not follow that all bona fide leases created in the past will satisfy those conditions, and where they do not they will be brought within the Act.
Consequently, my Lords, I think that possibly Amendment No. 135 goes further than is intended by the noble Lord. It certainly goes a great deal further than the Government's proposal, because it is not our intention that the change in the law
356
should be retrospective at all. Without saying more, I wonder whether the noble Lord might therefore feel that on the technicality he may wish not to pursue the point.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, before my noble friend responds to the invitation made by the noble Lord the Minister, may I say, as a solicitor myself and as a member of a profession that uses these kinds of devices, that the kind of thing which enrages me, with great respect, is that time and again loopholes are left which members of my profession use quite outrageously while talking about the descendants of King George V or King George VI.
For some reason, Governments of all political complexions seem reluctant to close these kinds of loopholes. I agree that by accepting the amendment of my noble friend we might in fact close a loophole which is perfectly legitimate, but I would have hoped that the Minister might have looked for some way of stopping the kind of exploitation of loopholes in the law which give people who are highly paid to look for these kinds of loopholes an opportunity of expanding their kind of, I think, quite illegitimate practice. I should have thought that the Minister might have given a more optimistic reply to my noble friend.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the last thing I would want to do at this time of the day is to enrage the noble Lord. Certainly, I have no wish to do that. I must say I actually feel much sympathy with the way he puts the point. I clearly cannot promise him that anything will be done about this, but I promise him from my own interest, and because of the way he puts the point, that I will want to talk to officials about this to see whether or not it is practical. I make no promises; I am sure the noble Lord will accept that. If he feels so strongly about this technical point, I feel I ought to take it and have a look at it on that basis.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for that. The noble Lord can pass on now from the compliments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who said that he worked like a lion. In fact lions do no work at all; they lie

357
about sleeping all day and wait for the lionesses to bring the meat. So that was a very double-edged compliment. I will go further and say the noble Lord is working like a beaver, and beavers really do work. I am grateful. This really is a loophole which should be plugged. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, with permission, I would like to point out that lions work. I made a film of lions on the kill, and I know how they worked on that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.51 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 135A:
Page 158, line 9, after ("granted") insert ("or an enforceable contract was entered into for its grant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very much more modest amendment than my Amendment No. 134A. I want to stress that this amendment does not seek to reverse the course on which the Government seem currently, although in my view mistakenly, set in their attitude towards the leasehold system. It appears that the Liberal Party has reversed its opposition to the 1967 Act even more totally than the Conservatives have, which I suppose is a bull point for the Government.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to avoid accidental retrospection that may occur in the case of certain building lease schemes which are set up but not finalised in every detail prior to 18th April 1980. This is a highly complex, technical matter with which I will not bore your Lordships; indeed, I should probably get it wrong. I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, could probably explain it better than I can. I assure your Lordships that unless something is done people who have entered into perfectly legitimate schemes prior to that date will be caught out. One thing that can be said with confidence is that the Conservative Party still maintains its opposition to punitive retrospective legislation, and rightly so.
I will not be pressing this amendment because, after an enormous amount of legal head scratching, it was decided two
358
hours ago that the word "enforceable" in my amendment implied a meaning which might possibly invalidate the intention of the amendment as a whole. I propose to move what I trust will be a legally watertight amendment leaving out the word "enforceable" at Third Reading. Before I withdraw this amendment I should like to hear whether the Government are in principle opposed to accidental punitive retrospection, and therefore, subject to careful scrutiny beforehand on the part of the Government, they would in principle support an amendment to avoid such accidental retrospection at Third Reading.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I do see the point of Amendment No. 135A, and I do not dissent from the objective. I would draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the definition of a tenancy in Section 37 of the Leasehold Reform Act. A tenancy there means a "tenancy at law or in equity". I am assured that the words "tenancy in equity" cover the situation where there is an enforceable contract to grant a tenancy. It follows, therefore, that a tenancy granted after 18th April as a result of an enforceable contract entered into before that date will not be affected by the proposal in paragraph 3; consequently, there is no need for this amendment. If the noble Lord is satisfied on that point, perhaps he would withdraw his amendment, but I am grateful to him for giving me this chance to explain the point to the House.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for what he has said. In fact it appears that lawyers are not wholly agreed that Section 37 of the 1967 Act does have the effect that he says it has. This is the difficulty about it. But in any case I intend to withdraw the amendment because it appears, again as a result of legal disputation, that it may be defective. I reserve the right to move a more legally watertight one if possible on Third Reading, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135B not moved.]
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 136:

359
Page 158, line 14, at end insert—
(" .In section 1 of the 1967 Act after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) Where any house is divided into self-contained flats in circumstances where the tenant of each flat:

(i) has a right to acquire on fair terms an extended lease; and

(ii) is, in relation to his occupation of that flat, a member of a housing co-operative then, for the purpose only of conferring upon that co-operative the right to acquire on fair terms the freehold of that house and premises, the co-operative shall be treated for the purpose of subsection 1 of this section as the tenant of a leasehold house complying with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the intention of Amendment 136 is evidently to enable a housing co-operative which owns the long lease of a house to buy the freehold under the terms of the Leasehold Reform Act, in circumstances where the house is divided into self-contained flats and each tenant is a member of the co-operative and has the right to acquire an extended lease on fair terms. The 1967 Act does not apply to individual flats and is tailored to deal solely with the case of an individual long leaseholder of a house. I do not think it would be appropriate to use it in this way, and to attempt to do so might give rise to all sorts of practical difficulties. There is nothing to prevent a co-operative or any other association of long leaseholders from purchasing the freehold of a house or a block of flats if the freeholder is willing to sell to them. I understand that there are several cases where this has already happened, but I see no case for giving special rights to co-operatives to buy out freeholders.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, may I say I am somewhat disappointed by the view the noble Lord the Minister has taken here? As one who is very much involved in the purchase and sale of blocks of flats, I find it is becoming common practice in the private sector for a landlord or a builder to build a block of flats, to give to the flat purchasers leases of 99 years and then at the end, when all the leases have been granted, to sell the free-
360
hold reversion to a management company which is made up of the individual lessees. This is a sensible and civilised modern system of dealing with the problems that flats create for us, not because they are flats but because of our archaic conveyancing system in this country. In Scotland they have been conveying flats for generations. In the time of James IV, James III, James I and Malcolm the Maiden they were conveying flats in Scotland. It is only the curiosities of the English conveyancing system that prevent us from conveying the freeholds of flats, and, to get round this problem, we have devised in the private sector this means of conveying the freehold to a management company in which each of the lessees has a share.
I would have thought that if the Government had been a little more flexible (to use a term that has been used a great deal in the last few weeks and days) they could have accepted this kind of amendment, which is put forward by a responsible body of people, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, who are very anxious themselves to create a property owning democracy.
I would have thought that we could have had (if I may put it without, I hope, being unduly offensive to the noble Lord) not quite the brush-off that he has given us this evening. I would have thought this might have been an area where the Government could say, "Very interesting. We'll look at this and try and create a system akin to that used in the private sector so that people can feel themselves involved as individuals in the flats in which they live".
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, these amendments were separated by a number of other amendments, but from a discussion point of view it would have been better if they had been taken together. When the Minister answered the amendment moved by noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, Amendment No. 134, my impression was that he was not going to have a look at the whole matter generally. He did not say that he would necessarily come back on this Bill, but it was certainly a very much more flexible answer than the answer we have had on this amendment. I said that I had spoken to it because I got up and said that they

361
seemed to me to be two parts of the same subject, and that if this was the attitude taken that was all right and I was leaving it like that. That was why I got up and moved it formally.
However, a very much harsher response seems to have come to this one but they really are fairly similar amendments. I would like to have it confirmed that what the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said in reply to my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek operates as far as this other amendment is concerned.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Yes, my Lords; that would be the case.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, if that is so I shall withdraw the amendment and I suggest that the noble Lord tears up what he said in answer just before.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 23 [Houses in multiple occupation: revised penalties for certain offences]:
11.2 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 137.
Page 162, leave out lines 21 to 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that during the previous stage of consideration of the Bill we inserted a clause giving local authorities new powers to deal with overcrowding in houses in multiple occupation. This amendment arises directly from that, in that it removes from Schedule 23 the provision to update the penalty for contravention of the section in the 1957 Housing Act that will be replaced by the new clause. This updating is unnecessary because the new clause includes provision for a penalty at the higher level. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 163, line 33, leave out paragraph 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 138. This has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 96.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 139:
After Clause 142 insert the following new clause:
Houses in multiple occupation: means of escape from fire.
(".—(1) Schedule (Houses in multiple occupation means of escape from fire) shall have effect in place of section 16 of the Housing Act 1961 and section 60 of the 1969 Act except in relation to notices served, undertakings accepted or orders made before the commencement of this section.
(2) In relation to a breach after the commencement of this section of an undertaking accepted under section 60 of the 1969 Act subsection (3) of that section (fine on summary conviction) shall have effect as if for "£20" there were substituted "£50".
(3) The amendments and repeals made by this Act (except subsection (2) above) shall not affect the operation of any enactment in relation to any notice served, undertaking given or order made under the provisions replaced by this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 96.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 140 not moved]
Clause 146 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 103, line 12, after ("section") insert ("52(4),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of the Bill my noble friend undertook to consider whether the affirmative procedure might be more appropriate than the negative procedure for which the Bill currently provides if an order were to be made under Clause 52(4) of the Bill to disapply compulsory rent registration for shorthold, either generally or in particular areas. Let me stress once again that if such an order were made it would not affect any existing registered rent under shorthold and would still enable a fair rent to be registered if either party wanted it.
My right honourable and honourable friends and my noble friend have considered very carefully everything that was said in your Lordships' House during the discussions of this issue in Committee. We accept that if the Government were to make an order disapplying compulsory rent registration for shorthold, either generally or in particular areas, it should

363
be necessary to seek the approval of both Houses of Parliament before such an order could come into force. I have no doubt that even under the negative procedure appropriate debates would have taken place. Nevertheless, the Government are very content to meet the wishes expressed in different parts of the House on this matter. That is why we have tabled these amendments, which have the effect of making any order under Clause 52(4) subject to Affirmative Resolution rather than Negative Resolution. I hope that this will be welcomed by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government very much. I am very pleased that these amendments have been moved. I think that this is a very great improvement. It is extremely important that there should be Affirmative Resolution in this area and, therefore, it is something about which, at the end of a long, long two days and nights, we can be pleased.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 103, line 14, after ("section") insert ("52(4)or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 141 I was really taking Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 as well. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 143:
Before Schedule 24 insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION: MEANS OF ESCAPE FROM FIRE
Exercise of powers of local authority
1.If it appears to a local authority that a 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 considers necessary the local authority may exercise such of its powers under this Schedule as appear to it most appropriate; and it shall do so if the house is of such description or occupied in such manner as the Secretary of State may by order specify.
Powers available to local authority
2.—(1) The local authority may serve a notice on any person on whom a notice may be served under section 15 of the Housing Act
364
1961 specifying the works which in the opinion of the local authority are required to provide the necessary means of escape from fire and requiring the person on whom the notice is served to execute those works within such period, not less than twenty-one days from the service of the notice, as may be specified in the notice.
(2) The period specified in the notice may from time to time be extended by the local authority.
(3) Where the local authority serves a notice on any person under this paragraph it shall inform any other person who to its knowledge is an owner, lessee or mortgagee of the house of the fact that the notice has been served.
3. If it appears to the local authority that the means of escape from fire would be adequate if part of the house were not used for human habitation the local authority may secure that that part is not so used.
4. The local authority may secure that part of the house is not used for human habitation and serve a notice under paragraph 2 above specifying such works only as in the opinion of the authority are required to provide the means of escape from fire which will be necessary if that part is not so used.
5. For the purpose of securing that a part of the house is not used for human habitation the local authority may, if after consultation with any owner or mortgagee it thinks fit to do so, accept an undertaking from him that that part will not be used for human habitation without the permission of the local authority.
6. If the local authority does not accept an undertaking under paragraph 5 above with respect to a part of the house or if, in a case where it has accepted such an undertaking, that part of the house is at any time used in contravention of the undertaking, the local authority may make a closing order with respect to that part of the house.
Enforcement
7. Any person who, knowing that an undertaking has been accepted under paragraph 5 above, uses the part of the house to which the undertaking relates, in contravention of the undertaking, or permits that part of the house to be so used, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 and to a further fine of £5 for every day, or part of a day, on which he so uses it or permits it to be so used after conviction.
Consultation with fire authority
8. A local authority shall, before serving a notice, accepting an undertaking or making a closing order under this Schedule, consult with the fire authority concerned.
Exclusion of Rent Act protection
9. Nothing in the 1977 Act shall prevent possession being obtained of any part of a house which, in accordance with any undertaking in pursuance of this Schedule, cannot for the time being be used for human habitation.
Interpretation
10. In this Schedule expressions defined in the 1957 Act have the same meanings as in that Act.
Application and amendment of enactments
11. Part II of the 1957 Act shall apply to a closing order made under this Schedule as it applies to a closing order under section 18(1) of that Act, but the ground on which, under section 27(2) of that Act, the local authority is required to determine the order shall be that it is satisfied that the means of escape from fire with which the house is provided is adequate (owing to a change of circumstances) and will remain adequate if the part of the house with respect to which the order was made is again used for human habitation.
12. In section 17(1) of the Housing Act 1961 for the words "either of the two last foregoing sections" there are substituted the words "section (Houses in multiple occupation: means of escape from fire) of this Act or Schedule (Houses in multiple occupation: means of escape from fire) to the Housing Act 1980" and for the words from "in the case of a notice" to "that section" there are substituted the words "in the case of a notice under that Schedule, that the notice is not justified by the terms of that Schedule".
13. In section 18(1) of the Housing Act 1961 for the words "section fourteen, section fifteen or section sixteen of this Act" there are substituted the words "section 14 or 15 of this Act or Schedule (Houses in multiple occupation: means of escape from fire) to the Housing Act 1980".
14. In section 61 of the 1969 Act for the words "section 14, 15 or 16 of the Housing Act 1961" there are substituted the words "14 or 15 of the Rousing Act 1961 or Schedule (Houses in multiple occupation: means of escape from fire) to the Rousing Act 1980".
15. In section 29(7) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for the words "section 60 of the Housing Act 1969" there are substituted the words "Schedule (Houses in multiple occupation: means of escape from fire) to the Housing Act 1980" and for the words "section 60(2) of the said Act of 1969" the words "paragraph 5 of the said Schedule (Houses in multiple occupation: means of escape from fire).".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 141 and 142. Amendment No. 143 has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.6 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 164, line 45, at end insert—
(" .In section 77 of the 1957 Act (Definition of Overcrowding) in subsection (2) for "one half" there shall be substituted "one".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and in the name of the right
366
reverend Prelate. The statutory overcrowding standard enforceable by local authorities is virtually unchanged since the Housing Act 1935. At the present time all rooms normally used as living rooms and bedrooms are included in calculating the "permitted number" of any dwelling-house, with the exception of the kitchen, the lavatory and the bathroom, if there is one.
Therefore, I propose the introduction of the bedroom standard as a basis for calculation, and children from one to 10 years will be calculated as one unit. This proposal will not create any homelessness, but it will provide a situation which reflects, I suggest, the current attitudes to space requirements and presents a safety net which is appropriate to the life-styles of the 1980s, not the 1930s when the original standard was introduced.
By omitting babies up to the age of one year from this standard—they were also omitted from the original standard —parents will be provided with the opportunity to plan their future housing circumstances. I should like to emphasise that the proposals will have little overall effect on the housing situation because the problem is relatively small. It will assist families to plan their accommodation and enable local authorities to look at each property as a whole, having regard to the health and environmental standards of the 1980s.
I should like to mention that I moved a similar amendment in Committee, but I was told that it was not in order, and I said that I would try to introduce another one at this stage. In conclusion, may I add that this amendment involves no extra cost and no extra staff. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Vickers for going to the trouble of tabling these amendments again so that the House can see the form that was originally intended. I thank her, too, for her detailed explanation.
First, I ought perhaps to reiterate a little of what I said in Committee. The existing standards are minima, admittedly lower than one generally finds today. But this is hardly surprising, because if

367
the standards are contravened, the implications are serious; the landlord is guilty of an offence. The excess residents lose their security of tenure and homelessness may well result, causing very serious problems in those areas already subject to housing stress. I know that the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend are concerned about the number of people who are homeless or obliged to live in unsatisfactory hostels, but if this amendment is accepted it might result in an improvement in comfort for those already established in independent accommodation but at the high cost of swelling the ranks of the homeless.
I cannot readily accept what my noble friend said in Committee. She said that the amendment—and she repeated this tonight—would not cost any money or involve any extra staff. She said that it would have very little effect on the housing situation. Before coming to such a conclusion, we should have to estimate how many people would be displaced by a change in the standard. This would not be easy and wide consultation would be needed. We are always ready to consider fresh evidence, but so far we have not seen anything to persuade us that a change would be free of very serious and expensive consequences. There is a danger that an attempt to deal with what is perceived to be a problem will, in fact, create a very real and intractable problem. I would therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment at the moment.
11.12 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for moving this amendment, and I regret to some extent the less than cordial reception of it by the Government. Through this Bill, the local housing authorities have lost their power to control overcrowding in their own estates through landlord control, and in principle welcome the opportunity that the noble Baroness has taken of using this Bill to improve and bring up to date the criteria by which overcrowding is judged. I would hope, therefore, that the Government would look, not necessarily at this amendment, but this initiative by my noble friend with rather more consideration.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the spirit of this amendment. I thought that perhaps my noble friend Lady Vickers was being slightly sanguine in moving her amendment when she said that the writing into an Act of Parliament of this new standard would create no homelessness at all. I hope she is right, but I fear that she may be wrong. Nevertheless, like my noble friend Lord Sandford, I too thought that the Government were being unwelcoming. If they think it is wrong now to write this in, could they please tell us when they think it might be possible, because it will be a great and useful step forward.
It is already the practice of the best local authorities and the best housing associations to do something that is better and at a higher standard than the bedroom standard, and very much in line with the figures that her amendment suggests. I hope that the Government can be more forthcoming than they have been up to now.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say that we have every sympathy, as I said, with what my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate are proposing. But although we agree that it is a good and proper thing to aim for better standards, if it is going to be done at the cost of putting more people on the homeless list we think it could at this moment of time be counterproductive. As soon as the situation changes, the Government will alter their plans.
Baroness VICKERS: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I cannot say I am satisfied with it. I had the assurance of the environmental officers who do this duty that there would be hardly any extra people needing housing. I should have thought that perhaps the noble Lord could say if he cannot bring it in now, that he would do so in, say, a year's time when he has had time to consult other people about possible numbers. I did not move the amendment without receiving an assurance that it would not create homelessness, and therefore with much regret I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment. No. 147:
Page 165, line 30, at end insert—
("Housing Act 1961 (c.65)
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 works, serve a copy of the notice on any other person having an interest in the house,
370
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 fine not exceeding two hundred pounds for a subsequent offence, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that there was an urgent necessity to carry out the works in order to obviate danger to the occupants of the house.

371
(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 be 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: My Lords, I am in a somewhat difficult position over this because my noble friend Lord Bellwin, to whom I owe a great deal of thanks for accepting one of my amendments, referred to Amendment No. 147 along with a number of others, and I had no knowledge that he intended to do so. Therefore, I will not move this amendment now but may wish to bring it forward at Third Reading because there are a number of amendments I would like to suggest to the Government Amendment No. 143.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I consider my noble friend's Amendment No. 147 in many ways considerably superior to the Government amendment. I say that because it seems to contain more effective teeth, and I hope that between now and Third Reading the Government will look at the points I outlined earlier, and in my view what my noble friend suggests in No. 147 has an advantage in that it is stronger and more enforceable.
Baroness VICKERS: In view of my earlier remarks, my Lords, I will not at this stage move Amendment No. 147.
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 169, line 44, at end insert—
("(dd) Part IV of the Act of 1972 (conversion by reference to rateable values);")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 151 and 154. These are all minor tidying amendments consequential upon the conversion of controlled tenancies into rent regulation under Clause 64. They deal with the situation whereby a landlord is entitled
372
to serve a notice of increase in rent in respect of repairs or improvements carried out before decontrol, but has not done so. Under the Bill at present, the notice could still be served and the rent increased after decontrol. The amendments remove this possibility by repealing paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 17 to the Rent Act 1977. The landlord will instead have to apply to the rent officer for a fair rent which will take account of the improvements and repairs. This will be so not only for decontrol under Clause 64, but also for previous decontrol under Parts III or IV of the Housing Finance Act 1972. I hope your Lordships will approve these minor improvements. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 en bloc:
Page 170, line 14, leave out ("87(5)").
Page 170,line 17, leave out from ("where") to ("before") in line 19 and insert (", on the determination or confirmation of a rent by the rent officer, the rent determined by him is registered, or his confirmation is noted in the register,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. These are all minor technical amendments consequential on the Government's earlier amendments to Clause 61—Nos. 57 and 59 to 67—dealing with the effective date of rent registrations. They ensure that the necessary consequential amendments are made to Part VI of the Rent Act 1977 (housing association registrations) and that the new effective date rules apply only to registrations made after the relevant provisions are brought into operation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 173, line 20, after ("Act") insert—
("(aa) paragraphs 3 and 4 are hereby repealed;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 148. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 151A:
Page 173, line 30, at end insert—
("Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (c. 43)
The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 shall apply, where a person has been let into possession of a dwelling-house under the terms of a rental purchase agreement (within the meaning of section 87 of this Act) as if—

(a) the dwelling-house had been let to him as a dewlling under a tenancy which is not a statutorily protected tenancy (within the meaning of section 3 of that Act); and

(b) that tenancy had come to an end on the termination of the agreement or of his right to possession under it.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment, effectively consequential on Clause 87, which gives new protection to those purchasing under rental purchase agreements. It provides that someone who was buying under a rental purchase agreement and who defaults on the payments cannot be evicted without a court order. I ask your Lordships to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, this is a small, but important, point about which there have been some discussions outside the Chamber. I wish merely to thank the noble Lord for a most prompt and favourable response to a matter that was brought to his notice and which is now covered by this amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for the very helpful way in which he has advised us as to what he should like to see done in some of these cases.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.22 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 173, line 41, after ("in") insert ("Schedule 6 to the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 149. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 153:
374
Page 175, line 9, leave out paragraph 74.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 149. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 175, line 19, at end insert—
("77. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 17 to the 1977 Act continue to have effect, notwithstanding paragraph 59 of this Schedule, in relation to a notice of increase served under paragraph 4 before the commencement of paragraph 59.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 148. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 25 [Repeals]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 154A:
Page 176, line 2, after ("4") insert ("(2) and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment repeals Section 4(2) of the New Towns Act 1959 which will become superfluous. The new housing subsidy system will make it unnecessary to pay to the Commission for the New Towns the Exchequer payments authorised by the subsection. The Commission for the New Towns will, in future, like new town development corporations under this Bill, receive the new housing subsidy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 176, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 16")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bellwin has already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 176, line 56, column 3, at end insert ("Section 60")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, likewise my noble friend has already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 177, line 4, at end insert—

(" 1971 c. 62.

The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971.

In section 7(3) the words "28(a)" and the words from "but" onwards.

In section 13(1) the words "(a) or ".

In Schedule 1 paragraph 28(a).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor repeal of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act consequential on Clause 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 179, line 18, at end insert ("and paragraph 7").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, with this amendment I would speak to Amendments Nos. 160, 161 and 163. All record repeals to the Rent Acts by earlier Government amendments. In the case of Nos. 158, 160 and 161, the repeals stem from the effective date amendments made to Clause 61 (Sections 57 and 59 to 67). In the case of Amendment 163, they stem from the amendments on decontrol provisions made to Schedule 24 (Sections 148, 151 and 154). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 179, line 57, at end insert ("and paragraph (b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, with this Amendment I would speak to Amendment No. 162 as well. It might be convenient if I take them together. They repeal Section 69(4)(b) and paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 11 to the Rent Act 1977, which provide for the provisional registration of a fair rent. Where a
376
certificate of fair rent has been issued to a person intending to grant a regulated tenancy, he may apply for a provisional registration of a rent in accordance with the certificate. This rent will not take effect unless the rent officer is notified, within a set period from the date of the registration, that the regulated tenancy has been granted. These amendments repeal this little-used procedure.
This is one of a number of minor improvements to the certificate of fair rent procedure that have been agreed with the Institute of Rent Officers. We have in mind to make the others by statutory instrument at an early date. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendments Nos. 160 and 161:
Page 180, line 15, at end insert ("In section 87, subsections (3) to (5).").
Page 180,line 24, at end insert ("Section 96(1) and (2),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 160 and to Amendment No. 161 when I moved No. 158. I beg to move the two together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 181, line 7, after ("paragraphs") insert ("13, 14 and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, when I moved Amendment No. 159. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 181, line 27, leave out from ("17") to ("10") in line 30 and insert ("paragraphs 3, 4,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 158. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

BREASCLETE HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
7.5 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill he now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government on the Bill and the fact that they have brought it forward. It is some months ago since I addressed myself to the Confirmation Order on the Ardveenish Harbour Bill. I can remember asking the Government at that time whether we could be assured that the Secretary of State would bring forward the necessary authority for financing it. I just discovered today, of course, that there has been no action taken to forward that harbour.
So I wish to congratulate first the Highlands and Islands Development Board on this occasion for actually having built the harbour; they have actually built the facilities and they are in operation. Your Lordships will remember that this was originally mooted because of the feeling that we should make arrangements for the fishing for blue whiting and putting this new harbour on the West Coast of Lewis. It is all there and, believe it or not, the ships are coming in. They are actually delivering fish, landing fish, and

291
the fish are being gutted, filleted and dried in the facilities provided by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. There is only one point—they cannot charge anything for the landing of the fish until they get this order.
Therefore, my first question to the Government is this. Has there been any unseemly delay in bringing this matter forward because, certainly in these days of stress and strain financially, we do not want to deny the Highlands and Islands Board the opportunity of maximising what it can get from this. It must involve very considerable expenditure and I think that the final account must come to about £1 million. Can the Minister tell me whether any EEC grants are involved here and, if so, their extent?
On the whole there is nothing more to be said except to offer congratulations all round, especially to the Government for bringing it forward. Fancy this Government of all Governments confirming a public harbour instead of selling it off and letting it off to some private firm! There is a lot to be said for this new look as far as their policies in Scotland are concerned. I certainly welcome the Bill and express my hope that Breasclete Harbour will go from strength to strength, because at present the fishing industry is in a bad way. In fact, the Scottish inshore fishermen are not fishing, for the simple reason that prices are so low that they feel that it is not worth their while.
I hope that that will not happen here. I hope that the Government will sort the matter out in our negotiations with the EEC. If any section of the Scottish communities in the Highlands and Islands and in the north of Scotland merit support in their battle in respect of the future of their industry, it is certainly the fishermen.
7.9 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, the pier is in fact already in operation, but so is the factory—I know, because I opened it. The fish supplies to the harbour have not been entirely uninterrupted. As the noble Lord has implied, this is a highly specialised market so far as fishermen are concerned and there have been times when they have not been altogether keen to land at
292
Breasclete because they could obtain better prices for fish elsewhere. But I am glad to say that fish landings this year are consistent with the requirements of the factory.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt and say that we on this side of the House really cannot hear him? It is not his fault. I know that the Hansard reporters cannot hear speakers, either. I am not referring just to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I do not know what we can do about it. May I suggest that we need to speak right into the microphones?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I can hear myself, and I love the sound of my own voice. It is rather like the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I fancy. On this particular occasion I must throw my voice, although I think that the loudspeakers work better on our side than on the side of the Opposition. I do not particularly wish to repeat myself. The factory provides employment for the equivalent of 20 full-time jobs, which is good, and
up to 50 local people are employed on a part-time basis. In a place like Lewis that is very good indeed. The cost to the HIDB of constructing the pier and the adjacent service site, was £300,000—which, of course, was back in 1978. I am afraid I do not know whether application was made for a grant from the European Community or, if it was, whether it was granted. However, I will consult on that point and let the noble Lord know.
The hope of the Highlands Board—indeed, of the Government and all of us—is that this particular development will lead to further onshore developments which will provide more employment for the population of this rather remote community.

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I was very enthusiastic in relation to the last Bill. I cannot say the same about this one, for the simple reason that, as far as I can see, this Bill is occasioned by local government reorganisation in Scotland which took place in, I think, 1973.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, 1975.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I think that the legislation was passed before then, and effectively from the point of view of its operation. Then, of course, things like boroughs were wiped out; sheriff substitutes have also gone. Reference to the Police Act 1946 is, of course, long outdated. Let us compare what is here with what was in Section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, which was a local Act. If you are looking for it, remember to ask for the local Act. These are the only changes that are made, plus, so far as I can see, one other change.
There is introduced in subsection (4) the privilege, the powers and protection of constables:
"in, on and in the vicinity of the railways, harbours, docks, inland waterways, stations, wharves, garages, hotels"—
that was always there by the way but I shall return to it—
"works, depots and other premises, and in vessels and hovercraft".
Vessels and hovercraft were not in the 1949 Act, but they are here, so we are bringing them up to date. Full marks, one might say, to the British transport authorities.
But although they are pretty late in bringing forward this Bill, they are too early as well; for if they had waited just a little longer they might have got it right in modern terms. It says "hotels", but the British Transport Commission is to get rid of its hotels. So in a couple of months the word "hotel" may be quite otiose. But I have not finished yet. The provisions says:
"…and in vessels and hovercraft, belonging or leased to or worked by any of the Boards or their wholly-owned subsidiaries".
But in future these subsidiaries are not to be wholly owned. The result is that this will be wrong in a few months. Would it not have been better for the Scottish Office to advise British Rail to hold off?—bearing in
294
mind that the changes that are to be made should have been made long before this. Now that they are being made, it looks as though the situation will be very different. Indeed, parts of this legislation will be quite wrong and quite unnecessary.
There is only one other suggestion that I want to make. Is it not a little unfair that the cost, charge and expenses of and incidental to the preparing of, obtaining and confirming of this order shall be paid by the Board—that is, the Railways Board? It is not really responsible for the necessitating of this order. It was the Government that reorganised local government and so threw the thing out of joint as regards Section 53 of the 1949 Act. Indeed, it is the Government again who are enforcing changes and once again making it doubtful as to whether it will be accurate for very long. I wonder whether any thought has been given to these matters by the Scottish Office, and whether I am entirely wrong in my suggestion that this was occasioned by local government reorganisation as long as seven years ago.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, my understanding of this Bill, which is a private Bill, is that it has nothing to do with local government at all. The purpose of it is simply and solely to amend Section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 in its application to Scotland. But by the provisions of Section 53 of that Act, which in general applied throughout Great Britain, the British Transport police constable was able to act as a constable only when he was in, on, or in the vicinity of the railways, harbours, and premises of the British Transport Commission, or, since 1962, its successor undertakings, and British Transport Hotels, except when he—that is the officer—was in pursuit of persons who had committed an arrestable offence in the vicinity of those premises.
It is paragraph 3 of the schedule with which we are really concerned. The purpose of that is two-fold. It enables a British Transport police constable to continue to act as a constable when off the premises of the board or its subsidiaries, and furthermore to act as a constable on such conveyances as ships and hovercraft, which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has related to the House, operated by the board or their subsidiaries and on premises of the board's subsidiaries.

295
I have not looked this up, but we can see from the Bill that "wholly-owned subsidiary" has the same meaning as in Section 92 of the Transport Act 1962. I imagine that when the legislation which is proposed to allow what is nowadays called the privatisation of British Rail to take place, there will have to be an amendment to the Transport Act 1962 or it will make a nonsense. This is perfectly well in point, and I would remind the noble Lord that when it was contemplated I do not suppose that we had got too far along the road towards the privatisation of British Railways.
I should just add that a British Transport police constable appointed under Clause 3 shall not act as a constable unless he is in uniform. If he is acting as a constable out of uniform he must hold authority from the sheriff or the chief police officer of the transport police to do so, and shall show such authority when requested to do so. So far as the cost is concerned, I think it is perfectly normal in a private Bill, such as this, that costs fall on the person or organisation that desires the Bill. I do not think I can help the House further.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, in order to cover the changes that will be necessary in this particular Bill the Government could have done it within their own public Act, which would save money to the board. If he goes back and has a look at Section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act, I think subsection (4), that is the only change that is being made. Subsection (4) is one of these sort of omnibus subsections in application to Scotland. For "boroughs" you will read "burgh"; for "justices" you will read "sheriff" or "sheriff substitute", and points like that. The Police Act 1946 and 1947.
What they have done, instead of making the changes there, is to take the opportunity of rewriting Section 53 in much more lucid language and making the changes that I have suggested that are here about vessels, and hovercraft, et cetera. If the noble Earl looks back he will probably find that there has been no change in the English and Welsh situation because there was none needed. Indeed, we could have carried on but for the desire to make the necessary changes.
296
Even what the noble Earl read out about them being in uniform or acting without uniform, is all in Section 53, and this is merely a sensible rewriting of Section 53. I do not think there is very much difference in relation to the carrying out of investigations and arresting any person "whom he has followed from." That is all there too, or most of it. I think myself that they would have been well advised, in view of the changes that are proposed and were announced last week, to just hold this back for another length of time. It was not going to cause any trouble at all to British Transport.
However, as the noble Earl says, it will be all right for a week or two, or a month or two, and depending upon when we get the change of legislation, then we are going to have to deal with another confirmation Bill, which means that the noble Earl will have to listen to another speech of mine. I know that is bad news for him, but there you are. I do not think it is a very good piece of legislation in the circumstances.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.24 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.]

UNITED REFORMED CHURCH LION WALK COLCHESTER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH WELLINGTON PIER) CONFIRMATION BILL
Examiners Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable: Ordered to lie on the Table.
  THE RHINE: NAVIGATION AGREEMENTS
  THE RHINE: NAVIGATION AGREEMENTS
  PNEUMOCONIOSIS MEDICAL PANELS
  PNEUMOCONIOSIS MEDICAL PANELS
  THE CASE OF MRS. V. M. PATEL
  THE CASE OF MRS. V. M. PATEL
  CHILE: ARMS EMBARGO REVIEW
  CHILE: ARMS EMBARGO REVIEW