Sitting of 19 June 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
BILL PRESENTED
  BELIZE
  Sir Ian Gilmour, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Mr. Secretary Nott, Mr. Douglas Hurd, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, and Mr. Neil Marten, presented a Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Belize of independence within the Commonwealth: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 22 June, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]
Orders of the Day
  Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill

    Clause 1
    EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN PREMISES USED FOR
    MANUFACTURE OR PREPARATION OF FOOD FROM
    REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER WITH LOCAL AUTHORITY
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out from beginning to "food" in line 12 and insert—
    ""(3A) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply so as to require the registration under this section—
    (a) of domestic premises, if the only food intended for sale which is prepared or manufactured on them is".
    10.35 am
    Mr. Gerry Neale: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 16, after "(b)" insert
    "of premises of any description if the only food intended for sale which is prepared or manufactured on them is".
    Mr. Neale: For obvious reasons, the Bill and the amendments have not been spoken to in the House. As a Bill it was presented to the Chair and went through all its stages in the House. It then went to the other place, where it was amended.
    I thank the co-sponsors of the Bill, who came from both sides of the House—namely, the hon. Members for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), and for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner), the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith), the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), and for Melton (Mr. Latham), and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris).
    The amendment is so intertwined with the only substantive clause in the Bill that it might be of service to the House if I went through the history involved. No one had realised that the Food and Drugs Act 1955 affected voluntary organisations and the process of making food at home. That came to light last year in Stockton-on-Tees, when an environmental health officer approached a women's institute market. Indeed, there are more than 400 such markets throughout the country. They sell various foods that have been produced at home.
    The environmental health officer informed the women's institute concerned that the stall could not sell jam because it had not been produced in kitchens that had been registered with the local authority. His action threw doubts on the activities of that market and of all such markets throughout the country. At the time, I did not realise how much money such markets raised. They raise about £2 million on jam sales alone.

    1273
    Neither the public nor hon. Members realised how many voluntary organisations and activities could be affected if such action were taken throughout the country. As a result, the National Federation of Women's Institutes inquired into the legality of what the environmental health officer had decided. The Department of Health and Social Security was approached. What came to light was that while the Food and Drugs Act 1955 never intended that such trading should be caught it was revealed that the interpretation that the environmental health officer put on section 16 of the Act could not be disputed.
    It is possible that the problem has arisen because, at the time, that element was not clearly recorded in our discussions, but section 16 provides that
    "no premises shall be used for … the preparation or manufacture of sausages or potted, pressed, pickled or preserved food"—
    or of ice-cream intended for sale—
    "unless they are registered under this section for that purpose by the local authority".
    The local authorities for this purpose are district councils, London borough councils, the Common Council of the City of London and the overseers of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple.
    Two points arose from that which were somewhat stunning. The first was that it was doubted that the preserved food referred to in that section would cover jams made in domestic circumstances. Secondly, it was never imagined that it would apply to domestic premises or to voluntary organisation premises.
    The difficulty arose because the 1955 Act applies only to England and Wales and does not make a distinction in terms of domestic premises and meeting halls used to prepare food. The Department and a number of local authorities were obliged to come to the view that jam is a preserved food, within the provisions of section 16, and as such should strictly require that domestic kitchens and meeting halls should come within the registration requirements of section 16.
    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I notice that the Bill does not mention jam. I wonder whether the provisions have been drafted to include other preserved food that might be made by the ladies, for example, pickled onions. Is that why the Bill is drafted in vague terms, without specifically referring to jam?
    Mr. Neale: That is so. I shall enlarge on that. I was seeking to explain that the problem had arisen about jam. What transpired, much to the amusement and annoyance of such organisations as the National Federation of Women's Institutes, was that it appears that jam is a preserved food whereas marmalade is not. There were various other anomalies of that type.
    It is a long-standing practice of housewives—and now of some men—to make home-made preserves and produce to sell through local markets and societies. That is extremely valuable work for such societies, particularly those registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, raising money for the benefit of various charitable purposes and voluntary organisations.
    9.45 am
    As a result of what happened in the Stockton case, which required all these domestic kitchens to be registered, it was obvious that the law needed to be
    1274
    changed. It was a mammoth bureaucratic task. Therefore, the sponsors from both sides of the House joined me in the view that we should introduce a Bill to cover the requirements of registration and render it unnecessary.
    The Lords amendment requires that the premises in the Bill should be extended so that the Bill covers not only domestic premises but premises used solely for voluntary purposes in the preparation of food. In the past 12 months since this matter came to light, a black cloud has been hanging over jam making and all other forms of food preparation by voluntary organisations.
    Hon. Members may recall that just before the end of the last Session I introduced a Ten-Minute Bill, which failed for lack of time. In March this year I presented, my Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Department, and the right hon. Member for Openshaw for the kind assistance that they have given.
    Clause 1 seeks to insert a new subsection in section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955. That would provide that any food produced on domestic premises will not require those premises to be registered, unless the food produced is:
    "food intended for sale for the benefit of the person preparing or manufacturing it by a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965".
    That covers institutions such as the women's institute market and any other voluntary organisation registered for such purposes. It is a form of co-operative, as defined by section 1(2) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965. The qualifying point in the Bill is that it should be food produced only on domestic premises.
    The second qualification in the Bill is that it should exempt premises being registered under the 1955 Act if the food produced is
    "food prepared or manufactured otherwise than in the course of a trade carried on by the person preparing or manufacturing it."
    That covers all forms of voluntary organisations, such as church fetes and all other functions that I shall mention shortly.
    The amendment drew to the attention of the sponsors the fact that if the Bill related only to domestic premises it would rule out a large number of functions involving voluntary organisations, such as the scouts and the guides, who play a vital part in our community life and produce food other than in the kitchens of scouts and guides and their parents. It was felt strongly that the premises on which food is produced for voluntary organisations should be covered in certain circumstances. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best), who will enlarge on that aspect.
    It will be noted from the amendment that there is no extension of the exemption for premises other than domestic premises where the food is being produced by industrial and providence societies. If the members of those societies produce their food in domestic kitchens, in that sense they will be exempt from the registration, but if the food is produced in halls, in meeting places, field kitchens, and so on, it must be done on a purely voluntary basis. That is a slightly different emphasis.
    There is an aspect on which I should like to forstall concern on the part of hon. Members. I refer to protection in terms of hygiene in the production of the food and the safety of the people concerned. Hon. Members may know that the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970 lay down very clear guidelines on the circumstances that cover the eligibility of premises, domestic or otherwise, to be

    1275
    inspected by the local environmental health inspectors. The Bill in no way affects that position, in that domestic premises that are used for the production and manufacture of food that is sold by industrial and providence societies are in that sense deemed to be running a business that under the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations, can be inspected by local authorities. The local authorities have the right to inspect. That position will remain and is not altered by the amendment. In the case of food produced on domestic or other premises, but not by someone in the process of trade, the regulations did not apply and would still not apply, so the position is the same as before.
    It is plain that the organisations that are in the process of producing food, particularly the women's institutes, have a very high regard for hygiene. Their markets are only part of the many activities in which they indulge in terms of food preparation. They publish a handbook that contains not only the various legal requirements relating to the form of the market but many pages on the regulations, the requirements for producing food, the protection of food, cleanliness, and many other aspects, to ensure that the standards of food preparation used by their members are the best.
    As an example of the responsibility that voluntary organisations readily undertake in these matters, I refer to a condition in the handbook that states clearly to members that
    "all markets and kitchens where food is cooked for sale on market stalls are liable to inspection by public health officers of the appropriate local authority. The officers should be given every freedom to inspect, and opportunity should be taken to seek their guidance on matters of concern. The inspectors usually come in friendly fashion, ready and willing to advise".
    I do not know whether the voluntary organisations would agree with that in Stockton-on-Tees. The handbook goes on to say that the kitchen should have
    "an atmosphere of cleanliness, adequate supplies of hot water, clean utensils and working surfaces, good lighting and ventilation, proper provision and use of protective clothing, and real care and thought for the food being handled".
    It is a hallmark of the voluntary organisations involved in and encompassed by the amendment that they show considerable regard for the need for cleanliness, and they do not deserve to be subjected to the bureaucratic requirement of having to register all their domestic kitchens for this purpose. I pay tribute to the National Federation of Women's Institutes for taking a lead in this area. The federation is supported by many other voluntary organisations, such as the Royal National Life-boat Institution, which has some 2,000 branches in this country and raises about £3½ million a year from efforts of the type covered by the amendment and by the Bill itself.
    Mr. John Page: I have not done a great deal of homework on the Bill. Will my hon. Friend explain whetler the small one-off bring-and-buy event that is held in someone's house for a particular charity, or even for the funds of a political party, is covered, or is that totally exempt? Does the Bill deal more with food markets?
    Mr. Neale: The first part of the clause relates solely to activities such as the women's institute markets and co-operatives registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965.
    The second part of the clause deals with the production of food on domestic premises, and would, as a result of the amendment, include other places, such as meeting
    1276
    halls. That covers the very point made by my hon. Friend in his intervention. The feeling of the sponsors on each side of the House is that the relevant section of the Food and Drugs Act should not apply to the many activities relating to church fetes, and so on, and to the activities of parent-teacher associations that raise money. It would be nonsense if it applied to them.
    Recent studies have shown that the vast majority of parent-teacher associations hold money-raising events in homes as well as in village halls. These organisations raise well over £20 million per year, and it is nonsense that all those activities should be covered by some statutory requirement for registration. The need for that has not been proved, and I hope that my hon. Friend will feel reassured on that point.
    It is entirely wrong that women's institutes should have been placed in such a position, and I am sure that hon. Members would wish to see a change made. The women's institutes have a long history of involvement with the Governments of the day in the evolution of regulations affecting food production. Bearing that in mind, the past 12 months have been a difficult time for them, in trying to placate their members throughout the country and the many other people who have made inquiries about the working of the Act.
    10 am
    I do not want to sound flippant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, however we may refer to this Session, the term "jam session" means something quite different to the National Federation of Women's Institutes. I hope that I have assured hon. Members that the amendment does not relate only to jam. It relates to a whole range of foods produced in circumstances that I have described. It concerns people who, as members of industrial and provident societies, make food at home for sale through such society activities, properly registered under existing law. It is concerned with voluntary organisations and community sponsorship, and the most fundamental help of all—nourishment in local communities.
    I believe that there is widespread approval among all parties in the House that the amendment should be accepted to enable the Bill to reach the statute book and to rid the activities to which I have referred of the ridiculous inhibitions from which they have suffered over the past 12 months. I should like to take the opportunity of thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House and also my hon. Friends in the Department for all the help that they have given in enabling the measure to reach this stage.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) who moved the amendment with his normal fluency and incisiveness. I should also like to congratulate him in another respect. The hon. Gentleman has two great advantages in dealing with the Bill. First, he is male. Secondly, he moves the amendment on a Friday. Why is it an advantage to be male when dealing with a measure of this kind? I listened with some astonishment, if not interest, to the speech made by the hon. Gentleman in the debate last Thursday about the real problems facing women in the community. The hon. Gentleman had the unique advantage of being the only speaker to be reported by some radio stations in large urban areas.
    This was notable in a debate when it was difficult to discover what had been said. If the hon. Member moving

    1277
    the amendment had been a woman and had talked today about women's institutes, voluntary organisations, scouts and girl guides and, even better, about jam, he would have found himself given an asonishing amount of publicity. We should hear what he looked like, what he sounded like, and whether he was a representative of someone who looked like a sportsman or, in this case, a sportswoman. We would, however, experience great difficulty in discovering what he actually talked about. I suppose that, in the case of some Conservative Members, it is difficult to know what they are talking about. One must not therefore be unkind.
    The amendment is interesting for a number of reasons. The voluntary organisations are important. They have been changing their functions and their work over many years. The women's institutes are now highly professional voluntary organisations. I was interested to hear the promoter of the Bill say that he was surprised to learn how much money is earned by women's institute shops. Those who have seen the women's institutes moving into the area of women's politics, discussing many important subjects and taking a positive role in lobbying for specific changes in the law are not astonished to learn that they are sufficiently professional to earn a great deal of money through their shops. They produce goods of a high standard and sell them to all and sundry.
    Mr. Neale: I was not talking about the total sum. I was talking about the jam to which the amendment relates.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I stand corrected. I am happy to hear that the hon. Gentleman is not surprised at anything that women do. Hearing his remarks last week, I thought he had simple views on the matter.
    This Bill is a classic example of how bureaucracy, having got itself into a knot, can occasionally, if shame-facedly, try to put the matter right. I should like to know from the Minister whether the amendments came from the House of Lords. I had understood that the Bill was to be returned from the other place unamended. I am interested to hear that it is in order that these amendments can suddenly appear. It is interesting that parliamentary draftsmanship can stand unchallenged for a number of years until interpreted, in a way that we are told is accurate, by an environmental health officer, who discovers that there is considerable doubt about the correct interpretation of the Food and Drugs Acts.
    This is a sensible little Bill. It is a clarification that will help those who prepare food. I have the greatest admiration for women's voluntary organisations. They are grossly under-estimated, not least because, in this House, there are so few women and the virtues of voluntary organisations are rarely fully discussed.
    My other reason for congratulating the hon. Gentleman is that today is a Friday and little of what is stated in the House will be recorded or commented upon anywhere. It is interesting to those hon. Members who started their careers in newspapers to find that the more advanced the technology and the more brilliant the equipment the less actual reporting of the doings of the House take place. These days, anyone who speaks in the House after 4 pm from Monday to Thursday is hardly likely to be noted. Those speaking on a Friday are likely to be speaking to themselves.
    1278
    I hope that the Bill will go rapidly on to the statute book. I am glad to see an unusual note of common sense emanating from the Government. I welcome the amendments.
    Mr. Keith Best: I shall not dare to pretend to speak on behalf of women's organisations in case I come under the unrelenting lash of the tongue of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). I shall restrict my remarks to the scouts and, if the hon. Lady allows me, a similar body, the girl guides. I speak as secretary of the Parliamentary Scout Association. It may interest hon. Members to know that this involves more than 50 Members of both Houses, who show a keen interest in the activities of the scouts. Many others have had some link or liaison with the scouts in their lives.
    The fear was expressed in the other place that time might not be found in this House to examine the matter again. Our proceedings today can assuage the fears of those who may think that measures which are not particularly tendentious but which are nevertheless necessary and sensible get squeezed out of the parliamentary timetable. The Bill's progress is justification for the belief that if a measure is sensible and especially if it has all-party support it will be given an airing and will find its way on to the statute book.
    I pay my compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), who has been assiduous in pursuit of these matters. The whole House owes a debt of gratitude to him for bringing the matter before the House. My hon. Friend will have the satisfaction, I hope, of seeing the Bill on to the statute book. He will have the gratitude of many thousands of people up and down the country as a result of the measure.
    First, it is undesirable that there should be any unnecessary administrative burden on voluntary leaders of associations such as the scouts and the girl guides. They have enough to do in organising their own activities. The law, as amended, unwittingly places an additional administrative burden on them. That is why my hon. Friend sought to bring the matter before the House.
    The other point, which was adverted to by my hon. Friend, is that many other premises are used by scouts for the preparation of food. Inevitably, one thinks of scout huts. They seem to come within the Food and Drugs Act. I welcome the amendments, because that situation will now be safeguarded. I hope also, although I am not sure how it comes within the term "premises", that the preparation of preserves around the camp fire will be safeguarded by this measure. I have many happy memories of such occasions, but I know that I should be out of order if I digressed on that subject.
    My third point is that the sale of preserves and the produce that is made by scouts is not for personal gain. It is for scout funds. That is another important aspect to be taken into account. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I am gratified to know that for some time the Department of Health and Social Security has accepted that the activities of the scouts and girl guides should not require to be registered under the Food and Drugs Act. I am sure that my hon. Friend, too, will welcome this measure.
    The scout movement is the largest youth movement in the country. It has a fine and enviable record. Many hon. Members have been members of it. Lest I be accused of misogynism, I should add that I am sure that the hon.

    1279
    Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) will say that there are many lady Members of the House who have been girl guides.
    The measure is sensible. It will preserve the preparation of preserves—if that is not too convoluted a way to put it. It will also preserve the fine traditions of voluntary organisations, such as the scout movement, and enable them to continue in the excellent way that they have in the past. That is something for which all hon. Members can be grateful.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I shall deal first with the last two speeches, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best), and that of the hon. Lady the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody).
    My hon. Friend's work for the scout movement is well known. I am happy to say that I am one of the 50 Members that he mentioned. I am a paid-up member of the Parliamentary Scout Association. I sent him a small subscription earlier this year, and I understand that some modest hospitality is to be extended to us on the Terrace some time next month, when I look forward to discussing this matter further with him and others.
    The speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Crewe was an unusual and somewhat mischievous intervention. It appears that le broadcasting authorities did not give her speech eight days ago the coverage that she felt it merited—indeed, worse: it sounded as though they gave more coverage to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale). If that is correct, I am sure that there was a good reason for it.
    The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that the other place is perfectly entitled to amend legislation. There is no constitutional reason why it should not do so. Amendments in the other place frequently add to the quality of legislation. The risk, as my hon. Friend mentioned, is that by so amending it, it has to come back here and may then get caught up in a legislative log-jam or in the convoluted wheelings and dealings that take place at 2.30 pm on a Friday. Happily, there seems no risk of that happening on this occasion. In fact, the legislation will be improved by the amendments that we are debating.
    10.15 am
    Mrs. Dunwoody: It seems that the Minister has misunderstood me—I am sure accidentally. I was of the opinion that the Bill had gone through the other place unamended, yet suddenly these amendments appeared. That was the question that I put to him, and it is surely worth an answer.
    Sir George Young: If the hon. Lady will look at the Amendment Paper, she will see that it is headed
    "Lords Amendments to the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill"
    and it sets out the amendments that were passed in the other place. There is nothing unusual about that.
    I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North on the skill with which he has piloted this legislation through the House and, at secondhand, through another place This is the second time that he has attempted to go round this course. The first time, the bell rang before he quite got round. The second time, it looks as though he will have a clear round. He has been much luckier than I ever was in Private Members' legislation. I promoted several important social reforms in the previous
    1280
    Parliament. One sought to require car manufacturers to advertise cars at a price that included the number plates, seat belts and delivery charges, without which one cannot purchase a car, rather than at the fictitious prices at which cars are advertised at the moment. Unhappily, that legislation was blocked. Similar legislation on measures for kidney patients was blocked, although the Government subsequently had the good grace to incorporate it in legislation of their own.
    This Government are magnanimous and generous. We have no monopoly of sensible legislation, and we are glad to give a fair wind to the Bill and the amendments. Basically, my hon. Friend is putting right a nonsense, as he said in his speech. Many hon. Members attended a meeting that was organised downstairs a few months ago, when we met representatives of the women's institute. On that occasion my right hon. Friend was presented with some jam that had been prepared by its members. He consumed it, and I am happy to say that he still enjoys the best of health.
    I shall briefly sketch the background to the legislation that my hon. Friend seeks to amend, and which in turn is amended by the amendments from the other place. Many of the present provisions have their origin in nineteenth century legislation on the adulteration of food and drugs and on public health. The Adulteration of Food and Drink Act 1860 prohibited the sale of food or drink with which ingredients or materials injurious to health had been mixed. It also prohibited persons from selling food that was adulterated or not pure. That Act was extended by the Adulteration of Food and Drugs Act 1872, which provided for the taking of samples and prosecutions by local enforcement officers and required the appointment of public analysts. The Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 had a major impact on the quality of basic food, introducing as it did the provision that
    "No person shall sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by such purchaser"
    That Act remained in force with amendments until 1928, when it was repealed by the consolidating Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act. This followed a decade during which regulations dealing with composition and labelling of specific products had begun to appear.
    The Public Health Act 1875 gave local officers power to inspect various categories of food, and, if it appeared to be
    "diseased or unsound or unwholesome or unfit for the food of man",
    to seize it and have it dealt with by a justice. The justice was required to condemn the food if it was diseased, and to order it to be destroyed or so disposed of as to prevent it from being used for the food of man. Similar provisions for Scotland were made in the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1987.
    These two strands of food legislation, that concerned with adulteration and other fraudulent practices, and that with public health, were combined in England and Wales for the first time in the Food and Drugs Act 1938. Penalties were introduced for false or misleading labels and advertisements, as was the power to regulate the preparation, storage, sale and delivery of food. Cases of food poisoning were to be notified, and the medical officer of health was given power to give notice to any person in charge of food likely to cause food poisoning that it was not to be used for human consumption.

    1281
    The 1938 Act applied only in part to Scotland, where the 1928 Act, with amendments, remained in force, and Northern Ireland, and the outbreak of war prevented the introduction of consolidated legislation in those parts of the United Kingdom. Because of the greater need for governmental control over food supply during the war, the 1938 Act powers were extended in 1943 by the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, which permitted orders to be made, setting out minimum standards of composition of foodstuffs and also requiring them to be labelled.
    The present legislation consists of three separate Acts applying to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—namely, the Food and Drugs Act 1955, the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 and the Food and Drugs (Northern Ireland) Act 1958. The provisions in those Acts are similar or identical on most subjects. However, the 1955 Act covers some additional areas, for example, the regulation of markets, which is not dealt with by the 1956 or 1958 Acts. There is separate subordinate legislation under each of the Acts. There are powers to close food businesses in England, Wales and Scotland under the Food and Drugs (Control of Food Premises) Act 1976 and the control of Food Premises (Scotland) Act 1977.
    My hon. Friend is adding his name to a distinguished series of legislative reforms. The Act that is amended by his Bill, and then further amended, is the Food and Drugs Act 1955, which is basically a consolidation measure dealing with such matters as signs to be displayed at slaughterhouses and knackers' yards, the misuse of designation of cream in relation to cream substitutes, and special provisions about the cleansing of shellfish.
    The detailed section that my hon. Friend seeks to amend is section 16. It provides a safeguard for public health in relation to the preparation and manufacture of certain foods, especially preserved food of animal or vegetable origin, cooked meat products and icecream. With the exception of catering and similar premises, where food is generally prepared for immediate consumption, all manufacturing premises are registrable under section 16.
    An application for registration must specify the purpose of registration and detail the accommodation to be used for that purpose. Local authorities may refuse an application, or cancel registration, if they feel that the hygiene requirements of the Act—specifically section 13 and the regulations made under it—are not complied with. The intention is that the premises are seen to be capable of attaining a standard of hygiene that is likely at all times to protect the public health. Applicants may make representations to local authorities against a refusal to register or against cancellation of registration. Appeal to a magistrates' court is also included in the provisions.
    Section 16 makes no distinction between commercial or domestic premises, but most local authorities enforce their responsibilities with two criteria in mind. The first is the scale of the manufacturing operation, and the second is the potential health risk of the food to be manufactured. On that basis, the vast majority of authorities do not seek to encourage applications for registration from premises producing only very small quantities of food falling into the no-risk or low-risk category—for example, jam. I understand that there is no case on the records of anyone ever having been poisoned by jam.
    Even where applications are lodged by, and granted to, those running mini-businesses, which would in theory be
    1282
    women's institute marketeers, the local authorities' main purpose will be to achieve a listing of the addresses of such premises so as to facilitate inspection under the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970, should the need arise. Whether applications have ever been required from women's institute marketeers—I believe not, except in the case of Stockton-on-Tees—the addresses of WI kitchens are voluntarily notified to the local authority by the market organisers.
    Section 16 had a peaceful existence until last year when it leapt into notoriety due to the activities of the environmental health officer at Stockton-on-Tees. For many years local authorities have either taken the view that women's institute marketeers' kitchens are not required to be registered under section 16 of the Act, or have not felt it necessary to enforce registration. Last summer Stockton-on-Tees borough council, following legal advice that registration was required, refused to approve the registration of WI marketeers' kitchens in conformity with the council's policy of not registering any domestic premises under section 16.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that in his view Parliament had never intended that section 16 should apply to those kitchens—which are now to be exempt—and that if departmental advice was that registration was required—indeed, that was the subsequent advice—he would seek an opportunity to introduce an appropriate amendment to that section. In fact, we inserted a suitable clause into a draft health and social services Bill for which, unhappily, time could not be found in the current Session. My hon. Friend has beaten us to the draw. We have been pleased to assist him in the preparation of his Bill. I am happy to say that it has no public expenditure implications.
    The purpose of the Bill, as originally drafted, was to amend section 16, which applies only to England and Wales. The law in Scotland and Northern Ireland is different and does not need amending. Its purpose was to exempt certain domestic premises in which food was prepared for sale to the public from the requirement contained in section 16 for the registration with a local authority of premises used for the preparation for sale of certain types of food. The domestic premises that my hon. Friend had in mind at that stage were those where the food that was either prepared or manufactured was either food intended for sale for the benefit of the person preparing or manufacturing it by a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965, or food prepared or manufactured otherwise than in the course of a trade carried on by the person preparing or manufacturing it.
    As my hon. Friend said, the first of those exemptions would benefit members of the women's institute markets and any similar organisations, although food hygiene regulations would continue to apply as a safeguard to public health. The second exemption would have accorded parity of treatment on grounds of equity for those who prepare food at home for sale, not for their own benefit, but for charitable purposes.
    Of course, the original Bill was amended in another place. In the course of correcting one anomaly, which was the original purpose of the Bill, it is appropriate that Parliament should correct another anomaly now that it has been drawn to our attention. In so doing, the House can be assured that we shall not be opening the way to any abuse of the real purpose of registration of premises by

    1283
    local authorities. That is because the further exemption from registration affected by the amendments before the House this morning will not apply if the person preparing food for sale is doing so in the course of a trade or business.
    Mr. Neale: Can my hon. Friend the Minister help the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), who threw some doubt on whether the Bill had been amended in another place, or whether the amendment is being introduced here under the guise of a Lords amendment? Baroness Phillips, who I believe is the hon. Lady's mother, spoke on Second Reading of the Bill. I assure the hon. Lady that the Bill was amended in another place. One of her colleagues spoke on behalf of the Opposition and said that the Bill had their wholehearted support. He said that their concern was that if the amendment were made in another place, although a worthy amendment, it might impede the ultimate progress of the measure on to the statute book. He asked for an assurance that it would not do so, and he was so assured.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. The relevant records are in Hansard, 2 June 1981, cols. 1175–76. An Opposition Member spoke to the amendment and welcomed it. I assure the hon. Member for Crewe that there has been no underhand manoeuvring that has not been in accordance with the rules of either House.
    I was speaking about the amendment and whether it would in any way weaken the protection to which the public are entitled in the area of public health. The exemptions from registration that are effected by the amendments will not apply if the person preparing food for sale is doing so in the course of a trade or business. Equally, if the premises would in the normal way fall to be registered, exemption from registration could not be claimed on the grounds that from time to time they were used for the preparation of food for sale for charitable purposes. Therefore, the amendments before the House are acceptable.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey said, the amendments were inspired by the scout and girl guides associations. I declare an interest as county president of the North-West Middlesex branch of the scout association. I allow troops from my constituency to camp on my modest estate in the country from time to time. The point made by the parliamentary agent for the scout and girl guides associations is that scouts and girl guides huts in which, from time to time, certain food may be prepared for sale at fund-raising functions are technically required to be registered with local authorities under section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955.
    Although the associations and my Department do not know of any instance of a local authority insisting on registration, they are understandably unhappy that scout troops and guide companies are in technical breach of the law. That is why they sponsored a suitable amendment in another place.
    10.30 am
    At first sight one might say that the case for the amendment is hypothetical. However, a year ago one would have said exactly the same about the registration of WI marketeers' kitchens. The case for accommodating the scouts and guides is strong, and that is why the Government are happy to see the Bill amended accordingly.
    1284
    As a Health Minister, I have to be satisfied that, the public's health will be adequately safeguarded when the Bill is enacted as amended. I shall mention briefly two important safeguards, one statutory and the other voluntary. The statutory safeguard is the food hygiene general regulations——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Will the Minister assure the House that these safeguards arise from the amendment?
    Sir George Young: If the amendments are carried, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they will extend the exemption from registration under section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955. If we are to extend the exemptions and deny local authorities the right to ensure that there is registration, we must assure the public that such exemptions do not prejudice public health. The Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970 will still apply. The women's institute has always accepted that the regulations must continue to apply even if we amend the 1955 Act.
    These regulations provide an important safeguard for public health. They are binding on any trade or business where any person engages in the handling of food. The legal opinion is that, except for food prepared on an irregular basis in a domestic kitchen for charitable or similar purposes, the regulations apply to all preparation and manufacture of food for sale, including that undertaken by WI marketeers.
    As there is an enormous variety of food businesses, the regulations are almost entirely in general terms. Basically, the main provisions are directed to ensure the hygiene of premises, equipment, food handlers and food handling practices. Only those running the businesses and the local authorities are in a position to decide what provisions fulfil the regulations for each piece of food handling. Enforcement consists far more of offering constructive advice in particular circumstances than in the treat of mounting prosecutions.
    It is common practice for local authorities to give local publicity at varying intervals and by various means to these obligations. They have been assisted in that by guidance from the Health Education Council, which has been widely used by food hygiene educationists. That, together with the voluntary system of supplying lists of WI marketeers to local authorities, denotes a most responsible attitude to public health and underlines their appreciation that these activities are bound by the regulations.
    Pages 22–25 of the women's institute's handbook demonstrate that the institute takes seriously the issue of public health. It has issued detailed guidance to its members on exactly how produce should be prepared. A complete page is devoted to stating exactly how preserves should be presented, and ends with strict advice on the level to which jars should be filled. Members are advised that secondhand tops must not be used, and a certain ratio of sugar to fruit is recommended. Members are told that recipes should not be adopted that amount to more than 10 lbs of jam being obtained from 6 lbs of sugar. In many ways voluntary regulations are even better safeguards than statutory ones.
    The Government welcome my hon. Friend's initiative and compliment him on the way that he has piloted the Bill through the House. The amendments before us are acceptable to the Government.
    Mr. Best: During my brief remarks I postulated the idea of making preserves around the camp fire. Is that encompassed by the Bill?
    Sir George Young: I must confess that I am not a lawyer. Section 16 concerns the registration of premises. I am not sure whether the area around the camp fire is a premise. I would say that produce made around the camp fire would not be caught within section 16. If I am wrong, I see scope for another Private Member's Bill in the next Session exempting produce prepared around the camp fire that comes within the 1955 Act. However, I do not think that that legislation will be necessary. I do not think that the excellent produce prepared by my hon. Friend in his youth around the camp fire was in the mind of the Government who introduced the 1955 Act.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

  Forgery and Counterfeiting Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 10

  MEANING OF PREJUDICE" AND INDUCE"
  10.37 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 4, leave out from 'omission' to 'the' in line 11 and insert 'intended to be induced is to a person's prejudice if, and only if, it is one which, if it occurs—
  (a) will result—

  (i) in his temporary or permanent loss of property; or

  (ii) in his being deprived of an opportunity to earn remuneration or greater remuneration; or

  (iii) in his being deprived of an opportunity to gain a financial advantage otherwise than by way of remuneration; or

  (b) will result in somebody being given an opportunity—

  (i) to earn remuneration or greater remuneration from him; or

  (ii) to gain a financial advantage from him otherwise than by way of remuneration; or

  (c) will be'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 4, leave out from 'omission' to 'the' in line 11 and insert 'is to a person's prejudice if, and only if, it is one which, if it occurs—
  (a) will result—

  (i) in his temporary or permanent loss of property; or

  in his being deprived of an opportunity to earn remuneration or greater remuneration; or

  in his being deprived of an opportunity to gain a financial advantage otherwise than by way of remuneration; or

  (b) will result in somebody being given an opportunity—

  (i) to earn remuneration or greater remuneration from him; or

  (ii) to gain a financial advantage from or over him otherwise than by way of remuneration; or

  (c) will be'.
  Mr. Mayhew: The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the concept of prejudice, which is defined in clause 10. The need for clarification was highlighted by the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) in Committee. I am grateful to him for bringing the matter to our attention.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman questioned the definition of "prejudice" and asked in particular whether it was sufficiently flexible to cover a situation in which one person gained a competitive advantage over another by means of forgery—for example, where two people are bidding for a contract, which one obtains by resorting to forgery. We have considered this point in conjunction with the draftsman and have concluded that the Bill as drafted would not cover such a situation. This has led us to consider further the definition of "prejudice" and to expand it in three ways.
  As the Bill is drafted an
  "act … is to a person's prejudice if, and only if, its occurrence—

  (a) would result in his temporary or permanent loss of property; or

  1287

  (b) would give or has given somebody an opportunity to earn from him remuneration, or greater remuneration, in some office; or

  (c) would be or was the result of his having accepted a false instrument as genuine, or a copy of a false instrument as a copy of a genuine one, in connection with his performance of any duty."

  The right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly said that this definition did not appear satisfactorily to cover the case in which a person may be said to be prejudiced in the sense that he is deprived of the opportunity to gain a financial advantage.
  The example that the right hon. and learned Member gave was that of two people bidding for a contract, which one succeeds in obtaining as a result of some forgery that he perpetrates. In such a case, the other competitor does not lose "property" in any sense; nor does the person who awards the contract necessarily give the winner of that contract the opportunity to earn remuneration from him, since "remuneration" is a fairly narrow term, indicating, in general, payment for a particular service. I am sure therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right, as he so often is, when he doubted whether the Bill covered this situation, and accordingly we have sought to remedy this defect by making specific provision, in paragraphs (a)(iii) and (b)(ii) of the amendment, for cases involving opportunity to gain a financial advantage.
  The existing wording of the Bill broadly follows the wording of the Law Commission's definition. The Bill is designed to give legislative effect to the commission's report, save that the commission referred in paragraph (a) to the loss of money or other property. It defined "property" as meaning real and personal property, including things in action and other intangible property. In our view, the additional gloss on paragraph (a) contained in the commission's definition is unnecessary, as it adds nothing to what would be a court's normal interpretation of the term "property"; nor would it appear to cover the sort of case mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  In the right hon. and learned Gentleman's example, what is lost is not property, in any sense, but the opportunity to gain a financial advantage. In our view, that is not the same as an opportunity to gain remuneration in some office, which suggests something like an employer-employee relationship. Therefore, the situation does not appear to be adequately covered in the Bill.
  The House will appreciate that there are two aspects of the situation that need to be covered: there is, first, the element of prejudice, which the person who fails to obtain the contract suffers, and there is the element of prejudice suffered by the person who awards the contract as a result of the forgery. Both those aspects need to be covered, as there may be cases in which only one element is involved—for example where, out of spite, a person who is not himself bidding for the contract forges testimonials relating to a person who is bidding for it which results in his losing the contract. In such a case only the person who fails to get the contract can be said to be truly prejudiced. Alternatively, there may be cases in which the person who perpetrates the forgery is the only person seeking a particular contract, which he gains as a result of his forgery. In such a case no one else is deprived of the opportunity to gain a financial advantage, but the person who awards the contract is prejudiced to the extent that he has given someone an opportunity to gain a financial advantage, which he would not otherwise have given.
  1288
  10.45 am
  It has become clear, in considering the amendment required as a result of the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that both these aspects also need to be covered in cases in which what is at stake is the opportunity to earn remuneration, or greater remuneration—a category covered in subsection (1)(b) as already drafted. It is still necessary to deal separately with this sort of case, as, although "financial advantage" may seem wide enough to cover "remuneration", there may be circumstances in which that is not the case. If one considers, for example, the case of a person who, as a result of a forgery, obtains a job, which he performs adequately, and for which he is adequately paid, one sees that in such a case, he has gained an opportunity to earn remuneration, but it is difficult to argue that a fair day's pay for a fair day's work is a "financial advantage", as such.
  I am not saying that that argument could not be made, but one can see that there would be a strong case to the contrary. I shall put it in another way. At first sight it may appear that the expansion of the definition of the term "prejudice" to cover cases in which an opportunity to gain a financial advantage is lost or won renders unnecessary subsection (1)(b). It talks of an act being to a person's prejudice if it
  "would give or has given somebody an opportunity to earn from his remuneration, or greater remuneration, in some office".
  Although in some cases the term "financial advantage" may be synonymous with "remuneration", there are circumstances in which that will not be so.
  Therefore, it seems necessary to retain the notion of earning remuneration but in addition to expand the definition to include not only the case in which a person is prejudiced by the fact that he was tricked, for example, into giving someone remuneration as a result of forgery, but the case in which another person loses the opportunity to earn remuneration as the result of forgery. Paragraphs (a)(ii) and (b)(i) of the amendment therefore cover those circumstances. In both cases, the notion of earning remuneration in some office has been omitted on the ground that it is unnecessarily restrictive.
  I make no apology for dealing with the amendment at some length, because it is technical and represents to some extent a departure from the wording of the Law Commission's draft Bill, although not from its intention or spirit. I believe that something akin to the existing subsection (1)(b) is necessary, but that it needs to reflect the two different aspects of the situation that are reflected in paragraphs (a)(iii) and (b)(ii) of the amendment in relation to "financial advantage".
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Will my hon. and learned Friend clarify the matter for those of us who do not enjoy his legal expertise, or that of other hon. Members? Am I right in understanding that if the amendment is accepted any company tendering for a contract and not subsequently being awarded that contract, as a result of false documents or false information contained in the tender submitted by one of its competitors, would have redress under the law against the other company?
  Mr. Mayhew: The company would certainly have redress in the circumstances that my hon. Friend has put forward, but that, of course, would be redress of a civil nature, and that right to be compensated for damages for the loss of the advantage that it sought or the harm that it

  1289
  suffered as result of that piece of deceit or forgery exists under the present law. The effect of the Bill, and, therefore, of the amendment, is limited to the criminal jurisdiction. Although it may not seem so when one looks at the extent of the Bill, running to 34 clauses, with a schedule following, it seeks to put into much more succinct and modern form the criminal law relating to forgery, which is to be found in several statutes, the root statute being the Forgery Act 1913.
  The short answer to my hon. Friend's question is that the Bill simply deals with the criminal jurisdiction, in which Parliament says that this shall be a criminal offence that shall be visited with criminal penalties of a fine or imprisonment. The question of redress for compensation for what one has lost or the harm that has been done to one will remain a matter for the civil law.
  I was saying that paragraphs (a)(ii) and (b)(i) are designed to achieve the object that I have tried to describe. The amendment derives from the helpful intervention of the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich in Committee, who has courteously informed me that he is not able to be here this morning. However, I owe it to him to say a word or two about an aspect of the amendment, which we can see from the Amendment Paper has occasioned him some anxiety.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that the Bill should cater for the case of getting a financial advantage to someone else's disadvantage, as well as from him. It would be possible so to provide in express terms in the amendment, so that it would read
  "to gain a financial advantage from or over him otherwise than by way of remuneration".
  However, in our view, those additional words add nothing to the definition of "prejudice", but merely duplicate the effect of paragraph (a)(iii).
  It is difficult to see how a person can obtain an opportunity to gain a financial advantage over someone without at the same time depriving that person of an opportunity to gain a financial advantage. If one were to take the example of two people bidding for a contract, the person who gains the contract by means of a forgery thereby attains an opportunity to gain a financial advantage over the other bidder, but he does so by depriving the other bidder of the opportunity to gain a financial advantage. That situation is already catered for in paragraph (a)(iii), so the words "or over" add nothing. On the whole, it is generally thought to be a sensible principle not to add to legislation words which, in fact, add nothing, lest it be thought that they are intended to add something that does not stand out at first sight.
  The only other way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman criticises the amendment is on purely grammatical grounds, and there is no need for me to deal with that in any substantial way.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has, however, indicated that the words "intended to be induced", with which the amendment begins, do not fit in naturally. It is true that they could be omitted, but the wording of this part of the clause is identical to the wording of clause 6(3) of the Law Commission's draft Bill. Moreover, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman may feel that they do not flow naturally, they accurately reflect the wording of the offence provisions in the Bill, which talk, for example, of a person making a false instrument
  1290
  "with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of him so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his or any other person's prejudice".
  In other words, the prejudice flows from the act that the forger intends to induce. Therefore, I believe that the House may be confident that the wording of this part of the amendment is not in any way defective.
  To revert to the earlier point, paragraph (b)(ii) adequately covers the person who in the example that we have been taking towards the contract, since he has given the forger an opportunity to gain a financial advantage from him otherwise than by remuneration. As for the other bidder who is disadvantaged, he is prejudiced in the terms set out in paragraph (a)(iii), because the forgery has resulted in his being deprived of an opportunity to gain a financial advantage otherwise than by way of remuneration.
  Although I appreciate the spirit in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has criticised in a friendly way the wording of the amendment, I do not consider that further amendment is either desirable or necessary. The House can be confident that the purpose that he sought to achieve is met.
  The revised version of the first part of clause 10 which the amendment seeks to insert is designed to clarify the meaning of the word "prejudice", and to ensure that the term adequately covers circumstances in which a person gives or is deprived of an opportunity to gain a financial advantage or remuneration or greater remuneration as a result of a forgery. The amendment is both desirable and necessary to ensure that the Bill adequately covers all circumstances in which a person may suffer prejudice as a result of forgery. I repeat our gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing our attention to a lacuna in the Bill.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I readily accept the amendment, which closes a gap in the Bill.
  I have only two brief comments. First, I revert to the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Friend for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin). The amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend covers the point raised. I commend it to the House, with thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who drew our attention to the matter in Committee. As is often the case, he turned out to be right. The gap will be closed by my hon. and learned Friend's amendment.
  In considering the amendments we should perhaps remind ourselves that we are dealing with an aspect of the law which has existed in common law down the centuries, and which has been in a statute since 1914, and that Act was in itself a consolidating measure. We are dealing with a measure that will no doubt last for half a century, and it is important that any gaps should be closed. The matter should be dealt with at this stage.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

  AMENDMENTS OF ROAD TRAFFIC ACT.
  11 am
  Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 29, after '1960', insert

  1291
  ', section 169(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 and section 65(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 5.
  Mr. Mayhew: Clause 12 amends the definition of the word "forges" in the Road Traffic Acts 1960 and 1972 to take account of the Bill.
  The same definition of "forges" now appears in section 65(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. It is therefore necessary to amend that provision in the same way. It is really for convenience that the proposed amendment lists the three relevant provisions, which are amended rather than repealed as the forgery of things other than instruments is covered in the same subsection, thus rendering the existing subsection (2) unnecessary.
  The amendment, though important, is technical in content. It is made necessary by the passage of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. Section 65(3) of that Act contains a definition of the word "forges" which is identical with the definition in the Road Traffic Acts of 1960 and 1972 and which is dependent upon the meaning of forgery under the Forgery Act 1913 which the Bill repeals. The 1960 and 1972 Acts are already being amended by clause 12. The purpose of the amendment is similarly to amend section 65(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. It is necessary for the Bill to insert a revised definition of the act of forgery into these Acts rather than simply to repeal them, which might at first sight have seemed the appropriate course, since the provisions in question deal with the forgery of items other than instruments and are therefore not duplicated by the provisions of the Bill. Since all three provisions are being amended in precisely the same way, it seemed sensible to deal with them together in one subsection. For this reason, the amendment proposes the deletion of the existing clause 12(2).
  I think that that is all that I can usefully say in support of the amendment. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Miscampbell: I can be equally succinct. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, this is a technical amendment. Although it does not raise an issue of substance, the amendment is clearly necessary. I readily accept the amendment and advise the House to accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 5, in page 7, line 34, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Clause 14

  OFFENCES OF COUNTERFEITING NOTES AND COINS
  Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 8, line 8, after first 'or', insert 'of'.
  Part II of the Bill deals with counterfeiting and clause 14 deals specifically with the making, either with full intent or without lawful authority or excuse, of counterfeits of currency notes or protected coins. Apart from the mental element, the elements of the offence should be identical. In other words, the offence should be in terms of making a counterfeit of a currency note or of a protected coin. Unfortunately, although subsection (1) is worded in that way, the second "of" has inadvertently been omitted in subsection (2), thus making it an offence to make a counterfeit of a currency note or to make a
  1292
  protected coin. That is not the intention. The amendment is therefore designed to make it clear that the offence is committed if a person makes, without lawful authority or excuse, a counterfeit of a protected coin. The defect can be remedied by the simple insertion of the word "of" before the words "a protected coin" and that is what the amendment seeks to do. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Miscampbell: This may seem merely a minor amendment, but it is clearly necessary. I readily accept it and recommend that it be accepted by the House so that this ambiguity can be cleared up.
  Amendment agreed to.
  11.7 am
  Mr. Miscampbell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill is based on the recommendations of the Law Commission, as indeed is so much of the legislation that we have dealt with over the years under this and previous Governments. The Bill therefore had to wait its turn to come before the House. It has waited since 1973, so it has taken some time to reach this stage. In essence, the Bill deals with the recommendations of the Law Commission, although it does not follow them with total fidelity in detail. Nevertheless, the changes are not great.
  The existing law, which the Bill seeks to codify and to remedy, is founded mainly upon the Forgery Act 1913, which, as I have said, was itself a consolidation measure, consolidating Acts going back into the last century. There was also the Coinage Offences Act 1936. In addition, there are common law offences dealing with forgery.
  The complication and multiplicity of separate offences can well be understood when we consider how those offences were set out under the various Acts governing them. There were more than 30 different offences. For forgery alone, there were 13 categories of document setting out forgery with the intention to defraud, with different penalties for each. The complications were immense. In addition, there were 18 separate forgery offence in which the offences was not only to defraud, but to deceive, again with a different penalty for each.
  The Acts also created offences of forging other documents, in many cases unspecified. If those documents were produced with the intention to defraud or deceive, they fell foul of the law if they were within the public domain, but in the private domain only if with intent to defraud. When the Law Commissioners looked at that aspect of the law during the late 1960s and early 1970s, it became apparent that a radical simplification was necessary.
  If hon. Members have any knowledge of business Or office procedure, they will not need much persuading that offences set out in Acts passed in the last century and consolidated in the 1914 Act were not adequate to deal with matters that arise as a result of the new methods of business recording or with the obvious problems created by the introduction of computers and other methods of storing information that are prevalent in our business community. The Act tries to catch as comprehensively as possible all the aspects of the methods of forgery or the forgery of instruments, many of which were not thought of before the First World War.
  Equally, counterfeiting requires new consideration. In 1936, when the House last considered the matter in a comprehensive Bill, gold and certainly silver coins were

  1293
  in circulation and had an intrinsic value apart from their face value which made certain offences if not prevalent at least profitable.
  The 1936 Act clearly differentiated between such coins and others because it was possible at that time to use the coins, by filing or clipping, to get precious metal from them. That allowed people to make a profit out of tampering with the coins without reproducing them. Given the metal used in today's debased coins, there is no profit to be made from filing or clipping.
  I am sure that the House will agree not only with the Law Commissioners' view that we need to codify and set out intelligently and sensibly the laws relating to forgery and counterfeiting, but that we should also simplify the law. I believe that we have done so. One need look no further than clause 1, which removes references to defrauding and deceit and uses the word "prejudice". That is certainly a simplification.
  The Bill does what is needed in that respect and does so in a comprehensive way which allows it to provide similar treatment for both forgery and counterfeiting. It removes, among other oddities, the provision that to reproduce a bank note is forgery, while reproducing a coin is counterfeiting. In the Bill all money is dealt with in one part, and forgery in another.
  We had a useful debate in Committee, which led to the amendments on Report. A number of amendments were passed in Committee as a result of letters and other matters that passed between hon. Members and the Home Office. We are particularly grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) for his contributions in Committee. As we have seen from the amendments moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, they resulted in clarification of the Bill and useful and helpful improvements to certain clauses. We are grateful for the attention that the right hon. and learned Gentleman paid to the Bill in Committee. He cannot be here today, but his amendments were designed, in part, to do exactly what the amendments on Report are intended to achieve.
  I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler), who assiduously applied himself to certain aspects of the Bill before the Committee stage. He wrote long and careful letters to the Departments concerned and, as a result, amendments were passed in Committee. As I said at the time, they were not necessarily the amendments that he sought, but I hope that the guarantees, promises and undertakings given at that time assuaged his fears. My hon. Friend's assiduity and persistence drew the attention of the Home Office to possible lacuna in the law which we were able to deal with in Committee. I am grateful to him.
  I should also like to say a word of gratitude to the Home Office. This is a Private Member's Bill, but the Government have had a great hand in it and I and others are grateful for the help and guidance of the Home Office.
  We must also recognise the tremendous ground work done by the Law Commissioners. The Bill is not absolutely in line with their proposals, but it differs only in small details from the suggestions that they laid before us eight years ago. We are grateful for the fact that, not just in relation to this Bill, but on a series of measures from the commissioners over the past decade or more, the system of Law Commissioners is working well. It is nice to notice something that is working well in this country.
  1294
  This is another Bill, based on the Law Commissioners' research, consideration and industry, which the House can accept as a great improvement on what has gone before. As with other codification and simplification laws from the commissioners, when one considers the time scale for which we are legislating, one can see that it will be surprising if the House is troubled by these matters again, certainly in this century and perhaps well into the next.
  Changes in our business procedures may throw up matters that are at present unknown to us and that need to be caught by the law. I very much hope that the Bill is so wide and compendious in the way in which it defines the offence as to enable it to catch not only all the known, but even perhaps some of the unknown ways of forging and counterfeiting that may become known.
  We should be grateful to the Law Commission for the work that it did eight years ago, which has led us today to consider a Bill that I can highly commend to the House.
  11.20 am
  Mr. John Wheeler: I feel most fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to join in welcoming the Third Reading of the Bill. I readily acknowledge and express my gratitude for the help and guidance of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell).
  We are considering legislation that replaces a number of enactments and puts on the statute book aspects of the common law. I am concerned in particular with part II as it relates to counterfeiting legal tender coinage and how it should be protected.
  It is 45 years since the passage of the Act that is about to be repealed, the Coinage Offences Act 1936. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North said, it is likely that the Bill will be on the statute book for many decades, perhaps well into the next century. If we have to wait another 45 years for further consideration of the coinage and its protection. I shall then be at least 86 years of age. I am not sure that I shall be here to lend my support to the protection of the coinage then. Therefore, I regard it as of paramount importance that today the House should linger a while upon those aspects of the Bill that deal with the coinage. The decisions that we make, the legislation that we pass, will be with us for a long time.
  In referring to the 1936 Act my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North talked about the coins that were then in circulation within the United Kingdom—and indeed in much of the world, as the British coinage of 1936 circulated in what was then the British Empire, in the colonies, protectorates and dominions—and the need to protect money made of precious metals. The denominations from the crown to 3d. were then made of silver of 0·925 parts fineness or 0·500 parts fineness. The gold coins, the sovereign and half-sovereign, then minted by the British Royal Mint and the Royal branch mints of Pretoria in South Africa and Melbourne and Perth in Australia were of 0·917 parts fineness. Therefore, those coins had great value. To clip or file them and take away parts of the metal would be a serious matter, as the coins were of value in themselves and were not merely tokens.
  The 1936 Act was part of a long succession of coinage Acts going back to the reign of the first Queen Elizabeth, when the coinage of England was made by hand. It was

  1295
  known as hammered coinage, since it was struck by a die being hammered on to another die in order to produce an impression. Such coins were thin and easily clipped, and down through the years there was a need to protect the citizenry against wrong-doers who clipped the coins in order to secure some of the precious metal.
  The 1936 Act recognised the characteristics of the British coinage and its history. Today we consider a Bill which, unhappily, is largely concerned with protecting coins in circulation that are entirely of a token character. They are made almost entirely of non-precious metals. The denominations of 50p, lop and 5p are made of cupronickel, and the coins of 2p, 1p and ½p are made of bronze.
  However, coins of intrinsic value are still produced in this country. The crown pieces to be made for the celebration of the wedding of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana will be, in the proof edition, of 0·925 parts silver fineness. The nominal value of the crown piece for the purpose of circulation is 25p, but the proof coin will contain silver that probably makes it worth at least £5, and possibly more, on the bullion market. Therefore, the House must remember that precious metal coins are still made and are still available as legal tender and for circulation within the United Kingdom.
  Likewise, the Royal Mint is, happily, continuing the long tradition of striking gold coins of nine-seventeenths parts fineness in the form of the sovereign and the half-sovereign. Last year the mint began once again producing gold £5 pieces and gold £2 pieces. In theory, at least, the citizens of the United Kingdom could spend one of those gold coins for its technical value. Of course, they would be most unwise to do so, since the value of those pieces, because of their gold content, greatly exceeds the nominal value.
  Therefore, it is essential to remember that British precious metal coins are still being produced. Indeed, it is possible that in the years ahead other denominations of coin in a precious metal will also be struck as circulating coins by the Royal Mint, on the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the convenience of the public.
  I deal now with the denominations that should be protected by the Treasury under clauses 19 and 27. In Committee I described the British coin that I thought should be legal tender or the coin that should be protected because of its recent circulation as currency coin. I suggested that the gold £5 piece—which was first issued in 1820—should be protected, together with the companion £2 piece, which was also first issued in 1820. I pointed out that such pieces might have been proof or pattern coins. I am happy to tell the House that only this week I had the advantage and pleasure of handling a gold £2 piece dated 1820. It is a handsome coin.
  The fact that I could examine such a coin—held in the hands of a well-known numismatic firm in London—illustrates that such coins are still available. They may still be purchased, perhaps as antiques. It is important to protect the £5 and £2 denominations, because we still strike gold £5 and £2 pieces in exactly the same form, size and shape and with the same metal content. Therefore, it is essential bat this historic legacy should continue to enjoy the full protection of the law.
  In Committee I mentioned the other gold denominations and said that the present size sovereign and half sovereigns were first minted by the Royal Mint in 1817,
  1296
  in a building erected on Tower Hill in 1810. Since the early nineteenth century the British sovereign has been a standard form of currency, not only in Britain, but throughout the major commercial countries of the world. Indeed, the Royal Mint began to coin the sovereign again in substantial numbers in 1957 as a result of a substantial demand for the coin for trading purposes from overseas, and, in particular, from the Middle East.
  Other countries and mints forged coins, although they preserved the gold content. The coins have a substantial premium above the value of the gold content. It is therefore essential that the sovereign and the half sovereign should continue to be protected by this legislation and by order of the Treasury from the commencement of the minting of such coins in 1817. In the correspondence between my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and myself there is a reference to protecting gold coins issued since 1837 in the United Kingdom. I do not understand why the sovereigns of George III, George IV and of William IV should be excluded from protection.
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I know that my hon. Friend has considerable knowledge of such matters. Is he saying that people can counterfeit coins of the realm that are made of valuable metals and still make a profit from doing so? If so, is there much evidence that that is done?
  Mr. Wheeler: My hon. Friend is right. It is profitable to counterfeit gold coins lawfully minted by the Royal Mint and by the Royal branch mints in the countries of the Commonwealth and to preserve the full gold content and value. To the world, the sovereign has the advantage of being recognised as a trusted commercial coin. The user of such coins overseas respects the fact that the Royal Mint would not seek to reduce the quality of the coins. Therefore, they are circulated with confidence.
  In addition, a numismatic premium often attaches to many of those gold coins. As has been suggested, some of the coins are rare and valuable because few were issued on a particular date or because a particular branch mint—such as the Royal branch mint in Ottawa, which struck gold sovereigns at the turn of the century—produced few gold sovereigns in certain years. In the auction houses of London such coins would command a substantial premium above the gold content and the nominal value of the sovereign as a £1 coin.
  The Royal Mint used to publish a comprehensive annual report that contained much information about prosecutions for the counterfeiting of coins of the United Kingdom. Unhappily, since 1979 that report has been suspended and the information on counterfeiting is not as generally available as it was. Those hon. Members who have invested some of their time in the Library in order to study such reports will be aware that every year there are several prosecutions for counterfeiting gold coins and other denominations of United Kingdom coin. It is of the utmost importance that the House should have the assurance that every consideration will be given to protecting such coins.
  I come now to the silver denominations and the coins that should also enjoy the protection of legislation. When the Royal Mint was erected in 1810 on Tower Hill, machinery was installed to make coins of a more precise character. The sizes and weights that were adopted for the coins with which the United Kingdom is familiar came into circulation. The first of the crown pieces was minted

  1297
  in 1818. On the reverse there was the famous portrayal of St. George and the dragon, which has become one of the most famous coinage designs, and of which the people of this country are justly proud. That coin was made of 0.925 silver. It is a coin that has given rise to many commemorative crown pieces that have been issued since the reign of George V, when the first of the commemorative crown pieces was struck for the jubilee of the late Sovereign in 1935.
  Then came the commemorative crown for the coronation of King George VI in 1937. Unfortunately, we had to wait until 1951 for the next commemorative crown, of 5s value, which was struck for the Festival of Britain. Unhappily, that coin broke the tradition of the past and was made entirely of cupro-nickel. There was no silver denomination. Then came the commemorative crown piece for the coronation in 1953. That was also issued in cupro-nickel, although there are two versions of the denomination—one in proof form, which was issued in the proof sets for the coronation, and a large and substantial issue in cupro-nickel for ordinary currency purposes.
  It is worth remembering that the currency crown piece of 1953 is still a circulating coin. It is worth 25p under our new decimal coinage arrangements. It would still be possible to visit the Cafeteria with a pocket of those coins and release them into circulation.
  There followed the 1960 crown piece, struck for the New York exhibition. That, too, was in cupro-nickel. After that there followed a number of commemorative crown pieces in fairly quick succession, because the Treasury discovered that there was money to be made from producing commemorative coins in proof form—especially when struck in silver. Today a tradition has emerged of striking the crown piece denomination of 25p value in a precious metal—silver of at least 0·925 parts, though occasionally of 0·500 fineness—with a currency circulating piece in cupro-nickel. I trust that the crown piece in its present size and form, as issued from 1818, will continue to be protected by the legislation.
  The florin was first minted for currency purposes in 1849. There was much debate in the House during the middle and early years of the nineteenth century, which I know many hon. Members have read in the Library. By reading those debates one becomes familiar with the arguments that were under consideration about whether the United Kingdom should have a decimal coinage. The florin of 1849 was a compromise agreed by the Chancellor of the day as a beginning for decimal coinage.
  The reverse inscription on the first florin in 1849 said:
  "One florin—One-tenth of a pound"
  The florin today is, unhappily, called a 10p piece. It is perhaps unfortunate that in our language and in the description of coins on the reverse we do not preserve some of the old names and titles.
  The shilling, or 5p, as it is now known, was first issued in 1817. It is essential that that denomination should also be protected, as from 1817. The 50p piece was first struck in 1969 and is now a familiar denomination in our coinage, as are the new bronze coins of 2p, 1p and ½p—all issued and dated from 1971.
  We should consider also those denominations of coin that are no longer in circulation and have, to use that ugly word been demonetised. I put a question last year to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the 6d. piece, which
  1298
  lingered on in our decimal coinage as a 2½p piece until June 1980, when it was demonetised. The first 6d. in its familiar size and shape, and with a content of 0·925 silver, was issued in 1817.
  If the House and the Treasury are to protect the denominations of £5, £2, the sovereign and the half-sovereign from the 1820s, and the silver and cupro-nickel coins of the denomination of crown from 1818 and the 2s. or 10p from 1849, we should also protect for the sake of consistency the 6d. pieces issued from 1817 until the middle years of the present reign.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: As I am not an expert in coinage, I wonder why my hon. Friend has not included the old silver 3d. piece, which I can remember was circulating in my youth.
  Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me about the 3d. piece. He is correct to draw my attention to that denomination. The 3d. piece was not a popular coin during the early nineteenth century. It did not emerge in the coinage in its small size, with which many of us are familiar, until the reign of William IV. It was then struck primarily for circulation among the Crown colonies of the British West Indies. It was also used to pay the garrison troops in Malta, and was used in some other small colonies such as St. Helena. Ceylon had it for a time, as, I believe, did Mauritius and the Seychelles islands. So the coin, although a legal tender coin of the United Kingdom, was not generally available as a circulating coin in the truest sense until the reign of Queen Victoria.
  During the middle years of Queen Victoria's reign the 3d. piece obtained a greater popularity within the United Kingdom and began to be struck in large numbers. It continued as a silver coin until the reign of King George VI, when it was decided that the 3d. piece of George VI's reign should be struck in brass. It then emerged as a 12-sided coin of a rather ugly size and colour, since the brass tarnished after the coin had passed into circulation. It was a most disagreeable example of British coinage. So the silver 3d. with which my hon. Friend is, I know, particularly concerned, is perhaps of lesser importance than, say, the 6d. piece, which was in general circulation until last year.
  I must also tell the House, from my knowledge of numismatics, that the 3d. piece does not generally command much of a premium when it appears on offer in the great sale rooms of London. I should be content, if I may say so, to offer a modest concession to the Treasury and not seek to include the protection of that coin within the meaning of this legislation, but it is altogether a different question when one considers the half-crown.
  The half-crown did not find itself a place within the new decimal scheme for the United Kingdom, although on a recent visit to Jamaica I discovered that the authorities there had found it possible to preserve the use of the half-crown within their decimal coinage system. I think that there is a powerful argument for giving protection to the half-crown under the rules that the Treasury will, I hope, issue in the fairly near future. I suggest that that should be done because the half-crown was first minted in the Royal Mint on Tower Hill in 1817 as part of the great recoinage in the reign of King George III, and also because it continued to be available as a circulating coin until decimal day in 1971, when it, too, was withdrawn from circulation.

  1299
  Like the other silver denominations, the half-crown had a precious metal content—and hence a special value—until 1946, when, in common with the silver denominations generally, the Treasury converted the denominations of 6d. to crown to cupro-nickel.
  I urge, therefore, that in considering this aspect of the Bill and the orders to be issued the half-crown should be included within the protection of the legislation. I do so for a number of reasons. Many of the half-crowns still available in the hands of the public are of a special value because of the silver content, and many of the half-crowns issued before 1920 have a particularly high numismatic premium in the sale rooms. Some of the Victorian half-crowns and nose of William IV and George III are very valuable, perhaps attracting £100 or so a time in the auction houses of London.
  The House should remember that we have established within London a particularly fine and successful trade among the numismatic firms and great auction houses. The House has a duty to continue to succour and preserve that trade, since it attracts into the United Kingdom a great deal of overseas currency. People from all over the world attend the auction houses of London to buy numismatic items. They do so in the full knowledge that the auction houses are able to guarantee that the coins on offer are genuine, that they have not been forged, that they are not replicas, and that they are therefore the coins that were in general circulation, or proof or pattern pieces produced by the British Royal Mint.
  It would be singularly unfortunate if, under this legislation, the Treasury failed to give the protection to the coins to which I have devoted a small part of the time of the House this morning to describing.
  I come next to the power that the legislation gives to the Treasury to authorise the production of replica pieces. It is somewhat against my conscience that this wide power should be allowed by the House. After all, it is likely that the power will not be reviewed for 40 or 50 years, and it behoves the House to think very carefully about the character of that power before the Bill finally goes to the other place.
  The Treasury has a dual interest in the coinage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the Master of the Royal Mint. The Royal Mint is now a trading fund. It is set up not only to mint the coins of the United Kingdom, but to be a profit-making undertaking, to attract custom, and it may be very tempting in the years ahead for the Royal Mint or the officials of the Treasury to see the opportunity to authorise the production of replicas in order to make money for the Treasury.
  I do not object to the Treasury obtaining funds from any legitimate source, but might this not conflict with the other duty laid upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to preserve the character and integrity of the British coinage and also the character of the coinage that has but recently been in circulation?
  I therefore seek again the assurance that was so generously given to me in Committee, that the Treasury—I think that it is the Treasury rather than the Royal Mint—will use very sparingly the power that the House is proposing to allow it. In particular, I should like the Treasury to consider carefully the character of some of the medallions that are being produced by private firms in the United Kingdom, and overseas.
  I have in my hand an illustration of what is called a beautiful sovereign or half-sovereign-sized pendant. It
  1300
  shows on the reverse a rather poorly designed St. George and the dragon, with the date 1981 beneath it. Is it not a scandal that some people are able to produce what seem to be circulating sovereigns and half-sovereigns, even down to the use of the historic design that has appeared on our gold coins over a great many years? I fear that temptation may arise. Someone might easily say in the years ahead, perhaps when I am not here to offer some modest protection to the coinage——
  Mr. Miscampbell: Forty-five years from now.
  Mr. Wheeler: I hear my hon. and learned Friend say "Forty-five years from now". I thought that he was evaluating my future as a politician.
  Mr. Miscampbell: That is three years.
  Mr. Wheeler: That is worse still. Is it not a matter of concern to the House to ensure that under this wide power the production of replicas, will be permitted only in exceptional circumstances assuming that we are to preserve the character of our coinage, and assuming also that we are to sustain and encourage the magnificent trade that takes place in the auction houses and numismatic companies of London?
  I have taken, I hope, a not too disproportionate time of the House to talk about the coinage and its future. I have done so because I am conscious, as I know that my hon. and learned Friends are, of the fact that the legislation that we are contemplating will be on the statute book for many years and that we are granting wide powers to the Treasury—powers to decide what is legal tender and what is to be protected coin. We do not lightly grant those powers without seeking the firmest assurances that they will be wisely used and that the coins that have been minted in this country since the beginning of the nineteenth century will enjoy the protection and prestige which this House, I know, believes to be proper.
  12.2 pm
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) for what he has modestly described as a modest protection of the coinage. Coin collectors and people interested in numismatics throughout the country can rest assured that so long as they have a champion like my hon. Friend in the House the coinage is certain to be well-protected.
  I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) in thanking the Law Commissioners for the enormous amount of work that they have done on the Bill and also the enormous amount of work that they continue to do. I am sure that in many instances it is a thankless task. One has only to glance at the schedule to the Bill and to see that Acts of Parliament such as the Servants' Characters Act 1792 have been examined and the need for repeal discovered to appreciate the enormous depth of the work that the Law Commissioners have carried out on our behalf. It is also right to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend, together with my noble Friend Viscount Colville of Culross, in another place, for having steered this important piece of legislation through the House.
  One point is worth making about the Bill. Many members of the public might think that they would be better served if Parliament spent more time devoting itself

  1301
  to worthy, perhaps boring, but extremely important legislation, such as that now before the House, and less time to legislation that is politically controversial. Lord Elwyn-Jones, speaking in the other place, mentioned the backlog of legislation of this type that needs to be examined. He said:
  "'Get slotted' used to be the great demand of Ministers going to the Legislation Committee by the supporters of particular measures." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 1981; Vol. 416, c. 610.]
  I am sure that members of the public will have great cause to be grateful for the fact that this piece of legislation got slotted. I have no doubt that when they look at a great deal of the work done here they will use a more popular phrase of the vernacular, which is homonymous with the phrase used by Lord Elwyn-Jones. The public may also be led to feel—this is consistent with remarks that I shall make about the content of the Bill—that much of the party political controversy in this country since the war and many of the problems that the public have had to bear have been induced by the main problem facing the Government—the problem of inflation.
  Inflation is a kind of clipping of the coinage. The interesting thing about the Bill is the fact that it deals with the coinage and the Act that used to deal with offences such as clipping of the coinage. Many members of the public may feel that over the years much of the work of hon. Members has debased the coinage and the currency.
  It is important to examine what this piece of legislation does. The existing law on forgery is contained in the Forgery Act 1913—which was itself a consolidation of previous measures—and the Coinage Offences Act 1936. The problem is that not all types of forgery are covered. There is still an element of forgery covered by the common law. What is in the Act is in any event complicated. As my hon. and learned Friend said, there are about 30 separate offences in respect of 13 categories of document which it is an offence to forge with intent to defraud, each of them carrying different maximum penalties. In addition, the Act creates offences of forging other unspecified documents with intent to defraud or deceive if the documents are what is called "public documents", but only with intent to defraud if it is a private document. There is no doubt that a real need exists for simplification in this area.
  There have been many significant developments since the First World War. Many documents and instruments from which protection was needed before the First World War no longer exist. Many documents that were quite unknown in those days have come into existence. An excellent example is the plastic credit card.
  The Bill deals not only with forgery but with counterfeiting. It goes back to the 1936 Act, when coins of silver and gold were in common circulation. At that time, for example, the offence of clipping coinage, or sawing the coinage, as it was sometimes called, was a fairly common offence, and one that needed to be dealt with. Also, curiously, offences relating to coins were considered a matter of counterfeiting, whereas the making of false bank notes was considered forgery. In this Bill there will no longer be two different codes to deal with those offences.
  I gather that there was much learned discussion among lawyers on the question whether a separate offence for
  1302
  forgery was needed. It is right that the Bill has retained this offence and defined it in clause 1 as the making of a false instrument with the intention of inducing someone
  "to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person's prejudice".
  That offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years.
  Once one has accepted the offence of forgery, one has to examine the definition of an instrument in the Bill. That is contained in clause 8. It says:
  "Subject to subsection (2) below, in this Part of this Act 'instrument' means—

  (a) any document, whether of a formal or informal character;

  (b) any stamp issued or sold by the Post Office;

  (c) any Inland Revenue stamp; and

  (d) any disc, tape, sound track or other device on or in which information is recorded or stored by mechanical, electronic or other means."

  That raises in my mind the matter that has been discussed in another place—the forgery of paintings, prints and daguerreotypes. There has been some recent publicity about a process that has now been devised whereby it is possible to produce daguerreotypes similar to those produced in the 1850s and 1860s. I gather that they are almost perfect, and difficult to detect. Forgery of paintings and prints has, of course, been common practice for some time, and I am concerned that it is not covered in the Bill.
  The definition of a false instrument in the Bill remains the classic one. It is false if it tells a lie about itself, but not merely because it contains a lie or lies. That was illustrated by Lord Colville in another place, when he gave an example. A letter from an applicant for a job that falsely states a qualification is not a forgery, but a letter that falsely purports to have been written by a previous employer is a forgery, because it contains a lie about him. A painting that purports to be by Picasso and that carries Picasso's signature surely tells a lie about itself, and is therefore a forgery by any definition. I am slightly surprised that the Bill, which I know has been carefully examined by many distinguished lawyers, does not appear to cover that aspect. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will reassure me about that.
  Another important improvement is in the use of the word "prejudice", which is now used to combine the previous words "intention to defraud or deceive". Clause 2 deals with the important aspect of copying a false instrument. Hon. Members of the House, where there is so much use of photocopiers, will understand the importance of that updating of the law.
  Clause 5 constitutes an important departure from the recommendations of the Law Commissioners. It creates an offence out of the mere possession of forged instruments and/or implements and materials for making them. It is a matter that warrants examination, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to reassure the House in that regard.
  Some people may be disturbed when they hear that the mere possession of a forged instrument—perhaps the unwitting possession of such an instrument—could constitute an offence. Clause 5, which deals with the matter, is a lengthy clause, and I shall not read it in full, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will deal with it. Its intention might cause concern if it were felt that it was too widely drawn. In another place an example was given of a child going to school with a forged letter from his mother saying that he was ill. I hardly think that the

  1303
  law would wish to extend its arm that far, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will give us the benefit of his legal expertise in the matter.
  The criteria that were used in considering these matters were: first, the ease with which the instruments may be passed from hand to hand; secondly, the ease with which they may be accepted as genuine because of the circumstances in which they are commonly used. An additional criterion concerns the items upon which special reliance is placed and whose nature is such that possession of a forgery is unlikely to be innocent. On the face of it, that sounds reasonable.
  The sort of instruments involved are money orders, postal orders, Inland Revenue stamps, share certificates, passports, cheques, travellers' cheques, cheque cards and credit cards. I think that most hon. Members and the public would readily accept than in most instances the possession of forged travellers' cheques, cheque cards, and so on, would—prima facie, at any rate—demand some kind of an explanation. Nevertheless, I am slightly concerned about people who could unwittingly have such instruments in their possession.
  Finally, on the matter of forgery, clause 9 gives a list of circumstances in which an instrument is said in law to be false. I shall take up a small part of the House's time in reading part of that provision, because reassurance is needed in this regard. The clause provides that:
  "An instrument is false for the purposes of this Part of this Act—

  (a) if it purports to have been made in the form in which it is made by a person who did not in fact make it in that form; or

  (b) if it purports to have been made in the form in which it is made on the authority of a person who did not in fact authorise its making in that form; or

  (c) if it purports to have been made in the terms in which it is made by a person who did not in fact make it in those terms; or

  (d) if it purports to have been made in the terms in which it is made on the authority of a person who did not in fact authorise its making in those terms; or

  (e) if it purports to have been altered in any respect by a person who did not in fact alter it in that respect; or

  (f) if it purports to have been altered in any respect on the authority of a person who did not in fact authorise the alteration in that respect; or

  (g) if it purports to have been made or altered on a date on which, or at a place at which, or otherwise in circumstances in which, it was not in fact made or altered; or

  (h) if it purports to have been made or altered by an existing person but he did not in fact exist."

  The public are concerned that if, perfectly innocently, they happen to have such an instrument in their possession they may be liable to sanctions under the Act.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: The public may have such an instrument in their possession through having been victimised. They may have paid heavily for it, thinking that it was genuine. Because they have it in their possession they are in double jeopardy—they have lost their money and now find that they have unwittingly committed a crime.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. That is precisely my point. They may be the unwitting victims of a forgery. It is an important point, on which I am sure reassurance can be given. It is important that that reassurance should be given on the Floor of the House.
  1304
  The clause retains two matters—first, the definition in the 1913 Act and, secondly, the common law. That makes it possible, in clause 13, to abolish the common law offence of forgery, so that the whole subject is consolidated in one Bill.
  Part II deals with the offence of counterfeiting, which is simply defined in clause 14. I hope that the House will think it appropriate if I quote it. It states:
  "(1) It is an offence for a person to make a counterfeit of a currency note or of a protected coin, intending that he or another shall pass or tender it as genuine.
  (2) It is an offence for a person to make a counterfeit of a currency note or a protected coin without lawful authority or excuse."
  The Law Commission initially recommended that it should be an offence to make a counterfeit note or coin with the intention that it be used as genuine. One of the important departures from its recommendations is that the word "intention"—the need to prove intention—is removed. The offence is established without proof of anything more than the conscious act of the maker. Therefore, the thought element is removed.
  The measure should be welcomed by the House because although counterfeiting and forgery are not offences as common as burglary and muggings, they are not uncommon. Each year many thousands are the victims of forgery or counterfeiting. Therefore, in principle, the public will welcome the additional protection and scope that is given for convictions under the Act, provided by the removal of the thought element. We then move to a position in which no more is required than proof of the conscious act of the maker. On the other hand, the public wish to hear from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that the law is not going too far, and that those who might unconsciously have such an instrument in their possession will not be included.
  I wish to refer to a minor point that was raised in Committee. First, there is the matter of commemorative mugs and plaques, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) referred in Committee. Many people collect commemorative mugs and plaques. They give great pleasure. Will my hon. and learned Friend say how the authorisation is to be obtained and issued for the manufacture of those items? What protection will the public have not only against abuse by those who are authorised to manufacture such items, but against the provisions in the Act that mean that the mere possession of equipment or machinery that could be used to manufacture the forgery could be against the law?
  I reiterate that it is always with some trepidation that those who are not lawyers intervene in matters usually dealt with by learned Members. The public would be better served if the House spent more time on important nuts and bolts legislation and less time on the more controversial party political matters, on which we now spend so much of our time. I am sure that the public will be better served when this important piece of legislation reaches the statute book.
  12.28 pm
  Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Unlike my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) and Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), I make my contribution rather late in the day. However, I hope that the House will accept that I have a particular point of view to express.

  1305
  I welcome the fact that we are updating legislation in an especially important area. Some would say that we are doing so at long last. I endorse the commendation from several of my hon. Friends of the work of the Law Commissioners. The House is greatly indebted to them for the painstaking way in which they try to assess whether certain statutes, some of which have been on the statute book for many years, continue to be the most appropriate way of discharging the law.
  I often feel that if I were a commissioner I would be immensely frustrated. The commissioners make recommendations—they did so in 1973 on this subject—and many seem to be forgotten while more contentious pieces of legislation take pride of place in Parliament's timetable. I commend the commissioners most warmly for their work in general and I thank them for what they have done in this especially important area. I hope that they will feel that at long last their efforts have been rewarded.
  I shall be accused of uttering a cliché when I say that life has changed radically since 1936 when one of the Acts that we are now updating was introduced. The same comment applies to 1913, when the second Act that we are updating was introduced. Indeed, life has changed almost beyond recognition since 1913. The way in which one engages in running a business and the approach to one's personal living in 1981 are as far removed from the conditions that prevailed in 1936, and certainly in 1913, as one can imagine. In these circumstances it is not a moment too soon that we are bringing this amending legislation before Parliament.
  I wish I could say that the attraction to counterfeiting and forgery, which has always been felt by the criminal class, has changed as dramatically as the life of society between 1913 and 1981. I fear that that is not so. Criminals have always been attracted to the idea of engaging in counterfeiting and forgery. Apart from the element of getting rich quick, which is implicit in both activities, there is to the sophisticated and one might say genteel criminal a certain attraction in that his work has to contain a certain degree of art that is not present in many other criminal crimes such as burglary and housebreaking.
  I fear that the continuing attraction of counterfeiting and forgery to criminals will continue. That is not surprising. Although the work presented to a criminal in engaging in either practice poses considerable difficulties and substantial risk, there is always the real possibility that if he gets away with it and if his forged bank notes get into circulation just once many of his problems will be over. To that extent it will continue to be an attractive area of activity.
  As life has changed in the respects that I have mentioned since 1913 so, too, have the "instruments"—that is the word that is used in several parts of the Bill—through which we purchase goods or obtain credit. I shall concentrate the burden of my remarks on clause 5, especially on subsection (5), which sets out the many different types of instrument that apply. It is a reflection of how society has changed and how the methods of spending money and obtaining credit have changed. For example, clause 5(5)(a) and (b) refer to money orders and postal orders. We should continue to make reference to those instruments, but the House will not have failed to note that the use of money orders and
  1306
  postal orders in 1981 has substantially reduced. While it is correct to include those instruments, one begins to wonder whether it is wise to outline so specifically the particular instruments to which we wish the legislation to refer.
  I shall make that point more particularly by calling the attention of the House to clause 5(5)(h), (j) and (k), particularly (j) and (k), within which reference is made to travellers' cheques, cheque cards and credit cards. Travellers' cheques are now used by many thousands of people every day, so widespread has become our propensity to travel abroad on vacation or on business. No doubt it is right that they should have a specific place in updating legislation.
  Cheque cards and credit cards are perhaps the most dramatic demonstration of how our lives have changed in the lengthy period since 1913 and 1936. I understand that one of the most attractive and lucrative areas for criminals nowadays is the stealing of a cheque book. Cheque books are perhaps not quite as easy to counterfeit and to forge as some hon. Members may think.
  Because our names are printed on our cheques nowadays, a thief can go from bank to bank with the cheque book and a forged credit card on which it is necessary to do no more than write a signature according to the name which appears on the cheque book. That entitles the person who stole the cheque book and who has a forged credit card with nothing more than a signature upon it to go from branch to branch of a bank in any one day and to obtain automatically and without question credit up to £50, and in some cases up to £100, several times over.
  That underlines a modern crime which had never been thought of in 1913 or even 1936. I wonder if it is only now that we are introducing reference to cheque cards and credit cards in statute. I presume that any offence such as those to which I have referred would have had to be brought under the common law and would still have to be brought under the common law until the new Act is on the statute book.
  One begins to wonder how wise it is to mention specifically those various instruments. Since 1913 and 1936 life has changed, as I have tried to prove. In those days, no one had heard of cheque cards and credit cards. One wonders whether it would not have been better to make a broader and more general reference to the instruments with which the Bill is to be concerned rather than bringing them forward as specifically as we are now doing.
  I shall linger for a moment longer on the question of cheque cards and credit cards. The forgery of those instruments is different from the forgery of money orders, postal orders and, certainly, bank notes. Whereas some art has to go into the forging of bank notes in particular—some would say that it is an art form of a high order—there is no such requirement when a credit card is forged.
  In fact, unless I am misinformed, the prospective criminal need only obtain some of the plastic on which credit cards are dye-stamped, dye stamp it and put on any signature. If that is so, forging a credit card is different from forging even a cheque or traveller's cheque. Am I missing something, or is there the beginning of an argument that in bringing credit cards into this all-embracing subsection we are dealing with a different type of crime?

  1307
  I said at the beginning that I wished the legislation well. I want to see it on the statute book, but will the Minister keep a watchful eye on developments, particularly in the growing area of stealing cheque books and counterfeiting credit cards?
  I end as I began, by drawing the attention of the House to the fact that life has been revolutionised since 1913. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington suggested, it may be another 45 years before a similar measure is considered. Like him, I shall not be here then. We should therefore consider whether in being quite so specific in the list of instruments we are doing a service or whether it would have been preferable to leave the section open to take account of future developments, bearing in mind the fact that we have seen dramatic changes since the last Act.
  12.42 pm
  Mr. Mayhew: I am pleased to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) on Third Reading. As he explained, the Bill is based on the Law Commission's recommendations, and its aim in producing the report on forgery and counterfeit currency was to modernise and simplify existing law. The Government believe that the Bill achieves both those aims and that it is, therefore, welcome.
  I take the opportunity not only to thank my hon. and learned Friend for piloting the measure through the House and to thank my noble Friend Viscount Colville of Culross, to whom tribute has been paid in the House of Lords, but also warmly to endorse what has been a particularly happy feature of the debate—the applause given to the Law Commission for its thorough and painstaking work in reviewing this important part of the law. It is true that a regrettable number of years has passed since the report was published. Parliament finds it easier in some instances than in others to give legislative effect to its proposals.
  It is not often understood outside the House what the pressures are on legislative time. The considerable lapse of time must often seem to the Law Commission poor reward for its labours. However, I believe that the invention of the Law Commission about 10 years ago was an enormously valuable addition to the means at our disposal for updating our law. It is a great tribute to Lord Gardiner that the measure that he introduced took effect and that so much good work has been and is still being done by the Law Commission. I am sure that it will be grateful for the remarks about it in the debate.
  The Law Commission report drew attention to the multiplicity of separate offences of forgery, differing according to the nature of the document forged, the intent required to commit the offence and the maximum sentence available. It is part of the Law Commission's remit to consider the codification and simplification of the criminal law. It is small wonder, therefore, that it found the law relating to forgery in need of such simplification.
  In moving the Third Reading of the Bill, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North drew our attention to the large number of separate offences of forgery created under the 1913 Act alone. There are 13 different categories of documents which it is an offence to forge with intent to defraud, with different maximum penalties, and 18 categories of documents which it is an offence to forge with intent to defraud or deceive, again with different maximum penalties. In addition, the Act creates offences of forging other, unspecified documents
  1308
  with intent to defraud or deceive if the document is "public", and with intent to defraud if it is "private''. Thus the offences in the Act are differentiated by the nature of the document forged, the intent required to commit the offence and the maximum penalty available.
  One might, I suppose, be forgiven for assuming that, even if the Act is somewhat complex, it is at least comprehensive and therefore adequately covers the field. Unfortunately, however, as many hon. Members have pointed out, this is not the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) reminded us, this is because life has changed so radically even in the past few years.
  Indeed, it has been found necessary over the years to create many separate offences of forgery in other statutes dealing with a wide range of disparate subjects. Again, these offences differ according to the type of document concerned and the mental element required and provide a wide range of maximum penalties. In other words, there was a fairly rich field for the Law Commission to operate upon.
  The Law Commission also considered that the law relating to counterfeiting needed to be modernised. Again, that is not surprising when one considers how the intrinsic value of coins has changed over the years. We heard a magisterial speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler). I dare say that no Member of the House knows more than he about coinage and the study of coinage. His speech was most illuminating about the value of certain coins which are still legal tender, although not in current use to any wide extent. There certainly seems little reason now to distinguish between coins on the basis of the metal used to produce them in considering whether the criminal law on counterfeiting should apply to them and how it should apply. I therefore share the Law Commission's view that this area of the law needs to be modernised.
  The purpose of the Bill is therefore to modernise and simplify the law relating to forgery and counterfeiting. I believe that the Bill achieves that object and that the House agrees with it. To the extent that the Home Office has been able to assist in the preparation of the Bill, we are glad to have been able to do so. I am grateful for the kind remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North about the part played by Home Office officials. Those remarks will certainly be appreciated.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington asked for an assurance that every consideration will be given to protecting the special coins to which he referred. He reminded the House that the majority of coins, including gold coins, issued in the United Kingdom since 1837 are still legal tender and that tokens or imitations which are sufficiently like other protected coins as to be mistaken for them will be caught by the provisions relating to counterfeiting.
  My hon. Friend was concerned about coins minted before 1837 and asked that consideration be given to their protection. He knows that the Treasury—technically my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—has power by order to add to the numbers and categories of coins protected by the Bill. He can be assured that everything that has been said on that aspect of the Bill will receive careful consideration from my right hon. and learned Friend and his officials.
  Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for seeking to help me, but I particularly urge him to take note of my concern to provide protection under the Treasury order for gold and silver coins from 1817 and gold coins from 1820.
  I am concerned that in recent years reference to the first year of the reign of Queen Victoria has been used as the starting point for protection. Coins issued in 1817 and 1820 are identical in size, shape and metal content to those issued after 1837 and it is illogical to preclude them from the protection of the order.
  Mr. Mayhew: I agree that it is difficult to see a logical reason why a half-crown minted in 1837 should receive protection, while a half-crown minted in 1817 should not. My hon. Friend's comments will be considered carefully.
  My hon. Friend reminded us that the Treasury can authorise the production of replicla pieces and asked that it should consider carefully the medallions that are available. I repeat the assurance given in Committee that the use of the power to authorise the production of replica pieces and the like will be used sparingly. My hon. Friend has done a service in drawing attention to the dangers that could flow from a less than careful examination of each application for authority to produce such material.
  My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the predominant place held by London in the markets of the world. He referred to London's position in relation to auction sales and specialist dealers in coinage and rightly advanced that as another reason for great care being taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill and as support for the protection that the Bill is designed to confer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) thanked the Law Commissioners and drew attention to the position of paintings under the Bill. The Law Commission considered that the forgery of paintings should not be covered by its draft Bill. The Government share that view and consider that the provisions of the existing law are sufficient to deal with any abuse. By "existing law" I mean not the law relating to forgery, but, for example, section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. This makes it an offence for any person by deception dishonestly to obtain
  "property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".
  "Property" is defined in section 4 of the Act as including
  "money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property".
  "Deception" means, as defined in clause 15,
  "any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law".
  So a person who produces a painting that he falsely represents as the work of, for example, Constable or Picasso and that he sells to another on that basis would be guilty of an offence under section 15, having dishonestly obtained money from another by deception. It is the equivalent of what used to be known as obtaining by false pretences.
  In our view, therefore, the provisions of the Theft Act are adequate to deal with that type of abuse, and there is no need to make special provision for paintings in a Bill dealing with the forgery of instruments. The same considerations apply to photographs. The joint characteristics of paintings and of photographs is that they do not seek to communicate any message such as one would normally expect to find in a document.
  1310
  My hon. Friend also asked about the provisions dealing with the possession of instruments that are unlawful under the Bill. He asked whether, for example, the unwitting possession of a forged instrument could constitute an offence. He gave the illustration of a child going to school with a letter forged by his mother. That matter is dealt with in clause 5. The key words, to be found in subsections (1) and (2), are
  "which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine"
  and
  "without lawful authority or excuse, an instrument to which this section applies which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false."
  There is written into that clause the requirement as to knowledge that protects the innocent person who happens to have in his possession a forged instrument to which that part of the Bill applies. Clearly, it would be wrong that the mere physical possession or custody of a document with no guilty knowledge or intent should constitute a crime.
  My hon. Friend asked how the power to permit the making of replicas would be conferred. As was made clear in Committee, those manufacturers that already have authority can expect to retain it, but the Treasury will wish to look with great care at the security arrangements of new applicants over dies and other equipment. It is very important that no loophole that reasonable care and foresight can close should be allowed to exist. I do not doubt that that is the basis upon which the Treasury would exercise that power.
  The same question about guilty knowledge or guilty intent was asked by my hon. Friend with regard to the possession of a currency note or protected coin that has been counterfeited, a matter covered by clause 16. A protection of the same nature is also to be found in this part of the Bill. Although I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point, I am sure that he will agree that a sensible measure of protection is conferred on those members of the public who find themselves innocently in possession of a forged document or a counterfeited coin or currency note.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar drew attention to the great particularity with which proscribed instruments are set out in the first part of the Bill. I take my hon. Friend's point. It is sometimes dangerous to detail the objects, documents and so on concerned. The more particular one is, the stronger the argument is that if something has been left out it must have been left out intentionally. However, my hon. Friend argued that the world was moving so fast that if we had to include in the Bill things such as cheque and credit cards—which were unheard of even a few years ago—we should mistakenly be limiting the Bill's application.
  Clause 5 relates to possession and to the having of such things in custody. The provisions that refer to the making of such items with fraudulent intent are not limited in that way. If the necessary criminal intent that is described in clause 1 is present, an instrument other than one of those set out in subsection (5) will be caught by the criminal offence set out in clause 1.
  Although my hon. Friend has helpfully drawn our attention to that point, I should point out that it applies only to the offence of possession and of having in custody. The whole range from money orders to credit cards establishes a wide spectrum, which is likely to serve our purposes for many years. My hon. Friend asked us to

  1311
  watch developments after enactment of the Bill. We shall certainly do that. If there appeared to be a significant omission, we would carefully consider whether that gap could be filled by a simple amendment.
  We have had an extremely interesting and valuable debate. I hope that I have dealt with all the questions. If, by oversight, I have left a question unanswered, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman concerned. As many of those who took part in the debate said, the Bill adopts a sensible and realistic approach to the law relating to forgery and to counterfeiting. The amendments that have been made both today and in Committee have served to clarify certain aspects and to improve a Bill that was already pretty good. I hope that I may say that without appearing to be patronising. It is interesting that the Bill should retain so close a resemblance to the provisions recommended by the Law Commission. That is a great tribute to the diligence that it brings to its task.
  The debates here and in another place have been useful in discussing other aspects and exploring more fully the purpose and effects of this measure. Our discussions have shown that the Bill represents a valuable and useful measure of law reform. I am happy to express the Government's support.
  1.5 pm
  Mr. Miscampbell: I welcome the explanations and assurances given by my hon. and learned Friend. I also welcome the assurances given to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) who, in a long, interesting and detailed speech, drew attention to the necessity of protecting many coins which may need to be protected in the future. I gave a clear assurance in Committee that the matter would be considered carefully and a statutory instrument made which would take due regard of what my hon. Friend said. His words will be noted and reflected in the statutory instrument.
  I welcome the assurance given by my hon. and learned Friend about replicas. That important point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). I was asked about that in Committee and gave assurances then, which I believe can be relied upon, that only in the most strict conditions will permission be given to make replicas. Permission will not be given to make replicas that may imperil the currency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) made an interesting intervention. He raised the problem which exercises the courts and the criminal law about cheque cards and credit cards and the opportunities for fraud that they represent. That is recognised by the courts because of the cases that all too frequently come before them. Clause 5 seeks to make the possession of such false instruments an offence. However, the Bill does not seek to make it a criminal offence to possess any false instrument but only certain documents whereby damage may be done.
  It is not forgery of the credit card alone that is damaging, although that is possible, but the forgery of the strip on which the signature is written. The forgery of the credit card does not lead to the greatest damage, although it is a serious mischief. If a thief goes to the trouble of forging a cheque card, it can be used only with the one personalised cheque book. That may contain only a few cheques.
  The danger arises when a thief can steal both the cheque book and the signed credit card, because, for reasons for
  1312
  which I shall not give an explanation, it is unfortunately all too easy, using household chemicals, to remove the signature from the credit card so that it is almost undetectable. The banks are on to it of course and I hope that within the next few months credit cards will be produced from which it is not possible, by dipping them in certain solutions, to remove signatures.
  At present if both the cheque book and the credit card are taken together, for about 24 hours, until the theft is reported, a criminal can use a doctored cheque card to cash cheques at £50 a time. He may have to do some forgery on the cheque book to move back the dates on which cheques were cashed. It is possible to go to many shops in London, buy £50 worth of goods, return with them change them and get the money back. There are many ways in which the cheque book can be used and is used, and it is there that the mischief lies. It is right to raise that point.
  I have digressed during the last two or three minutes. The Bill can be thoroughly recommended, and I hope that it will be accepted by the House today.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  1.11 pm
  Mr. Edward Gardner: Lord Wigoder, who introduced the Bill in another place, described it as a modest Bill. Modest both he and the Bill may be, but in my submission it is an important though short Bill, and I should like, as its supporter in this House, to commend it to hon. Members and at the same time to acknowledge with gratitude the initiative and the skill with which Lord Wigoder made the Bill possible.
  The Bill seeks to cure a serious defect in the law relating to the lifting of reporting restrictions on committal proceedings in magistrates' courts, from which, as the House knows, criminal cases may be committed for trial by jury. The present law is contained in section 8 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, which was originally section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The Bill seeks to amend the provision, that relate to reporting restrictions in committal proceedings.
  The present law, briefly, is that if one defendant wishes to have the reporting restrictions lifted he can make an application to the committing or examining justices and he must be granted his right to have publicity for the committal proceedings. There is no harm in that. Most people would regard it as a beneficial and right provision. But frequently there is more than one defendant involved in a case. What happens if one defendant wishes to have the reporting restrictions lifted and another, or more than one other, thinks that publicity of the committal proceedings would be exceedingly harmful to justice, from his point of view, because of any prejudice that might be caused? Under the present law, the defendants who are present with one defendant who wishes to have publicity have no right to appeal to the magistrates for them to

  1313
  exercise any discretion, because they have none. Once an application is made by one defendant for publicity the application must succeed.
  The Bill cures what many of us consider to be a serious defect or anomaly in the law by allowing defendants who may not want publicity to make an application to the examining justices on the ground that no publicity would be desirable, for reasons that they would be entitled to give. The examining magistrates would have a power that at present they do not possess, to make up their minds whether to grant leave under the application or whether to refuse the application.
  The importance of the Bill and my personal involvement in its history provoke me to think that I owe an explanation to the House about how and why the Bill was introduced and what exactly it will do.
  The history of the Bill starts in 1848. I am glad to say that although its history starts so far back it will not take me long to cover the intervening years, bringing it up to date. Section 19 of the Indictable Offences Act 1848 allows the examining magistrates who listen to the committal proceedings not to sit in open court, provided, as the Act says, that
  "the ends of justice will be answered by so doing"
  It is only right that I should tell the House that such researches that I have been able to make added to the researches of Lord Wigoder in another place, seem to indicate that the power that first came into being in 1848 has not been widely used at any time. Even so, the provision was thought to be so valuable that it was repeated in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952. Section 4(2) of that Act allows examining justices to sit in camera if they so choose. From researches it would appear that since the days of the Act only on very few occasions have the examining magistrates sat in camera—and then only for security reasons.
  The date that I wish to bring to the attention of the House is a significant date, and relates to a significant event in 1957. In that year there was a trial for murder that attracted attention not only in this country but in many countries overseas. It was the trial of one Dr. Bodkin Adams, who was charged with murder. On the committal proceedings, the evidence referred to by the prosecution included the deaths of three of the doctor's patients.
  In those days, of course, there were no restrictions on the reporting of committal proceedings, although there were statutory bars against the reporting of certain matters related to indecency, and where the interests of children and juveniles were involved. Apart from that, the press had an unfettered right to report whatever was brought up by way of evidence and comment at the committal proceedings. On that occasion, as one would expect, the media generally were almost saturated with reports of the committal proceedings.
  When the matter came for trial, the prosecution—which, as I said, had referred to three deaths of the doctor's patients—relied only on one death. It was felt—properly, in my view—that grave prejudice had been created by the publicity surrounding the committal proceedings, which had referred to three of the doctor's patients having died, whereas on trial he was examined by a jury who were invited to come to a conclusion on one death only. In the result, the prejudice that might have
  1314
  been almost impossible to overcome apparently did not affect the jury's mind in any way, because its verdict was one of "Not guilty".
  However, the fear that in a future case prejudice so grave as that created by reports of the committal proceedings might result in a miscarriage of justice caused the Government of the day to set up an inter-departmental committee under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Tucker to consider the question whether there should be reporting of any kind, or some kind of restricted reporting, of committal proceedings. The Tucker committee came to the conclusion, and recommended, that there should be no reporting whatsoever of committal proceedings, except so far as it related to the report, if such were the case, that the defendent had been discharged.
  I feel that I should not be by myself on this Bench today. I should have beside me my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Around 1964 he and I were considering the consequences of reporting committal proceedings. That was at a time when the matter was being discussed and when it was recognised that the prejudice that might be aroused in this way not only affected the national cause celebre but might—and frequently did—attach itself to the local reporting of local crime where cases were being committed for trial.
  We were attracted by the Tucker recommendation of no reporting at all, but on balance we felt that there might be occasions when reporting of committal proceedings could be of assistance, rather than prejudicial, to a defendant.
  There are two arguments for reporting committal proceedings. The first is an obvious one, which, no doubt, will be attractive to most people. In basic principle, the press must have the right to report criminal cases. Against that is the fact that committal proceedings are not a trial but an inquiry by magistrates, which may or may not result in a trial. It is the magistrates' duty and purpose to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support the prosecution's allegations, in which case the matter will go to trial, or whether there is insufficient evidence, in which case no further proceedings will be taken.
  The second argument is that if reports are published in the media a defendant who cannot trace a witness may be helped, either locally or nationally, by the publicity that flows from committal proceedings. The Tucker committee took that point into account. It discovered that during the past 50 years the tracing of witnesses through the publicity of committal proceedings had been successful in only 20 cases.
  There is a formidable range of arguments against reporting committal proceedings that in their weight and cogency overwhelm the argument for unrestricted reporting. The first argument is that when the prosecution open a case to the examining magistrates they do so not on the strength of testimony that has come before a court but upon the statements of witnesses who may later be called upon to give evidence from the witness box. It is not an exaggeration to say that on occasions the prosecution are tempted, if not encouraged, by those statements to pitch their opening of the case far too high and above what is justified by what ultimately will be the evidence adduced in the court of trial.
  The second argument is that the evidence called during committal proceedings may later be ruled to be, or, because of various circumstances, may become, inadmissible when the case comes to trial. During the

  1315
  debate on the Bill, a former Lord Chancellor in another place said that the enthusiasm of prosecution witnesses often tended to wane between committal and trial.
  The prosecution's opening speech is reported. Anticipation of evidence through written statements is reported. If there is more than one defendant, some of the defendants may decide to plead guilty when they come for trial. If that happens, statements that have been read in the magistrates' court will no longer be admissible against the defendant who is fighting the case. It is the experience of those who have charge of either the defence or the prosecution that in many instances statements that have been made by witnesses become rather surprising when they are set against the testimony that is given by the witness called on trial. However, it is all reported. There is no way in which one can avoid it being reported unless there are restrictions.
  The fourth of the reasons that I submit are good reasons for reporting restrictions in some circumstances is the distinction between committal proceedings and trial. Committal proceedings are merely preliminary inquiries by examining magistrates to reach a decision—a vital decision—whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a person being committed for trial. If there are no reporting restrictions and the magistrates decide not to commit for trial there will be nothing improper in the press reporting what has been submitted in open court.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle)—now the Secretary of State for Education and Science—and I came to the conclusion, which I hope the House will think was the right conclusion, that there was an overwhelming argument in favour of some form of restriction on reporting. We decided together that we would write it all down as an opinion, which was eventually published with recommendations that we were bold enough to make in a small booklet entitled "A Case For Trial". Some years later, in 1967, when the then Criminal Justice Bill was being considered by the House, the recommendations that we had made in our pamphlet were brought into legislative form by the Government of the day. They appeared first in section 3 of the 1967 Act and they are now in section 8(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The subsection states:
  "A magistrates' court shall on an application for the purpose made with reference to any committal proceedings by the accused or one of the accused, as the case may be, order that subsection (1) above"—
  in which publicity is not allowed—
  "shall not apply to reports of those proceedings."
  It is relevant to refer to another trial, namely, that of Mr. Jeremy Thorpe. At that trial many of us thought that the law was exposed, as having a flaw that before the trial we had not thought to be as serious as obviously it was demonstrated to be.
  As I have sought to explain, one defendant could override the wishes of his co-defendants if he wished to have publicity on committal proceedings. As the House will recall, in the Thorpe trial, one defendant wished to have publicity, with the result that the other defendants, who had different interests, had to cope with the consequences of that publicity, which some of us thought, on the face of it, was gravely prejudicial, or might have been gravely prejudicial, to the interests of the other defendants.
  1316
  As in the Thorpe trial, in which there was an acquittal, the stains of the evidence that had been rejected by the jury could remain deep and indelible upon a man's character and reputation for the rest of his life. To many of us that seemed an intolerable, unanticipated and never-intended consequence of our original proposals in the 1967 Act.
  The Bill first went through the other place due to the initiative of Lord Wigoder, who was good enough to consult me about its contents, of which I fully approved and to which I hope the House will also give its approval. I believe that the Bill is necessary, and has been proved to be necessary if we are going to reach the point of being able to deal with publicity or non-publicity in its most just form.
  In its present form, the Bill merely says that:
  "Where in the case of two or more accused one of them objects to the making of an order"——
  that is, an order for publicity——
  "the court shall make the order if, and only if, it is satisfied, after hearing the representations of the accused, that it is in the interests of justice to do so."
  It is in the interests of justice that the Bill is now brought before the House for its Third Reading. I hope that I am right—I believe that I am—in saying that it is in the interests of justice that I now commend it to the House.
  1.38 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): It may be helpful to the House in considering the Bill if I say a few words about its background and about the Government's attitude towards it. The House will be grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) not only for having introduced the Bill in this House, but for what he said about it just now in a comprehensive speech.
  The House will recall that the event in recent times which first drew the attention of Parliament and the public to an anomaly in the law relating to the reporting of committal proceedings was the case at Minehead magistrates' court in December 1978 to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred, when four defendants were committed for trial on a charge of conspiracy to murder. One of them asked for reporting restrictions on the committal proceedings to be lifted, and under the law as it then stood and as it stands today the court was obliged to make an order lifting restrictions. The preferences of the other defendants were not and could not be taken into account.
  I agree entirely with everything that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde said about the disparities that may reveal themselves between what has been said in statements taken from witnesses, subsequently used by the prosecution—statements which form the basis of the opening of the prosecution's case at a magistrates' court on committal proceedings—and what ultimately emerges as their evidence, if indeed it emerges at all, because it may prove to be inadmissible in the trial proper. Of course, I agree completely with what my hon. and learned Friend says about the nature of committal proceedings. They are not a trial but merely an inquiry by examining justices to see whether there is a case to go for trial.
  My hon. and learned Friend made a strong case about the disparity that may reveal itself. The evidence may not prove to be nearly so strong when it is given on the occasion of the trial as it was when it was opened in the

  1317
  magistrates' court and perhaps reported in a notorious case in the press. It is, of course, a possibility that it may be made worth somebody's while to ask for reporting restrictions to be lifted to the prejudice of those who stand in the dock as co-defendants.
  Shortly after the conclusion of the Minehead committal proceedings, my hon. and learned Friend who is now Solicitor-General for Scotland introduced a Ten-Minute Bill with the intention of amending the law governing the reporting of committal proceedings. Although designed to deal with the same problem as today's Bill, it adopted a rather different approach. It would have removed the right of a defendant to apply for reporting restrictions to be lifted, and would thus have imposed a complete ban on reporting committal proceedings. It would also have extended the categories of persons who might be prosecuted for unlawful publication to include distributors, retailers, wholesalers, importers and sellers of newspapers or periodicals. Finally, it would have increased substantially the maximum penalties for unlawfully publishing the details of committal proceedings.
  The Bill received an unopposed Second Reading in January 1979, and had passed through its Committee stage by the time that Parliament was dissolved before the general election in May 1979. Within a few weeks of the start of the first Session of the new Parliament, a quite different measure was introduced in another place by Lord Wigoder. I shall not rehearse each of the formulae that were considered and rejected during the debate in the other place, but the Bill as introduced in this House was in a very different form from that in which it started life there.
  The Bill as introduced in this House would have required a court in the event of a dispute on this issue between defendants not to make an order lifting restrictions if, after hearing the representations of the parties, it considered that any increase in the applicant's chances of securing an acquittal, a conviction on a lesser offence or a lighter sentence would be outweighed by a reduction in the objector's chances of doing so if reporting restrictions were to be lifted.
  In other words, the court would have had to have weighed the prospects of advantage to the applicant against a dimunition in the prospects of acquittal for objectors. In the event, the Bill did not make progress in the House and there was thus no opportunity for a debate here on that rather more complicated formula.
  1318
  At the beginning of this Session, Lord Wigoder decided in effect to start again from first principles. The Bill was reintroduced in a form identical to the one which he had sponsored in July 1979, using the interests of justice as the test that the courts would be required to apply. The Bill as it now stands reflects that formula.
  The Government believe that the test of the interests of justice is one that magistrates' courts would find it possible to apply. It is about as wide a criterion as it is possible to devise, but I believe that that is right. It is not possible comprehensively to list all the considerations that are relevant in each case, but they will certainly include the weighing of the interests of an applicant against those of objectors to the lifting of restrictions as regards the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. Amendments made in another place were merely to improve the drafting of the Bill. They did not affect its substance.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde is to be congratulated on being able to offer the Bill to this House for Third Reading less than a month since it was first read in the House on 20 May. I think that that progress alone demonstrates that the Bill enjoys general support in all parts of the House. The Government note that support, which may reflect a certain unease in the public mind about the present state of the law. If that is indeed the case, the Government have no wish to see the Bill delayed at this late stage of its progress.
  I do not overlook the fact that the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, published in January, proposed the abolition of committal proceedings in their present form in magistrates' courts. That, of course, would eliminate the problem that the Bill seeks to resolve. The Royal Commission's proposal, however, is a radical one which will require, and is receiving, the most careful consideration because it seeks to make a fundamental change in criminal procedures which have existed in England and Wales for many years. That will necessarily take some time, as would any legislation which might eventually be introduced. In the meantime, committal proceedings will continue to take place and the Bill will make what the House clearly regards as a useful, if modest, contribution to the conduct of such proceedings.
  The Bill is in no sense a Government Bill, but it touches an important part of the criminal justice process and deals with a matter of real public concern. Accordingly, I warmly commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  Imprisonment Of Prostitutes (Abolition) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.48 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill seeks to do two things only. First, it seeks to abolish the term "common prostitute". Secondly, it seeks to remove the sentence of imprisonment.
  The reason for abolishing the term "common prostitute" is that it is the only example that I know of on the statute book in which a person is by implication said to be guilty before having pleaded. The person appearing before the court is named as
  "a common prostitute who did loiter to solicit for prostitution".
  That is analogous to saying that someone is a common thief before that person has pleaded guilty or not guilty to a charge of theft. That is why the Bill seeks to get rid of the term. The term was originally well-intended, in that it was designed to be a warning to women seen by the police to be soliciting. In practice, however, the result is to make a prison sentence more likely.
  There is considerable support for my view that imprisonment is not an appropriate sentence for the offence of soliciting. It is almost impossible to argue sensibly that soliciting—being a prostitute; perhaps the oldest profession in the world—can be a threat to society. Clearly, it is not. Most people are beginning to accept that imprisonment should be used only in the most extreme cases where there is a threat to society.
  The public have become increasingly aware in recent years of the appalling level of double standards. A man may stop women who may or not be prostitutes and suggest that they have sex with him. In the vast majority of cases he will not be committing an offence and, therefore, will not risk imprisonment. A woman who stops a man and offers sex is committing an offence and can easily be sent to prison. I never cease to be amazed by the dexterity and versatility of human behaviour, but I am aware that it takes two to have sexual intercourse, and the vast majority of people are aware that there is a double standard between men and women.
  Another reason why I oppose imprisonment is that it tends to make matters much worse. If the woman has children and there is no other member of the family to look after them, they have to go into care. Debts mount up and are frequently not paid. The result can be that, on release from prison, the woman has to go back to soliciting in order to pay those debts.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I apologise for not being here for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. Has he any figures for the number of women who have been sent to prison for such offences in recent years?
  Mr. Soley: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman exact figures off the top of my head, but they are available. The number has been declining in some areas, but it varies from area to area. The last figure that I recall is that such women make up 10 per cent. of the female prison population. I do not know whether that figure is still accurate, but the numbers involved are significant. If only one child were taken into care as a result of his mother being sent to prison, that would be a sufficient case for the Bill.
  1320
  Soliciting of the type that we are talking about often occurs when a woman is unable to pay bills for electricity, gas, rent and so on and goes out to solicit in order to earn extra money. There is no evidence that imprisonment deters and, in many cases, it can increase the re-conviction rate, for the reasons that I have given.
  One of the most important points that I wish to make is that the Bill has attracted no opposition. The House will recall that there was no Division when I introduced it under the Ten Minutes Rule. I have received two expressions of hostility to what I am doing, but they were not even directly about the Bill. They were concerned with another matter. On the other hand, I have had a number of letters—not a large number—and telephone calls, including, significantly, some from ex-magistrates and practising magistrates, in support of what I am doing.
  The organisation known as PROS—the Programme for Reform of the Law on Soliciting—canvassed hon. Members on the matter, and only 8 per cent. of the 250 replies favoured keeping imprisonment. That is a small percentage. Obviously PROS and the English Collective of Prostitutes support the Bill, but so does the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, which has already made a recommendation along similar lines.
  The Police Federation opposes the imprisonment of prostitutes, as does the Prison Governors' Association. The National Association of Probation Officers, the British Association of Social Workers, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Josephine Butler Society, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the Howard League and many other organisations, together with individuals from the legal profession, have expressed support for the Bill. I have had not one letter from an organisation expressing hostility to the Bill. The hon. Members for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) and Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) have asked my to say that, although they cannot be here, they are very much in favour of the Bill.
  So where is the resistance to this simple, humane measure? The problem is that the law relating to sexual offences has been referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, assisted by the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences. The Government do not want to legislate in advance of the Criminal Law Revision Committee's report.
  The Minister said in a letter to me:
  "For my part I have no desire to see prison accommodation occupied by prostitutes, unless there are circumstances where this is clearly and abundantly justified in the public interest, and if the Committee were to recommend, especially on the basis of general support for the proposal, that imprisonment should no longer be available for such offenders then I anticipate that we would consider such a proposal very seriously and with sympathy. Naturally, however, the report would have to be considered as a whole, since individual proposals would need to be related to the entire code of which they would form part."
  I have deliberately kept the Bill simple and uncontentious to aid its passage in such a way that complications are not caused later. The provisions of the Bill are the very least that the Criminal Law Revision Committee can recommend. If it does not recommend the abolition of imprisonment, the Government should go ahead on their own initiative on the basis of the support that has already been shown. Ideally, prostitutes should be charged only if there is a witness who is prepared to go to

  1321
  court and complain that a nuisance has been committed. I think that I am right in saying that that is what the all-party penal affairs group recommended.
  If the Government say that they will allow the Bill to go forward, I do not think that we shall unreasonably prejudice the report that is due from the committee. My guess is that when it has seen the weight of evidence in favour of the Bill it will, if anything, go further than I propose. The very least that I ask the Minister to do is to say that, unless the committee gives strong reasons why imprisonment should remain available to the courts, he will legislate along the lines of the Bill.
  I hope that I have convinced the House of the logic of the case, but I remind hon. Members that we are talking about human beings who are at this moment in prison and whose children will be affected by the Bill. I shall briefly give two case histories.
  The first is of a woman aged 30, a single parent, with three children, aged 9 months, 4 years and 6 years. She was 20 when she first appeared in court on a loitering charge. In the same year she received a suspended sentence. She went to prison on two occasions in 1974. In 1975 she was imprisoned again, and she had her first baby in prison. In order to maintain a home and the baby, she continued to solicit. She already had four prison sentences and no hope of a job. She was imprisoned again in 1976 and was separated from her baby, who went to foster parents.
  In 1977 the woman received another prison sentence and was again separated from her child. In 1978 she was imprisoned again. She was pregnant. Her baby was born in 1978, and she tried to maintain a home. The bond between her and the first child was weakening. She had been separated from her child for at least three months every year since the child was born. She was in a desperate state. She was imprisoned again in 1979. Her second baby was lost to her, as the foster parents took over, and she lost her council home in 1979, as she was unable to pay the rent while she was in prison. She went to prison again in 1980.
  That woman has been in prison nine times and has lost her second child and her home because of that. At present she has a young baby, and she is fighting to get back her house and to strengthen the bond between herself and her eldest child. She is trapped in a cycle that cannot be broken. Once a girl has been in prison she seems to go back all the time.
  The second woman is aged 23. She is a single-parent with two children, one of whom is aged 18 months and one of whom is 4 years old. She received her first prison sentence when her eldest child was 2½ years old. Anyone who knows anything about child development will know that that is a crucial age for a child to be separated from his parents. They had always been close and had never been separated before. The boy was taken into care and placed in a residential nursery. While in prison she missed him terribly and developed a nervous eczema.
  On her release she found that she was two months behind with her bills. She owed hire purchase payments on several articles, and she also owed rent. In addition, it took the child a long time to settle down. He wet the bed and kept having tantrums. The whole experience was a nightmare. She had all the pressure of the extra financial strain, as well as the realisation of the devasting damage
  1322
  that the separation had done to her child. She came close to a nervous breakdown. She still suffers from eczema. She now works in a sauna, and no doubt her job will allow her to solicit virtually without risk of imprisonment.
  If the Government were to allow the Bill to pass through the House they could head off much unnecessary suffering without prejudicing their position in relation to the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I hope that the House will accept the Bill.
  2.1 pm
  Mr. Matthew Parris: As one of the Bill's sponsors, I rise briefly to support the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley). In order to be here, I had to cancel a ladies' luncheon in my constituency with our women's advisory committee. I have sent a message to say that I must be in the Chamber because I am defending their interests. I am sure that they will understand what I mean.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all the work that he has put in to getting the Bill so far. His work is greatly appreciated by all concerned. Some might have hoped for a longer debate, with a fuller Chamber. They might have hoped for ringing and passionate speeches. I am glad that the debate has taken the form that it has. It is appropriate that such business should be tacked on to the last 40 minutes of a Friday, because this is a non-controversial unexceptionable little piece of legislation. It is utterly sensible. Such a provision is not on the statute book either because many people do not realise that prostitutes are still sent to prison or because the burden of legislation has been so great that no one has had time to enact such a measure.
  I noted with pleasure the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister in his letter to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. I hope that I have not misinterpreted them. They seemed, rightly, to change the burden of proof. If anyone thinks that prostitutes should still be sent to gaol, that person should state the compelling social reasons for imprisonment. If the Criminal Law Revision Committee feels that there are such compelling social reasons, it should state them. Unless it feels that there are such reasons, the committee should recommend something broadly along the lines of the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
  Many of my hon. Friends had not realised that prostitutes were still being sent to prison. Indeed, it is surprising how few people realise that. One would have to search far and wide to find many people who thought imprisonment right. However, a confusion arises. A person can be sent to gaol for the non-payment of a fine. I understand that the Bill does not alter that. We wish to prevent a woman from being sent to gaol for prostitution. Courts must always have the final remedy of being able to send a person to prison for the non-payment of a fine.
  I reiterate my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North, and I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some encouragement in response to what has been said.
  2.3 pm
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) on a Ten-Minute Bill which has apparently passed through the House without opposition from either side. It is regrettable that so little time has been afforded to it today.

  1323
  I shall start where my hon. Friend finished—on the subject of the type of people that prostitutes are. In 1971 some research was carried out by Professor Gibbens into prostitutes who were or had been in Holloway prison. He found that 15 per cent. of them had a history of mental breakdown, that 25 per cent. had attempted suicide, that 25 per cent. were alcoholics and that a further 25 per cent. were dependent on other drugs. It is no wonder that the Police Federation has decided that the majority of prostitutes are inadequate for a variety of health, mental and other reasons and in need of medical help.
  What is the extent of recidivism among prostititutes sent to prison? Is there any evidence that prison reforms the habitual prostitute or the prostitute who will not or cannot pay fines? There does not seem to be any good purpose served by putting these women in prison. There is evidence that they convert fellow prisoners to prostitution. The Home Office's working party on vagrancy and street offences in 1976 stated that the prison service does not see itself as having a useful role to play in the care of prostitutes.
  A further strong argument in favour of my hon. Friend's Bill is the need to make prostitution a non-custodial offence. Opposition Members have made that point since the prison crisis became worse than ever. The number of non-custodial offences should be increased wherever possible. Prisons should be used only as a last resort for those who have committed serious offences and from whom the public need to be protected. It could not possibly be argued that prostitution is a crime against which the public need to be protected, because there is no innocent victim—indeed no victim at all.
  The view is increasingly held among those who work with offenders that we should be trying to keep certain types of offenders out of prison, such as the mentally disordered, many maintenance defaulters and prostitutes. The Minister told my hon. Friend by letter that the Government are generally sympathetic to the Bill. What is the Government's attitude generally to reducing the number of custodial offences?
  During the prison officers' dispute, the number of those in prison was reduced from 44,000 to 39,600, but it has now returned to the previous figure. It is suspected, but not certain, that one of the reasons for that great reduction was that fine defaulters were not being sent to prison. I was encouraged by the Minister's ready conversion during the last minutes on Report on the Indecent Displays Bill. He will recall that, under pressure from Opposition Members, at the eleventh hour he agreed to deny magistrates the power to imprison offenders. Yet, in the letter to my hon. Friend he says:
  "We are … very concerned to ensure that custodial sentences are passed only on those offenders whose detention is necessary for the protection of the public".
  It all seems promising, but I was less encouraged by the Minister's remarks at Question Time on 11 June, when I drew his attention to the new imprisonable offence being introduced in the Contempt of Court Bill. He said that the Government did not advocate depriving the courts of the power to impose a custodial sentence if they wished to use it, where policy dictated that that was desirable. It seems to follow that the Minister feels that the option of a prison sentence should always be available to a court for any criminal offence. If that is his view, should he not be opposed to the Bill and opposed to any criminal offence
  1324
  being made non-custodial? Perhaps he would clarify the Government's attitude to this whole matter, which at the moment is unclear and contradictory.
  If there are any offences such as prostitution which the Minister considers should be non-custodial, perhaps he would tell us now, so that we do not have to wait for another Ten-Minute Bill for the Minister to decide that he favours a particular offence being a non-custodial one. Let us have his list this afternoon.
  The other favourable effect of my hon. Friend's Bill would be to reduce the number of women in prison. There have always been fewer women than men in prison. That is because they are naturally more law abiding. They are not a criminal sex, as is the male sex. But, unfortunately, the number of women going into prison is gradually rising.
  In the past, courts have discriminated against men and in favour of women when people are sentenced to prison. I think they still do. When a man and a woman are found guilty of a similar offence, the man may get a prison sentence while the woman does not—I do not think that that is right—but there are now more women in prison than ever before, and many of them have been convicted of serious or even violent offences.
  Overcrowding in most of our prison system is rampant but is especially serious in women's prisons. The recent prison report showed that there are now 1,646 women in prison. There is an increase in cell-sharing, and overcrowding has become endemic, especially for remand women prisoners. The cost of keeping a woman in prison is £140 a week, yet the number of establishments for women prisoners remains small?
  Of the total of 1,646 women in prison in 1979, according to Home Office figures, there were 157 prostitutes who had been sent to prison on conviction for a first offence. But the NACRO figures for 1980 show that there were 308 women prostitutes remanded in prison and convicted in that year. So, although 308 may seem a small number out of a total male and female prison population of over 43,000, if we take the 308 out of the women's prison system there is a significant drop in the total. Their removal would have a significant effect upon overcrowding in those prisons, on the shortage of staff in those prisons, and on the general life of the prisoners.
  There are, therefore, several extremely strong arguments in favour of my hon. Friend's Bill. It will create another non-custodial offence—something that we want to encourage—and it will reduce overcrowding in women's prisons. Last but not least, the offence of prostitution is not suitable for imprisonment; neither is the type of person convicted of that offence.
  2.12 pm
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: I support the Bill with enthusiasm and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) on having introduced it. I am pleased to be one of the sponsors of the Bill.
  It is important that we bear in mind the distinction between the so-called offence of prostitution, on the one hand, and noise nuisance and disturbance that may take place late at night and may, in the minds of some people, be associated with prostitution, on the other. I am sure that it is desirable and proper that people should be able, late at night, to be free from excessive noise and disturbance. Indeed, it has been a local issue in my constituency. But that is quite different from having an offence of

  1325
  prostitution for which today people are still sent to prison. I should like the law to make a clear distinction between the two and to come down fairly heavily on people who disturb their neighbours late at night with car door slamming, and so on.
  As other hon. Members have said, usually no one is harmed by the offence of prostitution. It is an arrangement between a prostitute and her client. Usually it is a private arrangement, and that is all there is to it. It so happens that a sum of money will change hands. I would have thought that the distinction between what happens in such cases and ordinary sexual behaviour, which is not the subject of a criminal offence, is fairly thin.
  Not many months ago a lady who ran a brothel in Streatham was sent to prison. I believe that the case was called the "luncheon voucher" case. There was no evidence that anyone had been harmed or disturbed. It is unacceptable that women should be sent to prison for this offence. There is no justification for it. I would go further, and say that I am not even convinced that there should be an offence called prostitution. I think that the only offence should be noise, nuisance or disturbance, the more so because most of the people who cause the noise, nuisance and disturbance happen to be the men who are looking for the women and not the women themselves.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: And they get off scot free.
  Mr. Dubs: And they get off scot free. The law bites only on the women. It does not affect the men who cause the noise and disturbance.
  I understand fully that people living in certain areas are a little anxious about what they call prostitution. What causes women anxiety is the behaviour of men in their locality, and the fact that they, as innocent passers-by, may be accosted by men. I argue that the offence is caused by the men themselves and not by the women, who are theoretically to blame and get the opprobrium. It is therefore right and proper that hon. Members should be discussing the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give it his full support. We should do away with imprisonment as a penalty for prostitution, and I hope that before too long we shall get rid of the offence of prostitution itself.
  2.17 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I think that all hon. Members will join in congratulating the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) on getting the Bill before the House and giving us the opportunity, albeit shortly, to discuss this important subject, particularly the two aspects to which he refers.
  The hon. Gentleman has put the case for abolishing the term "common prostitute", but not much time has been taken over that matter because it is of less importance than the other limb of the Bill, which is to abolish the availability of imprisonment under section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 for the offence of soliciting. The Government fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern with these issues in bringing forward the Bill.
  I believe that all Members are concerned that the prison population should be kept to a minimum consistent with the proper protection of the public. None of us wants to see it increased by the imprisonment of prostitutes unless there are circumstances where imprisonment is clearly and
  1326
  abundantly justified in the public interest. In correspondence, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I have explained that that is my view.
  I have also been obliged to explain, however, that, as part of its wider remit to inquire into the whole code of sexual offences, the matter has been referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which is acting with the advice of the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences. I have felt obliged to inform the hon. Gentleman that we believe that it would be unwise, and seriously unwise, to legislate on a particular issue until this committee, which is extremely high-powered and widely respected, has had the opportunity to discharge that remit.
  Mr. Mikardo: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mayhew: I have been pressed to give the Government's view. Hon. Members have spoken with commendable brevity. The less I am interrupted, the more I shall be able to explain the Government view. However, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's interventions are always short.
  Mr. Mikardo: My question will take less time than the hon. and learned Gentleman took in resisting it. I merely wish to ask whether he has any idea of the time scale in which we may expect the report?
  Mr. Mayhew: I was coming to that. I should perhaps come to it straight away. The law relating to sexual offences was referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, in 1975.
  The aspect that we are dealing with today was not specifically identified. Its terms of reference were to review, in consultation with the Policy Advisory Committee the law relating to, and penalties for, sexual offences.
  The normal practice is to issue a working paper. Although I do not have a date for the expected working paper—it has not been able to publish a timetable—I guess that it is expected within the next year. I cannot say that we shall have the recommendations within weeks or months. However, it publishes a working paper in the normal course of events.
  The Government's concern is to keep the prison population down, as is well known. I was a little surprised by the tone of the intervention of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). The Government have done more than any other Government in recent times—certainly more than the Government of which the hon. Lady was a distinguished member of the Home Office team—to provide alternatives to the courts for custodial sentences. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's determination to reduce the prison population to the minimum that is consistent with public protection is well known.
  The Wolfenden committee considered that imprisonment would not, of itself, effect reform of those who are prostitutes, but that its availability might make the courts anxious to try, and individual prostitutes more willing to accept, the use of probation in individual cases. The Wolfenden committee felt that many women who had adopted a life of prostitution could
  "be led to renounce it by inquiry into their personal problem and by advice and treatment"
  which the probation service could give.

  1327
  The committee had not lightly reached the decision to recommend the availability of imprisonment. It recognised that in the overwhelming majority of cases the prostitute would have to pay any fines that were imposed from the proceeds of her prostitution, either by passing them on in the form of increased charges to her clients, or by seeking more customers.
  The committee was sanguine about the prospect of increased charges which might in themselves tend to curb demand, and therefore supply. However, it felt that there was a distinct possibility that it would lead to prostitutes seeking more customers and causing the prostitute to be even more active on the streets, and if that were to happen, increasing the fine would defeat its own object. On the ground, therefore, that increased fines might in themselves prove inadequate, the committee recommended that imprisonment had to be available as a sanction of last resort for repeated offences.
  I said that the Wolfenden committee produced recommendations that were of a radical and liberal nature to show that this is not an absolutely open and shut case. If it were, the Government would have less reason to wait upon the deliberations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. The Wolfenden committee took that view in 1958 or 1959. Plainly, it is not a totally black and white case.
  The Wolfenden committee was not the most recent body to consider the issue. The working party on vagrancy and street offences said in its working paper published considerably more recently:
  "Since the passing of the Street Offences Act, soliciting by prostitutes in the streets has visibly been greatly reduced. This was the agreed view of all those whom we consulted, including some with a thorough and long-standing knowledge of the problem … The number of prosecutions for soliciting remains strikingly lower than in the 1950s. The Act has demonstrably had considerable success in its aim of clearing prostitutes from the streets".
  Imprisonment sentences have remained below 300 a year since the early 1960s. The percentage of those found guilty who are sentenced to imprisonment has stabilised at about 5 or 6 per cent. Those figures do not include those who are sent to prison in default of payment of fines. It is important to note that that is a separate matter.
  I was asked about recidivism. There is not enough evidence to enable a conclusion to be drawn either way. What evidence there is points to the fact that a number of prostitutes are sentenced to second, third and further terms of imprisonment for street soliciting, and also that a number succeed in avoiding appearing in court again after they have received one prison sentence. It may be that a spell in prison causes them to be more careful in their soliciting, or perhaps to take their activities off the streets into saunas or escort agencies. Some give up prostitution. It is not possible to draw clear conclusions about the extent of recidivism for those who have been sentenced to imprisonment.
  Even taking account of the relatively small number who are sent to prison each year, there is no doubt that a useful contribution to diminishing prison numbers could be made. The whole issue turns on whether there is, if only in a few cases, a compelling reason in the public interest why imprisonment should remain available to the courts. On the other hand, it is fair to report that when the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group considered the matter in its report "Too Many Prisoners" published in June last year, it rehearsed the arguments for and against
  1328
  the imprisonment of prostitutes and concluded that the offence of soliciting should not be punishable by a prison sentence.
  The review being undertaken by the Criminal Law Revision Committee will, I am confident, be weighty and deserving of respect.. The committee has been in existence since 1959. It has always attracted a membership of high calibre. It has invited observation from members of the appellate committee in the House of Lords, the judges of the Supreme Court and all interested bodies. It will receive advice on sexual offences from the Policy Advisory Committee.
  The committee has embarked on a scheme that invites preliminary observations from an enormously wide range of bodies. I do not have time to list them, but they include all advisory bodies and representatives of organisations representing prostitutes, such as Prostitution Laws are Nonsense, Programme for Reform of the Law on Street Offences and English Collective of Prostitutes. They have already made their views known to the committee.
  We look forward to receiving the final report of the committee on this important topic. I think that I have gone as far as anyone in my position could be expected to go. I cannot pre-empt the ultimate recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee on a matter so important as this, without causing it to wonder why it is spending time on these matters. I have no desire to see prison accommodation occupied by prostitutes unless there are circumstances where it is clearly abundantly justified and in the public interest.
  If the committee recommends, especially on the basis of general support for the proposal, that imprisonment should no longer be available for such offences, I expect that the Government will consider that proposal seriously and with sympathy. I have gone much further than any previous representative of any Government, and certainly further than any representative of the Labour Government, of which the hon. Member for Halifax was a member.
  When the Government receive that report they will carefully consider the scope of any legislation that may be necessary in that area, taking the proposals as a whole, as we must do. It would be most unwise to attempt piecemeal action to amend the law in advance of the committee's considered recommendations in that complex area.
  I appreciate and respect the hon. Gentleman's motives. His professional life has brought him very much in touch with this and other important social matters, which have led him to introduce the amendments that are contained in the Bill. I say with regret that the Government cannot give it the practical and effective welcome that I know the hon. Gentleman is seeking. The Government suggest that the House should await the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday 10 July.

  LOCAL AUTHORITY (EMPTY PROPERTIES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Objection taken. Second Reading what day? No day named.

  SMALLER BUSINESSES (MINISTERIAL AND OTHER FUNCTIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 July.

  BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT 1867 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [15 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday 10 July.

  DOGS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Neil Thorne: By leave of the responsible Member, Friday 10 July.

  HIGHWAYS (SMALL BUSINESS SIGNS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  VAGRANCY OFFENCES (REPEAL) BILL:
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Soley.]
  Committee upon Friday 10 July.

  ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Robert Dunn be added to the Committee.—[Sir Albert Costain, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Pianos (Imports)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]
  2.31 pm
  Sir Anthony Kershaw: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter of importance to my constituency in particular and to a national industry in general. The British piano industry is in a bad way, and I suggest that the Government could take action to help. If nothing is done, I have no doubt that many old and hitherto sound piano manufacturing businesses will go out of business, with the consequent loss of thousands of jobs and some millions of pounds of export earnings.
  A year ago there were nine British piano manufacturers, and now there are five. Employment in the industry has
  1330
  fallen by 40 per cent. and production is down by 33 per cent. compared with a year ago. At the Frankfurt Music Fair that was held in February 1981—it is the annual fair where all piano makers congregate—orders for British pianos were down 75 per cent. on a year ago. The share of the home market in 1980 enjoyed by British pianos was down by 40 per cent., and nearly 6,000 pianos valued at nearly £4 million were imported into the United Kingdom.
  I have only to recite these figures to make it clear that before long the British piano industry will be wiped out unless something is done. It is not bad management, lack of expertise or bad workmanship that is responsible for these difficulties. British pianos are second to none in quality and have been competing very well with all the traditional European manufacturers. In 1979 Britain exported £7 million worth of pianos, but today, I am afraid, the figure is much less.
  Even in Germany, where many of the best pianos have long been made, British exporters have until recently been doing well. The Bentley Piano Company, in my constituency, has long had excellent sales in that country. We do not fear fair competition, but the trouble is that the competition has not always been fair.
  The competition is unfair in two main ways. The first unfairness lies in the price. The prices of pianos from East Germany, Poland and Korea are from £350 to £400. West European prices—that is, in the United Kingdom, West Germany, France, Italy and comparable countries elsewhere—are about double that. There are no special reasons why the Eastern and Far Eastern countries should be able to make pianos at half the price at which we make them. It is obvious that they are being sold here at less than cost in order to earn foreign currency.
  Last year, for example, the German Democratic Republic exported to the United Kingdom 1,391 pianos, of a value of £723,000—an increase of 68·4 per cent. compared to 1978. The next highest exporter was the United States, with 1,271 pianos, of a value of £561,500. However, those American pianos are of an inferior quality and go to a type of trade at which our manufacturers do not aim.
  Last February the Minister applied to the EEC for an anti-dumping order. It seems to be taking a tremendous amount of time to come to a conclusion that I and others think is obvious. During that delay, the life blood of the industry has been ebbing away. What can be done to make Brussels hurry up? The Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy all support our action. Will the Minister do all that he can to inject some urgency into the investigation? I should be glad to hear what the Minister has been able to do. I know that he has the matter in hand, but the urgency is great.
  The second unfairness lies in the sales methods of some of the importers. The Koreans, for example, give their pianos phoney names. One company calls its pianos "Steinbach" pianos—a combination of two famous German names—but nowhere on its pianos does one find a reference to the country of origin. I have in my hand an offer from a Dutch firm in Rotterdam offering six months' credit for those Steinbach pianos. There is no mention on the invoices or in the proposals of the fact that those pianos are not made in Holland. Russia exports a piano that it calls the BlÜtmayer, a combination word from "BlÜthner" and "Schiedmayer", which are both well-known German

  1331
  names. Surely those practices must be a breach of our Trade Descriptions Act 1968. I ask the Minister to look into that matter also as one of urgency.
  People do not buy pianos often during their lives. I do not know whether, in your professional capacity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you had to buy pianos for your charges, but most people buy them for their family. A good piano lasts for three generations, but the ordinary buyer who wants only to encourage little Jimmy to do his scales does not have much experience of buying pianos. When a piano is new it is not easy to tell how long it will last and hold its tone. For the ordinary buyer, price is important. Only the professional musician can judge a piano in comparison with others that he has come across. The cheap imports will not, therefore, be proved inferior in quality for some years, and in the meantime the British industry may die.
  There is one last point. Local education authorities were big buyers of pianos. Not many new schools will now be opened, because of the fall in school numbers, so they are not quite so much in the market as they used to be. Nevertheless, each local education authority, at any rate in a county like Gloucestershire, must own between 600 and 700 pianos, which have to be reconditioned and occasionally replaced by new ones. I wonder how many local authorities buy British. I bet that there would not be a foreign piano in a French school, even if there were only one French piano manufacturer. It is an example that we should follow.
  I am glad to say that my county of Gloucestershire has a good record. When we buy to recondition pianos, local workmen do the job, and, at any rate in the past two years, I am happy to say that our pianos have been bought from a local firm. However, I doubt whether that is true overall. Whatever my hon. Friend can do to bring the point home to local education authorities, as possibly the greatest customers for pianos in the country, could have an important effect on the purchase of British pianos.
  The matter is urgent. We must soon have a decision about dumping and fair trading. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say. I am gratified that he has put himself out and has come home especially from Saudi Arabia to answer the debate, which shows the importance that he attaches to the problem. I very much hope to hear some good news from him this afternoon.
  2.42 pm
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) is right in saying that the debate was one reason why I came back yesterday from Saudi Arabia, but I hope that he will not be offended if I say that I had others as well.
  I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern about the matter. As he told us, in his constituency he has one of the most important piano manufacturers in the country. I am grateful to him for raising a matter about which he and I have been in correspondence. I congratulate him on the conscientious and determined fashion in which he continues to look after the interests of his constituents and to press their case on the Government.
  Before I turn to the specific subject that my hon. Friend raises, perhaps it would help the House if I restated our policies on trade generally and unfair trading practices in particular. The Government are entirely committed to a policy of free trade on fair terms, not for idealistic but for hard-headed reasons. We rely on trade perhaps more than any other developed country. Last year, British exporters
  1332
  sold £50,000 million worth of goods into markets all over the world. One-third of all that we produce is sold overseas. We must accept that trade is a two-way affair. If we are to be big sellers we must be prepared to buy other people's products and to be importers as well as exporters. We are determined, however, to oppose all forms of unfair trade which cause damage to industry in this country, destroy jobs and destroy companies which could otherwise be profitable.
  Many imports are cheap for perfectly good and proper reasons. Some countries, particularly in the developing world, have access to cheap raw materials and cheap labour, giving them great advantages in producing goods. It is right that we should take our full share of imports from those countries so that they may continue to grow and become more prosperous and to buy from us. Last year, we sold nearly £10,000 million worth of manufactured goods to developing countries. They are very important customers for our exporters.
  Other countries, in the developed world, may have the advantage of economies of scale and, I regret to say, in some cases of greater investment in new technology. On the other hand, there is little doubt that current conditions of world recession have tempted many of our competitors to indulge in the kind of unfair practices that we as a Government are committed to oppose. The most notable of these, of course, is dumping. By this we mean, under definitions internationally agreed in the GATT, the selling of goods in export markets at below normal value. This may be either the value of the goods on the manufacturer's home market or his cost in producing them. With Communist and centrally planned economies, the price comparison must be made with prices in a comparable market economy because East European economies offer no reliable guide to prices, and exchange rates are invariably fixed by their Governments at an arbitrary level.
  To assist our industry in preparing anti-dumping cases, the Department of Trade maintains an anti-dumping unit. Earlier this year, we issued an anti-dumping pack outlining the procedures which must be followed to establish a case, and we have been working within the Community to simplify those procedures.
  It may interest my hon. Friend to know that since the beginning of the year more than 4,000 copies of that information pack have been distributed to United Kingdom companies, and the Department's anti-dumping unit is working with a number of United Kingdom industries in preparing cases to put to the European Commission. I must tell my hon. Friend that responsiblity for taking antidumping action now rests with the European Commission.
  My message is that an anti-dumping action, particularly one prepared with the help of the specialists in the Department of Trade, is not as difficult to mount as is sometimes made out. We believe that the anti-dumping procedures are effective. Any industry which considers that it is suffering from dumping should contact the unit, preferably through a trade association, and the unit will be happy to give the trade association every possible assistance.
  Once a case has been put together, it is put to the Commission and considered by a member States advisory committee. If a prima facie case is established, the Commission will set about a formal investigation by visiting all interested parties—exporters, importers and Community producers—to establish whether dumping causing injury has taken place.

  1333
  If the Commission's investigations concluded that dumping existed and that it was causing injury, it would be in a position to impose anti-dumping duties. In cases of serious injury, a provisional duty can be imposed prior to any final decision. The exporters may, however, offer price undertakings, which could be accepted if they were considered to be an adequate remedy. The protection given by either course would be at a level sufficient to eliminate the dumping margin or the extent of the injury.
  The world recession has resulted in an increase in dumping complaints. In the last year or so, a number of cases have been brought to a successful conclusion. The most recent was a case in which it was discovered that the Americans were dumping polyester fabric on to the market, and an anti-dumping duty of 38 per cent. was imposed on them.
  The Commission is looking into imports of cotton yarn, codeine, petrochemical catalysts, television sets, wrist watches, plywood and a considerable number of other products still to be announced. That is an impressive list most of which is of direct benefit to United Kingdom industry, since many of the investigations were sparked off by complaints compiled by United Kingdom industry either on its own behalf or with their European counterparts.
  The increase in activity has stretched the Commission's resources, but as a result of United Kingdom pressure a strengthening of the Commission's unit has recently been achieved. That answers the point raised by my hon. Friend. The number of cases has been growing and the number of people available to deal with them has been insufficient, so a backlog has been building up. However, as a result of our pressure the staff has been increased and there should be an improvement in the performance of the anti-dumping authorities in Brussels.
  My hon. Friend was almost modest in extolling the past successes of the piano industry. It had an excellent record for many years until its recent troubles. For instance, it exports more than half its output; it has a fine industrial relations record and the industry has exhibited at many international trade fairs with great success. It is tragic that an industry with such a highly skilled work force and such fine traditions should be facing difficulties.
  Let me outline the sequence of events in the piano antidumping case. Hon. Members will appreciate that as the matter is still under investigation I cannot be too specific about certain details, because I would not wish to prejudice the outcome of the case.
  Following the severe decline in sales in 1979, the British Piano Manufacturers' Association approached the Department's anti-dumping unit in 1980 and with its assistance set about preparing the case. In order to construct a case on a European basis, support had to be obtained and data collected from its Community counterparts to provide sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the Commission's opening an investigation.
  The task of co-ordinating the case was undertaken by Mr. Brasted of the association, whose hard work made the case possible. I am gratified that in a recent speech Mr. Brasted publicly acknowledged the valuable assistance given to him both by my anti-dumping unit and by the Commission. That gesture was much appreciated by all concerned.
  1334
  The case was formally submitted to the Commission on 8 September 1980. It was discussed at the advisory committee in October 1980 when certain additional explanations were requested. The committee subsequently accepted the case for investigation and a formal announcement of the investigation was made on 18 February 1981. In the meantime preparatory work had been undertaken. The investigation has to establish both whether imports have been dumped and whether the dumping has caused injury.
  After the industries complained of had been given the opportunity to respond to the allegations in the complaint, a Commission team, together with members of our anti-dumping unit, visited interested parties in the United Kingdom early in May this year and similar visits have been made in the past few weeks to parties in other member States. All that is designed to confirm the extent of the injury to the Community manufacturers. The next stage will be to determine normal value by establishing the selling price of comparable pianos in a market economy.
  The results of the investigation will be analysed and if it should be proved that dumping is taking place and that the imports are causing injury we shall press the Commission to impose urgent remedies in the form of the provisional duties about which I spoke earlier. Such remedies should afford protection to all sections of the United Kingdom piano industry that are at present in difficulties. Defensive action agreed by the Commission will almost certainly apply to dumped imports into our EEC trading partners. As a substantial amount of our exports go to them, this should help the British piano industry in its export markets, too.
  It may be argued that the procedures involved and the information required for anti-dumping action are much too complicated. It is certainly true that action cannot be initiated on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. I believe that if my hon. Friend thinks about that he will come to the conclusion that that is right. As a country exporting huge quantities of goods to other people's markets we should be extremely vulnerable if it were possible to take action using the anti-dumping rules when the case was not proved.
  However, the information required to start an action falls a long way short of proof. Proving a case is the job of the European Commission. As I have said, however, the Government are dedicated to a fair and free international trading environment. Therefore, if we are to support protectionist measures we must be certain that they are justified, are taken with regard to our international obligations, and are within the rules of international trade.
  This case may have taken longer than some others—perhaps one of the reasons is the shortage of staff in Brussels—but I am satisfied that it has been conducted properly and in accordance with the regulation. I hope that the industry's great efforts will be rewarded shortly, and that the Commission will be in a position later this summer to give us its conclusions and, we hope, to announce the imposition of an anti-dumping duty.
  The second unfairness cited by my hon. Friend was misleading names and lack of origin marking. This is a subject for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs. The Government have introduced origin marking on a number of products with effect from 1 January next year. I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

  1335
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of the poor quality of some imports, which the inexperienced buyer may think are comparable to the higher-quality home product. There is little that the Government can do to educate the public. It must be a matter for the home industry to deal with. It is for it to get its case over and prove to the would-be purchaser that our goods are better.
  I come finally to the question of a "Buy British" policy for local authorities. I have great sympathy with this, and I congratulate my hon. Friend's county on its excellent record. The Government believe that public bodies should give home producers every opportunity to meet their
  1336
  needs. We should make it clear that that is our wish, but we should leave the decisions to those who are doing the buying.
  I hope that my hon. Friend believes that I have shown him that the Government share his concern about the state of the United Kingdom piano industry and are prepared to work with the industry in eliminating the unfair competition that I believe is the cause of some of its problems.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  European Parliament (Members' Children)
  European Parliament (Members' Children)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay
  Pay
  Incremental Salary Sales
  Incremental Salary Sales
  Broadcasting (Civil Servants)
  Broadcasting (Civil Servants)
  Widows' Benefits (Male Staff Contributions)
  Widows' Benefits (Male Staff Contributions)
  Pension Entitlement
  Pension Entitlement
TRADE
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  Car Components (Imports)
  Car Components (Imports)
  Ships (Sinkings and Requests for Assistance)
  Ships (Sinkings and Requests for Assistance)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Iran
  Iran
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Health Services and Pensions
  Health Services and Pensions
  Area Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Area Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Spectacle Frames (Complaints)
  Spectacle Frames (Complaints)
  Selective Training
  Selective Training
  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Health Services (Administrative Structure)
  Health Services (Administrative Structure)
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Social Science Research Council
  Social Science Research Council
  Non-advanced Further Education
  Non-advanced Further Education
WALES
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Departmental Staff (Seniority)
  Departmental Staff (Seniority)
ENVIRONMENT
  Dangerous Chemicals (Beaches)
  Dangerous Chemicals (Beaches)
  Local Authorities (Block Grants)
  Local Authorities (Block Grants)
  Greater London Council (Block Grant)
  Greater London Council (Block Grant)
TRANSPORT
  M40 (Oxford-Birmingham)
  M40 (Oxford-Birmingham)
  Trunk Road Programme
  Trunk Road Programme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inland Revenue Staff (Domestic Rating)
  Inland Revenue Staff (Domestic Rating)
  European Community Finance Council
  European Community Finance Council
  New Notes
  New Notes
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Humberside)
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Humberside)
  Infanticide
  Infanticide
  Boundary Commission (Recommendations)
  Boundary Commission (Recommendations)
  Wormwood Scrubs (Inquiry)
  Wormwood Scrubs (Inquiry)
INDUSTRY
  Departmental Vote (Cash Limit)
  Departmental Vote (Cash Limit)
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Altnagelvin Hospital
  Altnagelvin Hospital
  Fatalities
  Fatalities
  Foyle Fisheries Commission
  Foyle Fisheries Commission
  Anorexia Nervosa
  Anorexia Nervosa
EMPLOYMENT
  East Grinstead
  East Grinstead
  Peterlee and Wingate
  Peterlee and Wingate
  Walsall, Black Country and West Midlands
  Walsall, Black Country and West Midlands
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  European Community (Food Surpluses)
  European Community (Food Surpluses)
  Sheep
  Sheep
  Lamb
  Lamb

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

Employment Policy: ILO Recommendation
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider themselves bound by Recommendation No. 122 (Employment Policy Recommendation, 1964) of the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government fully subscribe to the general principles contained in International Labour Organisation Convention No. 122 (Employment Policy Convention 1964) to which ILO Recommendation No. 122 is a useful supplement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the forecast of the Manpower Services Commission, of the 1 million who are expected to become school-leavers this summer only 50 per cent. are likely to obtain employment and that by 1982 the figure will probably be one-third? How does the noble Lord reconcile that with the quite specific and not general obligations that the Government assumed in ratifying Convention No. 122, requiring that they should pursue a policy of full employment as a major political objective and that the policy should aim at a situation in which—and I quote:
"there is work for all who are available for and seeking work"?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned by name the Manpower Services Commission and their forecast, but the special employment measures which are being undertaken by the Government in the current year will receive approximately £1 billion, and that will not be a mere fleabite. I would also add that the Youth Opportunities Programme alone will be assisting more than 400,000 young people in the present year, which is a major improvement over the last two years. I think that that in itself is an adequate response to the queries of the experts.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the measures to which he has referred are in the main endeavours to deal with the situation but not to deal with the real problem; and although he says that the Government fully subscribe to the recommendation referred to in this Question, does he not accept that the unemployment problem is mainly due to the fiscal and economic policies of the present Government?
Lord Lyell: In one word, my Lords—No.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord how he reconciles his Answer with the fact that cuts have been made against all types of education—higher education, medium education, primary education, everything. And now that we know that in the years to come there will have to be more unemployment because of "silicon chips with everything", does he not agree that we should be giving special help to education throughout the whole range in order to create jobs?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the policies of education run hand in hand with the Youth Opportunities Programme. Certainly so far as the question posed by the noble Baroness is directed at youth opportunities in general and unemployment it can be answered by the fact that Government policies are, first, to reduce inflation, which in itself will produce stable employment opportunities once we have conquered inflation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the answers he has given are thoroughly unsatisfactory? Is he not aware that the Government are not pursuing, as a major objective of policy, the aims set out in the convention, and in the circumstances, in view of the Government's desire to secure a shakeout of employment in industry, would it not be far more honourable to denounce the convention itself in accordance with Article 7 of the convention?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I might draw the noble Lord's attention to paragraph 1 of Article 1 in the convention where I think the noble Lord will find these words:
"each member shall declare and pursue, as a major goal …"—
and that is exactly what this Government are doing.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is it not about time that we all recognised that any Government, of whatever political complexion, will now have to face severe problems of unemployment in a world recession and that we should do all we can to alleviate unemployment, particularly among young people?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, that is a helpful question for which I thank the noble Lord. Indeed we are doing that.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend take the opportunity of reminding the Opposition that the cut in the schools higher education programme is a reflection of the very much smaller number of people coming forward for educational purposes, and that those cuts were made for reasons resulting from the drop in the birthrate many years ago—no doubt in times of Socialist rule—by 3 per cent., whereas the actual cut in education is about 1·5 per cent.? So, in fact, per head of the pupils in our schools there has been an increase in expenditure.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am grateful for support from my noble friend, and indeed from all quarters of the House, but I think that is going just a margin wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am surprised to learn from the questions and the answers that the ILO is now dealing with the constructive effect of unemployment rather than with employment? I always understood, certainly from my earlier experience, that the ILO was responsible for general conditions in connection with the employment of the working class and also for matters of safety and the co-ordination of efforts among the various nations associated with the ILO. Is this something new that the ILO has undertaken?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I do not think so. I do have a document which relates to every country which has ratified conventions since 1919, which was a little before my time. No doubt the noble Lord could tell us that the policy is the same and has remained the same in the ILO ever since then.
Lord Spens: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that there are a number of restrictive practices operated by the trade unions which are preventing employers from taking on more employees?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think that that, again, is a little wide of the original Question.

Lagan College, Belfast
11.14 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what support they will give to the first religiously integrated school, Lagan College, which is to open in Belfast in the autumn of 1981, and whether they will take steps to encourage further integration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, Lagan college is being established as an independent school, not as a grant aided school. The founders are the All Children Together Charitable Trust. I have told them that Her Majesty's Government will give them whatever assistance they can consistent with that status.
As to the second part of the noble Baroness's Question, Her Majesty's Government will favour practical proposals for integration wherever they are put forward with the general support of the parents concerned. Nothing would be more counter-productive, however, than to try to force integration upon people opposed to it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord very much for his Answer, perhaps I could pursue the matter a little further. I think it must be agreed that there is at the moment no provision in Northern Ireland for parents wishing to educate their children in integrated schools. Is the noble Lord aware that it is generally accepted that if children are educated together the fear and tension and mistrust
820
which so tragically divides the two communities in Northern Ireland might diminish? Would the noble Lord give a more positive assurance that he will grant this school maintained status at the earliest possible time, and that, pending that, he will provide parents of children passing their 11-plus exam the same facilities for any Government grant for which they would qualify at any other school?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the first part of the noble Baroness's question, I remain entirely convinced that it is proper to ascertain the wishes of the parents in each individual case rather than relying on generalised opinion polls which apply to a large mass of the population, and that it would be quite improper to overrule the wishes of parents as to the sort of school to which they want their children to go.
On the second part of the noble Baroness's question I can say that any application for grant-aided status from the school would of course be considered under the normal statutory procedures for such applications. The Government would, however, need to have regard to educational considerations as well as the integration factor, and it must be borne in mind that we are just entering a period of substantial decline in secondary school enrolments. It would be necessary for the school to demonstrate that there was sufficient parental demand to enable it to become a viable all-ability secondary school in an area where there is not likely to be any shortage of secondary school places in other sorts of school.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, in wishing to support my noble friend in her plea as strongly as possible, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister these questions: Does the noble Lord know that children of both persuasions go on holiday in groups together, that there is never any trouble, that they relate extremely well to one another; but when they get back into the ghetto atmospheres of the cities there is no way in which they can continue to see one another and continue these relationships? Is not that tragic?
Secondly, would the noble Lord agree that the main opposition to the integration of schools in Northern Ireland comes not from the parents, as he suggests—and I would add, not only in Northern Ireland, but, lamentably, in the Republic of Ireland, as well—but from the priests on both sides? Does he not consider this lamentable?
Lord Elton: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question, I am well aware of the admirable work being done by various organisations running joint holidays. Indeed, I provide the money for quite a number of these. In so doing, I very much support those which have a follow-up service so that children are not swept apart permanently after they return to their homes.
On the second part of the noble Lord's question, whatever the origin of the feeling, the fact remains that a very large majority of parents with children in schools appear to wish, and assert that they wish, them to be in schools of the kind already provided. All I can do, and do willingly, is offer assistance to those existing schools which wish to change their status with the support of the parents of the children concerned.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, in view of the present determination in England to establish joint Roman Catholic Church schools under the grant-aided system, and in view of the fact that very distinct conversations are going on with the Churches in England on this matter, could I have an assurance that the experience they are learning in this country will be conveyed to those on the other side of the Irish Sea?
Lord Elton: Gladly, my Lords, and I should say that there is no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to deny to citizens in Northern Ireland the same rights of conscience as exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, having some experience of how carefully Answers to Questions are worded, I should like to ask the Minister how far the word, "favour", commits the Government?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that the Government are without fear or favour.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while welcoming the very moving precedent given by this school, may I ask whether it is not possible in suitable places—it may be a few in the first instance—to establish public schools which are non-denominational and which teach ethical principles rather than those of any particular Church?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are in a semantic difficulty, in that the words "public school" mean different things in different places. If the noble Lord means a school that is privately funded, then that is the sort of school that the Lagan College proposes to be. If he means a school that is funded by the public, then I would refer him to the Throne Primary School in Belfast, which has been approved as a controlled integrated school. That status will apply from a convenient date in the next school year.

Horserace Betting Levy Bill
11.22 a.m.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Crawshaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Payments on account of bookmakers' levy]:
Lord Peart Lord Peart moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, after ("Board") insert ("together with the two members of the Bookmakers' Committee appointed by the Secretary of State under section 24(2)(d) of the Act of 1963.").
The noble Lord said: Before speaking to Amendment No. 1, I should like to make a short statement. It came to my ears that the Opposition were said to be
822
seeking to frustrate this Bill by delaying it and therefore virtually causing havoc as regards aid to the racing industry and the board itself. I should like to say that that is certainly not our intention. The speeches which were made on that occasion were constructive and I spelt out the difference between us, which is really a question of the composition of the Levy Board. In other words, what I tried to suggest would therefore involve an amendment increasing the membership of the Levy Board by two: one being drawn from the Bookmakers' Committee and the second being the chairman of the Horserace Advisory Council.
I suggested also that Clause 1(5) of the Bill should be amended so that consideration of objections would rest upon the independent members of the Levy Board and two members drawn from the Bookmakers' Committee. If that were done, I believe that the Levy Board itself would be strengthened because the voices of those who are involved in the day-to-day business of racing would be heard, and I think that that is very important.
I know that many noble Lords who have racing interests here and who make a marvellous contribution to the industry and to the sport will appreciate that I in no way wish to frustrate this Bill. It will give help to the racing industry and it is in that spirit that I participate in the debate. If one reads the Marshalled List, one recognises that the amendments are all related. I do not know what the procedure will be, but, if the Chair will permit me, I think that it would be right and proper to discuss the amendments en bloc, rather than go through each one in turn. If that is so, I should like to make another statement.
I think that Amendment No. 4 is superfluous and, indeed, does not make sense. The words to be inserted at the end of the phrase are already to be added by Amendment No. 5. Unless I hear to the contrary, therefore, I shall not move it. I should like to leave the matter at that. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: I think that it might be helpful at this stage to advise the Committee of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Peart. I am very glad that the noble Lord saw fit to advise your Lordships as he did in such felicitous terms, both in his speech on Second Reading and in his prologue to the amendments a few moments ago.
During the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord suggested that this Bill, which deals with advance payments of levy, should be amended in three ways: there should be an increase in the Bookmakers' Committee's representation on the Horserace Betting Levy Board; the enlarged Bookmakers' Committee representation resulting from this amendment should be involved in the functions created by the Bill; and the chairman of the Horseracing Advisory Council should be given membership of the board in his own right, instead of, as at present, occupying one of the Jockey Club places, thereby restoring a member to the Jockey Club. The amendments now moved by the noble Lord are intended to achieve those ends.
Your Lordships will, I know, wish to reach a decision on the issues of principle involved. In the case of a Bill promoted by a Private Member, however, it is one of the functions of the Government spokesman

823
to draw attention to drafting defects. I have to advise the noble Lord, Lord Peart, that his amendments are still defective in certain respects. Basically, the point at issue is that if the Secretary of State is made to appoint the Bookmakers' Committee representatives, it becomes necessary to examine all the functions at present conferred on the three independent members he appoints so as to determine which, if any of them, should also be exercised by the two bookmakers, and to ensure that all the relevant provisions precisely achieve the desired result. For example, it would seem desirable to make it clear that bookmaker members were not intended to be brought into the role, under Section 26(2) of the 1963 Act, of arbitrating about the rate of their remuneration in the event of a dispute between the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will agree that that is the rather curious situation in which they might find themselves if, as suggested in the amendments, statutory provision were made for it.
Similar consequential amendments would be required to the Horserace Betting Levy Act 1969 and the Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Board Act 1972. The 1972 Act is particularly important, in that it provides for any functions of the Government-appointed members of the Levy Board to be exercised by any two such members, and these quorum provisions would need to be varied and related to the various functions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peart, has suggested that we should consider this group of amendments together, perhaps I may continue in like vein and say that the amendment to Section 24(2)(d) of the 1963 Act, which provides for two members of the Bookmakers' Committee to be appointed to the Levy Board by the Secretary of State, would also need to be expanded to deal with the terms on which they hold and vacate office. A good deal of work would need to be done on this Bill if it were satisfactorily to achieve the objects of the noble Lord, Lord Peart.
I now turn to the issues of principle. One of the three main objects of the amendments is to give the Bookmakers' Committee's representatives on the board the duty, jointly with the independent members, of determining the amounts to be paid in accordance with the scheme for advance payments and of adjudicating on the claims for a reduction on grounds of hardship. The former is a factual exercise in which there is virtually no discretionary element and there seem to be no strong arguments either way as to involving the bookmakers' representatives.
The issue of substance—and I wish to emphasise this to my noble friends and to the Committee as a whole—is whether it is appropriate that the representatives of the Bookmakers' Committee should be involved with the independent members in considering applications under Clause 3 of the Bill for relief from advance payments. Noble Lords will remember that, of course, Clause 3 was added to the Bill in Committee in another place when it was discussed there.
In making an application for such relief a bookmaker would be bound to reveal details of his business affairs and the knowledge of those details would be disclosed to bookmakers' representatives who might well be his competitors and certainly could not be
824
said to be impartial, which might be enough to discourage any such application. The bookmakers ask for provision to be made for relief where bookmakers' circumstances have changed. Noble Lords will wish to consider whether the fact that it is an offence to disclose information given by a bookmaker for the purpose of the levy is sufficient to reassure a bookmaker in circumstances where the person to whom the information had to be given in the first place is a competitor. I think that that is a very important point.
The Levy Board has given a firm undertaking that it will consult the Bookmakers' Committee on all notices of determination and applications for relief that appear to them to be different or contentious. I hope that I shall not weary the Committee by going into a little further detail, but there are other matters of principle which go beyond these particular amendments.
First, the Horserace Betting Levy Bill is a Private Member's Bill, and we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, for introducing it into your Lordships' House. It has been well received in another place and on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and it has been further underwritten today by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, in his opening statement. However, I must warn the Committee that any amendments at this stage—particularly when, as these are, they are technically defective—must seriously jeopardise the chances of the Bill reaching the statute book. I am sure that neither the noble Lord, Lord Peart, nor the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, nor their noble friends would wish the Bill to be lost.
Secondly, the Bill began as a measure to deal with advance payments only. These amendments touch on this, but they are also concerned much more substantially with the reconstitution of the Levy Board, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will recognise that. This, with all its consequences, is not a matter to be undertaken without the full consultation with all concerned. If there were general agreement that change is needed, this could be done in another Bill directed for that purpose. I think that I have probably said enough as regards the Government's interest, and I shall leave it at that for the time being.
Lord Wigg: I hope that the Committee will forgive me, but I am not 100 per cent. fit and I could not attend the Second Reading debate for that reason. However, I felt that I must come today because this is not a tiny Bill. This is a Bill of fundamental importance. It does not concern itself primarily with the membership of the Bookmakers' Committee; it goes much deeper than that.
I should like to remind your Lordships of a couple of general points. France now has a new Government under Monsieur Mitterand, and one of the things that he has done is to appoint a Minister of Leisure and Sport. This week Mr. Denis Healey has come out with a statement of his personal beliefs, and it is most encouraging that he, too, has made a statement about the importance of a leisure and sport policy at this time.
All the western democracies face the basic fact of unemployment. First, there is short-time working; then there is just a little loss of jobs; and then it becomes

825
a spate. This is not because of the wickedness or wisdom of different Governments; it is because of the advance of technology. What people do with their leisure time is of absolutely fundamental importance. If I may use a barrack-room aphorism:
"They can stand at street corners,
They can spit and they shout,
And they talk about things they know nothing about."
If you do that, then Brixton is inevitable. On the other hand, constructive opportunities can be provided for people to participate or, if they will, to view by going to football matches, and so on. Again, hooliganism in football is not an accident. In this country there has been nothing to choose under either Government; there is no settled policy. The Home Office spokesman today has a bit of a job on because he had a pretty weak brief; I shall be kind to that and come to it later. The Government are concerned with only one thing. This is why Lord Butler, as Home Secretary, acted in 1960. They were faced with the fact that, if there is a growth of illegal betting, we shall get the Mafia and corruption of the police. That is what Lord Butler set out to prevent, on an agreed basis. He brought everyone into discussions, and much, if I may say so, was due to the wisdom of the late Lord Crathorne. We had the Peppiatt Committee.
Within the Department of the Environment there is a Minister for Sport. The present one is no better or no worse than the last one; neither had or has any power. There then is the Department of Employment, the Minister of which ought to be concerned because he is dealing with the effects of unemployment. Finally, there is the Treasury. I hope that all noble Lords who will vote and take decisions today will take the trouble to read the report of the Royal Commission on Gambling and read the evidence given by the Treasury, because the Chancellor has also become converted. Very recently he made a speech in answer to critics in another place, saying, "Look, we cannot increase taxation or the levy. If we do, we shall have the danger of increased illegal betting". If your Lordships would like the reference, they should read paragraphs 6.8, 6.59 and 25.13 which all say the same—that the combined level of taxation and levy has reached the limit. They use the word "dangerous"; that is not my word.
At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and the Royal Commission. It is significant that the Minister did not mention it today, and in the debate on this Bill in the other place it was not mentioned. Yet no one who is concerned with this problem and with the problem of illegality can look at it without examining the Royal Commission's report.
I would remind my noble friends on this side of the Committee, who never seem to rejoice, of the fact that when we took office in 1964 the total amount of revenue raised was of the order of £34 million. Today it is over £500 million. When we did it in 1966, on the other side they laughed and said, "What impertinence to try to succeed where Mr. Winston Churchill failed!" We did. Do you know why? Not because we are clever, but because we do our homework. They did not do it. In 1963, with a stroke of the pen, the late Reginald Maudling put paid to fixed odds betting. One of the major causes of
826
football hooliganism arises from that. On that side they have consistently misread the signs.
Today we have this Bill because it is said that the bookmakers need to be taxed on the current year rather than on previous years. When I became chairman of the Levy Board I never wanted the job. Field-Marshal Lord Harding had retired and the job was offered to Viscount Head. When he found that there was no money, he packed it in. So I was drafted. What did I find? Six hundred and fourteen thousand pounds had been given to the Jockey Club at New-market to rebuild the Rowley Course. We had acquired the National Stud next door. I went down and what did I find?—the Jockey Club had taken all the choicest paddocks. What for? To breed horses? No. They were taken over to rear pheasants for the Jockey Club shoot. That is a fact. Now, we are told that this Bill covers £¾ million which bookmakers are to be paid by way of interest. What are the facts?
The Duke of Devonshire: If I may intervene, it is quite untrue to say that the Jockey Club acquired extra paddocks merely to breed pheasants. It is quite untrue to say that the Jockey Club acquired those extra paddocks to rear pheasants. It is true that there is a Jockey Club shoot. It is very modest, and the suggestion casts a slur on a very distinguished body of people.
Lord Wigg: The noble Duke does not come to your Lordships' House very often and at least he should listen. What I said was that I went down there and I found that the choicest paddocks had been given over to the breeding of pheasants. That is a fact, as I said publicly at the time. I will go further.
The Duke of Devonshire: I will take up the matter privately with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He will hear from me in due course.
Lord Wigg: I do not operate in that way. What I say publicly I publicly support and if the noble Duke wishes, I will do a bit more. The bookmakers get £¾ million by way of interest. What are the facts? The Levy Board ran into difficulties. It is short of cash. Why is it short of cash? It comes to the bookmakers as it did with the levy and asks for a scheme on a voluntary basis. In the case of the levy, a number anted-up but a number did not, and the ones who did ante up asked, "Why should the others get away with it?". So they supported the levy on the basis that it should help racing and that it should not be a subsidy. Noble Lords may read paragraph 19 of the Peppiatt Report.
Now let us turn to the report of the Royal Commission. What did that report say? Perhaps the noble Lords opposite do not know this but as a result of the present policies, under pressure from the Jockey Club and the Levy Board, today the racing industry is hopelessly addicted to subsidies. Those are the facts, and withdrawal would mean collapse. So the bookmakers have agreed to provide advance payments, and one-third of them ante up two-thirds of the total, nearly £10 million out of £15 million. Again, those bookmakers who pay, ask, "Why should we pay

827
when the others get away with it?" and that is why they support this Bill.
Now, this figure of £¾ million is regarded as something terrible. It is regarded as terrible that bookmakers should get interest, but what do the Levy Board do when they get the money? They pay 12 per cent. I have here a list of local authorities to whom they have advanced the money and drawn interest of 14 per cent. That does not harm racing, does it? On top of that, interest payable in respect of bookmakers is supposed to be terrible, but the Jockey Club had used its position. It has advanced loans in relation to Haydock Park interest-free over 22 years, which gives them £22 million. It has given loans to Cheltenham of £3½ million. The noble Duke, the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, has interest-free money amounting to £70 million. So, if one has interest-free loans and a policy of giving prize money ad lib, then obviously one is going to run into cash-flow difficulties. That is what this Bill is about.
I cannot speak for much longer but tell your Lordships this: unless the policies on which this Bill is based are amended, the next Grand National is going to be the last. I will go further; there will be no Derby after 10 years. Those are the basic facts which must be faced. There are two ways of dealing with this matter. One can deal with it through the levy, and if your Lordships will read the debate which took place on the 14th December 1960, they will see that I stood by my policies and opposed my party. There is no party in this. Mr. Raison has said the same thing; that we are back on an agreed basis. If we do it this way the choice one has is either the levy or direct grant. The Treasury come down on the side of opposing a levy and plead for direct grants, approved—as they should be in a democracy—by the House of Commons. I am still in favour of the levy, but the money must be spent properly. My noble friend Lord Peart, whose statemanship and wisdom are an example to us all, has made the point that this is not simply an issue of Jockey Club power, although we have been told by a senior steward of the Jockey Club what the game is all about—power is the name of the game. I am not concerned about that. I struggled for 30 years to get the policy right. It was right, but it is not right now. It can only be put right by people doing their homework. The Jockey Club and the Levy Board have not done their homework, and I therefore support this amendment.
11.46 a.m.
Lord Manton: Before commenting on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, I should like to make a brief reference to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He singled out two race-courses. I believe he mentioned Haydock Park and Goodwood, of which he was critical for having received interest-free loans. May I remind the noble Lord that the largest interest-free loan of all, for Sandown Park, was negotiated under his chairmanship.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peart, say he hoped that his amendment would not damage the Bill. However, my noble friend Lord Sandys has pointed out the dangers that these amendments could mean for the Bill, by delaying it. The amendment
828
proposes two additional seats on the Levy Board; one of them for the bookmakers and the other for the Chairman of the Horse Racing Advisory Council. The Levy Board has been constituted for 20 years. It was established by statute and it seems to me perfectly reasonable that its constitution might well be reviewed. Any shortcomings in the original concept of an eight-member board should now be apparent, and indeed the circumstances which led to the original constitution may have now changed. Such a review should also encompass the board's Bookmakers Committee, which was also established by statute, to see that it reflects the present requirement of the bookmaking industry. However, this is a very delicate matter. It involves balancing many different interests within horse racing. Any proposals for change should be the subject of the widest possible debate and the fullest consultation within the horse racing industry before being enacted in the legislation.
There may well be merit in the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, although I believe that the board as present constituted has done a very good job under very difficult circumstances. I would urge the House to allow this matter to be fully debated within horse racing circles before any change is made.
On the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, suggested that the more wide-ranging gambling legislation which the Government intend to introduce later in this Parliament might be a more suitable place for changes of this nature to be contemplated, and I must say that I agree with him. The Bill before your Lordships has the simple objective of tightening up procedure for collecting the levy. This is very important to the finances of the horse racing industry and it would be a tragedy if procedural delays caused by amendments which have little or nothing to do with the original purposes of this Bill were to result in the Bill failing to reach the statute book. We are faced with a tight time-schedule, which reinforces my view that we should today reject the amendment before us although, as I have said, there well may be merit in reviewing the statutory board, whose original concept was first developed more than 20 years ago.
There are two small matters arising from Lord Peart's speech at Second Reading to which I should like to refer. In justifying these changes to the constitution of the Levy Board he criticised the board's policy on prize money and on interest-free loans to racecourses. First, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, criticised the amount spent by the board on prize money. We all know that it is easy to get emotive on this issue—"subsidising wealthy owners" is a cry that we sometimes hear—but I would remind the Committee that less than 50 per cent. of the prize money goes to the winning owner in the major races. The trainers, the jockeys, the stable staff, the apprentice training school and the weighing room staff all receive a share.
Furthermore, if one takes 1978 as the base year, the Levy Board's contribution to prize money in 1982—and this scheme is just in process of being published at this moment—would have to rise over 20 per cent. to maintain its real value. In the event, the increase for 1982 is likely to be around 12 per cent., so prize money is failing to keep pace with inflation. Flat racing, I would remind noble Lords, is international.

829
If, in comparison, the level at home falls too far below that of our major competitors, then our stars and several of their human counterparts, the jockeys, will race overseas, and the great spectacle of racing will suffer, as will our valuable breeding industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, also criticised interest-free loans for racecourses as being expensive. Under previous chairmanships loans to racecourses were sometimes made as outright grants and the money did not come back. The present policy, with which I should like to associate myself and with which I thoroughly agree, is a policy of interest-free loans. On this basis the money is recycled. Most of those loans are made on a fairly short-term basis, maybe four or five years, so the money is recycled. One racecourse is improved, and four or five years later that money comes back into the pool and goes out to another racecourse. Personally, I think that this must be sensible.
Between September 1961 and March 1980 the board has allocated nearly £21 million in assistance to racecourses by way of grants and loans, but there remains an enormous amount of work to be done if our courses are to be able to compete for spectators against other leisure pursuits.
Lord Mancroft: I do not want to repeat again at this stage of the Bill the remarks I made on Second Reading, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, must by now have realised that there is a real danger of this useful Bill's being lost if he persists in his amendments. I do not disagree with much of what he has said, and I agree also with many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Manton, that there may by now be a time for a reassessment of the work of the Levy Board. Having served on it for four years myself, there is one point I should like to make. Those who were representing the Tote, as I did, and the bookmakers, as others did, under the chairmanship first of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and then of Sir Desmond Plummer gave their views not only from the standpoint of the Tote or the bookmaking industry; they spoke, I think I am right in saying, from the interests of the racing world as a whole, and that point should not be overlooked. All the same, it does not alter the fact that there may now be reasons for looking at the constitution again.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, has not told us—I think probably out of tact—what sort of negotiations he has had with the Levy Board itself. I will not press him to say. What I would press him to do is to realise that the weight of feeling in the Committee now is not against what he has been saying but is against any possible chance of our losing the Bill; and that view I put to your Lordships all the more vehemently having listened carefully to the remarks of Sir Desmond Plummer, the present chairman of the Levy Board, only two or three days ago about the financial position of the racing industry as a whole today. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will do nothing to make that matter worse.
11.55 a.m.
Lord Wigg: I have now recovered my breath a little and I can perhaps deal with one or two points that have
830
been made. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Manton, and I read his speech on the Second Reading. I plead with him, please go and do your homework. Do not face up to me; face up to what the Royal Commission has said. It points out that the levy should be spent in the interests of punters, because, after all, it is they who contribute it. In paragraph 9.108 they say that the levy is derived from the lowest paid section of the community. It is spent in the interests of the wealthiest.
What is the result? The noble Lord, Lord Manton, talks about the spread. After all, I introduced the spread. I know its weaknesses. It is said by the chairman of the Levy Board and by others that this was done in order to help stable wage staff. Go and tell that to the Transport and General Workers Union! They have written to the Home Secretary asking for these changes to be made because they point out one simple fact which the noble Lord, Lord Manton, does not seem to know: 55 per cent. of prize money goes to 12 trainers. So all the rest of the trainers and all the rest of the stable staff get nothing.
The Royal Commission point out that the case for prize money has been put too high. It is not the principal thing. Of course it is if you are a breeder, and particularly a commercial breeder—and they are very good. They have got £375,000 for a fillies' premium, which is a complete waste of money. But, having tasted blood, they now want a colts' premium. In the end I suppose they are brassnecked enough to ask for a geldings' premium. But look at the result: the Ascot Gold Cup, four runners. On radio yesterday it was said that people will not run the horses because they are afraid of winning, because if they win it puts a black mark against them for breeding. Last Saturday at York—Lord Manton would have been there—in the Michael Sobell Handicap there were two runners. In the Autumn Summer Cup there were five runners. Turn to jumping: no steeplechasers. So this is the result.
But do not answer me; answer the Royal Commission's Report, because if you do not answer it you are going to reduce racing in this country to dog racing, and, God knows!, that has got into a mess for the same reason: those who run it do not know anything about it. Lord Manton came along. He is a Tote monopolist, and he would, if he could, by a stroke of the pen, have a Tote monopoly. But you cannot. You cannot compare this—
Lord Manton: Would the noble Lord give way?
Lord Wigg: Just a moment, please. I will give way in a moment. You cannot give way to that argument, because how you bet is decided by the punter. If he cannot do it legally he will do it illegally. That is what this is about. It is on this that Lord Butler based his legislation. If the noble Lord will read the report of the debate on 14th December 1960 he will find that Lord Renton, on behalf of the Government, said—and I supported him—that it is on the assumption, indeed on the understanding, that we agreed to two members, that the Jockey Club would represent the outside major interests. They did not do a thing about it until I became chairman in 1967.
During that period from 1961 to 1967 every penny

831
that was spent by the Levy Board under Jockey Club pressure was spent illegally—I stress it, illegally—because they were required to get the authority of the Home Secretary, which they never sought. I tell you they are still doing it. That is what this is about. If public money is spent, either by levy or by taxation, it must be spent properly and not in the interests of a body like the Jockey Club. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, does not want to upset the balance and that is why he has framed the amendments as they are, and if the Committee is wise and is really concerned about racing, sport and leisure, it will vote for them.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, made much play about the squandering of money. Speaking as a member of the appeal committee of the Animal Health Trust at Newmarket, I wish to make it clear that without money from the betting levy, the work done by the Equine Research Station would greatly suffer.
Lord Wigg: Hear, hear!
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Lord should remember that because that is an important contribution to the future of the bloodstock industry in this country. I hope very much, in supporting what my noble friend said previously, that we shall get the Bill through this morning.
Lord Manton: The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, made the surprising remark—even more surprising because he and I sat on that very board together for at least three years—that I was a Tote monopolist. I do not know where he got that suggestion from. I have never made any public statement saying I was a Tote monopolist and I can only think the noble Lord has fallen into the age-old trap that used to happen in Southampton Row, and apparently could even happen in your Lordships' House, of confusing me with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.
12.3 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw: It might be helpful if I were to comment briefly at this stage. I wish at the outset to thank the Committee for the general support that has been given to the Bill, and I understand that noble Lords are intending to continue that support. I thank my noble friend Lord Sandys for his valuable contribution and I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, well enough to take part in our debates and I know that a lot of what he says is derived from great experience of racing, and I assure him I appreciate that.
I must, however, ask the Committee to stick to the two main points of the Bill, and as I explained those fully on Second Reading, when I spoke for about a quarter of an hour, I do not think I need weary your Lordships again this morning with that aspect. I will, however, give a brief reminder that because of the Levy Board cash flow problem, it is the wish and the desire of the Bill's promoters in the other place and of the House of Commons in general that the practice adopted by 65 per cent. of bookmakers already voluntarily—in that they pay their dues, so to speak,
832
in advance; I have already explained the procedure by which they do that—should be put on the statute book and made standard practice, and to deal with the question of legal avoidance, a matter which I also explained in my Second Reading speech. I do not think I need go into those matters again.
However, I must also emphasise the point my noble friends Lord Sandys and Lord Manton and others have made; namely, that we have a problem over the Bill in that time is extremely short. I was very much hoping a year ago, as the Committee may be aware, to introduce a Bill into your Lordships' House, which would have then gone to the Commons, and perhaps we should have had a little more time for discussion here. I am assured that there is only one more day for Private Members' Bills in the Commons. There is an important and long Bill which is likely to come up before this one and therefore there is a genuine prospect of this Bill running out of time should it be amended by your Lordships. I am sorry about that, but that is a fact.
There will be other opportunties for introducing amendments along the lines of the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and others, possibly in Government legislation which has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sandys. Of course, there is nothing to stop a Private Member from bringing in a further Bill if he so wishes. I do not want to see the main points of this Bill jeopardised or put in danger; it would endanger a lot of things which the racing authorities are trying to do if we were, so to speak, to tamper with the main proposals in the Bill.
There is also the point that if we should lose the Bill the racing industry would suffer. There would be an increased clamour for a change in the whole system; the levy system might have to be abandoned and we might even have to reconsider the question of the Tote monopoly. Therefore, in the bookmaking interests as well, we should leave the Bill as it is. Some attractive suggestions have been made today. For example, the question of the chairman of the Horserace Advisory Council being a member of the Levy Board statutorily is probably a good one, but the Horserace Advisory Council is quite a young body and it would be as well to let it settle down before putting that sort of proposal into a Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will see fit to withdraw the amendment in view of what I and other noble Lords have said.
Lord Wigg: Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, a question. In paragraph 995 of the report of the Royal Commission it says that the Levy Board and Jockey Club made a joint submission that there should be a levy of £22 million at 1976 prices, which is £40 million at current prices, yet we have the Chancellor saying, "No more; it is dangerously high". Do the noble Lord and his supporters support that Jockey Club statement that there should be a levy of £22 million at 1976 prices, which is £40 million at current prices? If he supports it, would he tell us how to get it? I would assure the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that I was always an advocate of giving more money; of course, there should be more research, but does she not see that if

833
one has a policy of ever-increasing prize money and loans to Jockey Club courses free of interest, then, one has no more money for anything else? It is because I believe that what she says is right that she should vote with us today. However, my main purpose in intervening is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, whether he supports that £22 million idea, £40 million at current prices, and if so, how would he get it?
Lord Crawshaw: I would certainly support as much resources as possible being made available for racing. I know perfectly well—
Lord Wigg: This is the evidence of the Royal Commission; it is what they say.
Lord Crawshaw: As I say, I certainly support what resources can be made available because I know perfectly well what could be used by the racing industry, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, himself mentioned Aintree. That is a perfect example of where greater resources could be used.
Lord Wigg: The point is that there is no choice between either an amended levy system or no levy, which is what the Treasury want. Let us therefore get quite clear what we are doing. We are torpedoeing the present system—the effects of it cannot be denied—so please, those who oppose the noble Lord, Lord Peart, do not let the tears roll down their cheeks when the last Grand National is run and when it is said, "No more Derby". You will have done it. I put the choice before you and it is your choice.
Lord Peart: We have had an interesting and long debate on the amendment and I think we should now come to a conclusion on it.
12.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents 71.

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ilchester, E.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Beswick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Longford, E.

Brockway, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Byers, L.

Mersey, V.

Clancarty, E.

Mishcon, L.

Collison, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Denington, B.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pargiter, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Peart, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shinwell, L.

Gosford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hale, L.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

Wigg, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

834

NOT-CONTENTS

Allendale, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Alport, L.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

Mancroft, L.

Avon, E.

Manton, L. [Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Margadale, L.

Belper, L.

Marley, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Pender, L.

Cromartie, E.

Porritt, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

De Freyne, L.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Devonshire, D.

Shannon, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Sharples, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Soames, L.

Effingham, E.

Spens, L.

Exeter, M.

Stamp, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Faithfull, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swansea, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Terrington, L.

Greenway, L.

Teviot, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Teynham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Halifax, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Halsbury, E.

Vestey, L.

Henley, L.

Vivian, L.

Kilmany, L.

Westbury, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.17 p.m.
Lord Peart Lord Peart had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("the Bookmakers' Committee and").
The noble Lord said: In view of the outcome of the vote, I do not propose to move my remaining amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I understand that Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 are not to be moved.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Report received.

Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Bill
12.18 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg to move

835
that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule [Amendments relating to enforcement of control]:
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 47, at end insert—
("(2) In section 89(4) and (5) of that Act for the words "£50" there shall be substituted the words "£100".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and myself. Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, with the exception of Amendment No. 4, which is simply a drafting amendment, are all concerned with fulfilling the undertaking which my noble friend Lord Bellwin gave on Second Reading, that the fines would be increased to present-day values in order to make them fully effective. I shall therefore move them one by one, and briefly explain what they do.
The first amendment, on page 8 at line 47, has the effect of increasing from £50 to £100 the amount of the maximum of each daily penalty now specified in subsections (4) and (5) of Section 89 of the 1971 Act; that is, the master Act. The effect of this amendment is to increase the maximum daily penalty which is available on summary conviction for an offence involving, respectively, failure to secure compliance with the requirements of an enforcement notice and permitting a use to continue when it is in breach of the requirements of an enforcement notice, because in both cases there will already have been a prior conviction for the same offence before the magistrates' court. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I am very happy to support this series of amendments, to which I put my name; and as I understand the Government are going to accept them I am even more pleased, because they are amendments for which I was pressing at Second Reading. I think they now make the fines more realistic. I have one minor reservation. I am only sorry that they are not going to be updated to reflect the substantial inflation which is taking place and which I pointed out on Second Reading; but I gather there is a problem in the Home Office in that respect which is concerned with all the fines.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support. In fact, it is very much to her credit that these amendments are down at all. The only fears that my noble friend and I had were that we might have difficulties when the amendments go back to another place and we might be in danger of losing the Bill. But as it is quite clear that there is general support all round, these amendments will now be made and then they will be brought into
836
effect. So we have every reason to be grateful to the noble Baroness.
Lord Evans of Claughton: May I say very briefly indeed that the amendments have support from these Benches, and I hope the matter will go through to a very rapid conclusion.
The Earl of Avon: I should just like to say that, of course, the Government entirely agree with these amendments, and were very happy to make them after the noble Baroness made her intervention at Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Bellwin is unable to be here today, but I know that otherwise he would say how much he appreciates the suggestions of the noble Baroness at Second Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 6, after ("omitted") insert—
("(aa) in subsection (7), for the words "£50" there shall be substituted the words "£100";").
The noble Lord said: This second amendment has the effect of increasing from £50 to £100 the amount of the maximum daily penalty specified in subsection (7), as amended, of the 1971 Act, which provides for a penalty on summary conviction for an offence involving the continuing contravention of the requirements of a stop notice served by the planning authority under subsection (1) of Section 90 of the 1971 Act. In this case also the offence is a continuing offence in respect of which there will already have been a prior conviction which of course carries a maximum penalty of £1,000 on summary conviction. So the increase from £50 to £100 is reasonably in proportion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 17, at end insert—
("(2) In section 93(5) of that Act (penalty for reinstating or restoring buildings or works demolished or altered in compliance with an enforcement notice) for the words "£400" there shall be substituted the words "£1,000".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which stands in the names of the noble Baroness and myself. The purpose of this amendment is to increase from £400 to £1,000 the amount of the maximum penalty specified in subsection (5) of Section 93 of the 1971 Act on summary conviction for an offence involving the reinstatement or restoration of buildings or works which have been demolished or altered in compliance with the requirements of an enforcement notice. The effect of this amendment, therefore, as I say, is to increase the maximum penalty for this offence so that it is the same amount, £1,000, as other comparable penalties in the 1971 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 14, line 7, after ("the") insert ("listed building").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting

837
amendment, to insert the words "listed building" after "the" in line 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 14, line 40, at end insert—
("9A. In section 98(4) of that Act (penalty for failure to secure compliance with listed building enforcement notice) for the words "£50" there shall be substituted the words "£100".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to increase from £50 to £100 the amount of the maximum daily penalty specified in subsection (4) of Section 98 of the 1971 Act on summary conviction for a continuing failure to secure compliance with the requirements of a listed building enforcement notice. In this case, also, this is a penalty for a continuing offence, and there will of course have been a previous conviction for the substantive offence, for which there is a penalty of £1,000. So this increase in the daily rate is again in proportion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.26 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 15, line 5, at end insert—
("Trees
10A.—(1) In section 103 of that Act (enforcement of duties as to replacement of trees which are the subject of tree preservation orders) in subsection (3) (appeals to the Secretary of State) the words from "and the provisions" to the end of the subsection shall cease to have effect.
(2) The following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection:—

"(3A) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Secretary of State.

(3B) The notice shall indicate the grounds of the appeal and state the facts on which it is based.

(3C) On any such appeal the Secretary of State shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

(3D) Where an appeal is brought under this section, the notice under subsection (1) of this section shall be of no effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.

(3E) On the determination of an appeal under this section, the Secretary of State shall give directions for giving effect to the determination, including, where appropriate, directions for quashing the notice under subsection (1) of this section or for varying its terms.

(3F) On such an appeal the Secretary of State may correct any informality, defect or error in the notice under subsection (1) of this section or give directions for varying its terms if he is satisfied that the correction or variation can be made without injustice to the appellant or the local planning authority.".

(3) In subsection (5) of that section, after the words "enforcement notice", in the second place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "a copy of which has been".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, which refers to trees. The purpose of this amendment is to insert a new paragraph, paragraph 10A, in the schedule to the Bill which has the effect of amending Section 103 of the 1971 Act, dealing with the enforcement of a local planning authority's powers
838
to require the replanting of a tree or trees. The amendment repeals the concluding provisions of subsection (3) of Section 103 of the 1971 Act from the words "and the provisions" to the end of that subsection, and substitutes for them six new subsections, numbered (3A) to (3F), as set out on the Marshalled List, which correspond to similar provisions for enforcement appeals in Sections 88 and 88A in the 1971 Act, which are being amended by provisions in paragraph 1 of this Schedule.
These new subsections numbered (3A) to (3F)—and may I here explain that this strange structure of (3A) to (3F) is what the parliamentary draftsman advises is essential; I am bound to confess that I do not understand why, but there it is—specify how an appeal is to be made to the Secretary of State against a notice requireing the replanting of a tree or trees; what procedures the Secretary of State must follow in dealing with any such appeal; that the requirements of the notice are to be suspended until the appeal is finally determined or is withdrawn; and what additional powers of correction or variation of the notice are available to the Secretary of State when he is determining such an appeal. All these provisions are exactly comparable to the parallel provisions for the Secretary of State to deal with enforcement appeals which are being amended by this Bill, and it is clearly sensible that these two sets of appeal provisions should be the same.
Sub-paragraph (3) of this new paragraph 10A makes a minor drafting amendment to subsection (5) of Section 103 of the 1971 Act so that it refers to the copy of an enforcement notice which has been served by the local planning authority instead of the notice itself. I apologise for the complexity of this amendment. The noble Baroness is really a professional in these matters, and I am sure she will understand it; but the purpose is simple even if the form is complicated. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: This amendment is one which I very much welcome as, again, it was something which I pressed for on Second Reading. I feel particularly strongly about this subject because we have suffered such a loss of trees in this country that anything that will strengthen tree preservation, protection and replacement is really of great importance. There is just one point I should like to put to the noble Earl the Minister. I understand that the whole areas of tree preservation, protection and replacement is under review by the two local authority associations, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils. I hope that he can today give us some indication that the Government will respond positively when the associations come forward with proposals for improvement. If he is unable to do so, perhaps he will write to me. I am pleased that the Government are going to accept this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: On behalf of the Committee, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for his explanation of this amendment and to say that the Government will accept it. The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the department is as interested in trees as she is, and while I cannot give an assurance that we will respond totally favourably

839
until we see what the councils produce, I can assure her that the matter will be looked at carefully.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.32 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 15, line 5, at end insert—
("Waste land
10B. The following section shall be substituted for section 104 of that Act:—
"Penalties for non-compliance with notice as to waste; land.
104.—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where a notice has been served under section 65 of this Act.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, if any owner or occupier of the land on whom the notice was served fails to take any steps required by the notice within the period specified in it for compliance with it, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(3) If a person against whom proceedings are brought under subsection (2) of this section as the owner of the land has, at some time before the end of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, ceased to be the owner, he shall, upon information duly laid by him, and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have the person who then became the owner brought before the court in the proceedings.
(4) If a person against whom proceedings are brought under subsection (2) of this section as the occupier of the land has, at some time before the end of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, ceased to be the occupier, he shall, upon information duly laid by him, and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have any person who then became the occupier brought before the court in the proceedings.
(5) If—

(a) a person against whom proceedings are brought under subsection (2) fo this section as the occupier of the land, has, at some time before the end of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, ceased to be the occupier; and

(b) nobody then became the occupier,

he shall, upon information duly laid by him, and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have the person who is the owner at the date of the notice brought before the court in the proceedings.
(6) If, after it has been proved that any steps required by the notice under section 65 of this Act have not been taken within the period allowed for compliance with that notice, the original defendant proves that the failure to take those steps was attributable, in whole or in part, to the default of a person specified in a notice under this section—

(a) that person may be convicted of the offence; and

(b) the original defendant shall be acquitted of the offence if he further proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the notice.

(7) If, after a person has been convicted under the preceding provisions of this section, he does not as soon as practicable do everything in his power to secure compliance with the notice, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 for each day following his first conviction on which any of the requirements of the notice remain unfulfilled.
(8) Any reference in this section to the period allowed for compliance with a notice is a reference
840
to the period specified in the notice for compliance with it or to such extended period as the local planning authority who served the notice may allow for compliance with it."
10C. The words "who served the notice in question under section 65 of this Act" shall be added at the end of section 106 of that Act (appeal to Crown Court).
10D. In section 107 of that Act (execution and cost of works required by notice as to waste land) the words "who served the notice" shall be inserted after the words "the local planning authority"—

(a) in both places where they occur in subsection (1); and

(b) in subsection (2).").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This refers to waste land and will give the local authorities more effective power to preserve amenities by combating unsightliness when it occurs. The provision in Section 65 of the 1971 Act enables local authorities to serve notices on the owner and occupier of neglected or unsightly land requiring proper maintenance. Noble Lords will be aware of the difficulty of making this particular law effective. In the event, Section 104(2) of the 1971 Act which deals with the penalty of non-compliance with these notices has proved ineffective because it can only operate if some positive action is taken to continue or aggravate the existing situation. This is the point. Non-compliance with an order does not of itself attract the penalty. The proposed amendment removes this deficiency by providing that non-compliance by itself constitutes an offence and by creating a second offence in the event of failure to comply with a notice of conviction. It is a rather complicated clause which provides that where the property changes hands or the occupiers change it will be possible still to pursue the matter effectively and get a remedy. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I support this amendment which, again, I was asking for on Second Reading. At this point—and I am afraid that I omitted to do so earlier—I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for explaining it all so carefully that I have not had to spend any time in explanation. This is an extremely important amendment because, for some extraordinary reason—I do not think anyone knows why it happened—this was left out in the original Act of 1971. As the noble Lord explained, in order to be able to bring any enforcement to bear on the commission of an offence, a second offence had to be committed—which was not only ludicrous but highly destructive of the environment. This is an important amendment and I am delighted to understand that the Government are going to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 15, line 5, at end insert—
("10E. In section 109(2) of that Act (penalties for contravention of advertisement control regulations)—

(a) for the words "£100" there shall be substituted the words "£200"; and

(b) for the words "£5" there shall be substituted the words "£20".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to advertisements. It is one of the amendments which really went with the first group referring to the increase

841
of penalties to a realistic level. The effect of the amendment will be to increase the maximum amount specified in Section 109(2) of the 1971 Act on summary conviction for an offence involving contravention of regulations which control the display of outdoor advertisements; namely, the Town and Country Planning Act 1969. The present maximum penalties in Section 109 of the 1971 Act are £100 for the offence and £5 for the daily offence. These maxima are now quite out of line, particularly in relation to the income which is usually obtained from unlawful outdoor advertising. The amendment therefore raises them to the more realistic level of £200 for the main offence and £20 for the continuing daily offence; so that they will have a more effective deterrent influence on people who help themselves to this kind of advertising.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.35 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 17, line 24, at end insert—
("20A. In Schedule 9 to that Act (determination of certain appeals by person appointed by Secretary of State) in paragraph 2 (which relates to the powers and duties of the person determining an appeal—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—

(i) in paragraph (b), for the words "subsections (4) to (6) of that section" there shall be substituted the words "section 88A and section 88B(1) and (2) of this Act".

(ii) in paragraph (d), for the words "subsections (4) and (5) of that section" there shall be substituted the words "section 97A(1) to (4) of this Act"; and

(iii) in paragraph (e), for the words "sections 88(4) and (5) of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (3E) and (3F) of that section; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2)—

(i) for the words "88(2)" there shall be substituted the words "88(7)"; and

(ii) for the words "97(2)" there shall be substituted the words "97(6), 103(3C)".").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new paragraph is to make some minor consequential amendments which were overlooked when the Bill was being drafted. The purpose of Schedule 9 to the 1971 Act is to specify the powers and duties of inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State to determine certain planning and enforcement appeals which are made in the first instance to the Secretary of State himself. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 of the 1971 Act therefore gives to the inspector who will determine one of these appeals the same powers as the Secretary of State has under Part V of the 1971 Act.
Since some of the Secretary of State's powers—for example, to determine enforcement appeals—are being amended by this Bill, it is appropriate to ensure that an inspector's powers will correspond in future to the new powers given to the Secretary of State. That is the effect of this group of amendments. I do not propose to go into further detail, but if noble Lords want any further explanation I shall be pleased to give it. It is fairly complicated and could run to considerable length; but the purpose is quite straightforward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 17, line 34, after (""issued"") insert—
("(bb) paragraph 30 is repealed;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 10. The "paragraph 30" referred to which is to be repealed in Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 reads:
"The local planning authority who may appeal to the Crown Court under section 106…shall be the authority who serve the notice in question under section 65 or, if the notice was served by the Secretary of State, the authority named in the notice".
This definitional paragraph was necessary at the time as a result of the split powers between the county and the district councils. Now that that split is done away with, it is no longer necessary. The purpose of the amendment is to remove it from the statute book. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the schedule, as amended, shall be the schedule to the Bill?
12.38 p.m.
Baroness Birk: There is one outstanding point which has not been covered by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. This is the point regarding mineral enforcement. During the Second Reading (Hansard, 1st June, column 1096) I referred to the problems caused by the fact that a mineral operator can very profitably carry out the extraction of minerals without planning permission and in defiance of an enforcement notice, for some considerable time. The two associations which represent all the mineral planning authorities—the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils—I confess could not understand why the Government dropped the proposal contained in the original version of the Bill which would have dealt with this problem.
Following further discussion between the associations and departmental officials, I understand that the reason for it not being in the Bill together with the omission of provisions originally in the Local Government (No. 1) Bill is that it is felt there were too few cases to justify changes in legislation and that, anyway, the proposed change, the way it was originally drafted in the Local Government (No. 1) Bill, could have been got round by the operators.
I appreciate the argument that the law should not normally be changed for a relatively uncommon problem—depending of course upon the problem—but when this difficulty arises, however, it is a major one in the particular locality in which it occurs and one about which local people can feel strongly. Obviously, there is no point in incorporating an amendment which operators could readily get round, and it would of course mean a new amendment. It would also mean, as has been pointed out, that there would be a risk that the whole Bill may be lost if something were introduced at this stage. This is why I have not put down an amendment and do not intend to put down an amendment at Report stage.
I should like a clear indication from the Government that if, as I have said, an amendment is not pressed to this legislation, when there are appeals against enforcement notices on mineral working they will be

843
given top priority so that operators in this case—I do not think there will be too many of them—can gain little or no financial benefit from breaching planning control.
12.42 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Before my noble friend replies, I support the noble Baroness in her view. This is a very complex and difficult field in which to legislate. But on the ground there are cases—not many—where the unscrupulous operator does do things that he ought not to do and it causes serious offence locally. It is most desirable that there should be effective action taken. Clearly, in a private Bill of this kind there would be an obvious danger, when it went back to the other place, of the industry interests feeling that they had not been sufficiently consulted on what is a very sensitive area for them. Most of the operators are responsible and co-operative. It is only the odd one that is a "cowboy" and does this kind of thing.
I can imagine that if this provision had been put in this Bill then one voice in the other place saying "object" could lose the whole Bill. Therefore, this kind of provision has to be in a Government Bill. I hope that next time the Government are legislating in this field they will cover it. So much of what we have been talking about seems so technical but on the ground it is enormously important.
We were talking about the provision of waste land earlier. This is something near to my heart. The preservation of the green belt round London is a continuous battle both on the inside and on the outside, and one of the first steps trying to break the planning control by an owner of land who hopes to transform its value from say £1,500 an acre to £1½ million an acre when developed is to neglect it and allow it to become a bed of weeds and brambles which is an offence to everybody, so that it will support an application to put some buildings on it.
Therefore it is most important that local authorities should have an effective weapon to deal with it straight away. They have not had that up to now. These complex technicalities we discuss here have tremendous practical implications. The support of the noble Baroness in this field is very much appreciated. If I may give my personal support to Lady Birk's plea to my noble friend that this point should be remembered in the DoE when legislation next comes along, I should be happy to leave it at that.
Lord Evans of Claughton: May I add my support to the remarks made by the noble Baroness? I agree that the problem is not a frequent one or one that the vast majority of operators indulge in; but the occasional maverick in certain areas, particularly the North of England—and, I am sure, in other parts of the country—can do a very great deal of damage. It is particularly important, both in this field and in the field of waste land, that we remember the debates during the Local Government Act. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and myself were very anxious about the problems relating from changes in the derelict land grant applications. The whole of the subject of waste land, minerals and derelict land is one of great importance.
844
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to give assurances that the Government have this very much in mind. It is a very serious matter in some parts of the country on some occasions.
12.45 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: Following the remarks on this issue, minerals enforcement appeals, which the noble Baroness made on Second Reading of this Bill, I know that my noble friend carefully reviewed the matter in consultation with ministerial colleagues in the Department of the Environment. He came to the conclusion that the case in favour of making this amendment was not as convincing as he had originally thought.
The origin of the proposal that there should be a separate enforcement régime for planning control over the winning and working of minerals is to be found in one of the recommendations in Chapter 11 of the report of the Stevens Committee on minerals planning control, in February 1976. But, when one examines that particular recommendation, it is clear that the Committee based virtually their whole case for a separate minerals enforcement régime on the apparent reluctance of planning authorities to serve stop notices for unlawful minerals development. In the Committee's view, this reluctance to serve a stop notice was due to the risk of a planning authority having to pay compensation for wrongfully stopping development; but they made the mistake of founding their whole argument on the time it had taken for one mineral enforcement appeal to the Secretary of State for Wales to pass through all the stages of determination, including the Court of Appeal. We should not expect anything like this to happen again: indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment takes particular care to ensure that any enforcement appeal, which involves an associated stop notice, is dealt with at all stages as a matter of the first priority because he realises that the amount of any compensation payable if the appeal is successful may be increased as a result of delay in dealing with the appeal.
Moreover, the results of an analysis of minerals enforcement appeals which the Department of the Environment have recently carried out show that, in the great majority of minerals enforcement appeals dealt with in the past eight years, the enforcement notice has been upheld by the Secretary of State, so that there was no risk of compensation to be paid by the planning authority if they had also issued a stop notice.
Finally, there is the point (which was also mentioned by the noble Baroness) that a mineral operator could, in practice, circumvent the removal of the "ground (a)" appeal by securing a refusal of a planning application and making a minerals planning appeal to the Secretary of State. Having said this, the Government recognise the noble Lady's concern joined by my noble friend Lord Nugent and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that there should be effective enforcement of minerals planning control; and I know that my noble friend is concerned to ensure that his Department's procedures for dealing with minerals enforcement appeals seek to avoid putting planning authorities at risk of increased compensation for a stop notice in the unwelcome circumstances where an appeal

845
succeeds on legal grounds. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will be able to accept these assurances on behalf of my noble friend on this point. The Government join in wishing this Local Government Planning (Amendment) Bill a swift journey through the House and will continue to give it their full support.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Contempt of Court Bill [H.L.]
  Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments to be printed.
  Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill
  Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  WOMEN IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
  WOMEN IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
  SMALL FIRMS: TURNOVER LIMITS
  SMALL FIRMS: TURNOVER LIMITS
  DOLPHINS AND PORPOISES: BY-CATCH RESTRICTIONS
  DOLPHINS AND PORPOISES: BY-CATCH RESTRICTIONS